right so i offer up a couple possible things i think you might be saying and then ask if you could clarify whether i am right or going the right directino with some of them- you respond telling me im the one with a communication problem......ok
right about that last part- it just seemed a bit funny to me that its obvious i go to w&L and you felt the need to hammer on that several times- and im usually very unsenstiive to anything- in fact this may be the first time on here someone has bugged me with some snappy remarks-----either way- we've gone off point--- i still don't think you have given any reason and prefer to simply make remarks trying to sound like a smart ass and you think i'm just not listenting and doing nothing but responding negative to everything you say- whatever, i've had enough of this nonsense
So... what's up with W&L's job placements, anyway?
Quote from: aufhebung on March 30, 2006, 02:13:15 PMSo... what's up with W&L's job placements, anyway?LOL that's what I'm asking! The three relevant points I've heard:-many people go into government work, which requires you to pass the bar before you start work-the class included in the year USNWR data was lame; these stats should go up in the future-W&L doesn't lie, cheat and steal its way into better stats the way some schools doYep, that's it. Assuming I go there, I just plan on making sure I don't end up in the bottom quartile - those who do well from W&L will have a ton of opportunities in the east, although transferrability to the west coast without any job experience has been called into question.
Oh god I so wanted this stupid discussion but I guess my Ďlets just drop ití attempt failed- Since you think Iím not listening to you I will now prove that you are mistaken:Your first post: To save space, you note w&l doesnít do as well on other rankings (citing leiter and consus- not sure what the second is)- you say us news overvalues for sizeNext:1- You make a very bold claim- W&L is nothing like BU or ND and if anything is closer to w&m and george mason ---no evidence yet presented2- You mention small size for course offerings- thatís fine- i think this goes without saying but thatís why I left it alone3- BU, Iowa, and ND have a name that will travel to almost anywhere in the country- W&L does not4- basically you go back to the overrated claim due to sizeTo summarize- so W&L is overrated because it has much less national recognition- you offer up the leiter rankings and the leiter explanation on the flaws of usnews- not really convincing info to me. I then responded making a quick remark about the size method and why I think letier is wrong (without going into detail), note why I think his faculty rankings are bs to an extent and ask you to explain yourself further.Your next post-You first start off stating another obvious point- I go to w&l, not that it isnít obvious from the giant letters in bold- you seem to imply since I go to w&l I am hiding the ball- maybe I overreact to this comment a bit but what you said seems unnecessary as I deliberately make it obvious where I go to schoolStepping onto the campus- you seem to think that this only tells you about atmosphere and neighborhood- to an extent you are correct but it seems very naÔve that some numbers or lists tell you all you need to knowThen you go to the Ďwhatever you want in your experienceí criteria- this would be fine by me- as I responded, what a person wants does play a role- at this point I thought you were simply saying that each person has their own preference based on what they wantThe thing is you donít do this. Next you decide to go back to your Ďoverratedí claim. Not overrated for you, which is a personal opinion, but overrated. You mention the vault list. I assume you mean the leiter vault rankings? You never really say. Hard to make a point without any facts. Then you say again it doesnít have the national rep those other schools do in the west. Again, however, no facts.Now you go to the faculty point. You have some personal experience here so I canít say your claim is 100% baseless on this point but you do conclude that publications reveal faculty quality. Now while you obviously have more experience then most of us here, this still seems like a pretty strong claim.So again, you make a strong assertation that w&l is nowhere near as national as its peer schools. You back this up with some US News data and what leiter says about big schools being given a bump. You think the faculty isnít as good because publications are important to finding out quality. I donít think anything I said was baseless. I was trying to see what you were trying to say because you jump around a bit. At one point, you discuss what an individual wants and another how w&l isnít really as good as most people think. Is this two arguments, or one? That is what I was trying to figure out. I donít see how anything I said Ďwasnít listeningí especially when you make some major claims that go against what most people think and offer weak support for those claims. So there you have it. If you have a specific point and backup for it, then fine, I will gladly agree to disagree. I just donít see anything that justifies the very strong stance you are making.now can we please drop this- if you have some points- make another post and ill be sure to listen- but everything in this thread has been ridiculous
This is like a legal dispute, both sides offer different set of facts that are both self-interested and rooted in the truth. I would sum it up like this, LitDoc, whether she admits it or not, set off the thread with the provocative statement that W&L was not comparable to schools like Iowa, ND, BU, or ILL. Some people, including myself criticized that stance and then everybody dug their heels in and starting trying to justify their position. Then when people started saying they were being too adversial, we started pleading our case that the other person started it. In conclusion saying "Iowa, ND, BU, or ILL aren't comparable to W&L probably was not a smart thing to say because its based to much on opinion (and the first post def did not say it as an opinion, but said it rather matter of factly.) After that people probably over-reacted.