Quote from: bigs5068 on October 05, 2010, 06:01:24 PM You're a pretentious bastard if you somehow presume to know where I would have gone to law school had I had a certain LSAT score! How do you have any idea what I value? Maybe my ties to Las Vegas (10 years of personal and professional relationships) is worth more to me than a degree from Stanford, even if the cost was equal to that of Boyd. Furthermore, maybe I want to practice in Las Vegas. Therefore, attending Boyd would make far more sense than attending Stanford because Boyd gives me access to internships and part-time jobs during law school that Stanford would not. Get the F*ck off your high horse! You don't know me and you have no clue what I would do.
Fennemore Craig over Harvard and Standford applicants. H
When a statistical correlation becomes a hard presumption, that is where I take offense. Personally, I really don't care how big law firms select their associates. For a litany of reasons, I would rather cut off a finger with a dull knife before accepting a position at most of those firms. However, there is just too much snootiness in the legal profession. As humans, we are just flawed. Collectively, our judgment sucks; hence, the need for a legal profession. Judging an individual solely by a statistical curve on a justification of "efficiency" is both wrong in a moral sense and a byproduct of flawed judgment. I would expect more from attorneys. However, I shouldn't because most attorneys are more flawed than the population they represent.I don't have a problem with the assertion that most YHS grads are more qualified on the whole than most grads of lower-rated schools. When that judgment (I wouldn't call it a rule), is then applied to individual candidates syllogistically, that is where I take offense. Statistics are a form of inductive reasoning. To apply a statistical correlation deductively is not logically valid nor is it fair.