Rough out there... Forum

[bearjew]

eta: i clicked it, why would you set up a community reference for an office vid?

Mediocre mind, blame it on my mediocre mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnPlHvXIJPs

well played sir

also @untar: it got picked up for season 5!

#SixSeasonsandaMovie

[sflyr2016]

Oh god, the thought of working anywhere that only hires for "prestige."

That's a blatant misinterpretation of what was said.

How so? A firm won't hire from in-state law schools because they don't have nearly enough "prestige as the applicants we're looking for?"

Given that the law firm knows they can find applicants from UF or FSU that are every bit as smart and hardworking as applicants from Harvard, and that this hiring partner specifically said that the in-state graduates lack "prestige," how would you like me to phrase my remark?

Oh god, I would never want to work at a place that would not hire a person because they were not "prestigious?"

Scalia's a douche, but this quote of his is pretty typical for legal hiring:

By and large, I’m going to be picking from the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest, O.K.?

The quality of professors at FSU might be just fine compared to a T14 but the caliber of student attending is, by and large, not the same. These are people who got bad grades and bad LSAT scores. Sure, a few are probably undiscovered legal geniuses who could out-reason Learned Hand, but a lot of them are just mediocre students with mediocre minds who are going to be mediocre at whatever they do for the rest of their lives, no matter how many of their professors went to Yale.

This is hilarious. Why is there a focus on LSAT scores as if it's some sort of means for measuring legal brilliance? I would think that class rank is more telling. And I would contend that legal employers think the same way.

Furthermore --especially as it pertains to South Florida -- my cousin could not break 160 on the LSAT. After 1L he was in the top 3% at a T2 and got into Berkeley and GUCL. He ended up going to GULC and graduated 7th in his class. Multiple V25, V10 offers, and currently works biglaw in Miami. Booked 4 courses at GULC and 3 at the other school. Point is, LSAT scores and undergrad performance are not real indicators of legal ingenuity.

Btw, at his firm they hired 5 associates - 2 from UF, 1 from UM, 1 from Stanford, and him. He mentioned to me that without question the girl from UM was regarded as the "superstar" (as he put it) in that group and everyone knew it. She deferred her offer for a clerkship. Of those 5 - 2 were from t-14's and one (himself) transferred a T2 scored a 159 LSAT. I am assuming that 4/5 in that group scored under a 170, and it is very possible that neither of them actually broke the 170 mark. However, they all ranked at the top, or near the top, of their class.

[Tiago Splitter]

Furthermore --especially as it pertains to South Florida -- my cousin could not break 160 on the LSAT. After 1L he was in the top 3% at a T2 and got into Berkeley and GUCL.

You mean to tell me that a person who could not break 160 on the LSAT ended up at the top of the class at a school where a large percentage of people could not break 160 on the LSAT? I refuse to believe it.

[sflyr2016]

Furthermore --especially as it pertains to South Florida -- my cousin could not break 160 on the LSAT. After 1L he was in the top 3% at a T2 and got into Berkeley and GUCL.

You mean to tell me that a person who could not break 160 on the LSAT ended up at the top of the class at a school where a large percentage of people could not break 160 on the LSAT? I refuse to believe it.

Define large percentage. Please.

[LetsGoRangers]

Furthermore --especially as it pertains to South Florida -- my cousin could not break 160 on the LSAT. After 1L he was in the top 3% at a T2 and got into Berkeley and GUCL.

You mean to tell me that a person who could not break 160 on the LSAT ended up at the top of the class at a school where a large percentage of people could not break 160 on the LSAT? I refuse to believe it.

Define large percentage. Please.

I think Splitter is referring to the T2 and missed the part where he said the cousin graduated 7th in his class at GULC. Which is probably somewhere in the top 2% at GULC

[Micdiddy]

Honestly, I love the direction this thread is going. I can show it to my students as a shining example of pure LSAT fail. Not only is it a cesspool of straw men, but now we have general statements trying to be refuted by isolated, atypical cases. Has a single post actually responded logically and on-topic to one before it? If so, I must have missed it.

[LetsGoRangers]

Honestly, I love the direction this thread is going. I can show it to my students as a shining example of pure LSAT fail. Not only is it a cesspool of straw men, but now we have general statements trying to be refuted by isolated, atypical cases. Has a single post actually responded logically and on-topic to one before it? If so, I must have missed it.

Oh what a scholar! I'm not sure what you were trying to prove. The thread turned into a circlejerk, people got offended and mediocre minds were squashed.

But in all seriousness what was the point you were making?

[Micdiddy]

Honestly, I love the direction this thread is going. I can show it to my students as a shining example of pure LSAT fail. Not only is it a cesspool of straw men, but now we have general statements trying to be refuted by isolated, atypical cases. Has a single post actually responded logically and on-topic to one before it? If so, I must have missed it.

Oh what a scholar! I'm not sure what you were trying to prove. The thread turned into a circlejerk, people got offended and mediocre minds were squashed.

But in all seriousness what was the point you were making?

Instead of being highly repetitive, I just plain don't care if you missed "my point."

[moonman157]

It

I was trying not to be dehumanizing but that's true. Maybe I'm one of the mediocre minds that belongs at FSU instead of a T14 (that was a joke)

[LetsGoRangers]

Honestly, I love the direction this thread is going. I can show it to my students as a shining example of pure LSAT fail. Not only is it a cesspool of straw men, but now we have general statements trying to be refuted by isolated, atypical cases. Has a single post actually responded logically and on-topic to one before it? If so, I must have missed it.

Oh what a scholar! I'm not sure what you were trying to prove. The thread turned into a circlejerk, people got offended and mediocre minds were squashed.

But in all seriousness what was the point you were making?

Instead of being highly repetitive, I just plain don't care if you missed "my point."

Sorry dude you're too busy being totally cereal and sniffing your own farts.

[bearjew]

Honestly, I love the direction this thread is going. I can show it to my students as a shining example of pure LSAT fail.

Just show them the Community links.

[Micdiddy]

Oh what a scholar! I'm not sure what you were trying to prove. The thread turned into a circlejerk, people got offended and mediocre minds were squashed.

But in all seriousness what was the point you were making?

Instead of being highly repetitive, I just plain don't care if you missed "my point."

Sorry dude you're too busy being totally cereal and sniffing your own farts.

And yet I'm also the one who seems most amused by this thread. Sounds like a win-win to me.

[bearjew]

.

[84651846190]

This is hilarious. Why is there a focus on LSAT scores as if it's some sort of means for measuring legal brilliance? I would think that class rank is more telling. And I would contend that legal employers think the same way.

Furthermore --especially as it pertains to South Florida -- my cousin could not break 160 on the LSAT. After 1L he was in the top 3% at a T2 and got into Berkeley and GUCL. He ended up going to GULC and graduated 7th in his class. Multiple V25, V10 offers, and currently works biglaw in Miami. Booked 4 courses at GULC and 3 at the other school. Point is, LSAT scores and undergrad performance are not real indicators of legal ingenuity.

Btw, at his firm they hired 5 associates - 2 from UF, 1 from UM, 1 from Stanford, and him. He mentioned to me that without question the girl from UM was regarded as the "superstar" (as he put it) in that group and everyone knew it. She deferred her offer for a clerkship. Of those 5 - 2 were from t-14's and one (himself) transferred a T2 scored a 159 LSAT. I am assuming that 4/5 in that group scored under a 170, and it is very possible that neither of them actually broke the 170 mark. However, they all ranked at the top, or near the top, of their class.

What's even more interesting is that people who get really great grades in law school sometimes make very shitty lawyers.

[LetsGoRangers]

Oh what a scholar! I'm not sure what you were trying to prove. The thread turned into a circlejerk, people got offended and mediocre minds were squashed.

But in all seriousness what was the point you were making?

Instead of being highly repetitive, I just plain don't care if you missed "my point."

Sorry dude you're too busy being totally cereal and sniffing your own farts.

And yet I'm also the one who seems most amused by this thread. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Edit. Sorry. He called it a cesspool

Yes the guy taking himself incredibly seriously on an anonymous internet forum is having the most fun!

Wait till he shows his students the wasteland of logic on this board. They'll have such a chuckle!

[84651846190]

Addressing the LSAT v. LS GPA debate (which has been re-hashed a bajillion times on TLS already), the two are measuring different kinds of intelligence/skills. I believe the LSAT is a good measure of raw intellectual horsepower, assuming someone taking it has studied thoroughly. A high LS GPA is a sign of someone who hustles, learns the law school grades game and has the endurance/motivation/focus to *consistently* get high grades on LS exams. Obviously, the latter is a better indicator of success during a legal career (or at least the early part of a legal career at a biglaw firm) than an LSAT score because there are a lot of awfully smart people who burn out in law school and during their legal professions, but the people with the cajones to pull 16 hour days in law school consistently are the people who are going to be able to do this during the first part of their legal careers which is really all you need to be successful as a junior to midlevel associate. Now, whether they can generate business is an entirely different discussion about an entirely different skillset.

[Micdiddy]

Instead of being highly repetitive, I just plain don't care if you missed "my point."

Sorry dude you're too busy being totally cereal and sniffing your own farts.

And yet I'm also the one who seems most amused by this thread. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Edit. Sorry. He called it a cesspool

Yes the guy taking himself incredibly seriously on an anonymous internet forum is having the most fun!

Wait till he shows his students the wasteland of logic on this board. They'll have such a chuckle!

Good ol' ad hominem, not surprised to see you here.

[LetsGoRangers]

Good ol' ad hominem, not surprised to see you here.

We get it. You are logical and only make the soundest of arguments through scholarship. You sound very well-adjusted and non-aspie.

[sflyr2016]

Honestly, I love the direction this thread is going. I can show it to my students as a shining example of pure LSAT fail. Not only is it a cesspool of straw men, but now we have general statements trying to be refuted by isolated, atypical cases. Has a single post actually responded logically and on-topic to one before it? If so, I must have missed it.

Lol. Yeah and when you do, remind them that this isn't an LSAT question.

Jackass.

Very rarely does good lawyering, or effective arguing for that matter, rely on perfect logical consistency.

[LetsGoRangers]

Honestly, I love the direction this thread is going. I can show it to my students as a shining example of pure LSAT fail. Not only is it a cesspool of straw men, but now we have general statements trying to be refuted by isolated, atypical cases. Has a single post actually responded logically and on-topic to one before it? If so, I must have missed it.

Lol. Yeah and when you do, remind them that this isn't an LSAT question.

Jackass.

Very rarely does good lawyering, or effective arguing for that matter, rely on perfect logical consistency.

No bro. Life is a giant lsat question that requires perfect logic

[Micdiddy]

Honestly, I love the direction this thread is going. I can show it to my students as a shining example of pure LSAT fail. Not only is it a cesspool of straw men, but now we have general statements trying to be refuted by isolated, atypical cases. Has a single post actually responded logically and on-topic to one before it? If so, I must have missed it.

Lol. Yeah and when you do, remind them that this isn't an LSAT question.

Jackass.

Very rarely does good lawyering, or effective arguing for that matter, rely on perfect logical consistency.

Good ol' ad hominem, not surprised to see you here.

We get it. You are logical and only make the soundest of arguments through scholarship. You sound very well-adjusted and non-aspie.

Anything in particular set the two of you off? I could create assumptions that may have lead to your spiral down toward name calling, but I'd rather hear an explanation from the horses' mouth, if indeed you guys have one.
Personally, I think this is nice evidence for the idea that those who overly defend themselves know they're in the wrong...but I'm not sure what either of you had to be defensive about in the first place...

[Dr. Dre]

She does the hiring for this particular firm. She went to FIU undergrad and UC Hastings--said when she graduated was the golden age for lawyers.

Lol she acts like she's all the shit, and she went to uc hastings.

[LetsGoRangers]

Honestly, I love the direction this thread is going. I can show it to my students as a shining example of pure LSAT fail. Not only is it a cesspool of straw men, but now we have general statements trying to be refuted by isolated, atypical cases. Has a single post actually responded logically and on-topic to one before it? If so, I must have missed it.

Lol. Yeah and when you do, remind them that this isn't an LSAT question.

Jackass.

Very rarely does good lawyering, or effective arguing for that matter, rely on perfect logical consistency.

Good ol' ad hominem, not surprised to see you here.

We get it. You are logical and only make the soundest of arguments through scholarship. You sound very well-adjusted and non-aspie.

Anything in particular set the two of you off? I could create assumptions that may have lead to your spiral down toward name calling, but I'd rather hear an explanation from the horses' mouth, if indeed you guys have one.
Personally, I think this is nice evidence for the idea that those who overly defend themselves know they're in the wrong...but I'm not sure what either of you had to be defensive about in the first place...

If the glove fits you must acquit.

Here's an ad hominem for you, you're a poopyhead.

[LetsGoRangers]

She does the hiring for this particular firm. She went to FIU undergrad and UC Hastings--said when she graduated was the golden age for lawyers.

Lol she acts like she's all the shit, and she went to uc hastings.

I thought all UC schools were good and of equal footing, besides Boalt.

[Micdiddy]

Honestly, I love the direction this thread is going. I can show it to my students as a shining example of pure LSAT fail. Not only is it a cesspool of straw men, but now we have general statements trying to be refuted by isolated, atypical cases. Has a single post actually responded logically and on-topic to one before it? If so, I must have missed it.

Lol. Yeah and when you do, remind them that this isn't an LSAT question.

Jackass.

Very rarely does good lawyering, or effective arguing for that matter, rely on perfect logical consistency.

So, I would like some clarification on this so as not to misinterpret your post. Are you saying it's ok in real life to create an argument no one has made, tear it down, and think you effectively responded to the point presented? Doubt you would think that is good lawyering or effective arguing.

Is it ok in real life to take isolated cases and use them to try and argue against a "some" or "most" statement? Like, "Person A: I have some friends in the army," "Person B: No you don't! I'm your friend and I'm not in the army!" Doubt you would think that is good lawyering or effective arguing.

Is it ok in real life to attack someone on personal level in order to avoid addressing their argument directly? Doubt you would think that is good lawyering or effective arguing.

If you don't believe in any of those three things, then please enlighten me as to what I did wrong (and, if it's not too much trouble, what others itt have done right).

I referenced the LSAT not because real life should mimic the lsat (because, in fact, it's the other way around), but because the LSAT is a shared history to people on these forums that deals directly with these flaws and I find it even more absurd these flaws are so widespread on TLS considering that fact.