The "In Nowhere" Club Forum

[Bankhead]

The 1L guide, solidsnake's, and inter alia's posts were all fine.

[megaTTTron]

I'm not really seeing the relevance between what motivates X's decision and whether the result of X's decision is "fair" to all parties involved (here, high LSAT section vs. the other sections).

If schools were only concerned w saving money, they would give none out. If schools gave none out, they wouldn't attract high-scoring applicants. High-scoring applicants raise entering stats, which in turn could raise school rankings, and therefore have positive externalities on all students attending, regardless of their individual entering stats. Thus, it might be fair to compensate these high-scoring applicants with scholarship money.

Otoh, if we assume equal opportunity as a prerequisite for a fair outcome, then should schools allow high-scorers to also compete with low-scoring students for the same limited amount of law school A grades (assuming ex ante that lsat score is an accurate predictor) on top of their already-subsidized education? Probably not. To remedy this, lowered-tier schools section stack to equalize opportunity. (They could be motivated by a sense of fairness and justice, or more likely market incentives -- they don't want to lose their target segment of low-scoring applicants; either way, it's irrelevant. Fairness ultimately only evaluates the result of the decision from each perspective of those involved, using whatever criteria you want to adopt suggested by the political philosopher du jour)

But here we have people like A'nold who complain that it's unfair that his section was curved lower than the other sections. The school should have section-stacked to ensure fair competition, but mandated the curves be equal among the sections. Why it didn't do the latter was probably a combination of 1) it wanted to use the high stipulations to save money (to rinse and repeat with a new set of 0Ls) -- which again has positive benefits for people like A'nold; and 2) to increase the chances that low-scoring 0L applicants end up at the top of their 1L class with increased job prospects and therefore better goodwill among their target segment (assuming this becomes common knowledge). Whether this practice is fair depends on whether compensation via scholarship money extends here.

As an aside, there is a certain amount of caveat emptor when choosing to attend a tier 3 and frankly it's hard to listen to claims of unfairness, often confused with pleas for pity, when one voluntarily chose to take such a large risk for such a potentially small reward (knowing the employment/transfer prospects out of these schools). Ironically, some people view taking the scholarship and easy competition at a lowered-tier school as the less risky route. Schools that employ these practices are simply countering that assumption.

From an apparently smart poster (you're top 2% at a t50 AFAIK), this is probably the stupidest thing I've read in a long while.

What you are basically espousing is an anti-meritocratic philosophy: It is unfair for the most promising TTT students (lol) to compete with the average TTT students in the same school. That makes no sense.

The entire idea of 1L is to put the incoming students in the curved curriculum and see who rises to the top, who drifts in the middle, and who sinks to the bottom. This way, evaluators down the line (potential employers, judges, and higher-ranked schools) can look at a student and assess his credentials based on his school and class rank.

Putting all the highest LSAT scorers into one section obfuscates the purpose of 1L. It is primarily a sorting mechanism.

I am really surprised to hear you argue an anti-meritocratic philosophy, especially since you are definitely a beneficiary of meritocracy. Law school is supposed to be about merit.

Nevertheless, the caveat emptor definitely holds. TTT schools aren't known to be the most honest (just look at their employment statistics), and you get what you get.

Good luck to A'nold and all students moving forward.

/

God I hate posts like this. This is not a scholarly article, it's an online forum. SO f-ing pretentious.

Great, please enlighten us with your guide to acing 1L. It was so moving: I felt like I was right in the trenches with you.

Beware of the caveat emptor that personal philosophical idiosyncrasies may obfuscate the efficacy of my pedagogy.

[interalia]

"The moon's an arrant thief, and her pale fire she snatches from the sun."

[solidsnake]

I'm not really seeing the relevance between what motivates X's decision and whether the result of X's decision is "fair" to all parties involved (here, high LSAT section vs. the other sections).

If schools were only concerned w saving money, they would give none out. If schools gave none out, they wouldn't attract high-scoring applicants. High-scoring applicants raise entering stats, which in turn could raise school rankings, and therefore have positive externalities on all students attending, regardless of their individual entering stats. Thus, it might be fair to compensate these high-scoring applicants with scholarship money.

Otoh, if we assume equal opportunity as a prerequisite for a fair outcome, then should schools allow high-scorers to also compete with low-scoring students for the same limited amount of law school A grades (assuming ex ante that lsat score is an accurate predictor) on top of their already-subsidized education? Probably not. To remedy this, lowered-tier schools section stack to equalize opportunity. (They could be motivated by a sense of fairness and justice, or more likely market incentives -- they don't want to lose their target segment of low-scoring applicants; either way, it's irrelevant. Fairness ultimately only evaluates the result of the decision from each perspective of those involved, using whatever criteria you want to adopt suggested by the political philosopher du jour)

But here we have people like A'nold who complain that it's unfair that his section was curved lower than the other sections. The school should have section-stacked to ensure fair competition, but mandated the curves be equal among the sections. Why it didn't do the latter was probably a combination of 1) it wanted to use the high stipulations to save money (to rinse and repeat with a new set of 0Ls) -- which again has positive benefits for people like A'nold; and 2) to increase the chances that low-scoring 0L applicants end up at the top of their 1L class with increased job prospects and therefore better goodwill among their target segment (assuming this becomes common knowledge). Whether this practice is fair depends on whether compensation via scholarship money extends here.

As an aside, there is a certain amount of caveat emptor when choosing to attend a tier 3 and frankly it's hard to listen to claims of unfairness, often confused with pleas for pity, when one voluntarily chose to take such a large risk for such a potentially small reward (knowing the employment/transfer prospects out of these schools). Ironically, some people view taking the scholarship and easy competition at a lowered-tier school as the less risky route. Schools that employ these practices are simply countering that assumption.

What you are basically espousing is an anti-meritocratic philosophy: It is unfair for the most promising TTT students (lol) to compete with the average TTT students in the same school. That makes no sense.

Read the post again (I didn't even really make an ultimate argument, just narrowed the issue). I did say, however, that high-scoring applicants have already been (rightfully) compensated (in part via the full-tuition payments of the low-scoring applicants) for helping the school raise their rankings with higher entering stats. Letting them then directly compete with students outside their weight-class seems a bit like a windfall from the perspective of the low-scoring applicants. There might nevertheless be other valid reasons for the school doing this, like preparing students for the real world small in which solo practitioners have to directly compete with biglaw firms and their virtually endless resources, but we are debating only the fairness aspect of it from each perspective of those involved.

The entire idea of 1L is to put the incoming students in the curved curriculum and see who rises to the top, who drifts in the middle, and who sinks to the bottom. This way, evaluators down the line (potential employers, judges, and higher-ranked schools) can look at a student and assess his credentials based on his school and class rank.

Putting all the highest LSAT scorers into one section obfuscates the purpose of 1L. It is primarily a sorting mechanism.

I don't see how this obfuscates the purpose of 1L. If we accepting sorting as the purpose of 1L (with which I don't disagree; it's one of the primary purposes, at least), then wouldn't employers/evaluators want as much info as possible? Like whether the applicant was sorted against (and subsequently bested) peers of similar credentials rather than peers 10 lsat points below her?

The caliber of your competition matters, which is why schools evaluate school rank on top of class rank when deciding transfer applications.

I am really surprised to hear you argue an anti-meritocratic philosophy, especially since you are definitely a beneficiary of meritocracy. Law school is supposed to be about merit.

Meritocracy, at least in the classical liberal sense, is about equal opportunity but not equalized outcome. That's why the LSAT is called the "great equalizer" -- no matter what major, school, and gpa, everyone sits down and takes the same test, graded in the same way. Only recently have test prep companies ruined this. (disability accommodations aside, for now).


I agree that the school, by curving one section lower than others, is tweaking results rather than the process. However, i think the caveat emptor justification for that (given in the last paragraph of the quoted post above) was pretty persuasive. What i don't understand is why 1Ls who are so self-assured of their would-be success were it not for a low curve complain. This is like people who make $160k/yr complain about about changes in the minimum wage (ignoring any economic ripple effects for now). An A grade is 4.0 regardless of where the median curve is set. If one is so confident that, despite how few As are awarded, they have the merit to earn one in each class, then why would it matter where the median gpa is set, unless absolutely no As were awarded at all, which doesn't seem to be the case here at A'nold's school.

[thexfactor]

i think this is why people hate lawyers....
lawyers want to have a debate on everything....

[berkcol]

this thread is out of control

[megaTTTron]

^^

yea sorry. A'nold, status update?

[traydeuce]

Here's my typically obnoxious opinion on the section stacking. Even the best stacked section at a t3 is going to be comparable to, what, an average class in a t40 school? If that? You may wish that the sections hadn't been stacked so you could outpace all of your 152 LSAT classmates and finish in the top of your class (thereby proving what if anything, exactly?), but as is, your school, by section stacking, has revealed how you would have done in a t50 school - just in the top 10%, or a little worse. So yeah, you deserve some t25 consideration, assuming a stacked section at a t3 school even is comparable to an average class at, say, Wake Forest, but I don't know how great an injustice has been done to you. It's still on you (and totally possible) to finish at the top of your stacked section if you want to go up very far. Edit: I will concede that it is unfair if you were not only stacked, but given a tougher curve than other sections. That makes no sense at all. At the very least, they should advise other schools (and employers!) of that on your transcript.

[pocket herc]

even the stacked sections likely are not comparable to T-1 schools to be honest. However, A'nold should be fine and will be able to transfer shortly.

[twert]

its not about how he did in a stacked section. its the fact that he's ranked against people that were not in a stacked section. in no way is that comparable to a T1.

[iheartlaw]

Beware of the caveat emptor that personal philosophical idiosyncrasies may obfuscate the efficacy of my pedagogy.

megaTTTron FTW +∞

[convicted]

Here's my typically obnoxious opinion on the section stacking. Even the best stacked section at a t3 is going to be comparable to, what, an average class in a t40 school? If that? You may wish that the sections hadn't been stacked so you could outpace all of your 152 LSAT classmates and finish in the top of your class (thereby proving what if anything, exactly?), but as is, your school, by section stacking, has revealed how you would have done in a t50 school - just in the top 10%, or a little worse. So yeah, you deserve some t25 consideration, assuming a stacked section at a t3 school even is comparable to an average class at, say, Wake Forest, but I don't know how great an injustice has been done to you. It's still on you (and totally possible) to finish at the top of your stacked section if you want to go up very far. Edit: I will concede that it is unfair if you were not only stacked, but given a tougher curve than other sections. That makes no sense at all. At the very least, they should advise other schools (and employers!) of that on your transcript.

I think this is exactly right. If it is true that A'nold was in a stacked section, and he wasn't able to compete with the top students, then that's evidence that he shouldn't transfer to a T1 school, I think. If his section had a handful of students that represent the average caliber of student at WUSTL, and A'nold did worse than them... well, why would WUSTL be interested in him? I suppose schools may be interested in accepting transfer students that are likely to end up at the bottom of the class, but it's not immediately apparent to me why that's in the school's best interest.

To be clear, if the other, "non-stacked" sections have more friendly grades, well, that does seem possibly unfair in the transfer context. Somebody of equal caliber to A'nold who happened to land in a different section may now have a somewhat higher chance of getting accepted to transfer to a T1 school than A'nold. How high a chance is hard to say. A'nold goes to a TTT and not many students there are prepared for a T1. But anyways, I think the point in my prior paragraph, and the quoted text, still holds true: if A'nold can't compete with the top students at his school, that's evidence that he's not prepared for a T1 school. No amount of whining about injustice in the world will change that.

[interalia]

What do you mean, can't compete? He's #3 in his section (the stacked one).

[A'nold]

What do you mean, can't compete? He's #3 in his section (the stacked one).

Thank you. I mean, for somebody so obviously "superior," convicted sure falls short a lot.

Anyway, I have to point out one more thing: Everyone is talking about section stacking. I already said that, while it is unfair, I knew going in that that would be a possibility and I believed (rightly so) that I could compete with the best. HOWEVER, not only was I section stacked, but my section's curve across most classes was like a 2.6 compared to a 3.0 in the "easy" section. How the hell is that even remotely fair? So, all of the best students compete with for one A, one A-, and 2 B+'s? Toss in the fact that a B+ automatically eliminates you from contention against the other section's multitude of "top students" and you are basically screwed across the board. Ultimately, you have to be the #1 student in your section to be in the top 7 or so in the school (which is what I did last semester). I mean, I must be a complete idiot for dropping to third in my section.

[convicted]

interalia, do those numbers add up? A'nold was third in his section, but only around top 15%-20% (I don't know where he posted his numbers, so this is from memory and may be off) in the school? I don't believe it. More than two people in his section beat him.

Even if it is true, I think the point still stands. The top schools want the top students. Somebody who does decently well, but doesn't come out on top, at an incredibly TTT school does not have the credentials most top schools are interested in. A'nold may get accepted somewhere, and because I have a good heart, I wish him well, even though I think he is a moral monster, but his sense of entitlement and injustice is incredibly misplaced.

[pocket herc]

a moral monster? wtf?

[berkcol]

What do you mean, can't compete? He's #3 in his section (the stacked one).

Thank you. I mean, for somebody so obviously "superior," convicted sure falls short a lot.

Anyway, I have to point out one more thing: Everyone is talking about section stacking. I already said that, while it is unfair, I knew going in that that would be a possibility and I believed (rightly so) that I could compete with the best. HOWEVER, not only was I section stacked, but my section's curve across most classes was like a 2.6 compared to a 3.0 in the "easy" section. How the hell is that even remotely fair? So, all of the best students compete with for one A, one A-, and 2 B+'s? Toss in the fact that a B+ automatically eliminates you from contention against the other section's multitude of "top students" and you are basically screwed across the board. Ultimately, you have to be the #1 student in your section to be in the top 7 or so in the school (which is what I did last semester). I mean, I must be a complete idiot for dropping to third in my section.

You sure yap a lot after declaring to the world that you're done with your incremental whinings on this thread.

[thexfactor]

yea man the world isnt fair. Sometimes you get breaks that you shouldnt get and other times you dont get the breaks that you should get....

What do you mean, can't compete? He's #3 in his section (the stacked one).

Thank you. I mean, for somebody so obviously "superior," convicted sure falls short a lot.

Anyway, I have to point out one more thing: Everyone is talking about section stacking. I already said that, while it is unfair, I knew going in that that would be a possibility and I believed (rightly so) that I could compete with the best. HOWEVER, not only was I section stacked, but my section's curve across most classes was like a 2.6 compared to a 3.0 in the "easy" section. How the hell is that even remotely fair? So, all of the best students compete with for one A, one A-, and 2 B+'s? Toss in the fact that a B+ automatically eliminates you from contention against the other section's multitude of "top students" and you are basically screwed across the board. Ultimately, you have to be the #1 student in your section to be in the top 7 or so in the school (which is what I did last semester). I mean, I must be a complete idiot for dropping to third in my section.

You sure yap a lot after declaring to the world that you're finished on this thread.

[convicted]

a moral monster? wtf?

To be clear, he has a long history of mocking rape victims on this forum. I won't bother discussing that any more -- even though A'nold is inclined to keep it up, for whatever reason -- but am only mentioning it for context. I do not call him a moral monster because of his performance at law school.

[berkcol]

a moral monster? wtf?

To be clear, he has a long history of mocking rape victims on this forum. I won't bother discussing that any more -- even though A'nold is inclined to keep it up, for whatever reason -- but am only mentioning it for context. I do not call him a moral monster because of his performance at law school.

I'm willing to bet $100 he bored the ad comms with this pointless diversion in his personal statement.

[convicted]

a moral monster? wtf?

To be clear, he has a long history of mocking rape victims on this forum. I won't bother discussing that any more -- even though A'nold is inclined to keep it up, for whatever reason -- but am only mentioning it for context. I do not call him a moral monster because of his performance at law school.

I'm willing to bet $100 he bored the ad comms with this pointless diversion in his personal statement.

I've offered A'nold good faith advice about his mentality and the way it shows through in his writing, but considering he continues to mock rape victims on the internet (where he is hardly anonymous, I should mention, since we all know his law school, his alleged section and his alleged section rank), I very much doubt he took my advice. But anyways, I wish him the best of luck in his endeavors.

[berkcol]

a moral monster? wtf?

To be clear, he has a long history of mocking rape victims on this forum. I won't bother discussing that any more -- even though A'nold is inclined to keep it up, for whatever reason -- but am only mentioning it for context. I do not call him a moral monster because of his performance at law school.

I'm willing to bet $100 he bored the ad comms with this pointless diversion in his personal statement.

I've offered A'nold good faith advice about his mentality and the way it shows through in his writing, but considering he continues to mock rape victims on the internet (where he is hardly anonymous, I should mention, since we all know his law school, his alleged section and his alleged section rank), I very much doubt he took my advice. But anyways, I wish him the best of luck in his endeavors.

So I'm not really sure what the hell you're yapping about, you seem marginally nuttier than A'nold.

[Machine Spirit]

....None of these "rape" comments have anything to do with the current thread. Moreover, to accuse someone of making light of rape victims (and searching A'nold's post history, I see none of that) seems disgustingly malicious.

Convicted, it's quite clear that you don't like TS on a personal level. As a quick example, here's your response to one of A'nold's threads asking for help when he was performing poorly on LSAT practices:

Just dropping a quick note to say I feel a huge surge of relief in learning that you are terrible at the LSAT. It makes me feel much better knowing that your career will likely be largely inconsequential.

Needless to say, at this point, I'm sure the feeling is mutual. So why do you involve yourself in this thread, take it wholly off-topic, and ruin it for the rest of us? I come on this website to seek advice and learn from people who are experienced in the transfer process or who are going through the same tribulations as myself. I don't come here to watch you or A'nold go off on absurdest tangents. I'd ask that you please return focus to the topic at hand, delete your posts, whatever, but I obviously have no clout to request such a thing. In any case, please stop talking, you sound absolutely vindictively insane. Thanks.

[Danteshek]

It does appear from this thread that Convicted must be a rape victim (or thinks he/she is).

[convicted]

....None of these "rape" comments have anything to do with the current thread. Moreover, to accuse someone of making light of rape victims (and searching A'nold's post history, I see none of that) seems disgustingly malicious.

Convicted, it's quite clear that you don't like TS on a personal level. As a quick example, here's your response to one of A'nold's threads asking for help when he was performing poorly on LSAT practices:

Just dropping a quick note to say I feel a huge surge of relief in learning that you are terrible at the LSAT. It makes me feel much better knowing that your career will likely be largely inconsequential.

Needless to say, at this point, I'm sure the feeling is mutual. So why do you involve yourself in this thread, take it wholly off-topic, and ruin it for the rest of us? I come on this website to seek advice and learn from people who are experienced in the transfer process or who are going through the same tribulations as myself. I don't come here to watch you or A'nold go off on absurdest tangents. I'd ask that you please return focus to the topic at hand, delete your posts, whatever, but I obviously have no clout to request such a thing. In any case, please stop talking, you sound absolutely vindictively insane. Thanks.

Hi Machine Spirit.

Have a look at the second page of this very thread.

Convicted: You actually really just cheered me up bigtime. I sometimes forget that when I am down, all I have to do is thank my lucky stars that my a-hole is not the size of a grapefruit at the hands of bubba. Thanks for bringing some well needed perspective to this thread!

I see you conducted a very thorough search. I think it goes without saying that you are beyond stupid.