3.48/180 Forum

[NDPhil]

To weigh-in on the actual purpose of this thread, I doubt HYS will happen, but I don't think an application to H is a complete waste of time. FWIW: I did not get into any of the three schools.

[paratactical]

When people say ridiculously stupid things, they deserve ridicule and shame. This is the internet, not Miss Polly's kindergarten class.

Also, you do realize this subforum, and most of TLS in general, is geared towards law school applicants and not students? That makes a big difference in the kind of language used. But what para said is most apt, that you use different language in different situations. We are talking about admissions here, not briefing a case or reading a memo. Human beings who have the least sense of decency understand that you need to be able to shift your language depending on the context you are in, but it is idiots like the attacked poster who try and reinforce their image of superiority by using language just to show off.

Agree with your sentiment, but the ad homs take away from it IMO.

(Please don't call me pretentious for saying ad hom! )

I think it was entirely appropriate in this context. For the record, as frequently as I disagree with you, letters and numbers, I don't think you're a douchetruck of any sort.

[bk1]

Agree with your sentiment, but the ad homs take away from it IMO.

(Please don't call me pretentious for saying ad hom! )

Haha that wasn't at you. I, and others, are likely more okay with it when the speaker isn't saying something phenomenally dumb.

[bk1]

To weigh-in on the actual purpose of this thread, I doubt HYS will happen, but I don't think an application to H is a complete waste of time.

Agreed.

[NDPhil]

Also, you do realize this subforum, and most of TLS in general, is geared towards law school applicants and not students? That makes a big difference in the kind of language used. But what para said is most apt, that you use different language in different situations.

Be that as it may, if an aspiring law school student does not understand the term "ceteris paribus," much less a current law student at WASH STL, then law school may not be for him.

[d34d9823]

I think it was entirely appropriate in this context. For the record, as frequently as I disagree with you, letters and numbers, I don't think you're a douchetruck of any sort.

Aw, thanks. We do seem to disagree a lot, don't we?

To weigh-in on the actual purpose of this thread, I doubt HYS will happen, but I don't think an application to H is a complete waste of time. FWIW: I did not get into any of the three schools.

Talk about a rabbit trail. Sorry, haydee! FWIW, I have similar numbers (3.6x, 177-180), and I'm applying to HYS but expecting Columbia. In your situation, I think H is the only one worth the app fee. LSN is super grim for even my GPA at YS.

[bk1]

Be that as it may, if an aspiring law school student does not understand the term "ceteris paribus," much less a current law student at WASH STL, then law school may not be for him.

I would think the overwhelming majority of entering 1L's, even at the T14, have never heard the term.

[d34d9823]

Be that as it may, if an aspiring law school student does not understand the term "ceteris paribus," much less a current law student at WASH STL, then law school may not be for him.

I would think the overwhelming majority of entering 1L's, even at the T14, have never heard the term.

[bk1]

What common thread would expose a majority of entering law students to the term?

[NDPhil]

I would think the overwhelming majority of entering 1L's, even at the T14, have never heard the term.

I hope this is not true. If it is, then the overwhelming majority of entering L1's is pretty stupid, and hopefully a few 1L's are getting a good undergraduate education.

What common thread would expose a majority of entering law students to the term?

A book. One critical-thinking course. You know, the sort of things you are exposed to in college.

[bk1]

Maybe I just don't have a high estimation of humanity whether it be the general public or law students.

It's not like getting a high GPA or LSAT requires enjoying outside philosophical reading all that much.

[paratactical]

What common thread would expose a majority of entering law students to the term?

A book. One critical-thinking course. You know, the sort of things you are exposed to in college.

I never came across the term in any of my college experiences and I would doubt that I am in the minority in this regard.

[NDPhil]

It's not like getting a high GPA or LSAT requires enjoying outside philosophical reading all that much.

Then you confirm the suspicion that high GPA's and LSAT's really don't say much about intelligence.

If you think getting a grasp on "ceteris paribus" requires outside philosophical reading, then it appears you count yourself among the overwhelming majority of 1L's. You do attend your classes and read your readings at UC Davis, right?

I never came across the term in any of my college experiences and I would doubt that I am in the minority in this regard.

It's essential terminology in basic economics, law, physics, and philosophy. Surely you took a course in one of these areas.

[paratactical]

It's not like getting a high GPA or LSAT requires enjoying outside philosophical reading all that much.

If you think getting a grasp on "ceteris paribus" requires outside philosophical reading, then it appears you count yourself among the overwhelming majority of 1L's. You do attend your classes and read your readings at UC Davis, right?

--ImageRemoved--

[NDPhil]

It's not like getting a high GPA or LSAT requires enjoying outside philosophical reading all that much.

If you think getting a grasp on "ceteris paribus" requires outside philosophical reading, then it appears you count yourself among the overwhelming majority of 1L's. You do attend your classes and read your readings at UC Davis, right?

--ImageRemoved--

Once more, a brilliant escape from debate! You will dazzle your law professors!

[bk1]

If you think getting a grasp on "ceteris paribus" requires outside philosophical reading, then it appears you count yourself among the overwhelming majority of 1L's. You do attend your classes and read your readings at UC Davis, right?

I didn't say grasp, I said exposure. Having attended class and read for them...

It's essential terminology in basic economics, law, physics, and philosophy. Surely you took a course in one of these areas.

I haven't found this is true at all.

[paratactical]

I never came across the term in any of my college experiences and I would doubt that I am in the minority in this regard.

It's essential terminology in basic economics, law, physics, and philosophy. Surely you took a course in one of these areas.

It wasn't in the econ or the philosophy class I took.

[NDPhil]

I haven't found this is true at all.

Then you haven't been reading. Here, let's make this easier: Google the term. Then you can get your exposure.

It wasn't in the econ or the philosophy class I took.

That could explain why you can't put together a coherent argument--you were doing graphic design during those classes!

[paratactical]

I haven't found this is true at all.

Then you haven't been reading. Here, let's make this easier: Google the term. Then you can get your exposure.

Man, you are just hell bent on being a jerk, aren't you?

If you want to make the argument that a person of reasonable intelligence can learn the term when they come across it, that's fine, but to demand that everyone who doesn't know a term doesn't read or isn't a well educated as you is downright silly.

[NDPhil]

Man, you are just hell bent on being a jerk, aren't you?

Aw, you can make fun of people with graphic art but your feelings get hurt when someone points out that you're not very clever? I know, put me on one your lists that you make for people who hurt your feelings.

[bk1]

Then you haven't been reading. Here, let's make this easier: Google the term. Then you can get your exposure.

You just don't get it do you?

The point is whether or not intro courses in those areas often teach it. I said for an overwhelming majority of the time they don't. You're claiming that 100% of the time, without exception, they do because it is integral to an intro course in those areas. I may be wrong but I can guarantee you that there is no way you are right.

[romothesavior]

Be that as it may, if an aspiring law school student does not understand the term "ceteris paribus," much less a current law student at WASH STL, then law school may not be for him.

LOLOLOL just noticed this absurdly stupid and unnecessary swipe at me.

What gave you the impression that I don't understand it? I knew what the term meant just fine. Just because I think it is retarded to say something doesn't mean I don't understand it. I thought that inter alia guy from a few months back was a pretty big tool too, and I knew what that term meant. I also think people who try to be funny by making law school jokes IRL are pretty stupid too, but that doesn't mean I don't get it.

[NDPhil]

The point is whether or not intro courses in those areas often teach it. I said for an overwhelming majority of the time they don't. You're claiming that 100% of the time, without exception, they do because it is integral to an intro course in those areas. I may be wrong but I can guarantee you that there is no way you are right.

That sounds like a great way to spend your time. But...first thing's first...do your Google research on "ceteris paribus." It seems that you're not quite ready to look through your textbooks for the answer just yet.

[bk1]

Be that as it may, if an aspiring law school student does not understand the term "ceteris paribus," much less a current law student at WASH STL, then law school may not be for him.

LOLOLOL just noticed this absurdly stupid and unnecessary swipe at me.

What gave you the impression that I don't understand it? I knew what the term meant just fine. Just because I think it is retarded to say something doesn't mean I don't understand it. I thought that inter alia guy from a few months back was a pretty big tool too, and I knew what that term meant. I also think people who try to be funny by making law school jokes IRL are pretty stupid too, but that doesn't mean I don't get it.

I avoided saying this because it will just serve as fodder for the douche.

[NDPhil]

What gave you the impression that I don't understand it?

Oh, I don't know...misspelling the phrase initially set me off. Then your lack of coherent argument as to what the problem with the term is. Then I saw that you are spending most of your Friday afternoon trying to look like you know what it means, which is usually a sign that you're compensating for a lack. Maybe you should spend less time telling people who have better numbers than you which schools they won't get into and more time reading law books. But I wish you the best for whenever you decide to open a law book.