Cooley

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
bergg007
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:21 am

Re: Cooley

Postby bergg007 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:31 pm

As some of you probably realize, Med/Dental schools require the face to face interviews. this costs the applicant a fortune my brother spent thousands of dollars on his applications to dental schools. I spent one hundred and forty four dollars on my applications, to sixteen schools. he applied to eight.

anyone who thinks that a face to face interview will be a more fair determiner for minorities and the under-privileged has their head stuffed pretty far up their asses. The money would discourage tons of people. How many of you have the cash to throw 4-5k down to apply to schools. oh, and you still have to take admittance tests for medical and dental school. We've got it good right now.

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

Re: Cooley

Postby danquayle » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:38 pm

bergg007 wrote:As some of you probably realize, Med/Dental schools require the face to face interviews. this costs the applicant a fortune my brother spent thousands of dollars on his applications to dental schools. I spent one hundred and forty four dollars on my applications, to sixteen schools. he applied to eight.

anyone who thinks that a face to face interview will be a more fair determiner for minorities and the under-privileged has their head stuffed pretty far up their asses. The money would discourage tons of people. How many of you have the cash to throw 4-5k down to apply to schools. oh, and you still have to take admittance tests for medical and dental school. We've got it good right now.


Nice attempt to sidestep the business school example.

And, yes, I actually think interviews would be as fair, if not more fair, to minority applications. As someone who has actually interviewed perspective candidates before, standing out as a minority candidate gives a major boost. Justified or not, you're seen as a rarer and thus more valuable commodity.

But I refuse to begin debating the you really think a minority isn't disadvantaged in X situation debate, because the argument always rests on an irrefutable logical fallacy that is handed down as part of some kind of ethereal "reality". In fact, the mere attempt to disprove the notion is taken of evidence of its validity. There is no way to ever disprove it. Like all conspiracy theories, the inability to totally refute the conspiracy is somehow taken as evidence of its existence.
Last edited by danquayle on Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dr123
Posts: 3503
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:38 am

Re: Cooley

Postby dr123 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:39 pm

bergg007 wrote:As some of you probably realize, Med/Dental schools require the face to face interviews. this costs the applicant a fortune my brother spent thousands of dollars on his applications to dental schools. I spent one hundred and forty four dollars on my applications, to sixteen schools. he applied to eight.

anyone who thinks that a face to face interview will be a more fair determiner for minorities and the under-privileged has their head stuffed pretty far up their asses. The money would discourage tons of people. How many of you have the cash to throw 4-5k down to apply to schools. oh, and you still have to take admittance tests for medical and dental school. We've got it good right now.


dude, wtf, not all minorities are poor. I hate it when people say that, its pretty damn racist in my opinion

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

Re: Cooley

Postby northwood » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:41 pm

you can always do interviews over the phone..........

User avatar
Moral_Midgetry
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:29 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby Moral_Midgetry » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:42 pm

What the fuck happened to this thread?

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

Re: Cooley

Postby danquayle » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:42 pm

dr123 wrote:
bergg007 wrote:As some of you probably realize, Med/Dental schools require the face to face interviews. this costs the applicant a fortune my brother spent thousands of dollars on his applications to dental schools. I spent one hundred and forty four dollars on my applications, to sixteen schools. he applied to eight.

anyone who thinks that a face to face interview will be a more fair determiner for minorities and the under-privileged has their head stuffed pretty far up their asses. The money would discourage tons of people. How many of you have the cash to throw 4-5k down to apply to schools. oh, and you still have to take admittance tests for medical and dental school. We've got it good right now.


dude, wtf, not all minorities are poor. I hate it when people say that, its pretty damn racist in my opinion


FWIW, most of the minorities I knew in law school were pretty privileged. Most of the people were pretty privileged in general.

ImpatientlyWaiting
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:58 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby ImpatientlyWaiting » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:45 pm

Still have yet to see a single convincing anti-LSAT argument.

As for the argument that it isn't predictive of being a good lawyer:
It's predictive of success in law school, which leads to better job placement on average. There's a lot of value in that. It's also a good measure of cognitive capacity and reasoning skills. Believe it or not, those come into play when you're a lawyer. This is not to say, by any means, that they are the only important variables; however, they are important nonetheless. Other qualities are demonstrated via softs, and top law schools recognize this.

As for the argument that it's biased against minorities and low-SES people:
This is a silly argument. As one of the above posters mentioned, the same can be said for a lot of tests. That doesn't suggest there's a problem with the test itself, it means there's a problem with access to things like prep courses and good education in general. Law schools recognize this and, as a result, consistently take URMs with lower scores than the white people they normally accept.

Bottom line: it's a good test of cognitive capacity and logic. In and of itself, that is is valuable when evaluating a candidate for law school. Also, it is a standardized number, whereas GPA is not. If you have a problem with the amount of weight it gets, then that's different. But to say that it should not have substantial weight in the admissions process is a bit ridiculous.

lawschool12345
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 11:16 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby lawschool12345 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:46 pm

I do not think that the LSAT should play such a bigger role in the admissions process. As someone who is a reverse splitter some might say im just saying this to benefit myself, but not really. I think that if i had the time to really study for the LSAT i could have done a lot better, but my mother lost her job my sophomore year so i had to work full time in order to help my dad and the rest of my family out. Working full time and still having a 3.8 gpa to me was more important then studying for the one test, in hindsight i wish it was different. I think that these two should be weighed equally rather then 70-30 or however else you want to determine the weight of the LSAT and UGPA. Im not a URM so my low (158) LSAT score hurts me even when i finished with a 3.7 GPA in an honors program at a pretty good private university. I dont think just because you got a 170 on this test you are smarter then the rest of us, when the LSAT is generally a test some people take 50-75 times just to practice for it. Unless your original diagnostic score was that high then you just were willing, and in my case, had the ability to sit in a room 4 hours a day to take practice tests.

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

Re: Cooley

Postby sethc » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:46 pm

esq wrote: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.



Yeah, it's sort of a slippery-slope. I completely understand that aspect, which is why I'm at all hesitant to be gung-ho for it. But, though I have no statistic, I imagine there has to be a good % of UVA etc. applications that are just plain frivolous, right? I know it's a top-notch school and many qualified people apply.. but surely there's some that just dunno wtf they're doing or submitting as a shot-in-the-dark? But schools like that have the luxury of selectivity, sort of like I was alluding to.

From a management perspective, the interview thing could be done - which is tantamount to what you said.. but maybe they could just modify the application/testing deadlines and such? I think this would free up a lot of summer time to do it. Or better yet, just allow an earlier app-submission date? I dunno. I think we can both agree it would require a little more time/$/manpower for sure, but I'm not so sure it would be a gross increase. My premise is that this would potentially increase the likelihood of quality applicants (though subjective, I admit) so if it's an improvement to the output (i.e. lawyers) they produce, wouldn't it be worth the investment? Maybe not, but it makes some sense I think. I know that I go to a low-tier school and they have more money than the friggin Vatican - so I'll likely never feel compelled to donate.. but because they gave me a shot, I'll do all I can to encourage future people like myself to give it a try. They gave me a shot, and that's worth something.

OR better yet! Maybe the TRUE beneficiaries from this whole thing -- LSAC/ABA -- could chip-in on the cost and give their independent opinion on the applicant(s).. so it would sort of be like submitting your transcript/LORs/bullshit except you also do an interview that they package with your LSDAS. That seems like a win-win for everybody. God knows those LSAC is making a killing as the middle-man with the way they nickel-and-dime everybody to death.

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

Re: Cooley

Postby danquayle » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:47 pm

northwood wrote:you can always do interviews over the phone..........


I actually think the manner of speech can have a bigger influence than appearance (read: ethnicity). I knew one guy from the deep south who got mocked for his accent whenever he spoke in class. People would constantly imply he was a moron, though the guy finished like top 20.

I knew another guy who grew up in an inner city, poor and came up through the military. He spoke with a lot of colloquialisms and sounded very... forgive me... "urban." He did great at moot, but the biggest knock was that he "sounded" uneducated, and jurors might make that assumption.

Yeah, a bunch of anecdotes, but FWIW...

User avatar
bergg007
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:21 am

Re: Cooley

Postby bergg007 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:50 pm

danquayle wrote:
dr123 wrote:
bergg007 wrote:As some of you probably realize, Med/Dental schools require the face to face interviews. this costs the applicant a fortune my brother spent thousands of dollars on his applications to dental schools. I spent one hundred and forty four dollars on my applications, to sixteen schools. he applied to eight.

anyone who thinks that a face to face interview will be a more fair determiner for minorities and the under-privileged has their head stuffed pretty far up their asses. The money would discourage tons of people. How many of you have the cash to throw 4-5k down to apply to schools. oh, and you still have to take admittance tests for medical and dental school. We've got it good right now.


dude, wtf, not all minorities are poor. I hate it when people say that, its pretty damn racist in my opinion


FWIW, most of the minorities I knew in law school were pretty privileged. Most of the people were pretty privileged in general.



I'm not assuming that all URM candidates are poor, however, census data will prove that in general classic URMs are more likely to be poor. That's not racism. I am pretty damn poor myself that's why i said apps to 16 schools cost 144. I am simply stating that money can be a pretty high barrier to climb.

User avatar
TommyK
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby TommyK » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:51 pm

Is it possible to untag a thread. :roll:

lawschool12345
Posts: 283
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 11:16 pm

Re: Cooley

Postby lawschool12345 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:52 pm

so shouldnt financial status, rather then being a minority be considered more of an obstacle that people have to climb?

User avatar
dr123
Posts: 3503
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:38 am

Re: Cooley

Postby dr123 » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:52 pm

bergg007 wrote:
danquayle wrote:
dr123 wrote:
bergg007 wrote:As some of you probably realize, Med/Dental schools require the face to face interviews. this costs the applicant a fortune my brother spent thousands of dollars on his applications to dental schools. I spent one hundred and forty four dollars on my applications, to sixteen schools. he applied to eight.

anyone who thinks that a face to face interview will be a more fair determiner for minorities and the under-privileged has their head stuffed pretty far up their asses. The money would discourage tons of people. How many of you have the cash to throw 4-5k down to apply to schools. oh, and you still have to take admittance tests for medical and dental school. We've got it good right now.


dude, wtf, not all minorities are poor. I hate it when people say that, its pretty damn racist in my opinion


FWIW, most of the minorities I knew in law school were pretty privileged. Most of the people were pretty privileged in general.



I'm not assuming that all URM candidates are poor, however, census data will prove that in general classic URMs are more likely to be poor. That's not racism. I am pretty damn poor myself that's why i said apps to 16 schools cost 144. I am simply stating that money can be a pretty high barrier to climb.


census data of everyone isn't self selected like college graduates are. Most people who attend college are not poor and are at least middle class

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

Re: Cooley

Postby danquayle » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:53 pm

bergg007 wrote:
danquayle wrote:
dr123 wrote:
bergg007 wrote:As some of you probably realize, Med/Dental schools require the face to face interviews. this costs the applicant a fortune my brother spent thousands of dollars on his applications to dental schools. I spent one hundred and forty four dollars on my applications, to sixteen schools. he applied to eight.

anyone who thinks that a face to face interview will be a more fair determiner for minorities and the under-privileged has their head stuffed pretty far up their asses. The money would discourage tons of people. How many of you have the cash to throw 4-5k down to apply to schools. oh, and you still have to take admittance tests for medical and dental school. We've got it good right now.


dude, wtf, not all minorities are poor. I hate it when people say that, its pretty damn racist in my opinion


FWIW, most of the minorities I knew in law school were pretty privileged. Most of the people were pretty privileged in general.



I'm not assuming that all URM candidates are poor, however, census data will prove that in general classic URMs are more likely to be poor. That's not racism. I am pretty damn poor myself that's why i said apps to 16 schools cost 144. I am simply stating that money can be a pretty high barrier to climb.


I agree, but I think its silly to think that interviewing pre-filtered candidates would somehow bump the cost of attendance way up. Business schools do it, and their applications aren't massively more expensive.

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

Re: Cooley

Postby sethc » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:54 pm

ImpatientlyWaiting wrote:Still have yet to see a single convincing anti-LSAT argument.

As for the argument that it isn't predictive of being a good lawyer:
It's predictive of success in law school, which leads to better job placement on average. There's a lot of value in that. It's also a good measure of cognitive capacity and reasoning skills. Believe it or not, those come into play when you're a lawyer. This is not to say, by any means, that they are the only important variables; however, they are important nonetheless. Other qualities are demonstrated via softs, and top law schools recognize this.

As for the argument that it's biased against minorities and low-SES people:
This is a silly argument. As one of the above posters mentioned, the same can be said for a lot of tests. That doesn't suggest there's a problem with the test itself, it means there's a problem with access to things like prep courses and good education in general. Law schools recognize this and, as a result, consistently take URMs with lower scores than the white people they normally accept.

Bottom line: it's a good test of cognitive capacity and logic. In and of itself, that is is valuable when evaluating a candidate for law school. Also, it is a standardized number, whereas GPA is not. If you have a problem with the amount of weight it gets, then that's different. But to say that it should not have substantial weight in the admissions process is a bit ridiculous.



Yeah, I understand why it's administered and why the subject matter is what it is. That much I agree with - law school requires logic & critical thinking and, simply put, the LSAT tests on that ability (for better or worse, but I digress) and that has value. I do think they need to tweak how they handle some things.. like 5-6hr straight almost aside from two 10min breaks? (ALSO, big side note here, I am highly upset that I was never permitted to go anywhere to smoke a cigarette - but - different issue entirely. /mini-vent) Come on, I just went to some hellish exams and had better conditions than that

I think what I really have a certain amount of contempt for is the "hidden agenda" with the LSAT. It just doesn't feel right, on some level. What I took away from the whole thing was that the catchphrase is that they'll consider all of these different aspects of what you submit as part of the application.. but the writing is on the wall and everyone knows it -- the LSAT is the critical factor. No school seems to ever admit that in full. I really do not think that GPA and (some) softs are not given the merit they deserve.

For the record, I don't think totally eviscerating the LSAT is going to improve anything at all.. it just could be done better, IMHO. US News isn't helping anything either. They could restructure the way they rank to make it less of a dick-measuring contest outside of like the Top50 or something. Not making an argument here, just ranting I suppose.

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

Re: Cooley

Postby esq » Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:59 pm

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


northwood wrote: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.


I'm pretty sure that they only, for the most part, interview the students that they deem worthy of an invitation and not all the students - at least that's how I'm interpreting my buddies experience with the med school process. I think that this also applies to business school. So even under these circumstances, the LSAT score would play a very similar role in determining who is finally interviewed.

But I agree, I think that adding an interview procedure would probably be a great idea, even if only by phone. At least the high scorers that are really inept might get weeded out before they waste a spot that might otherwise be given to a student with lower numbers but greater talent. I actually enjoyed the opportunity that I had to interview with the dean of admissions at my school before I was admitted. It helped me understand what kind of administration I would deal with, and it gave the whole experience a very nice personal touch.
Last edited by esq on Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bergg007
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:21 am

Re: Cooley

Postby bergg007 » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:02 am

bergg007 wrote:
danquayle wrote:
dr123 wrote:
bergg007 wrote:As some of you probably realize, Med/Dental schools require the face to face interviews. this costs the applicant a fortune my brother spent thousands of dollars on his applications to dental schools. I spent one hundred and forty four dollars on my applications, to sixteen schools. he applied to eight.

anyone who thinks that a face to face interview will be a more fair determiner for minorities and the under-privileged has their head stuffed pretty far up their asses. The money would discourage tons of people. How many of you have the cash to throw 4-5k down to apply to schools. oh, and you still have to take admittance tests for medical and dental school. We've got it good right now.


dude, wtf, not all minorities are poor. I hate it when people say that, its pretty damn racist in my opinion




I'm not assuming that all URM candidates are poor, however, census data will prove that in general classic URMs are more likely to be poor. That's not racism. I am pretty damn poor myself that's why i said apps to 16 schools cost 144. I am simply stating that money can be a pretty high barrier to climb.


census data of everyone isn't self selected like college graduates are. Most people who attend college are not poor and are at least middle class


I'm poor, should that keep me out of Law School? What about first generation students should they get screwed because the cost of application (something there are no reasonable loans for). If we're talking about the outliers then don't focus on the middle. even if most applicants are middle class, taking steps to make a school cost prohibitive are a bad idea. for example my brother goes to UCSF for dental school, there are no black people in his graduating class. the school even told them on the first day to tell their Black friends to apply, because they'd have a good shot. so do not black people want to be dentists/go to one of the best schools in the nation(my brother was accepted to Columbia dental school and went to UCSF instead, there are no scholarships to dental school) or is the COA cost prohibitive?

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

Re: Cooley

Postby sethc » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:06 am

danquayle wrote:
northwood wrote:you can always do interviews over the phone..........


I actually think the manner of speech can have a bigger influence than appearance (read: ethnicity). I knew one guy from the deep south who got mocked for his accent whenever he spoke in class. People would constantly imply he was a moron, though the guy finished like top 20.

I knew another guy who grew up in an inner city, poor and came up through the military. He spoke with a lot of colloquialisms and sounded very... forgive me... "urban." He did great at moot, but the biggest knock was that he "sounded" uneducated, and jurors might make that assumption.

Yeah, a bunch of anecdotes, but FWIW...



The dialect/accent thing will haunt me for as long as I live. I have the same problem and while people don't always deride me for it, they do comment on it. It's usually neutral or joking.. but I have really thick skin and I've always had a chip on my shoulder with education coming from an impoverished southern area.. but looking and sounding dumb right before you're able to persuade someone otherwise in 1 sentence = priceless. The underdog mentality is fun, sometimes. Sometimes you can't catch a break. That said, I'm really not trying to boast or brag or anything, but I have always knocked job interviews out of the park.. and I've never had much of a problem with phone interviews, but I have definitely noticed less success in the past. Body language & confidence/way you present yourself is a huge part of influencing other people. Time and again the courtroom has showed us all that.

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

Re: Cooley

Postby danquayle » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:09 am

sethc wrote:
danquayle wrote:
northwood wrote:you can always do interviews over the phone..........


I actually think the manner of speech can have a bigger influence than appearance (read: ethnicity). I knew one guy from the deep south who got mocked for his accent whenever he spoke in class. People would constantly imply he was a moron, though the guy finished like top 20.

I knew another guy who grew up in an inner city, poor and came up through the military. He spoke with a lot of colloquialisms and sounded very... forgive me... "urban." He did great at moot, but the biggest knock was that he "sounded" uneducated, and jurors might make that assumption.

Yeah, a bunch of anecdotes, but FWIW...



The dialect/accent thing will haunt me for as long as I live. I have the same problem and while people don't always deride me for it, they do comment on it. It's usually neutral or joking.. but I have really thick skin and I've always had a chip on my shoulder with education coming from an impoverished southern area.. but looking and sounding dumb right before you're able to persuade someone otherwise in 1 sentence = priceless. The underdog mentality is fun, sometimes. Sometimes you can't catch a break. That said, I'm really not trying to boast or brag or anything, but I have always knocked job interviews out of the park.. and I've never had much of a problem with phone interviews, but I have definitely noticed less success in the past. Body language & confidence/way you present yourself is a huge part of influencing other people. Time and again the courtroom has showed us all that.


Those kinds of accents can also be charming and endearing. A moot course judge also told him "you can make a lot of money off that accent." Like anything in life, you just need to take stock of what you have, what the environment is, and how to make that all work to get what you want.

User avatar
dr123
Posts: 3503
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 2:38 am

Re: Cooley

Postby dr123 » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:10 am

bergg007 wrote:I'm poor, should that keep me out of Law School? What about first generation students should they get screwed because the cost of application (something there are no reasonable loans for). If we're talking about the outliers then don't focus on the middle. even if most applicants are middle class, taking steps to make a school cost prohibitive are a bad idea. for example my brother goes to UCSF for dental school, there are no black people in his graduating class. the school even told them on the first day to tell their Black friends to apply, because they'd have a good shot. so do not black people want to be dentists/go to one of the best schools in the nation(my brother was accepted to Columbia dental school and went to UCSF instead, there are no scholarships to dental school) or is the COA cost prohibitive?


dude, I was responding to the urm generalization you made, not the argument as whole. Moreover, I agree with you that raising the cost of attendance would be detrimental

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

Re: Cooley

Postby sethc » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:12 am

esq wrote:I'm pretty sure that they only, for the most part, interview the students that they deem worthy of an invitation and not all the students - at least that's how I'm interpreting my buddies experience with the med school process. I think that this also applies to business school. So even under these circumstances, the LSAT score would play a very similar role in determining who is finally interviewed.

But I agree, I think that adding an interview procedure would probably be a great idea, even if only by phone. At least the high scorers that are really inept might get weeded out before they waste a spot that might otherwise be given to a student with lower numbers but greater talent. I actually enjoyed the opportunity that I had to interview with the dean of admissions at my school before I was admitted. It helped me understand what kind of administration I would to deal with, and it gave the whole experience a very nice personal touch.



Fully agreed. I tried my best to "make" interviews as best I could. I would just plan a routine visit/tour right at or around the time I submitted.. dress spiffy and put on my best game-face. I don't think it helped one iota, but I also was given a tour once by a student and once by some administrative staff guy. He insisted that he was 1 of the 3-4 (cant remember) that made a decision on accept/deny but his business card sure said otherwise. Plus all signs indicated he had only a B.S. and no law school experience. I suspect he was just full of shit, but if not.. it's a bit alarming that those w/o LS experience (and admissions, at that) are the ones that play a big role in the decision(s).

And you touched on a good point - if the 3.8/170 is going to law school because they don't have shit else to do, graduate, and either (a) suck as a lawyer; (b) misc. attrition; or (c) get a completely non-legal job SO much wiser than allowing a 160 3.2 take his spot?? I dunno, judgment call I guess and I can't speak on the frequency of any of those situations (or others) but it just comes down to a rankings-dick-measuring contest, to me. It really doesn't help the elitist-asshole reputation that lawyers generally carry, either.. but I doubt that's going anywhere regardless lol

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

Re: Cooley

Postby danquayle » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:12 am

dr123 wrote:
bergg007 wrote:I'm poor, should that keep me out of Law School? What about first generation students should they get screwed because the cost of application (something there are no reasonable loans for). If we're talking about the outliers then don't focus on the middle. even if most applicants are middle class, taking steps to make a school cost prohibitive are a bad idea. for example my brother goes to UCSF for dental school, there are no black people in his graduating class. the school even told them on the first day to tell their Black friends to apply, because they'd have a good shot. so do not black people want to be dentists/go to one of the best schools in the nation(my brother was accepted to Columbia dental school and went to UCSF instead, there are no scholarships to dental school) or is the COA cost prohibitive?


dude, I was responding to the urm generalization you made, not the argument as whole. Moreover, I agree with you that raising the cost of attendance would be detrimental


Berg,

Your entire argument applies to college in general. We're creating a class divide in this country, and rising college costs across the board are contributing. Law school isn't alone.

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

Re: Cooley

Postby sethc » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:15 am

danquayle wrote:
Those kinds of accents can also be charming and endearing. A moot course judge also told him "you can make a lot of money off that accent." Like anything in life, you just need to take stock of what you have, what the environment is, and how to make that all work to get what you want.



Oh yeah, that's what I'm saying my man! Haha, but yeah it used to be reeeeally thick growing up.. but now I've learned to turn it on/off when I should/shouldn't. It's probably looked at as fake/superficial, but I'm cool with that.. I always think of that Tom Cruise quote from Collateral "adapt. shit happens." hehe. Whether it's sports, movies, whatever.. sounding like you know less than you do = element of surprise. You can't teach that. :)

User avatar
bergg007
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:21 am

Re: Cooley

Postby bergg007 » Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:23 am

danquayle wrote:
dr123 wrote:
bergg007 wrote:I'm poor, should that keep me out of Law School? What about first generation students should they get screwed because the cost of application (something there are no reasonable loans for). If we're talking about the outliers then don't focus on the middle. even if most applicants are middle class, taking steps to make a school cost prohibitive are a bad idea. for example my brother goes to UCSF for dental school, there are no black people in his graduating class. the school even told them on the first day to tell their Black friends to apply, because they'd have a good shot. so do not black people want to be dentists/go to one of the best schools in the nation(my brother was accepted to Columbia dental school and went to UCSF instead, there are no scholarships to dental school) or is the COA cost prohibitive?


dude, I was responding to the urm generalization you made, not the argument as whole. Moreover, I agree with you that raising the cost of attendance would be detrimental


Berg,

Your entire argument applies to college in general. We're creating a class divide in this country, and rising college costs across the board are contributing. Law school isn't alone.




dan,

that does nothing to justify your position.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], mrtux45 and 7 guests