Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Univ San Francisco versus Hastings  (Read 1742 times)

jkang2

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 237
    • View Profile
Re: Univ San Francisco versus Hastings
« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2005, 10:15:21 PM »
NO NO NO..

Quote
how can u say someone without the average LSAT is underqualified at a school?

Average??  I thought the OP had a 150.  That is bottom 25%.  average lsat is NOT under-qualified.  bottom 25% is underqualified.  Please read my posts carefully.

Quote
statistically someone who is black is less likely to succeed, so would you say all blacks by virtue of their skin color are underqualified as well?

??? What are you saying.  I would say, "all blacks by virtue of "STATISTICS" and their "SKIN COLOR" are "MORE LIKELY" to be "UNDER-QUALIFIED."  Thus, if God told you to choose an ethinicity that you would like to change to, with the "objective" of not committing crime for rest of one's life, you ought to say, "GOD, I DON'T WANT TO BE BLACK."  This is of course, asssuming that black crime rate is higher than white.


Look, your attempts to tweak what I say will not work here. I am really cautious when I use words like "ALL" or "NEVER."  or other universal quantifiers.  This is because it is too strong and hard to defend.  So your attempts to reinterprete what I say to the extreme and attacking that extreme point will not work here. People are not as stupid as you think.  They KNOW exactly what you mean.  I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.  You are trying to say that since correlation is not causation, a person with a low LSAT is not sure to fail.  <--we know this.  But, he is more likely to fail than a person with a high-lsat. 

GO_PTO

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • my children... I have returned for law school!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - helios933
    • View Profile
Re: Univ San Francisco versus Hastings
« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2005, 12:28:12 PM »
NO NO NO..

Quote
how can u say someone without the average LSAT is underqualified at a school?

Average?? I thought the OP had a 150. That is bottom 25%. average lsat is NOT under-qualified. bottom 25% is underqualified. Please read my posts carefully.

Quote
statistically someone who is black is less likely to succeed, so would you say all blacks by virtue of their skin color are underqualified as well?

??? What are you saying. I would say, "all blacks by virtue of "STATISTICS" and their "SKIN COLOR" are "MORE LIKELY" to be "UNDER-QUALIFIED." Thus, if God told you to choose an ethinicity that you would like to change to, with the "objective" of not committing crime for rest of one's life, you ought to say, "GOD, I DON'T WANT TO BE BLACK." This is of course, asssuming that black crime rate is higher than white.


Look, your attempts to tweak what I say will not work here. I am really cautious when I use words like "ALL" or "NEVER." or other universal quantifiers. This is because it is too strong and hard to defend. So your attempts to reinterprete what I say to the extreme and attacking that extreme point will not work here. People are not as stupid as you think. They KNOW exactly what you mean. I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. You are trying to say that since correlation is not causation, a person with a low LSAT is not sure to fail. <--we know this. But, he is more likely to fail than a person with a high-lsat.

I never tweaked or reinterpreted anything you said. Rather than put words in your mouth, I asked you a simple question, are you blind? Read my post before replying! Maybe scrolling up is too much for you, so I'll post again below... hopefully you read it this time if you are going to reply:

"statistically someone who is black is less likely to succeed, so would you say all blacks by virtue of their skin color are underqualified as well?"

The black/white example is using the same principleI -- making a law school choice based on how your demographics correlate to law school success. It is a stupid way to make a decision, because it ignores all the other relevant variables such as determination to succeed, strong study habits, etc.

(163+172)/3.5

jkang2

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 237
    • View Profile
Re: Univ San Francisco versus Hastings
« Reply #32 on: August 21, 2005, 02:37:38 PM »
I think I understand where you are going with this.  I apologize for saying that you "deliberatly tweaked what I said."  In thought this in good faith but now I know what your point is. I agree with you but you are not reading my point.  Lets act like two civilized people and stop throwing rude comments at each other. 

Quote
""statistically someone who is black is less likely to succeed, so would you say all blacks by virtue of their skin color are underqualified as well?"
You are defining "less likely to succeed" as "more likely to be underqualified."  Also your definition of underqualified is objectively/merit-based underqualified. 

My answer is this (if my answer satisfy your question than please accept my answer.):

I would say, "all blacks by virtue of "STATISTICS" and their "SKIN COLOR" are "MORE LIKELY" to be "UNDER-QUALIFIED than [a white person]"   

Since we are talking NUMBERS, I will only say it in terms of chances and probability.  All blacks are not underqualified just because they are black. 

But this BLACK ANALOGY IS NOT HELPFUL BECAUSE OF A BIG DIFFERENCE. First black criminal rate is much smaller (in proportion) to poor-grade (below 3.0) for low lsat people.  Second, while racially profiling blacks just on the basis of blackness (which intrinsically has nothing to do with crime) is hard to justify, the LSAT/GPA, per se, stands for some form of merit.  The black analogy is inappropriate for these grounds. 

If 10% of black population were criminals while only 5% of whites were, then black is more likely to be a criminal THAN white.  But, a random black guy is not likely to be a criminal!!!  Random black guy has 10% chance of being a criminal.

I know what you mean.  By the same virtue, a low LSAT is not likely to fail just because he got a low LSAT.  He is more likely to fail than a high lsat guy, but not by just the fact that he got low score. 


But my point was not this.  My point involves TWO of lotteries, Hastings and Frisco.  Assuming that the player has poor LSAT, he is more likely to win in Frisco than in Hastings.  Obviously I dunno exactly what the payoffs are going to be.  If you read my previous posts I was not recommending anything.  I was just 1) throwing OP with some considerations 2) tellings these extreme LSDers, who would goto a better ranking school in VAST majority of cases, that this issue is not really as simply as they make out to be.

I never stood on any particular point.  I was just giving OP with the possibility (assuming that he got a low LSAT but now I know that he has a high LSAT (above top 25%) for hastings) that he might graduate from hastings with a very low-grade.  On the other hand, if he goes to Frisco, he has a better chance of getting a good grade.  But, the payoffs of this game is not really set.  Someone said top 10% of Hastings = top 1% of USF.

But this discussion should end because the OP has a high LSAT and I think he shoudl goto Hastings.
   


GO_PTO

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • my children... I have returned for law school!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - helios933
    • View Profile
Re: Univ San Francisco versus Hastings
« Reply #33 on: August 21, 2005, 06:53:36 PM »
okay, we are in an understanding, I got nothin to argue with here  :o
(163+172)/3.5

jkang2

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 237
    • View Profile
Re: Univ San Francisco versus Hastings
« Reply #34 on: August 21, 2005, 08:57:40 PM »
okay, we are in an understanding, I got nothin to argue with here  :o


Funny how all this time the OP hasn't said anything.

GO_PTO

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • my children... I have returned for law school!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - helios933
    • View Profile
Re: Univ San Francisco versus Hastings
« Reply #35 on: August 21, 2005, 09:03:13 PM »
it was probably a flame anyway  :P
(163+172)/3.5

jkang2

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 237
    • View Profile
Re: Univ San Francisco versus Hastings
« Reply #36 on: August 21, 2005, 09:20:48 PM »
it was probably a flame anyway  :P

dude this is why I HATE LSD sometimes.  People just post threads with ulterior motives or to just start a flame.   

Examples of flame:
"Whats better Harvard or GTULC?  I think GTULC because of X, Y, Z factors."  And people go nuts on LSD.  The flamer really really just wanted to start a conversation

plumbert

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
Re: Univ San Francisco versus Hastings
« Reply #37 on: August 21, 2005, 10:17:25 PM »
The OP had one critical detail right--USF orientation started last week, a bit earlier than most schools. My guess is the OP decided for Hastings and is caught up in first-week 1L stuff. Which reminds me...shouldn't I be studying? ;)

arcady

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • 167 LSAT --- 3.28-all/3.80-univ GPA
    • ICQ Messenger - 3619220
    • MSN Messenger - arcady0@yahoo.com
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - arcady0
    • View Profile
    • the out of date party like it's 1997 homepage thingy
    • Email
Re: Univ San Francisco versus Hastings
« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2005, 08:28:20 PM »
You may want to have a change of attitude before showing up at a school you have made such a generalized criticism of.  I have met many prestigious Hastings alummni, and by no means consider them "scrappy"
Those were, as I believe I stated, comments made to me about the school.

Scrappy - as in litigators / loners. I had heard the school had a very hostile presence in and among its students. Its a common enough comment that I when I did go down there after making the initial post I even heard it from staff and students there.

Though they had the slant of 'yeah, we've heard that said, but it isn't true or is no longer true'.



In the end, I did go with Hastings.

Why? Largely because all of the negatives I had heard about it did not seem true once I got there. The staff and fellow students I have met have all been very positive people and I see a lot of community at the school. Three of the focuses offered have strong appeal for me (public interest, international, and family law). The program looks solid. One of the first people I met on entering campus was involved with the alumni and from him I got a very different take from the rumors I had heard before.


I'm not at all worried about my standing with regards to my LSAT and GPA. My LSAT is notably above the average of Hastings, and my GPA would be as well if not for mistakes I made in the late 80s that still plague my record - since coming back to school as an older student I have been consistantly a top performer. Even as a youth I was mentally there, but being homeless along with related factors had a way of keeping me from actually getting into class regularly enough...

jkang2

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 237
    • View Profile
Re: Univ San Francisco versus Hastings
« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2005, 09:39:18 PM »
Congrats. and thanks for sharing your outcome with rest of us.  But for some reason I knew you were gonna do this.  Present us with a debate, disappear for a week, and come back and give us a very "EXPECTED" outcome and provide us with reasons for your action. 

Good luck.