Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: How Ruskie got into Boalt with a sub-160 and what she's learned from it  (Read 42563 times)

LittleRussianPrincess, Esq.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2355
  • Hopelessly devoted...to the Tennessee Vols!
    • View Profile
Re: How Ruskie got into Boalt with a sub-160 and what she's learned from it
« Reply #70 on: October 24, 2007, 01:51:19 PM »
Uh, the LSAT is not an intelligence test.
Russian by birth, Southern by the grace of God.

WannaBeMyLover

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: How Ruskie got into Boalt with a sub-160 and what she's learned from it
« Reply #71 on: October 24, 2007, 01:55:27 PM »
Uh, the LSAT is not an intelligence test.

You clearly have a vested interest in arguing against this, since you did so poorly on the LSAT, but the LSAT and IQ are positively correlated.  It is debated how strongly.

LittleRussianPrincess, Esq.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2355
  • Hopelessly devoted...to the Tennessee Vols!
    • View Profile
Re: How Ruskie got into Boalt with a sub-160 and what she's learned from it
« Reply #72 on: October 24, 2007, 02:00:49 PM »
Uh, the LSAT is not an intelligence test.

You clearly have a vested interest in arguing against this, since you did so poorly on the LSAT, but the LSAT and IQ are positively correlated.  It is debated how strongly.
cite?

A positive correlation, even if one exists, is hardly proof that the LSAT and an IQ test are one and the same. I presume there is a positive correlation between other standardized tests and IQ, and I've never scored below the 95th percentile on any one of those (with the exception of the LSAT).

The IQ test measures innate intelligence and one cannot study for it or materially improve his score. The LSAT is a learned test. There's a multimillion dollar industry proving that.

Russian by birth, Southern by the grace of God.

BearlyLegal

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6273
  • And the greatest threat to America is... Bears!!!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - Newjoetm
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: How Ruskie got into Boalt with a sub-160 and what she's learned from it
« Reply #73 on: October 24, 2007, 02:22:15 PM »
    Quote
    Not being able to make sound arguments is something that should concern you.  Your reasoning is just atrocious.  You may not care, but if you're posting on a legal messageboard you're going to be called on your stupidity.
    And your reasoning is supported by what exactly? Vehement dislike for a constructive poster?

    You call me out for my "stupidity", but as I said before, you sound every bit as idiotic as I do. Moreso because your method of argumentation includes personal attacks such as the aforementioned "stupidity" remark, and the upcoming "jackass" remark.

    Quote
    You're the one who said that her success justified her admission, jackass. If her admission doesn't need to be validated, why did you attempt to validate it?
    Her admission does not need to be validated by Boalt. They can accept whomever they see fit.

    I, on the other hand, can validate her admission:
    • The whole basis of the LSAT's inclusion in the admissions process is based on it's validity as a predictor of academic success.
    • In Russkie's case, the LSAT was clearly not predictive of her academic performance.
    ---
    Therefore... Russkie's admission to Boalt, despite her low LSAT score, was legitimate. BECAUSE in her case, the LSAT was not a valid predictor, and therefore, had no place in the admissions process in the first place.

    Quote
    You're missing the point again.  She wasn't necessarily "successful".  She graduated from a school that lacks traditional grades.  So basically she managed to pass all her classes.  This doesn't mean she was successful.
    And you don't even have a point. She graduated from Boalt, therefore she was successful. Unless you claim that Boalt grads are not successful?

    Quote
    The circular reasoning contained in this passage makes me shudder.  Maybe someone else with more patience can explain your faulty reasoning to you.
    I use law school success attained during and after admission to substitute for success on a test whose sole purpose is to predict the very same law school success. This is not circular reasoning; this is attacking the only basis of the validity that the LSAT may have had in Russkie's case.

    You think this is circular reasoning only because your understanding of logic is not sophisticated enough to understand that I am attacking the validity of the LSAT as a predictor of events that actually did occur.

    Because she did not flunk out of Boalt, and was not the last student in her class (as evidenced by her great job), her LSAT score proved to be entirely irrelevant to admissions, because it did not accurately predict her law school performance.

    Quote
    This is the stupidest thing you've said.  We're jealous of ruskie because she wasn't able to score as highly as we did and still got into a good school? We didn't "have to" score highly, we just did because we're smarter than she is.  Ruskie didn't say "I'm going to only get a 157 because I don't need to score any higher to get into Boalt."  She scored a 157 because that's the extent of her abilities. Why in heavens name would someone be jealous of someone because they were able to succeed despite not performing as well on an objective measure of intelligence?
    Why in heaven's name indeed?

    I know that I scored higher on the LSAT than she did, but if Boalt dings me, I won't be here whining about how she didn't deserve to get in. If I was, you would be justified in assuming that I was jealous of her admission.

    Quote
    Again, people dislike ruskie not because she got into Boalt, but because she's an irritating, annoying and insecure person.  How many times does this have to be repeated to you?  I don't care how or why she got into Boalt, but when she makes a thread attempting to explain her acceptance, obviously people are going to point out her flawed assumptions.
    Again, I couldn't care less about her internet history. Her OP was helpful to me and others, and attacking her personally for things she may have done elsewhere on the internet is not at all constructive to the discussion.[/list][/list]

    WannaBeMyLover

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 46
      • View Profile
    Re: How Ruskie got into Boalt with a sub-160 and what she's learned from it
    « Reply #74 on: October 24, 2007, 02:35:16 PM »
      Quote
      Not being able to make sound arguments is something that should concern you.  Your reasoning is just atrocious.  You may not care, but if you're posting on a legal messageboard you're going to be called on your stupidity.
      And your reasoning is supported by what exactly? Vehement dislike for a constructive poster?

      You call me out for my "stupidity", but as I said before, you sound every bit as idiotic as I do. Moreso because your method of argumentation includes personal attacks such as the aforementioned "stupidity" remark, and the upcoming "jackass" remark.

      Quote
      You're the one who said that her success justified her admission, jackass. If her admission doesn't need to be validated, why did you attempt to validate it?
      Her admission does not need to be validated by Boalt. They can accept whomever they see fit.

      I, on the other hand, can validate her admission:
      • The whole basis of the LSAT's inclusion in the admissions process is based on it's validity as a predictor of academic success.
      • In Russkie's case, the LSAT was clearly not predictive of her academic performance.
      ---
      Therefore... Russkie's admission to Boalt, despite her low LSAT score, was legitimate. BECAUSE in her case, the LSAT was not a valid predictor, and therefore, had no place in the admissions process in the first place.

      Quote
      You're missing the point again.  She wasn't necessarily "successful".  She graduated from a school that lacks traditional grades.  So basically she managed to pass all her classes.  This doesn't mean she was successful.
      And you don't even have a point. She graduated from Boalt, therefore she was successful. Unless you claim that Boalt grads are not successful?

      Quote
      The circular reasoning contained in this passage makes me shudder.  Maybe someone else with more patience can explain your faulty reasoning to you.
      I use law school success attained during and after admission to substitute for success on a test whose sole purpose is to predict the very same law school success. This is not circular reasoning; this is attacking the only basis of the validity the LSAT may have had in Russkie's case.

      You think this is circular reasoning only because your understanding of logic is not sophisticated enough to understand that I am attacking the validity of the LSAT as a predictor of events that actually did occur.

      Because she did not flunk out of Boalt, and was not the last student in her class (as evidenced by her great job), her LSAT score proved to be entirely irrelevant to admissions, because it did not accurately predict her law school performance.

      Quote
      This is the stupidest thing you've said.  We're jealous of ruskie because she wasn't able to score as highly as we did and still got into a good school? We didn't "have to" score highly, we just did because we're smarter than she is.  Ruskie didn't say "I'm going to only get a 157 because I don't need to score any higher to get into Boalt."  She scored a 157 because that's the extent of her abilities. Why in heavens name would someone be jealous of someone because they were able to succeed despite not performing as well on an objective measure of intelligence?
      Why in heaven's name indeed?

      I know that I scored higher on the LSAT than she did, but if Boalt dings me, I won't be here whining about how she didn't deserve to get in. If I was, you would be justified in assuming that I was jealous of her admission.

      Quote
      Again, people dislike ruskie not because she got into Boalt, but because she's an irritating, annoying and insecure person.  How many times does this have to be repeated to you?  I don't care how or why she got into Boalt, but when she makes a thread attempting to explain her acceptance, obviously people are going to point out her flawed assumptions.
      Again, I couldn't care less about her internet history. Her OP was helpful to me and others, and attacking her personally for things she may have done elsewhere on the internet is not at all constructive to the discussion.[/list][/list]


      I call you stupid because you are.

      You're arguing that because she was "successful" she deserved to go to Boalt.  While my interest is not in discussing whether she deserved to go there or not, this is just false.  Top schools cannot accept everyone who would be successful at said school.  The LSAT is one factor they use to differentiate among applicants, all of whom would be successful.  Thus, ex-post success says nothing about whether someone should have been admitted.  Can you really not understand this? 

      And are you really arguing that because she graduated from Boalt the LSAT score was not a successful predictor in her case?  So, basically, all people who graduate from law school meet some arbitrary level of "success", which renders their LSAT scores meaningless? 

      And, finally, saying that someone didn't deserve something doesn't transalte to jealousy.  How stupid are you? I mean, really.  I don't know why you can't understand this.  Someone can make a negative judgment about another person without it being seated in some type of envy.  For what it's worth, I was accepted to Boalt.  Please stop making retarded statements.

      BearlyLegal

      • LSD Obsessed
      • *****
      • Posts: 6273
      • And the greatest threat to America is... Bears!!!
        • AOL Instant Messenger - Newjoetm
        • View Profile
        • Email
      Re: How Ruskie got into Boalt with a sub-160 and what she's learned from it
      « Reply #75 on: October 24, 2007, 02:59:18 PM »
      Quote
      I call you stupid because you are.
      Haha. This is great. ;D ;D ;D

      Quote
      Thus, ex-post success says nothing about whether someone should have been admitted.  Can you really not understand this?
      The whole basis of using the LSAT in admissions at all is as a predictor of success. If it cannot accurately predict success (as in Russkie's case), there is no basis for claiming that she didn't deserve admission because of her LSAT score.

      Quote
      And are you really arguing that because she graduated from Boalt the LSAT score was not a successful predictor in her case?  So, basically, all people who graduate from law school meet some arbitrary level of "success", which renders their LSAT scores meaningless? 
      No, that's not what I am arguing.

      What I am arguing is that in the specific case of a girl who managed to stay within the curve of a top law school when her LSAT indicated that she had much less aptitude for law school than her peers proves that the LSAT was not a legitimate predictor of her ability. And yes, in her case, the LSAT is completely meaningless.

      Quote
      And, finally, saying that someone didn't deserve something doesn't transalte [sic] to jealousy.
      Then what motivates you to rile against her acceptance so? The poster doth protest too much, methinks.

      Quote
      How stupid are you? I mean, really.
      More of this please. It's awesome watching a first-tier debater in action!  ;D


      Quote
      I don't know why you can't understand this.  Someone can make a negative judgment about another person without it being seated in some type of envy.
      Obviously. That's why it's ok for people to flame Russkie for her internet behavior. However, whining about her "undeserved" acceptance to Boalt is a clear and transparent example of envy in action.

      Quote
      For what it's worth, I was accepted to Boalt.
      Highly doubtful. For what it's worth, I would hope that if you were accepted to Boalt, you wouldn't spend so much time and effort on the internet attacking someone for their own acceptance.

      Quote
      Please stop making retarded statements.
      I haven't had enough. Please include more invective personal attacks in your arguments henseforth. I am sure that this is precisely the caliber of writing that warranted your imaginary Boalt acceptance. ::)

      Edit:
      Quote
      So, basically, all people who graduate from law school meet some arbitrary level of "success", which renders their LSAT scores meaningless?
      Every single top law school that accepts transfer students based on their 1L success and disregards their LSAT would agree with this very statement.

      The LSAT is only valuable insofar as it can predict Law School Aptitude. The second an individual proves to have higher law school aptitude than the LSAT predicted, it's validity is negated.

      WannaBeMyLover

      • Full Member
      • ***
      • Posts: 46
        • View Profile
      Re: How Ruskie got into Boalt with a sub-160 and what she's learned from it
      « Reply #76 on: October 24, 2007, 03:04:45 PM »
      You clearly can't be reasoned with.  If it makes you feel better to insist that everyone who attacks ruskie didn't get into Boalt (having no knowledge of their GPA, LSAT or other circumstances) and is jealous, so be it.  How could I expect more from a ruskie defender?

      BTW, for someone who's against personal attacks, you sure use them a lot.  Why is it ok for you to use homophobic slurs and insist that everyone else is jealous and didn't get into Boalt, but it's not ok for us to legitimately criticize ruskie (and your arguments)?

      Re:  your edit:

      Law schools are impressed by students with good grades.  Ruskie managed not to fail out of a school that lacks traditional letter grades.  This is not the same as receiving a 4.0 1L year at Harvard.  For all you know, she received passes in all her classes.  How can you comment on her success?  You know nothing about how she performed relative to her classmates at Boalt. 

      BearlyLegal

      • LSD Obsessed
      • *****
      • Posts: 6273
      • And the greatest threat to America is... Bears!!!
        • AOL Instant Messenger - Newjoetm
        • View Profile
        • Email
      Re: How Ruskie got into Boalt with a sub-160 and what she's learned from it
      « Reply #77 on: October 24, 2007, 03:16:57 PM »
      BTW, for someone who's against personal attacks, you sure use them a lot.  Why is it ok for you to use homophobic slurs
      My "homophobic" slur was clearly not meant as a personal attack against any individual. Further, it was not meant to denigrate the homosexual community. It was an off-the-cuff remark made when I was exceptionally tired, and I have apologized for it profusely, and do so once again: I apologize for using the word "queer" in a negative context.

      That being said, you DO have a legitimate right to attack me for saying this. I am equally hard on myself for saying such an awful and inappropriate thing.

      Quote
      and insist that everyone else is jealous and didn't get into Boalt, but it's not ok for us to legitimately criticize ruskie (and your arguments)?
      It's perfectly ok for you, and everyone to engage in this discussion; but it's equally ok for me to defend myself and a poster who has helped me. Wouldn't you say?

      Re Your Edit: Admittedly, I have no evidence of precisely how successful she was. All I know is that she has a great job post-graduation, and that the worst students at Boalt often find it hard to score biglaw gigs. Based on that, I make the assumption that at the very least, she had mediocre grades, but still outranked at least *some* of her peers.

      Still, if we used the LSAT as the predictor of her law school performance, she should be something like 3-4 standard deviations less qualified for Boalt than it's median students (I did quick math here, please don't hold it against me). Surely, such a huge discrepancy would have put her at an insurmountable competitive disadvantage against her peers if her LSAT score was truly indicative of her aptitude.

      Re Your Edit (Continued): ...OR the LSAT truly is not an accurate objective predictor of law school aptitude, and Boalt's adcomms are right when they choose to be more lenient with LSAT grades than many of their peer schools.

      There are many ways to look at the LSAT's legitimacy, and you and I are not the first, most qualified, or most intelligent people to disagree on this contentious subject.

      Scribner

      • Full Member
      • ***
      • Posts: 24
        • View Profile
        • Email
      Re: How Ruskie got into Boalt with a sub-160 and what she's learned from it
      « Reply #78 on: October 24, 2007, 03:30:22 PM »
      Still, if we used the LSAT as the predictor of her law school performance, she should be something like 3-4 standard deviations less qualified for Boalt than it's median students (I did quick math here, please don't hold it against me). Surely, such a huge discrepancy would have put her at an insurmountable competitive disadvantage against her peers if her LSAT score was truly indicative of her aptitude.

      Um, no. Boalt students are not smart. The LSAT is a good indicator of verbal intelligence. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. Sub 160 is atrocious.


      LittleRussianPrincess, Esq.

      • Sr. Citizen
      • ****
      • Posts: 2355
      • Hopelessly devoted...to the Tennessee Vols!
        • View Profile
      Re: How Ruskie got into Boalt with a sub-160 and what she's learned from it
      « Reply #79 on: October 24, 2007, 05:18:05 PM »
      In an effort to get back on topic...

      I think that I got special consideration because I am an immigrant, but I also feel that what set me apart is that I didn't turn my personal statement into a sob story about how awful life was in Russia. There are so many immigrants applying to law school these days and ad coms are probably tired of hearing  the same old story from thousands of different people. Living in a developing country is hard, but it's not novel, so I think that those of you who are immigrants should try to tease out some aspect of your immigrant experience that is unique to you and focus on that rather than on the differences of life in the US vs your homeland.

      I think that sob stories in general a bad idea, whether they relate to an immigrant experience or not. For what it's worth, the non-immigrants I know who got into Boalt with sub 160's didn't write sob story PS's.

      Russian by birth, Southern by the grace of God.