spondee wrote:Anonymous Loser wrote:spondee wrote:No, this is not true . . . There are people in every law school that have the right combination of the right skills to almost effortlessly get good grades; these people, for example, had a much better than 10% chance of making the top 10%. OP's fear is that a smaller class size is more prone to sample distortion and runs a risk of containing too many of these people.
This is ridiculous. There are also people in every law school who lack this combination of skills: doesn't this same probability of "sample distortion" apply to those students as well? You suggest that a small sample size might hurt the OP if a disproportionate number of talented students are in the class, but fail to account for the possibility that the OP might just as easily end up in a section with an unusual number of lazy idiots.
I have no idea what point you're making. I completely agree that the class could be disproportionately filled with students that are bad at law school. But so what?
OP expressed fear that a smaller class could be tougher. Posters made fun of OP. I think their reason for doing so was wrong, so I explained why. Your answer now seems to agree with my argument: law students have different capabilities, some better suited for law school than others. This means that any given law student's chance of landing in the top 10% is affected by his/her abilities relative to the class and is very likely not 10%. It also means that some classes may be unusually difficult if there is an unusually high number of students well-suited for law school. And, yes, some classes could be unusually easy. This sort of thing is more likely to happen the smaller the class (or section) is.
This is ridiculous. Stop over-thinking this. End thread.