0Ls gunning for Big Law, why not finance?

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
jkpolk
Posts: 896
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:44 am

Re: 0Ls gunning for Big Law, why not finance?

Postby jkpolk » Wed May 02, 2012 11:18 am

Napt wrote:Lol, please enlighten me on male patriarchy, white racism, and the glass ceiling. I'm sure this is the explanation for women failing to reach the top of any rigorous fields, right?


I'm not sure about those three particular theories. But, there are a few other societal reasons which offer more persuasive explainations for the perceived differences between the sexes than LOLOLOLOL WOMENZ ARE KINDA SMART BUT MEN ARE CONCLUSIVELY BOTH REALLY SMARTERERER AND REALLY DUMBERERER BASED ON STATISTICS!@#!!! GENETICS!@##$@!!

You'll learn about these reasons when you're older/get over your misogyny :lol:

Napt
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:43 am

Re: 0Ls gunning for Big Law, why not finance?

Postby Napt » Wed May 02, 2012 1:08 pm

polkij333 wrote:
Napt wrote:Lol, please enlighten me on male patriarchy, white racism, and the glass ceiling. I'm sure this is the explanation for women failing to reach the top of any rigorous fields, right?


I'm not sure about those three particular theories. But, there are a few other societal reasons which offer more persuasive explainations for the perceived differences between the sexes than LOLOLOLOL WOMENZ ARE KINDA SMART BUT MEN ARE CONCLUSIVELY BOTH REALLY SMARTERERER AND REALLY DUMBERERER BASED ON STATISTICS!@#!!! GENETICS!@##$@!!

You'll learn about these reasons when you're older/get over your misogyny :lol:

Ty bro, statistics and science is overrated imo too. Can you recommend other blogs like Jezebel where I can learn the errors of my ways?

User avatar
jkpolk
Posts: 896
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:44 am

Re: 0Ls gunning for Big Law, why not finance?

Postby jkpolk » Wed May 02, 2012 1:57 pm

Napt wrote:Ty bro, statistics and science is overrated imo too. Can you recommend other blogs like Jezebel where I can learn the errors of my ways?


You should hit up mit.x for an explaination of the difference between correlation and causation

Napt
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:43 am

Re: 0Ls gunning for Big Law, why not finance?

Postby Napt » Wed May 02, 2012 3:56 pm

polkij333 wrote:
Napt wrote:Ty bro, statistics and science is overrated imo too. Can you recommend other blogs like Jezebel where I can learn the errors of my ways?


You should hit up mit.x for an explaination of the difference between correlation and causation

You don't find the fact that men have higher IQs with more variability to be a persuasive explanation for why they are able to destroy women at every intellectually rigorous field (e.g. Nobel (not Peace) Prizes, Fields Medals, LSAT, SAT, every standardized test ever, etc.)?

User avatar
jkpolk
Posts: 896
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:44 am

Re: 0Ls gunning for Big Law, why not finance?

Postby jkpolk » Wed May 02, 2012 3:59 pm

polkij333 wrote:You should hit up mit.x for an explaination of the difference between correlation and causation weak correlation and strong correlation

Napt
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:43 am

Re: 0Ls gunning for Big Law, why not finance?

Postby Napt » Wed May 02, 2012 4:27 pm

polkij333 wrote:
polkij333 wrote:You should hit up mit.x for an explaination of the difference between correlation and causation weak correlation and strong correlation

non-responsive

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

Re: 0Ls gunning for Big Law, why not finance?

Postby rayiner » Wed May 02, 2012 5:32 pm

Napt wrote:
polkij333 wrote:
Napt wrote:Ty bro, statistics and science is overrated imo too. Can you recommend other blogs like Jezebel where I can learn the errors of my ways?


You should hit up mit.x for an explaination of the difference between correlation and causation

You don't find the fact that men have higher IQs with more variability to be a persuasive explanation for why they are able to destroy women at every intellectually rigorous field (e.g. Nobel (not Peace) Prizes, Fields Medals, LSAT, SAT, every standardized test ever, etc.)?


Did you just mix the LSAT and SAT in with the Nobel Prize and Fields Medal? In a response to my post, which was all about how the relatively small differences in SAT Math performance amongst women and men doesn't explain the large differences in their representation in STEM fields?

It is silly to conflate the "ordinary" IQ ranges to which scientists, engineers, CEO's, etc, belong, and the extraordinary IQ ranges to which Fields medal winners belong. Even in the top ranges of the SAT/LSAT, men outnumber women by a less than 2:1 ratio. If NASA scientists or engineers or tech company CEO's were 35-40% female, we wouldn't be having discussions about male patriarchy or glass ceilings.

Mathematically, the higher variability of male IQ's only really becomes relevant when you're talking about geniuses, which the vast majority of people in STEM fields are not. The idea that existence male patriarchy or glass ceilings can be explained away by the higher variability of male IQ's is just not supported by the actual data.

Napt
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:43 am

Re: 0Ls gunning for Big Law, why not finance?

Postby Napt » Wed May 02, 2012 5:49 pm

rayiner wrote:
Napt wrote:
polkij333 wrote:
Napt wrote:Ty bro, statistics and science is overrated imo too. Can you recommend other blogs like Jezebel where I can learn the errors of my ways?


You should hit up mit.x for an explaination of the difference between correlation and causation

You don't find the fact that men have higher IQs with more variability to be a persuasive explanation for why they are able to destroy women at every intellectually rigorous field (e.g. Nobel (not Peace) Prizes, Fields Medals, LSAT, SAT, every standardized test ever, etc.)?


Did you just put the LSAT and SAT in with the Nobel Prize and Fields Medal? In a response to my post, which was all about how the relatively small differences in SAT Math performance amongst women and men doesn't explain the large differences in their representation in STEM fields?

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/11/800 ... ratio.html
800 SAT Math Scores: Male-Female Ratio is 2.22:1. Adjusted for test-taking population is: 2.52:1. The mean male math SAT score is also 35 points higher than the mean female math SAT score.

Larry Summers: "It does appear that on many, many different human attributes- height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability - there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means - which can be debated (MP: Actually for math SAT scores, there is no debate) - there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population."

I wasn't equating LSAT/SAT to Fields/Nobel btw, I was pointing out that males dominate each of these fields.

Also see: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/09/sat ... ender.html
"Female high school students are better students on average compared to male high school students, and they are equally or better prepared than males for the math SAT exam based on the number and level of math classes taken in high school. And yet, male students score significantly higher on the SAT math test than females, and the statistically significant male-female test score gap of more than 30 points persists over time."

Napt
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:43 am

Re: 0Ls gunning for Big Law, why not finance?

Postby Napt » Wed May 02, 2012 5:52 pm

rayiner wrote:The idea that existence male patriarchy or glass ceilings can be explained away by the higher variability of male IQ's is just not supported by the actual data.

And where's your evidence that male patriarchy or glass ceilings is the primary reason for the female deficit at the upper echelons of intellectually rigorous fields?

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

Re: 0Ls gunning for Big Law, why not finance?

Postby rayiner » Wed May 02, 2012 6:13 pm

Napt wrote:
rayiner wrote:
Napt wrote:
polkij333 wrote:You should hit up mit.x for an explaination of the difference between correlation and causation

You don't find the fact that men have higher IQs with more variability to be a persuasive explanation for why they are able to destroy women at every intellectually rigorous field (e.g. Nobel (not Peace) Prizes, Fields Medals, LSAT, SAT, every standardized test ever, etc.)?


Did you just put the LSAT and SAT in with the Nobel Prize and Fields Medal? In a response to my post, which was all about how the relatively small differences in SAT Math performance amongst women and men doesn't explain the large differences in their representation in STEM fields?

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/11/800 ... ratio.html
800 SAT Math Scores: Male-Female Ratio is 2.22:1. Adjusted for test-taking population is: 2.52:1. The mean male math SAT score is also 35 points higher than the mean female math SAT score.

Larry Summers: "It does appear that on many, many different human attributes- height, weight, propensity for criminality, overall IQ, mathematical ability, scientific ability - there is relatively clear evidence that whatever the difference in means - which can be debated (MP: Actually for math SAT scores, there is no debate) - there is a difference in the standard deviation, and variability of a male and a female population."

I wasn't equating LSAT/SAT to Fields/Nobel btw, I was pointing out that males dominate each of these fields.

Also see: http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/09/sat ... ender.html
"Female high school students are better students on average compared to male high school students, and they are equally or better prepared than males for the math SAT exam based on the number and level of math classes taken in high school. And yet, male students score significantly higher on the SAT math test than females, and the statistically significant male-female test score gap of more than 30 points persists over time."


OMG 30 points! One third of a standard deviation at the median! Huge, huge, huge disparities!

According to that data, at the score range from which STEM majors are drawn (700-800 on the SAT Math), the disparity is well under 2:1. That's a substantial difference, but it's not worthy of your hyperbole ("destroy"). If we're going to make the argument that aptitude as measured by standardized tests explains the disparity in the presence of women in these fields, then the available data doesn't explain the wide disparities we see. I majored in aerospace at a pretty highly-ranked engineering school. My class was 5% women. The pool from which our class was drawn (people with Math SAT's around ~700) would have been about 40% women. What explains that difference?

ConcernedHabsFan
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 2:12 pm

Re: 0Ls gunning for Big Law, why not finance?

Postby ConcernedHabsFan » Sun May 06, 2012 2:11 pm

While I'm taking the LSATs in October, I'm also enrolled in a post BA accounting program.

The reason I hear though that a lot of people want to try law school instead is that the schooling is a lot more interesting, finance especially accounting can be extremely square. Law school seems more fun, most of the Finance students I know sit in front of their Thinkpads all day staring at Excel sheets in the library, and punching their textbooks out of frustration from their exam the next morning.

Also, I've heard in the US the CPA final exam has a higher failure rate on first try than the BAR. I'm not sure how accurate that is nation wide, but I did a quick Google search and it definitely looks like it most States, a lot more people flunk the CPA exam at a higher rate than the BAR. I've looked through my friend's school books for law (they're lawyers), most of it is a lot less complex than stuff like bond rates that Finance people have to deal with.

The benefit of being an Accountant is that the job is basically recession proof, due to dynamics of corporate structure. I know a lot of Canadian accountants that are ridiculously well-paid, and not that hardworking.

It's better than Engineering too if you're strictly after money. But again, the material taught in the beginning of Accounting can be very square just as some Engineering courses are. Accountants I know describe it as excruciatingly square. The work itself of being an auditor isn't that exciting. The happiest Accountants I know do things such as others start businesses, or are execs at big companies, they're not public accountants. The earning potential in Finance is huge. The most interesting part is, you can always work for an MNC, and work all over the world.

http://pandodaily.com/2012/02/04/silico ... -facebook/

To people who live outside the Valley, these accounts of unbounded compensation paint a picture of a place overflowing in bullion. And in some parts, that’s kind of true: Go to Atherton or Old Palo Alto and you see enormous, multi-million-dollar mansions that rival the best that Beverly Hills has to offer.

But those properties belong to executives and finance guys. The hard-toiling coders, meanwhile, live more modestly. I’ve spoken to many engineers at the Valley’s biggest companies, and from what I can tell, their salaries range from $100,000 to $150,000.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], patrickkpaul, Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests