Law School Discussion

curves? i dont get it.

Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #100 on: April 25, 2007, 02:57:14 PM »
1. Yes, it is nearly impossible to fail out of Harvard. Indeed, it is quite easy to get a B-.

2. Furthermore, most have BigLaw offers by October of their 2L year.

3. This does not mean that all, or even most HLS students then spend all their time drinking, and have no engaging class discussion.  Having the option to do so does not necessitate one take it.

People have a way of adjusting their expectations according to their circumstances. Whereas the same students, were they at Brooklyn, wold be quite happy getting an offer from a top 50 firm, the culture at HLS convinces you that this is not success.  Only an offer from Cravath, which you turn down for an Appellate clerkship, will suffice.  Ergo, many, not all, continue to work hard and remain the same anal-retentive nerds that got them there in the first place.

Yes, absolutely, some spend weekends drinking at the Hong Kong.  But that may well be because those people are more visible.... a vocal plurality?  Perhaps less visible are the hoards that make it difficult to find an open carrel anywhere in the library. 

HLS's curve is favorable, but that does not mean that it is really 'grade inflation'.  It is populated by people who got As all their lives.  If anything, the B/B+ average seems below what many deserve.

There is inflation at the lower end of the curve, for those who don't want a clerkship, have stopped caring, and have discovered the wonders of a scorpion bowl.  Being able to turn in the bare minimum and get a C, to turn in a half-assed effort and get a B- is not quite fair to those who struggle endlessly to get those grades elsewhere. 

However, that should not reflect poorly on the rest of the student body who still slave away just like the rest of you.

Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #101 on: April 26, 2007, 03:38:13 AM »



Hahaha! Mensa is ridiculous!


LOL - Take a look here, they changed it again! Too bad it's too late! ;)


17

Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #102 on: May 15, 2008, 10:42:51 AM »

[...] In the case of discreditable stigma, the stigmatized individual assumes the source of stigma to be neither known about by those present nor immediately perceivable by them. Having a criminal record or being gay are examples of discreditable stigma, in that there is something about oneself that is not immediately apparent but could diminish oneself in the eyes of others if exposed.

[...] After the grades come out, many people experience a profound loss of self-esteem and confidence, as well as a significant shift in their self-perception -- but no one talks about it. For these people, the information about their grades becomes a discreditable stigma, one that they do their best to hide. This process takes its toll. Those possessing a discreditable stigma must learn to manage their information. [...]


Receiving less-than-perfect first year grades in law school is FAR more discrediting. I've been gay all my life and I can safely say the discreditable stigma in the former case is much more tougher to handle!

dru

Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #103 on: May 15, 2008, 11:21:07 AM »
Hahaha - you're so @ # ! * i n g funny 17! ;)

Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #104 on: May 10, 2011, 01:44:50 PM »
Why are people wasting their time comparing harvard and cooley? Obviously they arent equal.  maybe cooley has a few students that could be top students at harvard but as a general rule, the students who are accepted to harvard are simply more qualified students than the ones at cooley. 


Yes. That is true. But the fact that a top student at Cooley would not have a harder time to be at the top at Harvard remains unchanged. One had to take into account the fact that some very good students with high undergrad GPAs end up in lower tiered law school because of their low LSAT scores, not to mention that many law students at top schools get there only because of a high LSAT score, although they did suck as undergrads. Well, you all know what a "good" indicator of academic ability LSAT is ...

BLACK, LATION/A, NATIVE AMERICAN AND OTHER UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITY STUDENTS WHO OVERCOME THE INEQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY IN K-12 EDUCATION AND THE RACIALLY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES TO EARN THE SAME GPAs AS THEIR WHITE COUNTERPARTS SCORE FAR LOWER ON THE LSAT - FOR BLACK STUDENTS, THE GAP IS 9.2 POINTS ON AVERAGE. IN OTHER WORDS, A BLACK AND U-M GRADUATE WITH A 3.7 GPA WILL SCORE 9.2 POINTS LOWER ON THE LSAT THAN A WHITE U-M GRADUATE WITH THE SAME GPA.

http://www.umich.edu/~daap/facts.htm#3



Latino here as the Census Bureau applies the term :) -- no significant drop in result I would presume (GPA 3.5, LSAT 163) but of course the fact that I came to the US as a child may have to do something with it..

Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #105 on: October 19, 2011, 06:59:18 PM »


BLACK, LATION/A, NATIVE AMERICAN AND OTHER UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITY STUDENTS WHO OVERCOME THE INEQUALITY OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY IN K-12 EDUCATION AND THE RACIALLY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES TO EARN THE SAME GPAs AS THEIR WHITE COUNTERPARTS SCORE FAR LOWER ON THE LSAT - FOR BLACK STUDENTS, THE GAP IS 9.2 POINTS ON AVERAGE. IN OTHER WORDS, A BLACK AND U-M GRADUATE WITH A 3.7 GPA WILL SCORE 9.2 POINTS LOWER ON THE LSAT THAN A WHITE U-M GRADUATE WITH THE SAME GPA.

http://www.umich.edu/~daap/facts.htm#3


Have you ever heard about Stereotype Threat? That when a person's social identity is attached to a negative stereotype, that person will tend to underperform in a manner consistent with the stereotype?! The underperformance is to be attributed to a person's anxiety that he or she will conform to the negative stereotype. It manifests itself in various ways, including distraction and increased body temperature, all of which diminish performance level. The two researchers who coined the term, Steele and Aronson, originally speculated that anxiety and narrowed attention, resulting from attempts to suppress stereotype-related thoughts, contribute to the observed deficits in performance. In 2008, an integrated model of stereotype threat was published. It focused on three interrelated factors: 1) stress arousal, which impairs the processing of information in the prefrontal cortex; 2) performance monitoring, which narrows attention; 3) efforts to suppress negative thoughts and emotions. Stereotype threat has been shown to disrupt working memory, increase self-consciousness about one's performance, and cause individuals to try and suppress negative thoughts as well as negative emotions such as anxiety.

Stereotype threat thus can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby a person comes to resemble his or her reputation, living up or down to social expectations.

Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #106 on: October 20, 2011, 03:51:33 PM »

Have you ever heard about Stereotype Threat? That when a person's social identity is attached to a negative stereotype, that person will tend to underperform in a manner consistent with the stereotype?! The underperformance is to be attributed to a person's anxiety that he or she will conform to the negative stereotype. It manifests itself in various ways, including distraction and increased body temperature, all of which diminish performance level. The two researchers who coined the term, Steele and Aronson, originally speculated that anxiety and narrowed attention, resulting from attempts to suppress stereotype-related thoughts, contribute to the observed deficits in performance. In 2008, an integrated model of stereotype threat was published. It focused on three interrelated factors: 1) stress arousal, which impairs the processing of information in the prefrontal cortex; 2) performance monitoring, which narrows attention; 3) efforts to suppress negative thoughts and emotions. Stereotype threat has been shown to disrupt working memory, increase self-consciousness about one's performance, and cause individuals to try and suppress negative thoughts as well as negative emotions such as anxiety.

Stereotype threat thus can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby a person comes to resemble his or her reputation, living up or down to social expectations.


Assuming such a Stereotype Threat thing exists, you are not making things better by mentioning it - B I T C H !!!

Re: curves? i dont get it.
« Reply #107 on: October 29, 2011, 10:00:09 PM »

Have you ever heard about Stereotype Threat? That when a person's social identity is attached to a negative stereotype, that person will tend to underperform in a manner consistent with the stereotype?! The underperformance is to be attributed to a person's anxiety that he or she will conform to the negative stereotype. It manifests itself in various ways, including distraction and increased body temperature, all of which diminish performance level. The two researchers who coined the term, Steele and Aronson, originally speculated that anxiety and narrowed attention, resulting from attempts to suppress stereotype-related thoughts, contribute to the observed deficits in performance. In 2008, an integrated model of stereotype threat was published. It focused on three interrelated factors: 1) stress arousal, which impairs the processing of information in the prefrontal cortex; 2) performance monitoring, which narrows attention; 3) efforts to suppress negative thoughts and emotions. Stereotype threat has been shown to disrupt working memory, increase self-consciousness about one's performance, and cause individuals to try and suppress negative thoughts as well as negative emotions such as anxiety.

Stereotype threat thus can result in a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby a person comes to resemble his or her reputation, living up or down to social expectations.


Assuming such a Stereotype Threat thing exists, you are not making things better by mentioning it - B I T C H !!!


prime, you appear to have a low coping sense of humor .. :)

Re: Extra-Sexual-Repression, Technology & Civilization
« Reply #108 on: March 28, 2012, 04:38:11 PM »
Quote

Quote
Quote

niki, Freudian theories do not necessarily rule out a free, non-repressive society. Freud's speculation that civilization is originally based on a necessary sexual repression recognized for its merits, it has been suggested that:

(1) only a part of this has come from the conditions of scarcity which obliged humans to work, with another part coming from living in class-divided societies where ruling classes impose an extra repression over and above that arising from natural scarcity,

(2) with the coming of automation and the like, scarcity has now been conquered. This being so, sexual repression - that imposed by natural conditions as well as that imposed by class-divided society - is no longer necessary. Civilization need no longer be based on sexual repression. A free, non-repressive society is possible.

Herbert Marcuse has in fact explained why people accept capitalism -- they have been psychologically manipulated into wanting it. In other words, their basic "instincts" have been remoulded so as to fit in with capitalist society. The issue now is how will such people come to want to get rid of capitalism.

[...]


It could not be otherwise. If the humanization of the oppressed signifies subversion, so also does their freedom; hence the necessity for constant control. And the more the oppressors control the oppressed, the more they change them into apparently inanimate "things." This tendency of the oppressor consciousness to "in-animate" everything and everyone it encounters, in its eagerness to possess, unquestionably corresponds with a tendency to sadism. Fromm maintained that,

Quote

The pleasure in complete domination over another person (or other animate creature) is the very essence of the sadistic drive. Another way of formulating the same thought is to say that the aim of sadism is to transform a man into a thing, something animate into something inanimate, since by complete and absolute control the living loses one essential quality of life -- freedom


Sadistic love is a perverted love -- a love of death, not of life. One of the characteristics of the oppressor consciousness and its necrophilic view of the world is thus sadism. As the oppressor consciousness, in order to dominate, tries to deter to search, the restlessness, and the creative power which characterize life, it kills life. More and more, the oppressors are using science and technology as unquestionably powerful instruments for their purpose: the maintenance of the oppressive order through manipulation and repression. The oppressed, as objects, as "things," have no purposes except those their oppressors prescribe for them.

[...]



I can make sense of this - in the Western world people tend to treat each-other as objects when it comes to sex too - people collide, go to bed because of some kind of "chemistry," and then "split" when the chemistry is "gone," veering off in different directions until they each collide with someone else. They can go through dozens of relationships in this way, blind to their own feelings and oblivious to the feelings of their lovers. Nothing changes in these relationships and nothing changes from one relationship to the next because nothing is revealed.

In the matings based on "chemistry", as opposed to romantic love, people never open themselves up emotionally and so they can never break down the wall that separates them from the other "body" in bed. Even the sex is often only "intercourse" in a technical sense because there isn't any real commingling of pleasure, only an exercise in mutual masturbation.

Freud once described every sexual act "as a process in which 4 persons are involved,"  by which he meant, among other things, the fantasy that each person takes to bed along with his or her lover. In sex without tenderness, you never escape that fantasy because you never have any contact emotionally with the other person: you are making love, not to them, but to an image in your head. You are locked up inside yourself, as is your partner, and so it helps if you don't have to look at his or her face, which accounts to some extent for the growing popularity of oral sex.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3002385.msg5398986#msg5398986



Interesting take on the subject, eli!

Whatever the case may be, one thing is for sure - nowadays we are definitely having sex like automatons, displaying no tenderness, emotion and the like!

Long gone are days of those deep French kisses - the barometers of love!

I connect here to another great post:

Quote
Quote

When people stub their toe, they get angry, curse, and through hobbled grimace and gritted teeth, ignore the pain. How much quicker the heal and more pleasant the day, if that poor throbbing toe were held and its pain acknowledged instead.

Then comforted by warm, sympathetic hands till pain eases and ends. After all, no matter the shoe, the speed, or the rocky path pointed, the toe never lets body down.

If small this change in thought does seem, apply that small principle to a larger scale, and note what differences result with change of belief. When the body is sick or diseased, the prescribed policy is to view the disease with winner-loser hostility. Rather than stiffening resolve and muscle and steadying nerve to control pain, rather than declaring all-out war and focusing energy and resources on destroying the invader, flip perspectives instead.

Focus light on body's plight, for it's every bit in need of caress as that stubbed toe once was. Accept the pain, validate its existence. The body system may be confused as to which is friend and which is foe. The body for allowing disease to enter or disease for daring to enter? Wars are always confusing. As peace can follow surrender in war, heal and cure can follow surrender in body disease.

[...] Applying the simple principle further, farther, wider; how far from acceptance and cooperation ever healing is? Both come inextricably bound and wound when love visits. When children stub their toe, they cry out in acknowledgment of pain.

With love in heart and hand, adults comfort and massage their sore wee toe and kiss and cuddle to ease pain.

I wonder if we do not view each other as stubbed toes too-often, and too-readily in life. It seems avoidance is easier than care, anger is faster than understanding, complaint is quicker than compliment, and ignoring common, if not prevalent.

When others hurt, they are generally left to fend for themselves, as stubbed toe often must do. When our children hurt, we hurt too. What's the difference?

Other than pedigree and proximity, nothing.


injunction, these are some great words, but truth-be-told, we're not taught to "acknowledge the pain," (we're actually told to "take it like a man")!

When love visits?! As things are - as you even say it yourself - those visitations are "allowed" for children only, so to speak! I mean, would you expect much tenderness and affection displayed before (let alone after) the, let's say, average sexual relationship? With people going thru hundreds of partners - and with your wife having become like your sister to you - what kind of affection would you expect to show towards your partner? It's more like sex conducted in a militaristic manner, just like you do it in the middle of a mess (all that other stuff you've to do)!

But your idea, of love being an end in itself, is truly great!

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3004539.msg5398920#msg5398920


Re: Extra-Repression (sexual), Technology, and Civilization
« Reply #109 on: April 01, 2012, 12:42:12 PM »
Quote


niki, Freudian theories do not necessarily rule out a free, non-repressive society. Freud's speculation that civilization is originally based on a necessary sexual repression recognized for its merits, it has been suggested that:

(1) only a part of this has come from the conditions of scarcity which obliged humans to work, with another part coming from living in class-divided societies where ruling classes impose an extra repression over and above that arising from natural scarcity,

(2) with the coming of automation and the like, scarcity has now been conquered. This being so, sexual repression - that imposed by natural conditions as well as that imposed by class-divided society - is no longer necessary. Civilization need no longer be based on sexual repression. A free, non-repressive society is possible.

Herbert Marcuse has in fact explained why people accept capitalism -- they have been psychologically manipulated into wanting it. In other words, their basic "instincts" have been remoulded so as to fit in with capitalist society. The issue now is how will such people come to want to get rid of capitalism.

[...]


It could not be otherwise. If the humanization of the oppressed signifies subversion, so also does their freedom; hence the necessity for constant control. And the more the oppressors control the oppressed, the more they change them into apparently inanimate "things." This tendency of the oppressor consciousness to "in-animate" everything and everyone it encounters, in its eagerness to possess, unquestionably corresponds with a tendency to sadism. Fromm maintained that,

Quote

The pleasure in complete domination over another person (or other animate creature) is the very essence of the sadistic drive. Another way of formulating the same thought is to say that the aim of sadism is to transform a man into a thing, something animate into something inanimate, since by complete and absolute control the living loses one essential quality of life -- freedom


Sadistic love is a perverted love -- a love of death, not of life. One of the characteristics of the oppressor consciousness and its necrophilic view of the world is thus sadism. As the oppressor consciousness, in order to dominate, tries to deter to search, the restlessness, and the creative power which characterize life, it kills life. More and more, the oppressors are using science and technology as unquestionably powerful instruments for their purpose: the maintenance of the oppressive order through manipulation and repression. The oppressed, as objects, as "things," have no purposes except those their oppressors prescribe for them.

[...]



Interesting perspective, especially that of Marcuse that you quote - so very considerate on your part, G Yalo!

But here it is something [from poster pitchman] even more interesting, so to speak!

Quote
Quote
Quote

Give voice to the creative individual within, and contribute as born and meant.

Quote
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.
Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.
It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.
We ask ourselves,
"Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous?"
Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God.
Your playing small doesn't serve the world.
There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.


Originally from, "Our Deepest Fear," A Return to Love, by Marianne Williamson.



I mean it doesn't have to be that one is necessarily a genius (political genius if you like) just because you think differently from the rest of the population and you may want to make some kind of "revolution." Assuming the writer is trying to establish the power of individuality over the majority, there is nothing *genius* about it - it has been said so many times that power is derived from the consent of the governed, "Government derives power only from the consent of the governed"     

The Declaration of Independence has it that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

To me it looks like it's more of a "balls" issue, rather than a "genius" thing.



Indeed, the individual is the true reality in life. A cosmos in himself, he does not exist for the State, nor for that abstraction called "society," or the "nation," which is only a collection of individuals. Man, the individual, has always been and, necessarily is the sole source and motive power of evolution and progress. Civilization has been a continuous struggle of the individual or of groups of individuals against the State and even against "society," that is, against the majority subdued and hypnotized by the State and State worship. Man's greatest battles have been waged against man-made obstacles and artificial handicaps imposed upon him to paralyze his growth and development. Human thought has always been falsified by tradition and custom, and perverted false education in the interests of those who held power and enjoyed privileges. In other words, by the State and the ruling classes. This constant incessant conflict has been the history of mankind.

Emma Goldman maintained that individuality may be described as the consciousness of the individual as to what he is and how he lives. It is inherent in every human being and is a thing of growth. The State and social institutions come and go, but individuality remains and persists. The very essence of individuality is expression; the sense of dignity and independence is the soil wherein it thrives. Individuality is not the impersonal and mechanistic thing that the State treats as an "individual." The individual is not merely the result of heredity and environment, of cause and effect. He is that and a great deal more, a great deal else. The living man cannot be defined; he is the fountain-head of all life and all values; he is not a part of this or of that; he is a whole, an individual whole, a growing, changing, yet always constant whole.

Individuality is not to be confused with the various ideas and concepts of Individualism; much less with that "rugged individualism" which is only a masked attempt to repress and defeat the individual and his individuality So-called Individualism is the social and economic laissez faire: the exploitation of the masses by the classes by means of legal trickery, spiritual debasement and systematic indoctrination of the servile spirit, which process is known as "education." That corrupt and perverse "individualism" is the strait-jacket of individuality. It has converted life into a degrading race for externals, for possession, for social prestige and supremacy. Its highest wisdom is "the devil take the hindmost." This "rugged individualism" has inevitably resulted in the greatest modern slavery, the crassest class distinctions, driving millions to the breadline. "Rugged individualism" has meant all the "individualism" for the masters, while the people are regimented into a slave caste to serve a handful of self-seeking "supermen." America is perhaps the best representative of this kind of individualism, in whose name political tyranny and social oppression are defended and held up as virtues; while every aspiration and attempt of man to gain freedom and social opportunity to live is denounced as "unAmerican" and evil in the name of that same individualism.

There was a time when the State was unknown. In his natural condition man existed without any State or organized government. People lived as families in small communities; They tilled the soil and practiced the arts and crafts. The individual, and later the family, was the unit of social life where each was free and the equal of his neighbor. Human society then was not a State but an association; a voluntary association for mutual protection and benefit. The elders and more experienced members were the guides and advisers of the people. They helped to manage the affairs of life, not to rule and dominate the individual.

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/index.php?topic=3002385.msg5395001#msg5395001