agreed. it's nonsensical.
the quoted paragraph.
1. That’s why Professor Sander feels at liberty to publish rubbish suggesting a link between law-school grades and law firm success.2. If this link were causal, of course, one would expect law professors to hail from successful law-firm careers. 3. It would be odd, to say the least, if those who teach law students to be successful law-firm practitioners, and who issue the grades that Sander says are essential to law firm success, themselves have a distant connection to practice. 4. Sander earned his law degree in 1988 and started teaching law in 1989. 5. The absence of law practice, or very short stints of it, is a trend in the academy. 6. How, then, can grades issued by those with little or no practice be an indicator of success for practice?[/size][/b]1 is okay2 is logically flawed3. is factually flawed4. doesn't help 2 0r 35. is the conclusion telegraphed by the logical flaw in step 2.
For that matter, how does one explain the former dean of Stanford Law School failing the California Bar–not as a student, but rather as a tenured member of Stanford’s faculty?
How, then, can grades issued by those with little or no practice be an indicator of success for practice?
The article's point in that paragraph makes absolutely no sense. Such a correlation would only suggest that law professors who got good grades in school, IF they went into practice at a law firm, would perform well. To say that people got high grades, and therefore, they should be in law firms and not professors, has to be one of the most nonsensical things I have ever read in something purported to be a serious article.
How, then, can grades issued by those with little or no practice be an indicator of success for practice?This shows that the author did'nt even bother to read Sander's affirmative action article before commenting on it. He uses advanced statistics to analyze correlations. At least glance at the article, jeez! If not to read it, at least you can see the tables and charts, which are largely self explanatory.
Quote from: Lord Vader on January 31, 2007, 11:36:56 AMQuote from: meiji on January 31, 2007, 11:32:05 AMwhatever.Lol! An example of a rebuttal from someone with the intellectual horsepower of a 2 year old! Or from someone who has concluded that you have the intellectual horsepower of a 2 year old and has decided not to waste any more time on you. jsia
Quote from: meiji on January 31, 2007, 11:32:05 AMwhatever.Lol! An example of a rebuttal from someone with the intellectual horsepower of a 2 year old!
Oh and I'm not saying that you do, because I didn't bother reading anything you wrote. But I generally credit meiji's dismissals.
Page created in 0.44 seconds with 18 queries.