% of prestigious undergrads in LS

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
KibblesAndVick
Posts: 541
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:29 am

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby KibblesAndVick » Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:44 pm

MrKappus wrote:This thread is retarded. You had a crappy SAT and fucked off in high school. Deal w/ it.


Your high school accolades don't mean much 4+ years after the fact. Deal w/ it.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby 09042014 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:53 pm

MrKappus wrote:This thread is retarded. You had a crappy SAT and fucked off in high school. Deal w/ it.


Aren't you a UW student?

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby rayiner » Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:55 pm

somewhatwayward wrote:what do you mean?


In law school, the guy who slacked off at a state UG then destroyed the LSAT and the guy who has been busting his ass since 9th grade to go to a top UG then a top LS are completely on the same playing field.

Pretty much nothing you learned in college is useful in law school. Outside knowledge won't get you points on the exam, and you'll have to throw away whatever academic writing skills you developed in your liberal arts major in order to learn how to write like a lawyer.

Everyone will have to learn a new set of study habits - the slacker needs to learn how to keep up with the material because there is too much of it to learn all at once; the steady worker needs to learn how to cram because all the carefully detailed briefs he prepared over the semester won't help him unless they're all in his head at exam time.

User avatar
dutchstriker
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby dutchstriker » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:05 pm

rayiner wrote:
nuss3 wrote:
$1.99 wrote:because all you guys do is read the same books and think you are smart because you found the "hidden meaning" behind them when all you did was go to sparknotes.com and look at the close reading sections. then, you get A's for writing subjective essays that you can't really back up. lastly, all you dopes think you are major philosophers just because you heard the name aristotle in one of your classics courses. on top of that, a liberal arts degree is more useless than sarah palin. you are an embarrassment to yourself, your family, and humanity in general. may god have mercy on your souls.


http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1430654

i'm sorry, i think something is wrong with my computer: a liberal arts field seems to be tied for #1 among major fields of study. surely those dopes couldn't have scored so highly.

anyhow, about those unsubstantiated claims in subjective essays...


I mean technically math is a liberal arts field too, but social scientists shouldn't get credit for how hard a math major is. And economics is applied math and can involve some pretty tricky math at that.

I think he/she was referring to how philosophy (liberal arts field) is tied with economics. Not that I'm defending the argument, just clarifying.

User avatar
dutchstriker
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby dutchstriker » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:07 pm

I don't think liberal arts students are more or less intelligent than science/math majors (less employable, sure). I think the people who are truly intelligent can succeed in both. Leibniz, for example, made significant contributions to philosophy and mathematics.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby 09042014 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:12 pm

dutchstriker wrote:I don't think liberal arts students are more or less intelligent than science/math majors (less employable, sure). I think the people who are truly intelligent can succeed in both. Leibniz, for example, made significant contributions to philosophy and mathematics.


While there may be some self selection differences, this is mostly true. Plenty of people who could do very well in engineering/science do philosophy.

But I think liberal arts require less intelligence to master. But plenty of people have more than enough intelligence to master both.

User avatar
KibblesAndVick
Posts: 541
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 5:29 am

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby KibblesAndVick » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:16 pm

This thread needs more operant definitions of intelligence.

nuss3
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby nuss3 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:27 pm

dutchstriker wrote:I don't think liberal arts students are more or less intelligent than science/math majors (less employable, sure). I think the people who are truly intelligent can succeed in both. Leibniz, for example, made significant contributions to philosophy and mathematics.


TITCR

my only point was that calling liberal arts majors 'dopes' is obviously absurd. (although i'd argue that there's certainly a degree of self-selection bias among the more difficult majors--math, physics, engineering, etc.). nice touch with leibniz.

User avatar
somewhatwayward
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby somewhatwayward » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:30 pm

rayiner wrote:In law school, the guy who slacked off at a state UG then destroyed the LSAT and the guy who has been busting his ass since 9th grade to go to a top UG then a top LS are completely on the same playing field.

Pretty much nothing you learned in college is useful in law school. Outside knowledge won't get you points on the exam, and you'll have to throw away whatever academic writing skills you developed in your liberal arts major in order to learn how to write like a lawyer.

Everyone will have to learn a new set of study habits - the slacker needs to learn how to keep up with the material because there is too much of it to learn all at once; the steady worker needs to learn how to cram because all the carefully detailed briefs he prepared over the semester won't help him unless they're all in his head at exam time.


that's a false dichotomy....not all people who take school seriously are grinds who don't have natural intelligence. many people who got great grades in college are just as smart, if not smarter, than someone who slacked off and aced the LSAT, and they also have the dedication and consistency necessary to perform well in school over the course of time, which is a skill that a slacker can acquire through maturity....but it's not a given that s/he will.

also, in most cases, getting straight As through college demands the mental flexibility to adapt to several different epistomologies, which increases the chances that they can adapt to the epistomology of law.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby prezidentv8 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:36 pm

somewhatwayward wrote:also, in most cases, getting straight As through college demands [strike]the mental flexibility to adapt to several different epistomologies, which increases the chances that they can adapt to the epistomology of law[/strike] goofy pants and a fat ass.


FTFY


But seriously, getting straight A's in college is not that big of a deal and is completely meaningless the moment you step into a law school.

Tofu
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby Tofu » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:38 pm

GeePee wrote:
MrKappus wrote:This thread is retarded. You had a crappy SAT and fucked off in high school. Deal w/ it.

Your SAT scores and high school grades have very little impact on where you go to college. I'm speaking from personal experience.


i don't think that applies to like 70-80% of asians hahaha

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby crackberry » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:42 pm

The notion that, generally speaking, some random engineer who couldn't write for shit in college is going to be a better legal writer than a kid who majored in a discipline that requires a substantial amount of writing just because they both have to start from square one is patently absurd.

Is the engineer suddenly going to figure out how to put together a sentence even though he couldn't do that in college? Is the liberal arts major suddenly going to forget how the English language works? Listen, I realize legal writing is completely different than writing a fucking English paper, but good writers are good writers, and someone who doesn't understand writing is not suddenly going to become some wordsmith genius.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby rayiner » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:44 pm

somewhatwayward wrote:that's a false dichotomy....not all people who take school seriously are grinds who don't have natural intelligence. many people who got great grades in college are just as smart, if not smarter, than someone who slacked off and aced the LSAT, and they also have the dedication and consistency necessary to perform well in school over the course of time, which is a skill that a slacker can acquire through maturity....but it's not a given that s/he will.


I'm not setting up a dichotomy, I'm saying that the distinctions you're trying to make don't matter. Your claim was "wait till you get into a law school class with people who took undergrad seriously." As if he's supposed to be intimidated by such people. As an actual law student, I can say that there is no basis for you to make a claim like that.

somewhatwayward wrote:also, in most cases, getting straight As through college demands the mental flexibility to adapt to several different epistomologies, which increases the chances that they can adapt to the epistomology of law.


I don't know what an epistemology is, but whatever it is you don't need it to do well in law school.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby prezidentv8 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:48 pm

crackberry wrote:The notion that, generally speaking, some random engineer who couldn't write for shit in college is going to be a better legal writer than a kid who majored in a discipline that requires a substantial amount of writing just because they both have to start from square one is patently absurd.

Is the engineer suddenly going to figure out how to put together a sentence even though he couldn't do that in college? Is the liberal arts major suddenly going to forget how the English language works? Listen, I realize legal writing is completely different than writing a fucking English paper, but good writers are good writers, and someone who doesn't understand writing is not suddenly going to become some wordsmith genius.



I think you're right but consider:
-Legal writing is ungraded at many schools, and is but one class in the bunch.
-Most of my tests have had an incentive to screw up your grammar/style to pack in more info.
-Most of your grade is based on issue spotting/analysis, not writing quality


So yeah, being a good writer is an advantage, sure...but probably more in getting a job than in terms of getting good grades. Maybe upper-deivision classes it takes on more importance too.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby rayiner » Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:59 pm

crackberry wrote:The notion that, generally speaking, some random engineer who couldn't write for shit in college is going to be a better legal writer than a kid who majored in a discipline that requires a substantial amount of writing just because they both have to start from square one is patently absurd.

Is the engineer suddenly going to figure out how to put together a sentence even though he couldn't do that in college? Is the liberal arts major suddenly going to forget how the English language works? Listen, I realize legal writing is completely different than writing a fucking English paper, but good writers are good writers, and someone who doesn't understand writing is not suddenly going to become some wordsmith genius.


To do well on a law school exam you need to be able to put together a comprehensible sentence, structure an essay sanely, and analyze a problem rigorously. Any engineer that does well enough on the LSAT to get into a top law school can meet the first requirement. The second requirement is easy to master: break down the scenario in a logical order, then just write about it in that order. The first part is something engineers are trained to do, and the second part is trivial. The third requirement is similarly something engineers are trained to do.

As for good writers being good writers, not really. Legal writing isn't just different, it's completely different. No word-smitthing or strong knowledge of the English language is really necessary. The ideal LRW assignment is written at about a 9th grade level of sentence complexity. The trick is all in the selection of material and organization and that's something completely specific to legal writing.

I'm not trying to say that engineers have a leg up. I'm saying that it really doesn't matter. On the whole the major advantage for liberal arts majors is probably that they read fast (of course, again, any engineer who did well on the LSAT probably reads fast too), while the major advantage for engineers is that they're more analytical (though any liberal arts major who did well on the LSAT is probably pretty analytical too), and really it's all a wash in comparison to the myriad of other things that affect your 1L performance.

User avatar
BriaTharen
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:17 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby BriaTharen » Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:11 pm

rayiner wrote:
somewhatwayward wrote:also, in most cases, getting straight As through college demands the mental flexibility to adapt to several different epistomologies, which increases the chances that they can adapt to the epistomology of law.


I don't know what an epistemology is, but whatever it is you don't need it to do well in law school.


Epistemology refers to the study of how we know what we know... so I'm not really sure that it is being used correctly in that sentence.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby crackberry » Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:15 pm

I will basically agree that it doesn't really matter, but strong, succinct writing is a core tenet of being a lawyer (not necessarily succeeding in law school), and I think you can make the argument that kids with a liberal arts background have a leg up there.

What I don't understand is why you engineers who are going to law school feel the need to flex your muscles and pound your chests and say that you don't respect liberal arts majors. Why are you going to law school if that's the case? You knew exactly what you were getting into. As a liberal arts major myself, I have much more respect for engineers than I do for history and English majors and I definitely agree that it is much harder to get As in engineering and science than it is in philosophy and Spanish. And while I'm not questioning your decisions for going to law school as I don't pretend to know you, I will say that you are now on equal footing as a liberal arts major, despite your harder, more technical training as an engineer — something that would not have been true had you decided to go a more traditional route for someone with an engineering degree.

User avatar
kdw94780
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 10:07 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby kdw94780 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:16 pm

MrKappus wrote:This thread is retarded. You had a crappy SAT and fucked off in high school. Deal w/ it.


LoL, actually there are a lot of smart ppl who go to lesser known undergrad schools for FREE...silly goose.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby prezidentv8 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:18 pm

kdw94780 wrote:
MrKappus wrote:This thread is retarded. You had a crappy SAT and fucked off in high school. Deal w/ it.


LoL, actually there are a lot of smart ppl who go to lesser known undergrad schools for FREE...silly goose.


1370 cold, 3.2 HS GPA --> ??? --> T14 --> ??? --> Profit!

Win.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4862
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby Borhas » Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:18 pm

crackberry wrote:Is the engineer suddenly going to figure out how to put together a sentence even though he couldn't do that in college? Is


most engineers probably know how to put together a sentence

What I don't understand is why you engineers who are going to law school feel the need to flex your muscles and pound your chests and say that you don't respect liberal arts majors.


but yes that mentality is very stupid... even if it's true, why dwell on it?

fortissimo
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:05 am

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby fortissimo » Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:25 pm

don't want to sound like a douche but, best moment in contracts class ever: "can you explain damages without using numbers?"

it kind of sucks though, because the "math/science" people all self-select into things like tax, corps, sec reg, business-law classes, while all the liberal arts majors end up doing other classes like first a, 14th a...so you end up competing against a group better suited for that particular type of class regardless of what upper divs you take

eml256
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:36 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby eml256 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:56 pm

GeePee wrote:
MrKappus wrote:This thread is retarded. You had a crappy SAT and fucked off in high school. Deal w/ it.

Your SAT scores and high school grades have very little impact on where you go to college. I'm speaking from personal experience.


This.

At least when you're talking about top schools, there are far more 3.9+/2100 SAT+ high school applicants than there are spots at HYPS. I know two high school valedictorians that had high ACT scores (33 and 35) that got rejected from every ivy or top LAC they applied to senior year. These students attend their flagship state university. For undergrad admissions, softs are incredibly important because getting those high numbers is relatively easy. I think, especially in the midwest, south, and mountain west (from what I've experienced), a lot of really talented high school students don't know how to appeal to those top schools, especially when counselors at their schools and parents aren't familiar with the admissions processes. Students unfortunately assume that a 4.0 in AP classes, a high ACT and being class president are enough to get into Harvard, or even Amherst. I guess my point is that any flagship state school, beyond just Berkeley, Michigan, or Virginia, is going to have a lot of really excellent students. Yes, there are more of them at top colleges, but there are plenty of highly, highly talented students at any flagship.

User avatar
ConMan345
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby ConMan345 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:13 pm

"Fewer engineers" is in my pros column for Harvard versus Stanford. I get along with non-engineers much better than engineers.

User avatar
rayiner
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:43 am

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby rayiner » Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:16 pm

ConMan345 wrote:"Fewer engineers" is in my pros column for Harvard versus Stanford. I get along with non-engineers much better than engineers.


Stanford = full of people who make things
Harvard = full of people who try and figure out how to make money off of and/or regulate or otherwise hold back people who make things

User avatar
kdw94780
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 10:07 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby kdw94780 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:19 pm

eml256 wrote:
GeePee wrote:
MrKappus wrote:This thread is retarded. You had a crappy SAT and fucked off in high school. Deal w/ it.

Your SAT scores and high school grades have very little impact on where you go to college. I'm speaking from personal experience.


This.

At least when you're talking about top schools, there are far more 3.9+/2100 SAT+ high school applicants than there are spots at HYPS. I know two high school valedictorians that had high ACT scores (33 and 35) that got rejected from every ivy or top LAC they applied to senior year. These students attend their flagship state university. For undergrad admissions, softs are incredibly important because getting those high numbers is relatively easy. I think, especially in the midwest, south, and mountain west (from what I've experienced), a lot of really talented high school students don't know how to appeal to those top schools, especially when counselors at their schools and parents aren't familiar with the admissions processes. Students unfortunately assume that a 4.0 in AP classes, a high ACT and being class president are enough to get into Harvard, or even Amherst. I guess my point is that any flagship state school, beyond just Berkeley, Michigan, or Virginia, is going to have a lot of really excellent students. Yes, there are more of them at top colleges, but there are plenty of highly, highly talented students at any flagship.



At my high school, our valedictorian went to Mizzou Engineering for free and will attend MIT in the fall for graduate studies. Our salutatorian went to the U of Arkansas-Fayetteville on a scholarship that covers tuition, housing, study abroad expenses, and even a laptop. The requirements for that scholarship are an interview, 32+ ACT, and 4.0+ gpa.

The girl ranked 4th in our class went to Penn and only had a 32 on her ACT, and she was not even involved in student government or sports. Her extracurriculars were like band and piano. She majors in international relations and hispanic studies. I pray for her that she does well on her GRE, GMAT, or LSAT because I doubt she got a significant scholarship from Penn.

Generally, ppl liked our top two people because they were nice and humble about their intelligence. A lot of people did not like the other girl because everytime she talked to you, she acted like she was smarter to you no matter who you were.

Going to a school like Penn is no guarantee that you'll get into a top grad program if you cant beat the tests. Even tier 3 schools have ppl from ivy ugrads attending them.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests