Bronte wrote: bighead715 wrote: Bronte wrote:
swc65 wrote:Well, that's not exactly what he said. I asked about the report that showed Cornell students studied way more than their peers. He responded by saying something along the lines of Cornell has trouble attracting higher quality applicants but the school does not want to adjust its teaching to its applicant/class pool.
Besides it completely makes sense that if school A and school B teach the same things but school B's class is below the 25%tile of school A's, then school B students would have to study more to get the material. That might, in part, explain the difference between the number of hours the students at each school spend studying.
Just know that this argument is patently false. Here's the killer: all law schools teach largely the same curriculum.
Class content is not more difficult at Harvard than it is at UVA. This is well-known and widely accepted and completely falsifies your argument.
it is 4 am and i could be retarded, but i thought scw acknowledged your point about law schools having the same curriculum. his possible explanation to that survey's results, as i understand it, is that the supposed lower caliber students at cornell need more time to study than their peers at harvard who understand and retain the same information quicker.
someone mentioned texas students studying significantly less than cornell, as indicated in that same survey. if texas' medians are below cornells, then scw's theory is dashed. although i dont think we need evidence to believe that his proposed explanation is wrong.
The section you bolded in his quote is not the same as the section you bolded in my quote. His argument is that Cornell is unique in "choosing to teach at Harvard level." This is bull. All schools teach a very similar, very traditional curriculum. Thus, this would be equally true of all schools, not just Cornell. This falsifies the argument that Cornell's higher average study time, as indicated by the survey, is the result of "teaching to a higher level."
RC fail. First I am talking about a possible PARTIAL explanation. The other two thirds were that it was Ithaca and there's nothing else to do. Second, I wrote THAT THEY TEACH THE SAME THINGS, not that Cornell is teaching to a "higher level." Third, I really don't give a shit how much Cornell law students study.
The fact that the schools teach the same things actually bolsters an argument that people with lower measured ability would take longer to learn it.
All I am saying is that with two groups of people being given the same amount of material of the same difficulty, the group that has displayed (i.e. test scores) that they are not as adept at the material may take longer to learn it. That's it. I am not saying that this explains every difference in the number of hours spent studying.
and no just because another school with similar or even lower numbers averages fewer hours of study does not invalidate an argument that is meant to explain a PORTION of the averages. There are obviously a billion other factors that influence study hours i.e. location, competitiveness, etc.
This is probably the most annoying thing about TLS. A bunch of 0Ls and law students who mischaracterize arguments and then try to invalidate those arguments based on mischaracterizations. Well that, and the eternal pessimism. Edit: and people hijacking threads with useless arguments.