The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
Pulsar
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby Pulsar » Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:24 am

It's ridiculous to assume some sort of knowledge/superiority on the basis of having taken time off between college and law school. There will be K-JDs who will school all of you, who will get better jobs than you, and who will enjoy legal work as much or more than you will. Attempting to deter these good K-JDs from going to law school when they want to go would be patronizing and paternalistic. We're all adults by now; some people don't need 27 years to find themselves.

Requiring undergraduate prerequisites is just dumb; nothing much needs to be said there.
Last edited by Pulsar on Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Kimikho
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby Kimikho » Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:26 am

Pulsar wrote:Most of the people in this thread appear to be idiots and/or extremely arrogant. There will be K-JDs who will school all of you, who will get better jobs than you, and who will enjoy legal work as much or more than you will. Attempting to deter these good K-JDs from going to law school when they want to go would be patronizing and paternalistic. We're all adults by now; some people don't need 27 years to find themselves.

Requiring undergraduate prerequisites is just dumb; nothing much needs to be said there.


Wow that's a very well-reasoned, adult argument.

User avatar
nothingtosee
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 12:08 am

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby nothingtosee » Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:30 am

Kimikho wrote:
Pulsar wrote:Most of the people in this thread appear to be idiots and/or extremely arrogant. There will be K-JDs who will school all of you, who will get better jobs than you, and who will enjoy legal work as much or more than you will. Attempting to deter these good K-JDs from going to law school when they want to go would be patronizing and paternalistic. We're all adults by now; some people don't need 27 years to find themselves.

Requiring undergraduate prerequisites is just dumb; nothing much needs to be said there.


Wow that's a very well-reasoned, adult argument.


The point is that K-JDs aren't functionally adults.
Because they've never been responsible for supporting themselves. (or doing their own taxes, figuring out their student loans, making sure their certification paperwork is in on-time, auto insurance, etc etc etc)

Pulsar
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby Pulsar » Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:34 am

That's incredibly patronizing (and factually wrong, in many cases).

Pulsar
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby Pulsar » Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:37 am

If people who actually knew anything about the law thought these dumb stereotypes of K-JDs were at all relevant, then they wouldn't keep hiring K-JDs and paying them $160,000/year.

Sure WE helps some people but assertions that K-JDs aren't "real adults"=asinine, not to mention reflective of poor reasoning skills. Good luck on your exams; it appears you will need it.

Kimikho
Posts: 3971
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby Kimikho » Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:38 am

Pulsar wrote:If people who actually knew anything about the law thought these dumb stereotypes of K-JDs were at all relevant, then they wouldn't keep hiring K-JDs and paying them $160,000/year.

Sure WE helps some people but assertions that K-JDs aren't "real adults"=asinine, not to mention reflective of poor reasoning skills. Good luck on your exams; it appears you will need it.


Wow someone struck a nerve.

I'm KJD and agree with most everything here, except the idea that if I'd taken a gap year or two I would somehow be an adult.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9651
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby jbagelboy » Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:40 am

Pulsar wrote:It's ridiculous to assume some sort of knowledge/superiority on the basis of having taken time off between college and law school. There will be K-JDs who will school all of you, who will get better jobs than you, and who will enjoy legal work as much or more than you will. Attempting to deter these good K-JDs from going to law school when they want to go would be patronizing and paternalistic. We're all adults by now; some people don't need 27 years to find themselves.


seriously?

First I'll say that I don't think anyone here "assumes" that one who "takes time off" gains something substantial that a k-jd wouldn't have. It depends on what you did during that time and the maturity of the individuals. Also, no one is claiming k-jd's are "inferior" or talking about "superiority," that's a total straw man.

Nonetheless, you may believe the advantages of post-grad work are "ridiculous" and that these experiences lack value, and that's your prerogative, but you should wake up and realize that just about everyone else, including professors, employers, and peers, will ascribe added knowledge and value to those who have worked, pursued additional degrees or grants, or who have spent time with tangible and meaningful activities outside of a collegiate educational setting. You may choose/have chosen to remain in school without interruption, but it's probably best to get over what appears to be a deeply set inferiority complex about that decision.

There certainly will be k-jd's who will outperform older students in law school, but you have some major logical fallacy issues here. That reality in no way contradicts the complementary and demonstrable truth that ceteris paribus, students with added life/work experience will outperform k-jd's at OCI and in applying to chambers, will have an easier time making connections with faculty, and will most likely at first provide more added value to their employers. If you told me that there are some cats larger than dogs, that wouldn't disprove that dogs are generally larger than cats. Anecdotally, while both my straight through and older friends have done well, its been easier for those out of school longer. The k-jd's who have done very well tend to be exceptionally bright and mature individuals.

"Attempting to deter" k-jd's in many contexts means providing constructive advise. A strong candidate as a senior in college will usually become a stronger one a year or two later, especially if their LSAT has room to grow. Until at least this cycle, waiting has produced gains in competitiveness relative to the applicant pool as well as standards for admission continue to plummet. Generally on TLS when we advise a college senior to wait to apply, there are tangible admissions, opportunity cost or goal-related reasons for that counsel; it's not just a default rule, "you're immature, get more life experience." There are situations where I think it's perfectly legitimate to apply k-jd and attend straight through (particularly where they are strong enough candidates to net a very strong scholarship or lots of aid at a top program and they have substantive reasons for wanting to enter the practice of law besides the usual drivel). But what we see often is some degree of immaturity or lack of reflection about lifestyle preference, compatibility, and other opportunities expressed by k-jds in certain ways that give pause.

"Paternalistic"? diction please. You aren't some colonial subject or group of indigenous persons whose property rights we're constricting.

"Adults"? I mean, I think I hardly qualify as an adult now. I certainly don't think most college seniors truly merit the distinction. And "27 years to find yourself"? Who is patronizing now? Don't over-stylize people's experiences just because you apparently didn't have the balls to get a job or take a chance.

User avatar
alexrodriguez
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed May 01, 2013 4:59 am

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby alexrodriguez » Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:11 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
Pulsar wrote:It's ridiculous to assume some sort of knowledge/superiority on the basis of having taken time off between college and law school. There will be K-JDs who will school all of you, who will get better jobs than you, and who will enjoy legal work as much or more than you will. Attempting to deter these good K-JDs from going to law school when they want to go would be patronizing and paternalistic. We're all adults by now; some people don't need 27 years to find themselves.


seriously?

First I'll say that I don't think anyone here "assumes" that one who "takes time off" gains something substantial that a k-jd wouldn't have. It depends on what you did during that time and the maturity of the individuals. Also, no one is claiming k-jd's are "inferior" or talking about "superiority," that's a total straw man.

Nonetheless, you may believe the advantages of post-grad work are "ridiculous" and that these experiences lack value, and that's your prerogative, but you should wake up and realize that just about everyone else, including professors, employers, and peers, will ascribe added knowledge and value to those who have worked, pursued additional degrees or grants, or who have spent time with tangible and meaningful activities outside of a collegiate educational setting. You may choose/have chosen to remain in school without interruption, but it's probably best to get over what appears to be a deeply set inferiority complex about that decision.

There certainly will be k-jd's who will outperform older students in law school, but you have some major logical fallacy issues here. That reality in no way contradicts the complementary and demonstrable truth that ceteris paribus, students with added life/work experience will outperform k-jd's at OCI and in applying to chambers, will have an easier time making connections with faculty, and will most likely at first provide more added value to their employers. If you told me that there are some cats larger than dogs, that wouldn't disprove that dogs are generally larger than cats. Anecdotally, while both my straight through and older friends have done well, its been easier for those out of school longer. The k-jd's who have done very well tend to be exceptionally bright and mature individuals.

"Attempting to deter" k-jd's in many contexts means providing constructive advise. A strong candidate as a senior in college will usually become a stronger one a year or two later, especially if their LSAT has room to grow. Until at least this cycle, waiting has produced gains in competitiveness relative to the applicant pool as well as standards for admission continue to plummet. Generally on TLS when we advise a college senior to wait to apply, there are tangible admissions, opportunity cost or goal-related reasons for that counsel; it's not just a default rule, "you're immature, get more life experience." There are situations where I think it's perfectly legitimate to apply k-jd and attend straight through (particularly where they are strong enough candidates to net a very strong scholarship or lots of aid at a top program and they have substantive reasons for wanting to enter the practice of law besides the usual drivel). But what we see often is some degree of immaturity or lack of reflection about lifestyle preference, compatibility, and other opportunities expressed by k-jds in certain ways that give pause.

"Paternalistic"? diction please. You aren't some colonial subject or group of indigenous persons whose property rights we're constricting.

"Adults"? I mean, I think I hardly qualify as an adult now. I certainly don't think most college seniors truly merit the distinction. And "27 years to find yourself"? Who is patronizing now? Don't over-stylize people's experiences just because you apparently didn't have the balls to get a job or take a chance.


JBagelBoy's responses never fail to entertain.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby timbs4339 » Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:38 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
Pulsar wrote:It's ridiculous to assume some sort of knowledge/superiority on the basis of having taken time off between college and law school. There will be K-JDs who will school all of you, who will get better jobs than you, and who will enjoy legal work as much or more than you will. Attempting to deter these good K-JDs from going to law school when they want to go would be patronizing and paternalistic. We're all adults by now; some people don't need 27 years to find themselves.


seriously?

First I'll say that I don't think anyone here "assumes" that one who "takes time off" gains something substantial that a k-jd wouldn't have. It depends on what you did during that time and the maturity of the individuals. Also, no one is claiming k-jd's are "inferior" or talking about "superiority," that's a total straw man.

Nonetheless, you may believe the advantages of post-grad work are "ridiculous" and that these experiences lack value, and that's your prerogative, but you should wake up and realize that just about everyone else, including professors, employers, and peers, will ascribe added knowledge and value to those who have worked, pursued additional degrees or grants, or who have spent time with tangible and meaningful activities outside of a collegiate educational setting. You may choose/have chosen to remain in school without interruption, but it's probably best to get over what appears to be a deeply set inferiority complex about that decision.

There certainly will be k-jd's who will outperform older students in law school, but you have some major logical fallacy issues here. That reality in no way contradicts the complementary and demonstrable truth that ceteris paribus, students with added life/work experience will outperform k-jd's at OCI and in applying to chambers, will have an easier time making connections with faculty, and will most likely at first provide more added value to their employers. If you told me that there are some cats larger than dogs, that wouldn't disprove that dogs are generally larger than cats. Anecdotally, while both my straight through and older friends have done well, its been easier for those out of school longer. The k-jd's who have done very well tend to be exceptionally bright and mature individuals.

"Attempting to deter" k-jd's in many contexts means providing constructive advise. A strong candidate as a senior in college will usually become a stronger one a year or two later, especially if their LSAT has room to grow. Until at least this cycle, waiting has produced gains in competitiveness relative to the applicant pool as well as standards for admission continue to plummet. Generally on TLS when we advise a college senior to wait to apply, there are tangible admissions, opportunity cost or goal-related reasons for that counsel; it's not just a default rule, "you're immature, get more life experience." There are situations where I think it's perfectly legitimate to apply k-jd and attend straight through (particularly where they are strong enough candidates to net a very strong scholarship or lots of aid at a top program and they have substantive reasons for wanting to enter the practice of law besides the usual drivel). But what we see often is some degree of immaturity or lack of reflection about lifestyle preference, compatibility, and other opportunities expressed by k-jds in certain ways that give pause.

"Paternalistic"? diction please. You aren't some colonial subject or group of indigenous persons whose property rights we're constricting.

"Adults"? I mean, I think I hardly qualify as an adult now. I certainly don't think most college seniors truly merit the distinction. And "27 years to find yourself"? Who is patronizing now? Don't over-stylize people's experiences just because you apparently didn't have the balls to get a job or take a chance.


I was a K-JD and I cosign this. At 21/22 years old waiting one year looks like a decade. It's really not. There's almost no downside to waiting and potentially huge upside-a no-brainer unless you're letting emotion or social pressure drive your decisions.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby 03152016 » Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:43 pm

@mt
1) i don't see how you can make an autonomy argument re: cut-offs but not ug course requirements
2) what if one decides on law after they graduate?
2.1) related: med school comparison isn't persuasive, there's a more cultural divide there. at least from the outside, it seems like you get on the med track early, and the nature of med school/residency reinforces that; law is much more diverse, people parachute in from a range of disciplines and work experience, i don't know many people who were "ls track" from day 1 of ug
3) perverse effects – under your model, those ls track students will probably stay the course because they prioritized courses they "needed" for ls, sunk costs; those who become ls track may need to remain in ug longer (increased debt load), and again, sunk costs fortify their resolve to attend
4) reading and writing is already built into the curriculum of almost every ug program. if the point is to make it more rigorous, how is this enforceable, given the wide variation in coursework across schools

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby 03152016 » Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:50 pm

fwiw, i'm in team cut-off
seems like a better indication of your present ability (and maaaaybe a rough proxy for dedication, which was your concern? idk)

in my lsat tutoring days, i had students who had pretty obvious learning disabilities but could write high 140s
there are at least 2 or 3 dozen aba accredited law schools they could get into
like, that's a problem

User avatar
banjo
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:00 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby banjo » Fri Dec 05, 2014 2:17 pm

Excellent post by jbagelboy.

I'm in favor of a 160 LSAT cutoff with 10% of each entering class reserved for "discretionary" admissions (i.e. can take students below the cutoff). Any supply shortage could be filled by foreign-trained lawyers (LLM students etc.).

I would also be fine with making law an undergraduate degree, as they still do in the UK.

User avatar
Elston Gunn
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby Elston Gunn » Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:02 pm

mt2165 wrote:
Well I'm not saying you're general literature class adequately prepared you or anything, if anything that's not the case. What I'm really getting at is using prereqs as a impediment to people just haphazardedly applying to law school, with the marginal added benefit of better preparing people for LS. But you may be right, it might be a silly argument (since it seems like no classes can really prepare you for LS). But I think just witnessing the legal practice first hand is important. Even if only for some insight into what lawyers do; it seems like most people including myself, have little idea.

The people who are going to be "pre-law" (in the sense of pre-med now) because they're already planning to go to law school at 18 are more often than not exactly the people who shouldn't go to law school.

User avatar
fats provolone
Posts: 7125
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:44 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby fats provolone » Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:03 pm

the whole point of taking time off before law school is that you might change your mind about law school

User avatar
KMart
Posts: 3628
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 1:25 am

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby KMart » Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:34 pm

banjo wrote:Excellent post by jbagelboy.

I'm in favor of a 160 LSAT cutoff with 10% of each entering class reserved for "discretionary" admissions (i.e. can take students below the cutoff). Any supply shortage could be filled by foreign-trained lawyers (LLM students etc.).

I would also be fine with making law an undergraduate degree, as they still do in the UK.


I like the idea of an allowance for discretionary admission. I always feel for the people who are just pitiful test takers but are otherwise brilliant. Obviously this becomes more of a concern at 160 than around 145. I'd put the cut off right at the median: 150/151. It was said before, but it's a major problem that someone who writes a 140-145 has multiple law schools they can get into. At that level it's more the law school stealing money than the prospective student gaining something valuable in return.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby 03152016 » Fri Dec 05, 2014 4:44 pm

banjo wrote:Excellent post by jbagelboy.

I'm in favor of a 160 LSAT cutoff with 10% of each entering class reserved for "discretionary" admissions (i.e. can take students below the cutoff). Any supply shortage could be filled by foreign-trained lawyers (LLM students etc.).

I would also be fine with making law an undergraduate degree, as they still do in the UK.

they kinda do something like this already

503-3
(a) It is not a violation of this Standard for a law school to admit no more than 10% of an entering class without requiring the LSAT from:
(1) Students in an undergraduate program of the same institution as the J.D. program; and/or
(2) Students seeking the J.D. degree in combination with a degree in a different discipline.
(b) Applicants admitted under subsection (a) must meet the following conditions:
(1) Scored at or above the 85th percentile on the ACT or SAT for purposes of subsection (a)(1), or for purposes of subsection (a)(2), scored at or above the 85th percentile on the GRE or GMAT; and
(2) Ranked in the top 10% of their undergraduate class through six semesters of academic work, or achieved a cumulative GPA of 3.5 or above through six semesters of academic work.

it's funny b/c i think dean pless did this
and referred to it as "trapping the little bastards"

User avatar
banjo
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:00 pm

Re: The New York Times Thinks You Should Retake

Postby banjo » Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:10 pm

Brut wrote:
banjo wrote:Excellent post by jbagelboy.

I'm in favor of a 160 LSAT cutoff with 10% of each entering class reserved for "discretionary" admissions (i.e. can take students below the cutoff). Any supply shortage could be filled by foreign-trained lawyers (LLM students etc.).

I would also be fine with making law an undergraduate degree, as they still do in the UK.

they kinda do something like this already

503-3
(a) It is not a violation of this Standard for a law school to admit no more than 10% of an entering class without requiring the LSAT from:
(1) Students in an undergraduate program of the same institution as the J.D. program; and/or
(2) Students seeking the J.D. degree in combination with a degree in a different discipline.
(b) Applicants admitted under subsection (a) must meet the following conditions:
(1) Scored at or above the 85th percentile on the ACT or SAT for purposes of subsection (a)(1), or for purposes of subsection (a)(2), scored at or above the 85th percentile on the GRE or GMAT; and
(2) Ranked in the top 10% of their undergraduate class through six semesters of academic work, or achieved a cumulative GPA of 3.5 or above through six semesters of academic work.

it's funny b/c i think dean pless did this
and referred to it as "trapping the little bastards"


Very interesting. Vaguely remember this rule but it's my first time seeing the actual language.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: laowhynot109 and 3 guests