Stringer Bell wrote:gregthomas77 wrote:So then, with this analogy, if you go with the worst hole cards possible (say Cooley or Ave Marie or whatever), and you get a great flop (great grades) and good turn and river cards (good interviewing skills and a job offer), you beat someone who had better hole cards? Sorry, this proves that this analogy fails. Because there is no "matching" involved in this analogy as there is in poker, the shared cards (everyone gets good grades, everyone has good interviewing skills, everyone gets offered a job) means that the person with the best hole cards (law school attended) would be the winner.
However, the falseness of the analogy does serve to build the argument of all of the elitists at TLS. If you are a hard worker, a good interviewer, etc. and you believe that that is enough to get you a good job in spite of which law school you went to, you have to factor in the fact that there will be someone else who is just as good as you in every way, and the tie breaker will be the name on your diploma.
That argument felt dirty
The analogy isn't perfect, but it makes some sense and I don't think your counter exposes any flaw with it. There will be a few folks at really crappy schools that get better jobs than MVP folks. The top 1% at Cooley (or maybe not Cooley, but another 4th tier school) is holding a 7-2 off suit and flops a 7-5-2 while their opponent is the MVP student with pocket Q's that finished in the bottom 10%.
It is not a valid analogy. In poker, the flop, turn and river are shared cards. If the flop, turn and river represent good grades, good interviewing skills, and a job offer respectively, then the winner in the game would be the person who has the best hole cards to "match" with the flop, turn and river. So everyone has the flop, turn and river and the hole cards decide who wins.
Furthermore, the argument is further weakened by the fact that in texas hold em, you only get to play 5 of the cards, and two have to be the one in your hand. So, you would get:
Hand A: Good school + some good grades and/or good interviewing skills and/or a job offer
Hand B: Bad school + some good grades and/or good interviewing skills and/or a job offer
Poker is dependant on making pairs/runs/etc. You can not argue that you might be ok with a bad school because you could "match" it with bad grades or poor interview skills. In other words, "good" interview skills, "good grades" and "good job offer" are great for everyone regardless of what school they went to, but they will "match" better with a good school than a bad one.
THink about it this way: If I have a 7/2 - I am hoping to get other low cards because in poker a collection of low cards can win. But if Cooley (a negative) is equated with a negative (7/2), then 7/2 in the flop/turn/river, would also have to be associated with bad things. So, while in poker A, A, 2, 2, 7 loses to 2,7,2,2,7, when you change the meaning of those, a good law school with poor grades, poor interview skills, and no job offer would not beat a good law school with poor grades, poor interview skills, and no job offer. On the other hand, A,A,A,A,K does beat a 2,7,A, A, K, because the good school would be the tie breaker among the two people with good grades, good interviewing skills, and a job offer.