North wrote:I don't know what you're getting at when you say that the "messaging is off" on TLS. So, I don't know what you think you're correcting.
TLS is not a perfect source of information. And I don't mean that sometimes some users say things that are inaccurate. I mean, as a whole, TLS will not give you an accurate overall picture of the legal profession. I think if you read only TLS your conception of the legal profession would be too pessimistic. (In the first sentence of the OP I say this.)
Who am I to say that TLS is overly pessimistic, you ask? No one. That's why I am not going to sit here and say user X was wrong when he said Y. I just think that it's instructive to point out that not everyone who agrees with an idea will write "+1" and most any active user who disagrees will make his disagreement known. By the nature of TLS some ideas will be drown out and not all ideas will receive the same amount of attention. I think many readers browse TLS without considering facts like these.
Big Dog wrote:
All posts should not be taken with a grain of salt, there are some truly insightful and brilliant users here.
I disagree. Even those who are honest and truthful, are only giving their opinion from their perch. Mike Spivey, for example, has excellent insights that he gained from working in admissions. But, and this is a big But, his insights might
not be applicable at HYS, or CCN, or some other school, or UC Hastings. And he clearly makes that point.
I clearly do not mean that some users' posts should be taken as irrefutable truths. There is a middle ground between "grain of salt" and "irrefutable truth". In the end, I don't think we will really disagree. There are some truly great posts here that readers would do well to fully absorb (after carefully considering which cases it does and does not apply to of course).
racrfish wrote:Why is a thread like this even needed? I genuinely don't get what you're going for here.
Secondly, reading a thread like this on my first day would not have changed anything about my experience here. No snark intended, you have to learn the ropes of a message board as you go, IMO.
In regards to your first comment, how annoying is it when you spend hours spelling out your argument on why Dale Jarrett is the best driver in NASCAR and then someone speaks up and just says "I genuinely don't think that he is". That's you. If, after reading my five posts on my I think this thread is relevant, you still take issue with it, then tell me that you do and why. Then we can have a debate.
In regards to your second comment, I think it can be instructive because if someone could very accurately spell out a few truths of TLS it would provide a better foundation from which to read it. Any readers of the thread could then learn a little bit quicker. Easy example, anyone who has read any message board ever knows that you should probably evaluate each idea expressed there on your own, to run it through a sort of test checking its veracity. But in reading TLS readers should do this considerably less. On TLS we have mostly very brilliant users and the law school noob would be wise to absorb most anything s/he reads here.
If I didn't bring my conception of message boards into TLS when I first started reading it I would be in a different situation right now. I took the December 2011 LSAT when I knew I wouldn't maximize my potential. And I didn't. I took it, did poorly like I knew I would, then studied my ass off for the following June and October. I wish I could have taken the February 2013 because I know I got more than a 167 in me, but I have maxed out my tries. If I would entered TLS more ready to absorb things could be very different.