Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: 3 denials 7 still out  (Read 2762 times)

john4040

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
    • View Profile
Re: 3 denials 7 still out
« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2012, 01:30:21 AM »
Dooood. I have never seen such an example of speculation and assumption being mistaken for cleverness. I'll do the same thing- typical tea party induction.  Inducing huge conclusions from minute irrelevant or even exception data. You base a conclusion on outliers.  Or worse, generalizations that can't include all the data.

Not everything in such an important decision as which law school to go is always based on linear rankings exclusively, and should not be.  You do not know which schools rejected him.  I saw a person apply to Harvard with a 148.  She applied to a few T1s, a few T2s and a few T4s.

If anything he infers he has not heard back from CUNY. 

CUNY is a different kind of school. It is outside the rankings. What I mean by that is the school admits people with 140s LSAT and can reject a person with a 160. They think differently than most schools.

Ah the student loan bubble.  That's why you try to discourage people from law school. You don't want to help the OP. You want him/her swept aside as to not be part of the problem. 

You're posting here to stop people from going to law school. Wow. Not selfish at all. Not apathetic. Not lame or weak, but practical, ehe?

What an f.in selfish dic.k.

Substance of your post:
1. I make assumptions from incomplete data;
2. Harvard could have rejected him / I don't know which schools rejected him / You saw a person apply to Harvard with a 148;
3. CUNY is a different kind of school - one "outside the rankings" (and, no doubt, the OP could be a special snowflake, too!!!);
4. I'm a "f.in selfish dic.k" because I don't want to fund some TTT flunkee's horrible life decisions.

#1 Welcome to the world of law school data, where schools refuse to give you the entire truth.  In law, one would be able to infer that the data withheld was not in the law school's favor.  It's called an adverse inference, look it up.  Not sure why I wouldn't be entitled to draw such an inference here or why I'm not entitled to use the incomplete self-serving data that they DO publish to show how bad the school really is.

#2 You're right, Harvard could have rejected him and I don't know exactly which schools rejected him.  But, I can use logic, probability and statistics to determine, generally, which schools he has applied to and which have rejected him.  If the OP had the stats to get into Havard, chances are, CUNY wouldn't be his "top choice" and he wouldn't have applied to other T4s.  Similarly, if he had the stats to barely squeak into CUNY, logic dictates that he applied to a few "reach" schools (CUNY may well be his "reach" school) and several schools ranked below CUNY.  If he hasn't heard back from CUNY at this late stage in the game and he's been denied admission to 3 other schools, that tells me that he will, in all probability, be rejected by CUNY and any other higher-ranked schools that he irrationally chose to apply to.  Thus, this leaves him with the possibility that he might be admitted to a school that is ranked lower than CUNY.  As I have already pointed out, CUNY is a horrible investment at full price (*WARNING* I made another plausible inference, based on the facts given, that the OP will not be getting a scholarship to CUNY!!!  Mindblowing and completely radical stuff... I know).  The employment stats at lower ranked schools, generally, don't get any better.  Hence, my conclusion: He's dodged a bullet by not being accepted to CUNY and other similarly-ranked schools.  It's up to him to make a rational decision with respect to lower-ranked schools.

Lesson of the day: Probability and statistics are wonderful tools.  Learn them.  Embrace them.  They are your friends.  They will caution you not to make irrational decisions (though they can't stop you from making an irrational decision).

#3 Oh, I thought I covered this earlier...

It may be true that CUNY is king of sh1t mountain (i.e., the best out of a multitude of horrible schools). . . that CUNY has a good x or y program. . .  None of these are serious answers, and all overlook the fact that employment prospects from CUNY are absolutey horrible.

Then, there's this: http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/05/special-snowflake-syndrome-and-spirit.html

CUNY is not unique in purposely rejecting those with higher GPAs and LSATs.  All law schools take exceptional admits that are below the LSAT and GPA minimums, and many lower-tier law schools reject those that apply with exceptionally high LSATs and GPAs (the latter is called "yield protection").  Your point seems to be that CUNY does not care about law rankings or that they are more willing than other schools to reject those with high LSATs.  Not one shred of evidence was provided to support that claim (pot, meet kettle).  Nevertheless, that position is asinine because it ignores the fact that CUNY is just one of many self-interested legal degree factories that touts the USN&WR rankings when they benefit them ("CUNY Law Among Top Ten Law Schools" "CUNY Law Has 6th Lowest Tuition Increase Among Law Schools"), but shuns them when they don't.  If CUNY were able to attract a higher quality of student and thus, rise in the rankings, it would.  Yet, it doesn't.

#4 - Insurance companies do what I am proposing all the time.  It's a risk assessment based on (you guessed it) probability and statistics.  This is nothing novel.  If someone is the special snowflake they claim to be, require them to hurdle certain intellectual, artistic, etc. requirements; demonstrate actual interest in the field; and make sure that there is some demand in that field.  If the snowflake isn't competitive and/or there is no more demand for a particular job in the snowflake's desired field, don't subsidize their education.  I don't care what you call me.  It's good business.  It works.  Sorry that I don't advocate making irrational decisions based upon someone's warped sense of the "moral good".

#5 - Just because you're a pompous troll, I'll point out the fact that you completely side-stepped my last post.  Answer the question: Where did I ever state that "he scratched out CUNY"? (or would that require you to "address data on [MY] rhetoric?")

I know.. I know... you read the whole thing and now want to put up another post that says "I only read 5% of what you wrote... but..." or that you don't want to  "address data on [MY] rhetoric" .  It's your way weaseling out of the stupid arguments you've made.  I get it.  I'd do the same thing if I spouted the tripe you do.

fortook

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
    • View Profile
Re: 3 denials 7 still out
« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2012, 05:31:28 AM »
Give up the numbering paradigm please. I used it once and admitted its a douch.y approach. So, it now become your primary approach? Typical.

I didn't bother reading trough all of that. Too much effort for something so foolish.  You called me a troll? Wow. Yes indeed- I'm a troll. I have no debt. Congrats to me.

Probability or statistics have nothing to do with your assumptions.  As with the numbering paradigm- my approach, not yours.

Apologies Op for wasting so much of your thread arguing with this fool.  I hope you heard back from CUNY and it was good news. :).
"Thank you for inviting me, Mrs. Palin." "Thank you for cutting your mullet, Levi."

john4040

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
    • View Profile
Re: 3 denials 7 still out
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2012, 05:44:39 AM »
Give up the numbering paradigm please. I used it once and admitted its a douch.y approach. So, it now become your primary approach? Typical.

I didn't bother reading trough all of that. Too much effort for something so foolish.  You called me a troll? Wow. Yes indeed- I'm a troll. I have no debt. Congrats to me. . .

Damn, looks like I was right on the money: 

I know.. I know... you read the whole thing and now want to put up another post that says "I only read 5% of what you wrote... but..." or that you don't want to  "address data on [MY] rhetoric" .  It's your way weaseling out of the stupid arguments you've made.  I get it.  I'd do the same thing if I spouted the tripe you do.

Wonder if making a plausible inference based on your past behavior had anything to do with it?


fortook

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
    • View Profile
Re: 3 denials 7 still out
« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2012, 03:56:05 PM »
lol wow. Ok john.  What are we talking about again? Regardless, I'm sure you were right.

Hugs.
"Thank you for inviting me, Mrs. Palin." "Thank you for cutting your mullet, Levi."