Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: U.S. News may go under  (Read 11697 times)

goaliechica

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6287
  • It's only forever - not long at all.
    • View Profile
Re: U.S. News may go under
« Reply #30 on: February 24, 2009, 03:56:17 PM »
(for top GPA's and LSAT's that don't = top talent in all cases)

Just food for thought...
While high LSAT/GPA doesn't necessarily mean top talent, shouldn't the top talent be able to have a high LSAT/GPA?

Eh I think the idea is that there are lots of incredibly smart people who for whatever reason don't have high LSAT scores or GPAs.

Reread my post.  I asked whether they should be able to have a high LSAT/GPA.

Oh. Well I guess I just don't understand what that means. The should be "able" to? How would we ever know that unless they actually do?
Quote from: Earthbound SNES
Get a sense of humor, Susan B. Anthony!
Quote from: dashrashi
I'm going to cut a female dog. With a knife with a brown handle, natch.
Quote from: Elephant Lee
Don't judge me. You've not had my life.

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: U.S. News may go under
« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2009, 04:01:51 PM »
Oh. Well I guess I just don't understand what that means. The should be "able" to? How would we ever know that unless they actually do?

That's tangential.  Should we expect "top talent," regardless whether they can prove it, be able to maintain a high GPA and earn a high LSAT score?

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: U.S. News may go under
« Reply #32 on: February 24, 2009, 04:02:26 PM »
Reread my post.  I asked whether they should be able to have a high LSAT/GPA.

no, they shouldn't.

Why not?

goaliechica

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6287
  • It's only forever - not long at all.
    • View Profile
Re: U.S. News may go under
« Reply #33 on: February 24, 2009, 04:05:23 PM »
Oh. Well I guess I just don't understand what that means. The should be "able" to? How would we ever know that unless they actually do?

That's tangential.  Should we expect "top talent," regardless whether they can prove it, be able to maintain a high GPA and earn a high LSAT score?

Uh. Depends on how you define "top talent." If top talent is people who will be spectacular lawyers, then I would say that no, not all of them would have been "able" to maintain a high GPA, for example. Again, what does be "able" to mean. Be able to given the circumstances of their own lives? Be able to in a vacuum in which they did nothing but concentrate on schoolwork? Be able to in a grade-inflated major or in a very rigorous program? I mean, it just seems like a completely meaningless question.
Quote from: Earthbound SNES
Get a sense of humor, Susan B. Anthony!
Quote from: dashrashi
I'm going to cut a female dog. With a knife with a brown handle, natch.
Quote from: Elephant Lee
Don't judge me. You've not had my life.

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: U.S. News may go under
« Reply #34 on: February 24, 2009, 04:26:36 PM »
Top talent, I would think, are people who deserve to be at the best of the best law schools (however you define them) and I would assume everyone expects to become the best lawyers, judges, academics, etc.

It doesn't change the discussion much, I don't think, however we define able.  Since none of us live in a vacuum, let's define it as in their own lives, but give them the benefit of having had their ultimate goal since freshman year of high school being admission to a top law school.

Also, keep in mind we're talking in generalities.  Sure there was probably some super-genius who could have killed the LSAT, but he was distracted fighting lung cancer, sudden blindness, and the death of a loved one.  This is clearly neither the norm nor illustrative of any generality we might make about admissions standards.

So, [in general] should top talent be able to have a high LSAT/GPA?

Edit:
Be able to in a grade-inflated major or in a very rigorous program?

Doesn't matter.  Admissions counselors tend to adjust based on major and university.  A 3.2 in mechanical engineering at MIT is higher than a 3.8 in business admin at Joeblow Tech.

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: U.S. News may go under
« Reply #35 on: February 24, 2009, 04:26:55 PM »
why would you assume they would?

I never did.

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: U.S. News may go under
« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2009, 04:33:00 PM »
why would you assume they would?

I never did.

so no.

i don't see why this is difficult.

"No" is not an answer to "Why not?"

goaliechica

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6287
  • It's only forever - not long at all.
    • View Profile
Re: U.S. News may go under
« Reply #37 on: February 24, 2009, 04:37:28 PM »
Edit:
Be able to in a grade-inflated major or in a very rigorous program?

Doesn't matter.  Admissions counselors tend to adjust based on major and university.  A 3.2 in mechanical engineering at MIT is higher than a 3.8 in business admin at Joeblow Tech.

For law school admissions?? Nuh uh. Come on. Look at LSN. It matters some, but not to the extent that a 3.2 would trump a 3.8, no matter what the respective programs.

I don't find this line of inquiry very interesting, so I'll let it be, but that part is just not true.
Quote from: Earthbound SNES
Get a sense of humor, Susan B. Anthony!
Quote from: dashrashi
I'm going to cut a female dog. With a knife with a brown handle, natch.
Quote from: Elephant Lee
Don't judge me. You've not had my life.

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: U.S. News may go under
« Reply #38 on: February 24, 2009, 04:39:25 PM »
but it is an answer to:

shouldn't the top talent be able to have a high LSAT/GPA?

No *&^%, Sherlock.  Give us your rationale behind your answer.

...or duck the question.  I don't care that much.

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: U.S. News may go under
« Reply #39 on: February 24, 2009, 04:45:52 PM »
Edit:
Be able to in a grade-inflated major or in a very rigorous program?

Doesn't matter.  Admissions counselors tend to adjust based on major and university.  A 3.2 in mechanical engineering at MIT is higher than a 3.8 in business admin at Joeblow Tech.

For law school admissions?? Nuh uh. Come on. Look at LSN. It matters some, but not to the extent that a 3.2 would trump a 3.8, no matter what the respective programs.

I don't find this line of inquiry very interesting, so I'll let it be, but that part is just not true.

Relying on LSN is incredibly dubious.  Regardless, it's an unimportant discussion.  Let's assume for the sake of actually discussing the question that all UG institutions and majors are identical, and that GPAs are objective measures of performance in those programs.