Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Michigan 1L Taking Questions  (Read 74094 times)

goaliechica

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6287
  • It's only forever - not long at all.
    • View Profile
Re: Michigan 1L Taking Questions
« Reply #950 on: August 07, 2008, 11:50:04 AM »
Lindbergh, since you aren't a Michigan student, unless you have a question about being a Michigan student, can you please take your LSAT mongering and/or blatant prestige whoring elsewhere?  I think I can speak for a number of people when I say it's not on thread topic, not helpful, and not wanted - you're basically making actual Michigan people look bad by your mere presence.

Please explain how I'm engaging in LSAT mongering and/or prestige whoring.


A Loyola LA professor put out a paper on this last year.

This alone should've made you realize the paper was crap.



Completely pointless and mean-spirited put-down of a lower-ranked school in response to someone who was also trying to answer the question.

And deriding the school where the professor is from doesn't actually discredit the study the way you seem to think it does, by the way. 

I think I can speak for a number of people when I say that.  :P

I'm sure you 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.

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: Michigan 1L Taking Questions
« Reply #951 on: August 07, 2008, 12:06:22 PM »
Lindbergh, since you aren't a Michigan student, unless you have a question about being a Michigan student, can you please take your LSAT mongering and/or blatant prestige whoring elsewhere?  I think I can speak for a number of people when I say it's not on thread topic, not helpful, and not wanted - you're basically making actual Michigan people look bad by your mere presence.

Please explain how I'm engaging in LSAT mongering and/or prestige whoring.


A Loyola LA professor put out a paper on this last year.

This alone should've made you realize the paper was crap.



Completely pointless and mean-spirited put-down of a lower-ranked school in response to someone who was also trying to answer the question.

And deriding the school where the professor is from doesn't actually discredit the study the way you seem to think it does, by the way. 

One could argue that my post was mean-spirited (it wasn't), but the poster themselves is presumably not from Loyola.  Aside from the fact that hiring standards are generally lower at a school like Loyola, it is also relevant (and on point) in the sense that lower-ranked schools are frequently creating poorly researched/reasoned studies designed to criticize various rankings - for clearly ulterior motives.   

I will note, however, that no one has yet indicated how the study even supposedly supports the idea that a 180 median would not raise Michigan's ranking. 


I think I can speak for a number of people when I say that.  :P

I'm sure you do  ::)

I'm sure you're sure I do ::)

Gengiswump

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4725
  • "she's a tough mfer, but she knows how to party"
    • View Profile
Re: Michigan 1L Taking Questions
« Reply #952 on: August 07, 2008, 12:13:45 PM »
Can't be changed Bouzie. We'll have to struggle on, misnomered.

mod can still change it i think.

Good thinking.  Now the question is whether we care enough to ask Sands or EarlCat.

Lindbergh, since you aren't a Michigan student, unless you have a question about being a Michigan student, can you please take your LSAT mongering and/or blatant prestige whoring elsewhere?  I think I can speak for a number of people when I say it's not on thread topic, not helpful, and not wanted - you're basically making actual Michigan people look bad by your mere presence.

Please explain how I'm engaging in LSAT mongering and/or prestige whoring.

Someone asked what UM would have to do to be considered comparable to CCN.  I explained that to most lawyers, they already are, and that for the remainder, it would basically be a matter of raising their LSAT scores to CLS/NYU levels, as that would elevate them in the rankings to a comparable level. 

In other words, I'm simply answering a question posed earlier in the thread.  If you have a problem with that, you're welcome to leave. 

If you are in fact a UM student, you're the only one making them look bad by your obnoxious and offensive attitude.  I think I can speak for a number of people when I say that.  :P

Goalie already covered the prestige-whoring, and you continue to (pointlessly and needlessly) LSAT monger even in the above quoted, so that particular thing is still speaking, loudly and clearly, for itself.

And, quite frankly, I don't have to leave, nor should I.  Unlike you, I currently attend the thread's titular law school.  Unlike you, I could actually answer questions about it as it is at the moment (a la the crappy b'fast pastries).  Very much unlike you, I don't persistently cling to some few ideas and feel the need to make every thread I post in about what I think is true re: rankings, without acknowledging the possibility that I could be wrong on something, and without any regard to the thread's actual topic and goal.  Yes, someone asked a rankings question.  But, for whatever reason, they didn't ask it in the myriad other threads that are more than available for such queries.  They asked in the "Michigan 1L Taking Questions" thread, and I'm going to go ahead and posit that they may have done because, oh I dunno, they wanted a current Michigan 1L (or 2L or 3L) to answer.  You decided to answer this question based on an incredibly limited and dare I say simplistic view of rankings calculation (in the face of not insubstantial evidence to the contrary) while simultaneously putting down another school.  I want it to be clear that you, and that attitude, don't go to my school.  The simplest way to do that would be if you ceased to answer questions in the "Michigan 1L Taking Questions" thread, since the very act is somewhat misleading in the context of the title.  If, however, I just have to continuously repeat this fact because you get some sort of perverse glee out of generally being a pain, though it's not very adult of you, that's just fine too.  Obviously I have a preference here, but, as the kids like to say, it's still a free country (mostly).
Quote from: tj.
Write a PS on it, fuckstick.

Quote from: Miss P
Sometimes all you've got is a wacky hi-jink.

Quote from: Miss P
This is truly the ultimate in toolish douchebaggery.


Res nonnumquam ipsa loquitur, sed aliter aeternaliter queritur.

hollowman988

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
  • I took her home after midnight...
    • View Profile
Re: Michigan 1L Taking Questions
« Reply #953 on: August 07, 2008, 12:33:17 PM »
What are the three best and three worst things about Michigan?


The people, the sports, Ann Arbor as both great college town and place within an easy drive of a real airport.

Not lots of stuff to do outside within an easy drive (skiing, rafting, hiking of any worthwhile sort), the winter's endless, the summer starter thing means your friends may leave earlier than you want and that when you arrive in the fall there's a portion of the summer class that's reflexively annoyed by your presence. Oh, also, you can't get a decent bagel for *&^%.

What is your opinion on summer start?

I was scheduled to be one and then decided not to be, mostly for reasons having nothing to do with the actual program and more b/c I wanted to go off and do other things.  I'm not a big fan. While it's actually happening, over that first summer, it sounds like a great way to get adjusted to law school. You take two classes, you get Ann Arbor to yourself, and you don't have to deal with taking a stupid number of credits in the spring of your 1L year (b/c of the 'mandatory elective'), but you're completely restricted to hanging out with kids from your section for 3 months.  I think that kind of fragments the class in a weird way.

And although I have plenty of summer starter friends, most of that has to do with me knowing a few of them before school started and/or playing a lot of softball in the fall. And whether it was b/c of the personalities of our particular summer class or whether it's something having the school to yourself engenders, there were more than a handful of summer people who had really juvenile attitudes about the rest of the class showing up in the fall, like we were invading their sandbox and ohgeehowembarrassing they don't know where to get pizza yet, etc.

Also, I want to go abroad as a 3L in the fall, and I'm probably going to, but it means not getting to spend the fall with my summer starter friends, most of whom will leave after they graduate in December.

So, I'm glad I didn't do it, and I don't like that we have it (b/c of what it means for me, mainly) but I think a lot of people who do it are glad they did.  Although, doing law school for an entire calendar year your first year seems like the sort of thing that seems less bad AFTER you've done it. Revisionist history and whatnot. 
The Victors:
Music to make love to your old lady by?

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: Michigan 1L Taking Questions
« Reply #954 on: August 07, 2008, 12:48:37 PM »
Can't be changed Bouzie. We'll have to struggle on, misnomered.

mod can still change it i think.

Good thinking.  Now the question is whether we care enough to ask Sands or EarlCat.

Lindbergh, since you aren't a Michigan student, unless you have a question about being a Michigan student, can you please take your LSAT mongering and/or blatant prestige whoring elsewhere?  I think I can speak for a number of people when I say it's not on thread topic, not helpful, and not wanted - you're basically making actual Michigan people look bad by your mere presence.

Please explain how I'm engaging in LSAT mongering and/or prestige whoring.

Someone asked what UM would have to do to be considered comparable to CCN.  I explained that to most lawyers, they already are, and that for the remainder, it would basically be a matter of raising their LSAT scores to CLS/NYU levels, as that would elevate them in the rankings to a comparable level. 

In other words, I'm simply answering a question posed earlier in the thread.  If you have a problem with that, you're welcome to leave. 

If you are in fact a UM student, you're the only one making them look bad by your obnoxious and offensive attitude.  I think I can speak for a number of people when I say that.  :P

Goalie already covered the prestige-whoring

Not really.  Even as misinterpreted, it could perhaps be labeled snobbery, but not prestige-whoring.  But again, that wasn't the point of the post.


and you continue to (pointlessly and needlessly) LSAT monger even in the above quoted, so that particular thing is still speaking, loudly and clearly, for itself.

Again, I'm not LSAT mongering -- I'm simply stating a fact.  USNews rankings rely largely on reputation rankings and LSAT scores.  This is a simple fact.  LSAT scores will therefore strongly affect rankings, as pretty much everyone knows (except maybe a few posters on this thread).  The primary reason why some students view UM differently from CCN is because of their USNews rank difference, which, given their comparable rep ratings, is largely due to their LSAT differentials.

If you want to accuse USNews of LSAT-mongering, you may have a point.  You have no such basis for accusing me.


And, quite frankly, I don't have to leave, nor should I. 

You certainly don't have to, but you probably should, if you can't handle people honestly answering stated questions.  


Unlike you, I attend the thread's titular law school. 

Woo hoo!  Bully for you.


Unlike you, I could actually answer questions about it (a la the crappy b'fast pastries). 


I can also answer certain specific questions about it, even if I don't attend it.  For some reason, doing so sent you into hysterics.


Unlike you, I don't persistently cling to some few ideas and feel the need to make every thread I post in about what I think is true re: rankings, without acknowledging the possibility that I could be wrong on something, and without any regard to the thread's actual topic and goal. 

Do you really feel that stating objective facts is somehow clinging to an idea?  Is that what they're teaching you at Michigan?  Good to know.

If someone posts actual evidence that raising Michigan's LSAT median wouldn't elevate their ranking, and therefore change their image in the minds of students, they're welcome to do so.  Until that time, the obvious realities remain:  LSAT medians affect rankings, and rankings affect student perception.  Period.  It might be nice if that weren't the case, but that's not what we're discussing here.  And the purpose of the thread topic and goal is presumably to answer various questions about Michigan.  I did that.  Sorry if it offends you.


Yes, someone asked a rankings question.  But, for whatever reason, they didn't ask it in the myriad other threads that are more than available for such queries.  They asked in the "Michigan 1L Taking Questions" thread, and I'm going to go ahead and posit that they may have done because, oh I dunno, they wanted a Michigan 1L (or 2L or 3L) to answer. 

Or, maybe they just wanted an answer to the general question, and the title made them think of it.  We really don't know, but we do know he probably wants an actual, informed answer to his question more than anything else.  Which I provided.

If you're going to be technical, though, then no 2L's or 2L's should answer either, right?  Or would this cause you to realize how ridiculous your position is?


You decided to answer this question based on an incredibly limited and dare I say simplistic view of rankings calculation (in the face of not insubstantial evidence to the contrary) while simultaneously putting down another school. 

If you disagree with my understanding of the USNews formula, you're welcome to provide alternative interpretations.  (Maybe it's all based on height!)  But bottom line, whatever the precise current breakdown, reputation and LSAT, combined, are a huge perentage of the overall ranking.  And there's no question that pretty much any school will rise significantly with a large enough LSAT boost.  There's no question whatsoever that Michigan would rise with a large enough LSAT boost.

If you really don't understand that, then I have to conclude it is in fact your view of rankings calculation that is limited and simplistic.

To the extent any study would erroneously conclude that LSAT scores are meaningless in the rankings formula, the study, and its author, deserve to be derided, with their associated institution correspondingly implicated.  However, to be fair, no one has yet cited the study as actually standing for such a ridiculous proposition, so it appears the study/author has also been unfairly referenced by the original poster.


I want it to be clear that you, and that attitude, don't go to my school. 

And yet, what you're really doing is ruining the image of your school with your obnoxious, offensive, and frankly ignorant comments.  (I guess I could understand why you wouldn't want an attitude of objectivity and fact-based reason associated with your school, given your apparent goal of single-handedly destroying their image.)


The simplest way to do that would be if you ceased to answer questions in the "Michigan 1L Taking Questions" thread, since the very act is somewhat misleading in the context of the title.  If, however, I just have to continuously repeat this fact because you get some sort of perverse glee out of generally being a pain, though it's not very adult of you, that's just fine too.  Obviously I have a preference here, but, as the kids like to say, it's still a free country (mostly).

Or, you could just stop being an obnoxious [dirty word], and allow people to answer questions posed, without interfering with lengthy diatribes, and consequently tarnishing the image of the school you supposedly attend.  But maybe Shrillary appointed you commandant of the thought police on this board.  Either way, it's clear that you're the one deriving a perverse glee out of being a pain on this thread.  The only question is how long we'll have to endure it until your apparent need for attention-whoring expires.  For the sake of the other posters on this board, I hope it's soon.

I'm done with this, out of consideration to other posteres, unless you unnecesarily open your yap again.  If you do, we'll all know who extended this discussion.

--post edited by EC

Gengiswump

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4725
  • "she's a tough mfer, but she knows how to party"
    • View Profile
Re: Michigan 1L Taking Questions
« Reply #955 on: August 07, 2008, 01:04:49 PM »
Ok, I'll disagree with HM here, though I am completely in love with him.  (So embarassing, really.)

I decided I would only go to Michigan if I could be a summerstarter.  And voila, that's what happened.  I think HM is really downplaying the bennies of easing into the year, with classes and what not.  It frees up a lot of your time to begin becoming involved in organizations and projects right away when school starts (the edboards at UMich are positively riddled with summerstarters), and lends a certain flexibility to the schedule that can be really helpful for when doctrinal classes are beginning to wear one down.  He's also, IMO, downplaying the bennies of getting to see, at least once, Ann Arbor weather at its finest - that really nice summer made me want to kill myself a modicum less when the bitter, bitter winter rolled around.

Though hanging out with the same people for months was somewhat restrictive, there's something to be said for really getting to know your section.  Now, that thing could be that, by the time March hits, you know every damn opinion that's going to come out of every damn mouth before the hands are even raised, but the knowing people was, to my mind, generally a good thing.

Now, a lot of fallstarters say that summerstarters are clique-ish.  This is mildly disingenuous for a couple of reasons.  One, so are fallstarters.  Every section has their groups, and all of them are accused, at some time or another, of being clique-y by someone else, as HM could probably well attest, given with whom he hangs. ;)    Further, I just don't see the summerstarters as being particularly egregious, or even typifying, this grouping instinct.  There are plenty of more than friendly summerstarters who hang with all sorts of folk from all sorts of diverse corners of the law school.  There are some who stay more unto themselves.  Every section has those people - I think summerstarters just suffer in reputation because they're already, to an extent, distanced from the school population at large.
Quote from: tj.
Write a PS on it, fuckstick.

Quote from: Miss P
Sometimes all you've got is a wacky hi-jink.

Quote from: Miss P
This is truly the ultimate in toolish douchebaggery.


Res nonnumquam ipsa loquitur, sed aliter aeternaliter queritur.

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 7072
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Michigan 1L Taking Questions
« Reply #956 on: August 07, 2008, 01:39:23 PM »

Or, you could just stop being an obnoxious c*nt,


Open debate and dialog are always encouraged on the board.  Ad hominem attacks, not so much.  This is the actual notice (for all you 1L's taking Torts out there) to please keep it civil. 


Thanks.

"A lawyer's either a social engineer or a parasite on society. A social engineer is a highly skilled...lawyer who understands the Constitution of the U.S. and knows how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of local communities and in bettering [our] conditions."
Charles H. Houston

Tetris

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Michigan Rocks
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: Michigan 1L Taking Questions
« Reply #957 on: August 07, 2008, 02:45:02 PM »
Dude, that bagel thing is the G*d's honest truth, for reals.  Croissants too.

U of M:  Bad for breakfast pastries.

I've made a terrible mistake.
_______
.|E|R|S.

Gengiswump

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4725
  • "she's a tough mfer, but she knows how to party"
    • View Profile
Re: Michigan 1L Taking Questions
« Reply #958 on: August 07, 2008, 04:16:28 PM »
Dude, that bagel thing is the G*d's honest truth, for reals.  Croissants too.

U of M:  Bad for breakfast pastries.

I've made a terrible mistake.

Well, if you decide to drop out, you now have a guaranteed money-making exit strategy.
Quote from: tj.
Write a PS on it, fuckstick.

Quote from: Miss P
Sometimes all you've got is a wacky hi-jink.

Quote from: Miss P
This is truly the ultimate in toolish douchebaggery.


Res nonnumquam ipsa loquitur, sed aliter aeternaliter queritur.

hollowman988

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 746
  • I took her home after midnight...
    • View Profile
Re: Michigan 1L Taking Questions
« Reply #959 on: August 07, 2008, 05:53:41 PM »
Dude, that bagel thing is the G*d's honest truth, for reals.  Croissants too.

U of M:  Bad for breakfast pastries.

I've made a terrible mistake.

IIRC, aren't you from another flyover state w/o decent bagels? It'll be just like home!
The Victors:
Music to make love to your old lady by?