The ability to prep extensively is a compelling argument; it hadn't occurred to me. It seems plausible that those whore are economically disadvantaged person might spend less time or money on prep (again, we have to speak in great generalities here; I'm sure there are plenty disadvantaged kids who took a prep course or put in the hours, and plenty of rich kids who didn't).So, you two are almost certainly right about that, with the caveat that choosing candidates who truly couldn't afford to prep and choosing candidates who half-assed it would be difficult. I would imagine that we could view GPAs on similar terms.I'm still not sure about the whole scheme, though. If these kids are smarter (or whatever) than their numbers indicate, then they should thrive at a school full of students with those numbers (though, of course, I do see the general social good that is born from putting them in higher-ranked schools). But I just wonder whether (new numbers!) a class-AA 156 should want to compete against 166s for his livelihood, when only, say, 1/3 of that class will have the full breadth of career and earning opportunities. I suppose we could make it the 156's choice (by giving him the AA admit to take or not take)."Intellectually overmatched?!" Are you serious? So a person with a larger penis is necessarily better in bed? A person who bench-presses more weight can automatically fight better? That's your logic.Also, I'm not ready to cast off the idea that numbers don't matter. My logic isn't that a larger penis means you're better in bed; my logic is that when you're dealing with large classes of persons (entire applicant pools across all the law schools in the nation), you need a barometer to prospectively gauge expected performance. The LSAT and the GPA aren't perfect--for all the reasons stated. But they're the best indicator that we have, and, as I understand it, are in fact correlated to law school performance. Again, it's not whether X could beat Y, but whether 10,000 Xs will enjoy success against 100,000 Ys. Anyway, I don't mean to sound like an numbers-centric ideologue or whatever, but gosh, these things aren't irrelevant. (Yeah, a 162 and a 165 are the same thing, in a sense--but if we're playing with score bands, to say that the 162 and the 165 are the same, those same people could be a 159 and a 168. On a macro level, you've got to play the cards you're dealt.)
Quote from: Matthies on January 24, 2009, 06:15:31 PMWhat we need to end this debate is a correlation study that specifically tracks the level of prep for the exam and first year LS GPA. We agreed simultaneously.
What we need to end this debate is a correlation study that specifically tracks the level of prep for the exam and first year LS GPA.