Cooley

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Cooley

Postby birdlaw117 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:41 pm

taxguy wrote:
Moreover, if there was such as high corelation, why would almost every lawyer that I have spoken with ( and I know many lawyers) feel that the LSAT is highly questionable regarding admission? There really are too many outliers each way.


The reason is because you are using a flawed sample. Only those who believe the LSAT is a poor indicator are going to vocalize their opinions about it. Someone who got a 180, went to Yale, graduated top of their class, and then went on to be very successful, is not going to say anything about the LSAT because they frankly don't care about something that petty.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18419
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby bk1 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:45 pm

ITT: An older lawyer proving the age-old fact that lawyers don't know shit about math.

User avatar
johnnyutah
Posts: 1709
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby johnnyutah » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:46 pm

birdlaw117 wrote:The reason is because you are using a flawed sample. Only those who believe the LSAT is a poor indicator are going to vocalize their opinions about it. Someone who got a 180, went to Yale, graduated top of their class, and then went on to be very successful, is not going to say anything about the LSAT because they frankly don't care about something that petty.

I don't think a test that serves as a de facto class barrier to the practice of law is petty.

User avatar
birdlaw117
Posts: 2167
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 12:19 am

Re: Cooley

Postby birdlaw117 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:53 pm

johnnyutah wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:The reason is because you are using a flawed sample. Only those who believe the LSAT is a poor indicator are going to vocalize their opinions about it. Someone who got a 180, went to Yale, graduated top of their class, and then went on to be very successful, is not going to say anything about the LSAT because they frankly don't care about something that petty.

I don't think a test that serves as a de facto class barrier to the practice of law is petty.

Not saying that the test is petty, but that their opinion of the quality and predictiveness of the test is petty.

User avatar
johnnyutah
Posts: 1709
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby johnnyutah » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:55 pm

birdlaw117 wrote:
johnnyutah wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:The reason is because you are using a flawed sample. Only those who believe the LSAT is a poor indicator are going to vocalize their opinions about it. Someone who got a 180, went to Yale, graduated top of their class, and then went on to be very successful, is not going to say anything about the LSAT because they frankly don't care about something that petty.

I don't think a test that serves as a de facto class barrier to the practice of law is petty.

Not saying that the test is petty, but that their opinion of the quality and predictiveness of the test is petty.

Fair enough!

User avatar
ResolutePear
Posts: 8614
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:07 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby ResolutePear » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:25 pm

You guys got to page 6 of a thread dedicated to Cooley. Congrats guys.

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby flcath » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:39 pm

I'm impressed at the showing anti-LSATers / Cooley advocates have put up ITT. I didn't know TLS had so many of your types.

User avatar
johnnyutah
Posts: 1709
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby johnnyutah » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:45 pm

flcath wrote:I'm impressed at the showing anti-LSATers / Cooley advocates have put up ITT. I didn't know TLS had so many of your types.

Being anti-LSAT doesn't mean you're a Cooley type. I'm anti-LSAT despite being the marked beneficiary of it.

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: Cooley

Postby Sandro » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:45 pm

Don't really get the anti LSATers, what do you suggest schools do ? Just evaluate applicants on softs/GPA ? :shock: :shock: cmon now.


Don't tell me someone with a 148 has the same chance at succeeding in LS and subsequently getting a job than someone with a 170. And remember, this is on the average - sure you might know a brilliant kid with a 148 and a dumb kid with a 170, but hundreds of thousands of people take the LSAT and apply to law school each year...

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby flcath » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:53 pm

Sandro777 wrote:Don't really get the anti LSATers, what do you suggest schools do ? Just evaluate applicants on softs/GPA ? :shock: :shock: cmon now.


Don't tell me someone with a 148 has the same chance at succeeding in LS and subsequently getting a job than someone with a 170. And remember, this is on the average - sure you might know a brilliant kid with a 148 and a dumb kid with a 170, but hundreds of thousands of people take the LSAT and apply to law school each year...

No shit.

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby northwood » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:54 pm

I think all schools should have some sort of screening interview.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18419
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby bk1 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:55 pm

northwood wrote:I think all schools should have some sort of screening interview.


To weed out the uggos?

User avatar
fundamentallybroken
Posts: 663
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 11:52 am

Re: Cooley

Postby fundamentallybroken » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:59 pm

bk1 wrote:
northwood wrote:I think all schools should have some sort of screening interview.


To weed out the uggos?


Totes. Thread over.

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby northwood » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:00 pm

to help gauge which ones have the "most potential".

seriously. Law is a social profession. A lot of business goes down in a social setting. You would want people who can hold a converation and not let it become awkward silence to go to your school. You can be smart(175), and sociallly inept, or smart ( 165) and socialy competant. Which person would you rather have be a representative of your institution?

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18419
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby bk1 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:02 pm

northwood wrote:to help gauge which ones have the "most potential".

seriously. Law is a social profession. A lot of business goes down in a social setting. You would want people who can hold a converation and not let it become awkward silence to go to your school. You can be smart(175), and sociallly inept, or smart ( 165) and socialy competant. Which person would you rather have be a representative of your institution?


Best to take the 175 aspy. He'll be happier while doing doc review than the 165 social butterfly who constantly dreams about working for the ACLU.

User avatar
johnnyutah
Posts: 1709
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby johnnyutah » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:08 pm

Sandro777 wrote:Don't really get the anti LSATers, what do you suggest schools do ? Just evaluate applicants on softs/GPA ? :shock: :shock: cmon now.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I have a problem in principle with a test where the people who do well on it are overwhelmingly rich and white.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18419
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby bk1 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:11 pm

johnnyutah wrote:
Sandro777 wrote:Don't really get the anti LSATers, what do you suggest schools do ? Just evaluate applicants on softs/GPA ? :shock: :shock: cmon now.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I have a problem in principle with a test where the people who do well on it are overwhelmingly rich and white.


But isn't this true of pretty much every test? Rich and white tend to do better than everyone else in pretty much everything.

And I mean isn't the test fair when SES is taken into account and the only thing it really falls behind on is race? (To which they have no reason despite trying to account for it and be fair.)

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: Cooley

Postby Sandro » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:13 pm

johnnyutah wrote:
Sandro777 wrote:Don't really get the anti LSATers, what do you suggest schools do ? Just evaluate applicants on softs/GPA ? :shock: :shock: cmon now.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I have a problem in principle with a test where the people who do well on it are overwhelmingly rich and white.



Don't asians/jewish/other minorities do well on the test ?

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby flcath » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:14 pm

johnnyutah wrote:
Sandro777 wrote:Don't really get the anti LSATers, what do you suggest schools do ? Just evaluate applicants on softs/GPA ? :shock: :shock: cmon now.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I have a problem in principle with a test where the people who do well on it are overwhelmingly rich and white.

Please see my new thread on this exact subject.

User avatar
danquayle
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:12 am

Re: Cooley

Postby danquayle » Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:13 pm

So why have the pretense of law school at all? Why doesn't our system simply demand law firms take those with high LSATs right from undergrad. It's essentially what happens anyway. Once you're locked into a certain caliber of school, you're locked into a certain caliber of career, with some wiggle room.

It's not like you really use 95% of what you learn in law school, and you need to take a course to pass the bar anyway. Why waste the 3 years?

Hire 3 law students with elite numbers right out of undergrad at 1/3 of the going rate of someone coming out of law school. Make them clerks and train them immediately, weed out whoever won't be a good lawyer due to personality limitations immediately, instead of waiting for them to invest 3 years and whatever princely sum of money in law school. After three years, promote whoever has impressed the most to full fledged attorney. 3 years on, instead of hiring a green lawyer right out of law school who may or may not actually have the requisite soft skills for the job, you have an experienced attorney who you know is already thoroughly vetted.

Leave academia to the dozen or so law schools that haven't folded due to lack of enrollment.

The only thing preventing this from happening are the law schools themselves, the lack of effective organization level amongst lawyers (sorry ABA) and whatever premium law firms get from their clients from putting "pedigreed" first year associates on their cases.

sethc
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:55 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby sethc » Wed Jan 19, 2011 10:20 pm

northwood wrote:I think all schools should have some sort of screening interview.



This, so much, this! I DO realize that time/resource constraints would severely hamper this. But, if the decision to admit/deny an applicant is so serious, then I believe the applicant should be able to logically/rationally defend why. That's really tough to do in a 2pg PS. Honestly, what better way to prove, as a practical matter, that an applicant has "it" for law school than some sort of panel/interview?? It would be highly discretionary, of course, but that's where the UGPA & LSAT comes in. It could REALLY put the LSAT in context for a lot of people, I think. I'll admit my bias about that up front - no question. I think UGPA isn't really looked at like it ought to be. College isn't exactly "grueling" - but a great many places are, I think. Besides, college isn't just 100% grades - it's about balance: social, personal, academic, financial, etc. Who would argue that being a 1L didn't require balance? I think that's one of the key factors to passing, myself.

paulinaporizkova
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby paulinaporizkova » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:06 pm

WrappedUpInBooks wrote:
taxguy wrote:Second, as to admission, they focus on the GPA more than the LSAT. The formula is 15 times the GPA plus the LSAT score. Frankly, I think their admission formula is more valid for determining quality kids than that found in many other schools.


15x4.0 is still only 60. So when added to an LSAT score, which is presumably above 120, the LSAT is weighted more than twice as heavily as the GPA.


hhahahahaaa. skooled.

User avatar
esq
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby esq » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:10 pm

sethc wrote:
northwood wrote:I think all schools should have some sort of screening interview.



This, so much, this! I DO realize that time/resource constraints would severely hamper this. But, if the decision to admit/deny an applicant is so serious, then I believe the applicant should be able to logically/rationally defend why. That's really tough to do in a 2pg PS. Honestly, what better way to prove, as a practical matter, that an applicant has "it" for law school than some sort of panel/interview?? It would be highly discretionary, of course, but that's where the UGPA & LSAT comes in. It could REALLY put the LSAT in context for a lot of people, I think. I'll admit my bias about that up front - no question. I think UGPA isn't really looked at like it ought to be. College isn't exactly "grueling" - but a great many places are, I think. Besides, college isn't just 100% grades - it's about balance: social, personal, academic, financial, etc. Who would argue that being a 1L didn't require balance? I think that's one of the key factors to passing, myself.


Hmmm, I thought that this was an interesting idea, so I decided to play with it. What kind of time and resources would it take for an admissions committee to sort through all of the applicants and make the decisions?

Let's use UVA Law as our example, and assume that both directors of admissions participate in the interviews, after all it is ultimately their decision. Let's also assume that each student get's at least 10 minutes of interview time, not including 2.5 minutes to enter the room and get settled, and 2.5 minutes to collect him/herself before leaving: 15 minutes per.

Last year UVA Law had 8,560 students apply. Each director would have had to field 4280 interviews, on top of their other responsibilities. If performed back to back each director would spend 1070 hrs interviewing, which would be 26.75 (27 wks) 40hr work weeks, 6.69 (7 mos) 4 week months.

So yeah, I guess it's tentatively plausible, but no director would ever want to put him/herself through that. And let's face it, no law school would want to fork up the kind of money that it would take for that kind of time investment - their primary purpose is to serve as the cash cow of their university by attracting $$$ . . . ehem . . . students (which is why they continue to promise students 90% employment prospects in the face of record unemployment). When it comes down to it, as long as students are willing to pay $$$ for law school, they could care less how many of them are actually going to be successful at their trade.

User avatar
danquayle
Posts: 1108
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:12 am

Re: Cooley

Postby danquayle » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:18 pm

esq wrote:
sethc wrote:
northwood wrote:I think all schools should have some sort of screening interview.



This, so much, this! I DO realize that time/resource constraints would severely hamper this. But, if the decision to admit/deny an applicant is so serious, then I believe the applicant should be able to logically/rationally defend why. That's really tough to do in a 2pg PS. Honestly, what better way to prove, as a practical matter, that an applicant has "it" for law school than some sort of panel/interview?? It would be highly discretionary, of course, but that's where the UGPA & LSAT comes in. It could REALLY put the LSAT in context for a lot of people, I think. I'll admit my bias about that up front - no question. I think UGPA isn't really looked at like it ought to be. College isn't exactly "grueling" - but a great many places are, I think. Besides, college isn't just 100% grades - it's about balance: social, personal, academic, financial, etc. Who would argue that being a 1L didn't require balance? I think that's one of the key factors to passing, myself.


Hmmm, I thought that this was an interesting idea, so I decided to play with it. What kind of time and resources would it take for an admissions committee to sort through all of the applicants and make the decisions?

Let's use UVA Law as our example, and assume that both directors of admissions participate in the interviews, after all it is ultimately their decision. Let's also assume that each student get's at least 10 minutes of interview time, not including 2.5 minutes to enter the room and get settled, and 2.5 minutes to collect him/herself before leaving: 15 minutes per.

Last year UVA Law had 8,560 students apply. Each director would have had to field 4280 interviews, on top of their other responsibilities. If performed back to back each director would spend 1070 hrs interviewing, which would be 26.75 (27 wks) 40hr work weeks, 6.69 (7 mos) 4 week months.

So yeah, I guess it's tentatively plausible, but no director would ever want to put him/herself through that. And let's face it, no law school would want to fork up the kind of money that it would take for that kind of time investment - their primary purpose is to serve as the cash cow of their university by attracting $$$ . . . ehem . . . students (which is why they continue to promise students 90% employment prospects in the face of record unemployment). When it comes down to it, as long as students are willing to pay $$$ for law school, they could care less how many of them are actually going to be successful at their trade.


Business schools do it, I don't see how its so different for law school. Hell, Medical Schools do it.

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby northwood » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:22 pm

you could have phone interviews, or have alumni, in lieu of donating money, donate some time and conduct said telephone interviews- then fill out a form and leave a summary paragraph.

Numbers are important, but so is being somewhat approachable. IF you cant carry a conversation, be able to juggle work ( in this case school), social activities, and have some sort of time management technique, that would have to be some sort of "soft" factor. Plus you would be able to answer any questions that you would have about the applicatns packet.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dannyswo, judill and 7 guests