% of prestigious undergrads in LS

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
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 3:29 pm

rayiner wrote:
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

Yeah, case in point. I really don't care what engineers do, but engineers seem bent on justifying their superiority complexes.

The number of times engineers and hard science people called me lazy or implied I was unintelligent at Stanford ugrad was kind of insane. It ruined a couple friendships, actually.

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 3:39 pm

ConMan345 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
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

Yeah, case in point. I really don't care what engineers do, but engineers seem bent on justifying their superiority complexes.

The number of times engineers and hard science people called me lazy or implied I was unintelligent at Stanford ugrad was kind of insane. It ruined a couple friendships, actually.


It's not so much that you're lazy or unintelligent, it's that you and your brethren are not useful to society until you spend $$$ getting a proper education in law school, a PhD program, etc. Otherwise you end up going into things like investment banking or politics or whatever, and mostly just hurting America.

User avatar
EijiMiyake
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby EijiMiyake » Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:42 pm

rayiner wrote:
It's not so much that you're lazy or unintelligent, it's that you and your brethren are not useful to society until you spend $$$ getting a proper education in law school, a PhD program, etc. Otherwise you end up going into things like investment banking or politics or whatever, and mostly just hurting America.


Please explain your understanding of investment banking, and why it hurts America.

I agree that lapses in financial regulation (or rather, complete regulatory capture) have hurt the economy overall, but I don't get the entire "finance is useless and hurts America" schtick.

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

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby 09042014 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:45 pm

EijiMiyake wrote:
rayiner wrote:
It's not so much that you're lazy or unintelligent, it's that you and your brethren are not useful to society until you spend $$$ getting a proper education in law school, a PhD program, etc. Otherwise you end up going into things like investment banking or politics or whatever, and mostly just hurting America.


Please explain your understanding of investment banking, and why it hurts America.

I agree that lapses in financial regulation (or rather, complete regulatory capture) have hurt the economy overall, but I don't get the entire "finance is useless and hurts America" schtick.


Ray is probably trolling, but Ibankers inability to understand basic statistics cost the USA trillions in GDP.

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 3:46 pm

EijiMiyake wrote:
rayiner wrote:
It's not so much that you're lazy or unintelligent, it's that you and your brethren are not useful to society until you spend $$$ getting a proper education in law school, a PhD program, etc. Otherwise you end up going into things like investment banking or politics or whatever, and mostly just hurting America.


Please explain your understanding of investment banking, and why it hurts America.

I agree that lapses in financial regulation (or rather, complete regulatory capture) have hurt the economy overall, but I don't get the entire "finance is useless and hurts America" schtick.


The finance industry should be a service industry that manages the flow of capital to productive elements of society. It should not be a place where Ivy-educated hot shots gamble with other people's money and create enormous economic risks in the process. Wall Street has forgotten it's proper place in the economic structure and is now paying the price for it, though their politician friends are doing a good job making sure the remaining survivors manage to fleece the rest of the country as the ship sinks.

America didn't become a world power through CDOs and obscure financial instruments. Credit derivatives didn't win WWI and WWII. Innovation and industry made America what it is today, and the financial sector is now pissing away all our acquired capital.

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 3:51 pm

rayiner wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
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

Yeah, case in point. I really don't care what engineers do, but engineers seem bent on justifying their superiority complexes.

The number of times engineers and hard science people called me lazy or implied I was unintelligent at Stanford ugrad was kind of insane. It ruined a couple friendships, actually.


It's not so much that you're lazy or unintelligent, it's that you and your brethren are not useful to society until you spend $$$ getting a proper education in law school, a PhD program, etc. Otherwise you end up going into things like investment banking or politics or whatever, and mostly just hurting America.


lol deja vu, dude, deja vu

User avatar
EijiMiyake
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby EijiMiyake » Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:52 pm

rayiner wrote:
EijiMiyake wrote:
rayiner wrote:
It's not so much that you're lazy or unintelligent, it's that you and your brethren are not useful to society until you spend $$$ getting a proper education in law school, a PhD program, etc. Otherwise you end up going into things like investment banking or politics or whatever, and mostly just hurting America.


Please explain your understanding of investment banking, and why it hurts America.

I agree that lapses in financial regulation (or rather, complete regulatory capture) have hurt the economy overall, but I don't get the entire "finance is useless and hurts America" schtick.


The finance industry should be a service industry that manages the flow of capital to productive elements of society. It should not be a place where Ivy-educated hot shots gamble with other people's money and create enormous economic risks in the process. Wall Street has forgotten it's proper place in the economic structure and is now paying the price for it, though their politician friends are doing a good job making sure the remaining survivors manage to fleece the rest of the country as the ship sinks.


Mostly agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that a well-developed financial industry makes possible the work of all other industries.

Also, while this may be purely semantic, but investment banking is not the same as prop trading.

I also don't know many people that would argue that biglaw is an efficient use of resources either.

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 3:54 pm

EijiMiyake wrote:I also don't know many people that would argue that biglaw is an efficient use of resources either.


I don't think biglaw is an efficient use of resources. I'm in it just for the money and because I'm not smart enough to get a PhD in engineering.

User avatar
EijiMiyake
Posts: 277
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby EijiMiyake » Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:00 pm

rayiner wrote:
EijiMiyake wrote:I also don't know many people that would argue that biglaw is an efficient use of resources either.


I don't think biglaw is an efficient use of resources. I'm in it just for the money and because I'm not smart enough to get a PhD in engineering.



Then why the castigation of finance/liberal arts as not useful to society?

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 4:01 pm

EijiMiyake wrote:
rayiner wrote:
EijiMiyake wrote:I also don't know many people that would argue that biglaw is an efficient use of resources either.


I don't think biglaw is an efficient use of resources. I'm in it just for the money and because I'm not smart enough to get a PhD in engineering.



Then why the castigation of finance/liberal arts as not useful to society?


Because a number of people ITT seem to think they are useful and/or impressive. I'm not saying I'm better than them, but rather that I at least know I'm really just a transaction cost.

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 4:09 pm

rayiner wrote:
EijiMiyake wrote:
rayiner wrote:
EijiMiyake wrote:I also don't know many people that would argue that biglaw is an efficient use of resources either.


I don't think biglaw is an efficient use of resources. I'm in it just for the money and because I'm not smart enough to get a PhD in engineering.



Then why the castigation of finance/liberal arts as not useful to society?


Because a number of people ITT seem to think they are useful and/or impressive. I'm not saying I'm better than them, but rather that I at least know I'm really just a transaction cost.

Your argument assumes everyone is "just a transaction cost."

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 4:13 pm

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

I definitely get along with non-engineers better than engineers (I hope BioE makes me eat my words the next three years though), but in the interest of giving credit where credit is due, the reason Stanford is so highly respected and such a world-class university is because of those very same engineers. Without them, we'd me a middling university like Penn or Duke or something.

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 4:16 pm

ConMan345 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
EijiMiyake wrote:
rayiner wrote:
I don't think biglaw is an efficient use of resources. I'm in it just for the money and because I'm not smart enough to get a PhD in engineering.



Then why the castigation of finance/liberal arts as not useful to society?


Because a number of people ITT seem to think they are useful and/or impressive. I'm not saying I'm better than them, but rather that I at least know I'm really just a transaction cost.

Your argument assumes everyone is "just a transaction cost."


No. It's a proper characterization of the legal industry. We don't create anything - we're overhead that mediates the interactions between productive members of society while adding transaction costs to the whole system. Now lawyers are necessary --- every system has transaction costs, but that's not the same thing as productive.

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 4:23 pm

rayiner wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
EijiMiyake wrote:

Then why the castigation of finance/liberal arts as not useful to society?


Because a number of people ITT seem to think they are useful and/or impressive. I'm not saying I'm better than them, but rather that I at least know I'm really just a transaction cost.

Your argument assumes everyone is "just a transaction cost."


No. It's a proper characterization of the legal industry. We don't create anything - we're overhead that mediates the interactions between productive members of society while adding transaction costs to the whole system. Now lawyers are necessary --- every system has transaction costs, but that's not the same thing as productive.

Oh, I was referring to finance/liberal arts majors, which is what I thought you were addressing since that was the point he raised.

But this brings up a point: what if a lawyer starts a business? Is he then just a business man? Doesn't that beg the question?

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 4:25 pm

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

I definitely get along with non-engineers better than engineers (I hope BioE makes me eat my words the next three years though), but in the interest of giving credit where credit is due, the reason Stanford is so highly respected and such a world-class university is because of those very same engineers. Without them, we'd me a middling university like Penn or Duke or something.

First of all, having met and chatted with BioE, he seems like a first-rate guy. And, yes, Stanford got where it is today because of engineering/applied sciences. I just wish so many of them weren't so annoying.

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 4:28 pm

ConMan345 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
ConMan345 wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Because a number of people ITT seem to think they are useful and/or impressive. I'm not saying I'm better than them, but rather that I at least know I'm really just a transaction cost.

Your argument assumes everyone is "just a transaction cost."


No. It's a proper characterization of the legal industry. We don't create anything - we're overhead that mediates the interactions between productive members of society while adding transaction costs to the whole system. Now lawyers are necessary --- every system has transaction costs, but that's not the same thing as productive.

Oh, I was referring to finance/liberal arts majors, which is what I thought you were addressing since that was the point he raised.

But this brings up a point: what if a lawyer starts a business? Is he then just a business man? Doesn't that beg the question?


I thought you meant why bitch about liberal arts majors not being useful to society when lawyers aren't either.

Yes, if a lawyer starts a business he is a business man. Law school doesn't really teach you what it takes to be successful in business, I don't see why lawyers as a whole should get credit as a result.

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 4:41 pm

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

I definitely get along with non-engineers better than engineers (I hope BioE makes me eat my words the next three years though), but in the interest of giving credit where credit is due, the reason Stanford is so highly respected and such a world-class university is because of those very same engineers. Without them, we'd me a middling university like Penn or Duke or something.

First of all, having met and chatted with BioE, he seems like a first-rate guy. And, yes, Stanford got where it is today because of engineering/applied sciences. I just wish so many of them weren't so annoying.

I guess in my experience they weren't as much "annoying" as they were socially awkward and hard to talk to.

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 4:42 pm

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

I definitely get along with non-engineers better than engineers (I hope BioE makes me eat my words the next three years though), but in the interest of giving credit where credit is due, the reason Stanford is so highly respected and such a world-class university is because of those very same engineers. Without them, we'd me a middling university like Penn or Duke or something.

First of all, having met and chatted with BioE, he seems like a first-rate guy. And, yes, Stanford got where it is today because of engineering/applied sciences. I just wish so many of them weren't so annoying.

I guess in my experience they weren't as much "annoying" as they were socially awkward and hard to talk to.

Yeah, that's definitely more common.

User avatar
AngryAvocado
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:22 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby AngryAvocado » Wed Apr 21, 2010 4:50 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
EijiMiyake wrote:
rayiner wrote:
It's not so much that you're lazy or unintelligent, it's that you and your brethren are not useful to society until you spend $$$ getting a proper education in law school, a PhD program, etc. Otherwise you end up going into things like investment banking or politics or whatever, and mostly just hurting America.


Please explain your understanding of investment banking, and why it hurts America.

I agree that lapses in financial regulation (or rather, complete regulatory capture) have hurt the economy overall, but I don't get the entire "finance is useless and hurts America" schtick.


Ray is probably trolling, but Ibankers inability to understand basic statistics cost the USA trillions in GDP.


You mean the ibankers that made tens of millions off the system prior to the collapse? I actually think they understood "basic statistics" quite well; they just didn't give a damn because they were too busy diving into their pools of gold.

Also, this engineering elitism/trolling is laughable. The only things you're guaranteed when you meet an engineer are 1) a sense of elitism and 2) social awkwardness. Sure, there are plenty of great engineers out there who do great things, but by and large, most engineers end up doing shit that's far more akin to management than actually creating something. In the end, you're just like the rest of us. Get over yourselves.

jnorsky
Posts: 201
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:26 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby jnorsky » Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:08 pm

AngryAvocado wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
EijiMiyake wrote:
rayiner wrote:
It's not so much that you're lazy or unintelligent, it's that you and your brethren are not useful to society until you spend $$$ getting a proper education in law school, a PhD program, etc. Otherwise you end up going into things like investment banking or politics or whatever, and mostly just hurting America.


Please explain your understanding of investment banking, and why it hurts America.

I agree that lapses in financial regulation (or rather, complete regulatory capture) have hurt the economy overall, but I don't get the entire "finance is useless and hurts America" schtick.


Ray is probably trolling, but Ibankers inability to understand basic statistics cost the USA trillions in GDP.


You mean the ibankers that made tens of millions off the system prior to the collapse? I actually think they understood "basic statistics" quite well; they just didn't give a damn because they were too busy diving into their pools of gold.

Also, this engineering elitism/trolling is laughable. The only things you're guaranteed when you meet an engineer are 1) a sense of elitism and 2) social awkwardness. Sure, there are plenty of great engineers out there who do great things, but by and large, most engineers end up doing shit that's far more akin to management than actually creating something. In the end, you're just like the rest of us. Get over yourselves.


Do people know what I bankers do? The people that "ruined America" were not investment bankers, and all the blame cannot be put on those trading securities, what about the insurers of them, the ratings companies, the freaking USA that allowed an unregulated financial sector filled with cocky, brilliant, greedy people.

It's funny too, because all those people think that lawyers and the government are hurting America.

Oh well, may we all get rich or die trying

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

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby 09042014 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:17 pm

AngryAvocado wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
EijiMiyake wrote:
rayiner wrote:
It's not so much that you're lazy or unintelligent, it's that you and your brethren are not useful to society until you spend $$$ getting a proper education in law school, a PhD program, etc. Otherwise you end up going into things like investment banking or politics or whatever, and mostly just hurting America.


Please explain your understanding of investment banking, and why it hurts America.

I agree that lapses in financial regulation (or rather, complete regulatory capture) have hurt the economy overall, but I don't get the entire "finance is useless and hurts America" schtick.


Ray is probably trolling, but Ibankers inability to understand basic statistics cost the USA trillions in GDP.


You mean the ibankers that made tens of millions off the system prior to the collapse? I actually think they understood "basic statistics" quite well; they just didn't give a damn because they were too busy diving into their pools of gold.

Also, this engineering elitism/trolling is laughable. The only things you're guaranteed when you meet an engineer are 1) a sense of elitism and 2) social awkwardness. Sure, there are plenty of great engineers out there who do great things, but by and large, most engineers end up doing shit that's far more akin to management than actually creating something. In the end, you're just like the rest of us. Get over yourselves.


For the record I am a terrible engineer. I'm currently a huge draw on society. Also I know plenty of engineers who became IBankers actually.

Your point about making a ton of money then letting it collapse is exactly Ray's point.

These investment firms would package individual mortgages while considering each basically an independent variable. They didn't factor in variables that would be affect large numbers of the mortgages at the same time in the same area, like economic collapse. They imploded their own banks, and without unprecedented government intervention, they would have imploded the global banking system.

toaster2
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:55 am

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby toaster2 » Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:11 pm

.
Last edited by toaster2 on Tue May 25, 2010 1:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4859
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby Borhas » Fri Apr 23, 2010 8:36 am

jnorsky wrote:Do people know what I bankers do? The people that "ruined America" were not investment bankers, and all the blame cannot be put on those trading securities, what about the insurers of them, the ratings companies, the freaking USA that allowed an unregulated financial sector filled with cocky, brilliant, greedy people.

It's funny too, because all those people think that lawyers and the government are hurting America.

Oh well, may we all get rich or die trying


So it's America's fault that ibankers are cocky, greed people (as for brilliant, let's not get carried away here)


Has any segment of society failed so miserably? Best case scenario they were completely incompetent, worse case scenario they knowingly fucked over the whole country for their short term gains.


=====

also respect to Rayiner

PS the ratings agencies are to blame, but insurers were fooled by the rating agencies. The rating agencies probably made the mistake of thinking the ibankers were brilliant people and thus all their convoluted schemes somehow made sense. fools

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

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby crackberry » Fri Apr 23, 2010 12:33 pm

"A Wall Street career is becoming indefensible, and yet large fractions of the graduates of America’s best universities can think of no better use for their intelligence and degrees than a job that has become less socially useful than prostitution, and a lot more harmful."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/g ... lkers.html

User avatar
chanchito
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:06 pm

Re: % of prestigious undergrads in LS

Postby chanchito » Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:57 am

The high grades at Brown may be because they don't have a core curriculum. You just take the classes you want. So people may choose the classes they will do well in. There are no tough courses people are forced into.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lawlzi, tuesdayninja, Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests