Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
ratfukr
Posts: 2991
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:44 pm

Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby ratfukr » Sun Dec 28, 2014 8:33 pm

Mods: I think posters with keen insights into legal education and good ideas about making threads - such as, for example, lacrossebrother and myself - should be allowed to start substantive forum clutter topics like this in the on-ts. This should probably be merged into the metathread eventually but right now I want to make a big to-do about it for attention, which I guess should be discouraged by posters who are everyone else. Feel free to also make me a mod if you'd rather I merged it myself. I think Nony and I could really do some good work here in the on-topics. I refuse to go into the Lounge, which is more or less pure filth.

Subject: Kansas Law Admissions Dean Answers Your Questions

JayhawkLaw wrote:That's it, I surrender. This thread has clearly been hijacked by a few posters committed to keeping this thread off topic.

At this point if I said that the number eight follows the number seven, a crew of posters would jump on here. First they'd accuse me of being misleading. Then when confronted with the fact that eight in fact follows seven, they'd say well, that might be true, but you were misleading when you said seven follows six. At which point...well, you get the idea. Nothing I can say on here will satisfy the naysayers.

I hope you'll reconsider, as you're still in the process of shaping norms and expectations. I'd suggest you ask mods to 1) merge the Q&A thread into the discussion thread, then 2) split the useful and constructive posts back into a new Q&A thread, with the continued understanding that shitting it up is bannable.

It's not entirely true that nothing will satisfy the naysayers. The post history of this particular account comprises insult comedy, self-aggrandizement, champagne socialism, experimental fiction, arguing with mods about rules and norms, ragequitting at intervals, indictments of prestige whoring as a trashy and obvious cover for character flaws, and various other casual vulgarities and abuse, all written as if over text message by a teenage girl. This has proven to be an effective overall approach to accumulating social capital on a website of applicants to elite law schools. However, I assume you don't have the professional luxury of most of these indulgences - apart from the ragequitting, it appears, which unfortunately is the single tactic listed apart from textspeak that is worst for approval ratings here. Mature posters with lots of posts on top-law-schools.com/forums will be sure to point out your lack of maturity. That is pretty much all I know about the culture here.

See, at 6:13:


I think that you may be close to a more powerful understanding of the medium. I may be overestimating the literacy of this website's readers, but as it stands, you give the untoward appearance of picking up your toys and leaving right before giving substantive responses to Dirigo's substantive questions. I would rather you credibly figured out how to do what you hopefully came to do, which entails knowing your audience. It would be a shame to waste the professional, institutional, and societal benefit of your openness by ragequitting.

I mean, it's impressive enough that you've come off as kind of an awkward hard-on at worst where the rebuttable presumption is probably rightfully one that admissions officers are scam artists and cannibals. But seriously, I think you should just ask mods to clean it up in the way I propose and just continue as you were. The conversation is either 1) not as doomed as you genuinely think, because the mods are actually really good discourse sanitizers and there's an unwritten rule some will enforce that being "willfully dense" is pretty much bannable, or 2) in my opinion likely to be perceived as ending on a cop-out whether or not your intent is to try to make an exit from what was always a foreseeably high risk/high reward strategy.

To be fair to the mob, there's definitely something to the idea that it's incongruous to expect law students to do research on schools (and, like, life) before shitting up a thread, and then to exit right before addressing a raft of substantive questions. I'm going to be annoyed that I potentially wasted months of goodwill obtained by accusing posters of virginity and illiteracy here on your cause if I start to feel you're validating them by taking the opportunity to bail on your thread so as not to have to stray too far from your brochure. If the concern is really a messy thread full of ankle-biters, just let mods catch up to the task of figuring out how to deal with what you yourself describe as an issue that didn't come up previously. There will probably be a formal realizability question about how to make up a policy to get prattling idiots that don't know they're prattling idiots not to be prattling idiots, so it could take a second, but I think your surrender is premature if you're actually dedicated to this.

Less coherently but probably more conspicuously (as with most things here), it's about a perfect shitstorm to forward e-mails that failed to meet discursive standards while flaunting the norms and expecting "special treatment" here. You should assume you'll be median at best. Just because you're a dean of admissions doesn't mean that there aren't posters here who know more about the law school scam. These include literal former LSAT tutors - like, people who taught taking a standardized test in exchange for money - who applied ED to a much more expensive school than yours rather than make any attempt at all to reduce the cost of tuition. You might consider changing the name of the thread to Brut's Knowledge Palace or something similar.

I hope you figure out a way to make narrative transparency work for you, which may come down to flatly stating when it should be obvious what an admissions director will and won't say because of institutional politics. Reading between the lines in a nuanced fashion is maybe only a valued professional legal skill in an idealized world, and maybe disingenuous character assassinations and obfuscations are the name of the game in practice in 2014, especially in the worlds people here aspire to enter. Still, it would suck if your efforts thus far and preference for PMs over posts left the most cynical here to shade in your picture as one of a sociopath who scams and sabotages applicants because, respectively, you didn't wait for mods to clean up in the way they thought best before you gave up on the whole thing, and didn't think about the possibility that an intelligent and sometimes even clever applicant might become popular for posting Elliot Rodger-tier content about tits and beer and lifting weights before you forwarded his e-mails about ripping out eyeballs and setting large fires as a result of sports outcomes under a mistaken idea of other local schools' idea of "fit" or your futile hopes for the makeup of your graduates' opposing counsel. I read somewhere it's a numbers game. I hope this is a teachable moment for you. Be sure not to be able to conceive of that sentence as a dry joke when you accuse me of humorlessness.

Enjoy your break. I'm told that nobody ever really quits TLS, however.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby 03152016 » Sun Dec 28, 2014 9:36 pm

ratfukr wrote:Less coherently but probably more conspicuously (as with most things here), it's about a perfect shitstorm to forward e-mails that failed to meet discursive standards while flaunting the norms and expecting "special treatment" here. You should assume you'll be median at best. Just because you're a dean of admissions doesn't mean that there aren't posters here who know more about the law school scam. These include literal former LSAT tutors - like, people who taught taking a standardized test in exchange for money - who applied ED to a much more expensive school than yours rather than make any attempt at all to reduce the cost of tuition. You might consider changing the name of the thread to Brut's Knowledge Palace or something similar.

i recognize that you're making a larger point, but it's not true that i didn't make any attempt at all to reduce the cost of tuition
i spent a lot of time working to get my aid package, and my tuition is less than kansas OOS
it was certainly a mistake to ed and i caution people against it all the time, but it's not the case that i was flippant about costs during my cycle

User avatar
TheodoreKGB
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 3:46 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby TheodoreKGB » Sun Dec 28, 2014 9:49 pm

.
Last edited by TheodoreKGB on Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

03152016
Posts: 9189
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 3:14 am

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby 03152016 » Sun Dec 28, 2014 9:53 pm

TheodoreKGB wrote:Go masturbate someplace else, Brut. This isn't time for another one of your shit-shows

the fuck are you talking about?
i posted to correct something written about me, not to brag or masturbate
are you serious

User avatar
ratfukr
Posts: 2991
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:44 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby ratfukr » Sun Dec 28, 2014 10:27 pm

Thank you for the clarification. Obviously I was being careless with the facts but I'm not going to be sorry when you do shit like ignore cost of living and the entire concept of price discrimination to come up with a statistic as meaningless as less than OOS sticker after ruining a different thread with the same willfully dense nonsense. Lots of things are scams but some things probably just fall under eggs that are going to get broken and PAYE'd unless/until proper socialism (or whatever you want to call it) happens in America. Don't shit up threads with whatever the fuck you were doing and just accept that things like LLMs, transfer admissions, and out-of-state tuition for regional schools may or may not largely be perfectly appropriate wealth distribution, but we don't know. Either way, nobody is going to come on here and explicitly say it in a thread that walks the line between marketing and narrative transparency, so stop being the fucking New York Post about it and come up with smarter questions that aren't the lowest-hanging-fruit spreadsheet dork autopilot pre-JDU schtick criticism.

Since this thread is going to be eventually run into the ground and merged into the garbage dump thread, it seems as good as anywhere to say that speaking of LSAT prep and paying to appear "smarter" and more appealing to a risk-averse spreadsheet monkey, and also about levels of acceptability in perceived overpayment, I think that applicants shouldn't be allowed to pay for admissions consulting because it creates perverse incentives to disguise more affluent lemons, a category which contains perhaps the worst and most intractable lemons. It should still exist but be treated as, like, rounds of outsourced interviewing and compensated with finder's fees paid by schools with adjustments for scholarship amounts. If the concern is that there is a conflict of interest, then good, because if you try to be a wealthy undercover lemon you should be accepted, but as a subsidy. Also, if you let too many lemons into the machine, you should have to break rocks in Siberia or something as another disincentive to accepting undercover lemons. By lemons I mean people with Patrick Bateman avatars, by the way

User avatar
utahraptor
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:05 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby utahraptor » Sun Dec 28, 2014 10:32 pm

cool

BigZuck
Posts: 10879
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby BigZuck » Mon Dec 29, 2014 4:27 am

So, like, is this ratfukr's grand reveal as "Hey guys, I'm TSL!"?

Or did I miss that when it happened?

User avatar
lacrossebrother
Top 17 consensus poster
Posts: 6874
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:15 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby lacrossebrother » Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:35 am

This is a great thread, however I disagree with the notion that Dean Steve looks yellow at all for quitting and ignoring Dirigio and Brut, given the clear hostility towards his answers in that thread. Every reasonable person can see that there was no way that the Dean could answer questions in a manner that was satisfactory to TLS, because TLS can't appreciate anything besides NYC job placement.

User avatar
MistakenGenius
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:18 pm

Post removed.

Postby MistakenGenius » Mon Dec 29, 2014 10:35 am

Post removed.
Last edited by MistakenGenius on Sun Dec 13, 2015 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
peger
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby peger » Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:33 pm

I can't wrap my head around the fact that the same person who would react to birdnal's email in the manner that he did would think it was a good idea to do a Q&A on a forum like this.

User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby bjsesq » Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:38 pm

lacrossebrother wrote:This is a great thread, however I disagree with the notion that Dean Steve looks yellow at all for quitting and ignoring Dirigio and Brut, given the clear hostility towards his answers in that thread. Every reasonable person can see that there was no way that the Dean could answer questions in a manner that was satisfactory to TLS,

Agreed

because TLS can't appreciate anything besides NYC job placement.

And then there's that omnipresent laxbrah non-sequitur.

User avatar
lacrossebrother
Top 17 consensus poster
Posts: 6874
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:15 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby lacrossebrother » Mon Dec 29, 2014 12:43 pm

:wink:

User avatar
20160810
Posts: 19648
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby 20160810 » Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:10 pm

This particular line is poetry:

I mean, it's impressive enough that you've come off as kind of an awkward hard-on at worst where the rebuttable presumption is probably rightfully one that admissions officers are scam artists and cannibals

User avatar
ratfukr
Posts: 2991
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:44 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby ratfukr » Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:10 am

I should clarify that I think the dean was being pretty cool. I should have emphasized "at worst" because I'm still trying to wrap my head around why everyone was so in a mood over those e-mails. I guess maybe chill Midwestern bros forwarding self-mutilation and arson e-mails to friends in other admissions offices is NOT OKAY? Or people here take Civil War-related "too soon" jokes literally or something because they're from states that literally quit America and still have confederate flags on their cars and stuff? I don't think professionalism is a real thing so I assumed accusations of lacking it were deadpan comments about it just not being funny. Which, like, it wasn't, and I think whatever school said "come on in" after getting that is on blast right now. For tolerating a really shitty attempt at metalepsis, I mean, not because it's fucked up to put people, about 50% of whom are female, in close quarters with people who send graphic and bloody messages to strangers, or anything.

User avatar
20160810
Posts: 19648
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby 20160810 » Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:47 am

Law schools' obsession with professionalism in general amuses me. They don't actually teach you much about the day to day reality of legal practice but they do a great job of selling the lie and everyone who barfs at bar review has committed career suicide.

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 3922
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby pancakes3 » Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:56 am

SBL wrote:Law schools' obsession with professionalism in general amuses me. They don't actually teach you much about the day to day reality of legal practice but they do a great job of selling the lie and everyone who barfs at bar review has committed career suicide.


I saw a girl puke at bar review and found it quite endearing actually.

User avatar
15 styx
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:04 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby 15 styx » Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:20 pm

I wonder if there is any tier2 school where the admin/dean could post without being panned — Baylor, UHouston, Neb come to mind (among others).

User avatar
MistakenGenius
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:18 pm

Post removed.

Postby MistakenGenius » Tue Dec 30, 2014 12:45 pm

Post removed.
Last edited by MistakenGenius on Sun Dec 13, 2015 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
15 styx
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:04 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby 15 styx » Tue Dec 30, 2014 1:14 pm

MistakenGenius wrote:Paul Pless was absolutely beloved on here (search his name and see how some of the megaposters on here adored him) since he appeared to be honest and forthright. Of course, this was before he was caught making up Illinois' admissions stats for years and this year busted in a prostitution sting.

That is just WAY too funny! Best EVER reply!

User avatar
ratfukr
Posts: 2991
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:44 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby ratfukr » Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:16 pm

SBL wrote:Law schools' obsession with professionalism in general amuses me. They don't actually teach you much about the day to day reality of legal practice but they do a great job of selling the lie and everyone who barfs at bar review has committed career suicide.

"Professionalism" as a borderline cult is just a specific case of the general aversion to imagination and creativity that keeps people at or below median in life.

User avatar
20160810
Posts: 19648
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby 20160810 » Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:18 pm

ratfukr wrote:
SBL wrote:Law schools' obsession with professionalism in general amuses me. They don't actually teach you much about the day to day reality of legal practice but they do a great job of selling the lie and everyone who barfs at bar review has committed career suicide.

"Professionalism" as a borderline cult is just a specific case of the general aversion to imagination and creativity that keeps people at or below median in life.

I mean I don't know that I would conflate barfing at bar review with imagination and creativity, but I support it nonetheless.

User avatar
ratfukr
Posts: 2991
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:44 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby ratfukr » Tue Dec 30, 2014 3:40 pm

"Don't mix clear and dark liquor" is a formalist beta trope

User avatar
ratfukr
Posts: 2991
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:44 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby ratfukr » Tue Dec 30, 2014 4:11 pm

MistakenGenius wrote:Bullshit, you've just been defending him blindly. Most people know that I don't particularly care about Biglaw placement, and have recommended regional TTTs in certain circumstances, namely being that a student has a large scholarship, ties to the area, no desire for Biglaw or clerkships, and wants to work in that area. But this Dean refused to address the fact that his student body is going into six figure debt for a coin flip chance at legal work and a much lower chance of a job that can pay said debt off. His email exchange with Birdnals also showed his true colors. But when people asked him to address these things or his outright lies in the forum he, as ratfuckr said, "took his toys and went home."

Actually, a grand total of zero out of five declarative sentences in this post are statements of fact.

1. Just, no
2. Nobody knows or cares how much you care about placement, or anything else.
3. This is not a "fact." It is a conclusory statement and the OP said why he was posting.
4. You are the worst.
5. I did not say that. I said he ran the risk of being perceived that way. For the sake of clarity, I meant by obstinate, verbose mouthbreathers like you who do not read even immediately preceding posts like the one quoted below. I also meant that the timing could look a little bad to literate and particularly attentive posters, but there's a baseline level of following the plot that you have to be on, and you're so far off the mark that it's not even worth addressing.

ratfukr wrote:Lots of things are scams but some things probably just fall under eggs that are going to get broken and PAYE'd unless/until proper socialism (or whatever you want to call it) happens in America. Don't shit up threads with whatever the fuck you were doing and just accept that things like LLMs, transfer admissions, and out-of-state tuition for regional schools may or may not largely be perfectly appropriate wealth distribution, but we don't know. Either way, nobody is going to come on here and explicitly say it in a thread that walks the line between marketing and narrative transparency, so stop being the fucking New York Post about it and come up with smarter questions that aren't the lowest-hanging-fruit spreadsheet dork autopilot pre-JDU schtick criticism.

You post to hear your own voice. Your rhetorical style is attrition and goal seeking. You are fucking up the signal-noise ratio. You don't fucking read.

I don't care about whatever point-missing overwritten non-response you'll make to this and I hope you get banned.

User avatar
prezidentv8
Posts: 2821
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 5:33 am

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby prezidentv8 » Tue Dec 30, 2014 4:24 pm

SBL wrote:
ratfukr wrote:
SBL wrote:Law schools' obsession with professionalism in general amuses me. They don't actually teach you much about the day to day reality of legal practice but they do a great job of selling the lie and everyone who barfs at bar review has committed career suicide.

"Professionalism" as a borderline cult is just a specific case of the general aversion to imagination and creativity that keeps people at or below median in life.

I mean I don't know that I would conflate barfing at bar review with imagination and creativity, but I support it nonetheless.


Agreed, I think.

User avatar
ratfukr
Posts: 2991
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:44 pm

Re: Open Letter to Kansas Law Dean

Postby ratfukr » Tue Dec 30, 2014 4:52 pm

prezidentv8 wrote:
SBL wrote:
ratfukr wrote:
SBL wrote:Law schools' obsession with professionalism in general amuses me. They don't actually teach you much about the day to day reality of legal practice but they do a great job of selling the lie and everyone who barfs at bar review has committed career suicide.

"Professionalism" as a borderline cult is just a specific case of the general aversion to imagination and creativity that keeps people at or below median in life.

I mean I don't know that I would conflate barfing at bar review with imagination and creativity, but I support it nonetheless.


Agreed, I think.

Bad posters are the reason more admissions deans don't drink to the point of vomiting at their respective schools' bar reviews




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], ConLaw2017, mrgstephe and 5 guests