crEEp wrote:Obviously I exaggerated to the extent that the entire class has a uniform LSAT distribution. However, your reliance on the interquartile range's significance is equally as invalid. Strictly speaking, the interquartile range establishes the point boundaries that encompass 50% of the class. The majority of students will have LSAT scores within this range, but there will of course be some outliers. Therefore, it's incorrect to maintain a position that claims my statement is false on every level.
Whether I'm passionate about a topic is irrelevant to my central argument. The people who benefit from time constraints are incredibly likely to succeed in practice, because they've demonstrated an ability to take orders and follow directions. The people disadvantaged by time constraints and typical exam settings are the more "risky" propositions for firms: indeed, their strengths may generate an exorbitant amount of profit for the firm. Also likely, their strengths may cost the firm equally substantial amounts of money. Lawyers are a risk averse crowd; a reasonably-balanced expected value calculation that accounts for all relevant externalities often isn't enough to break free from risk aversion.
Wow... as a math major, I'll assume you are not and that you may not completely understand what ENTIRE and OUTLIER mean. I have proven, quite easily and clearly, that 12 of the T14 schools prove your statement incorrect that the ENTIRE (see: 100%) class is within 2-3 LSAT points. Further, of the 3 schools that do have 25/75 separated by 3 points, I can unequivocally guarantee that each of those schools has an OUTLIER (see: a data point widely separated from the main cluster), which would then mean that your statement cannot be true. Your acceptance of the fact there are outliers proves your statement about LSAT distribution to be false. So, no, it is not incorrect to maintain a position that claims your statement to be false on every level (with regard to T14, though I suspect it would be true for every law school that requires the LSAT).
As for the rest of your argument, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you stating you believe those with ADD/ADHD are more risky propositions for employers? If so, how does this matter? An employer isn't going to know whether or not a prospective employee has ADD/ADHD unless the prospective employee brings it up, which I would assume doesn't happen often. As such, any additional risk is not known at the time of the offer and wouldn't have any bearing on whether an offer is made, therefore negating any impact risk-aversion may have in the hiring process. I also don't follow how a demonstrated ability to take orders and follow directions leads to the conclusion that someone will be incredibly likely to succeed. I was in the Marine Corps and I guarantee you that very few of my fellow Devil Dogs would be able to succeed in practice, and yet they are all very good at taking orders and follwoing directions.
I know, reading comprehension is SO fucking hard, right??? I'll break it down so that it's easier to digest for the "math majors" in the crowd:
1. I quite clearly stated that using the word "ENTIRE" was an exaggeration.
2. Notwithstanding that exaggeration, it's significant that nearly every law school has an entering class with LSAT scores in close proximity.
3. The fact that there are outliers is relatively insignificant, because most of the class lies within the interquartile range.
When it comes to hiring, there are two scenarios: (1) take a risk-averse approach by hiring those with demonstrated success; or (2) take a risk-seeking approach by hiring those who had limited success taking time-constrained exams. The students belonging to the first category would likely do fine in practice; they can take orders and predictably produce.
The students belonging to the second category would likely constitute "gambles" for the firm. It's true that veiled brilliance may contribute to their inability to perform on exams. However, they could also be lazy, uncommitted, or not cut out for law. What I thought I had made clear was the firm's inability to know the "true" circumstances of the student and how it means that said student could fall into any of those subcategories leading to limited success on time-constrained exams.