Rough out there... Forum

[Dr. Dre]

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

No the UC's suck. Berkeley is the only decent school (maybe UCLA).

[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...

If the glove fits you must acquit.

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

Ok, ok I get. Good trolling, I'll stop falling for it.

[LetsGoRangers]

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

No the UC's suck. Berkeley is the only decent school (maybe UCLA).

The University of California's campuses boast large numbers of distinguished faculty in almost every field and it is widely regarded as one of the top public university systems in the world.

UCs are regarded as the best public school system in the country. California EConomy will bounce back, they will be swimming in greenbacks. Any and all UCs are a good investment.

[Lasers]

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.

i don't see it like that at all. how does the LSAT measure raw intellectual horsepower when people are spending months, some even a year or more, to prepare for it? what about those that take it multiple times? the LSAT is a very learnable exam, and the best scores often go to those that have a natural inclination to do well, but also to those that work at it for a long time (practice test after practice test). just look at the LSAT section of this forum; even the naturals have retaken the exam, and the process has taken several months. i don't know that an exam that calls for such deliberate preparation can be a raw indicator of anything.

[LetsGoRangers]

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

No the UC's suck. Berkeley is the only decent school (maybe UCLA).

The University of California's campuses boast large numbers of distinguished faculty in almost every field and it is widely regarded as one of the top public university systems in the world.

UCs are regarded as the best public school system in the country. California EConomy will bounce back, they will be swimming in greenbacks. Any and all UCs are a good investment.

Numbers Never Lie.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=irvine

Outperforms some T-14s and you get to become a UC Irvine Anteater

[Tiago Splitter]

I like how the three most recent hires at OP's Aunt's firm went to Hamline, Rutgers, and Nova Southeastern. Kicking Yale's ass.

[Dr. Dre]

The University of California's campuses boast large numbers of distinguished faculty in almost every field

No one cares. It is not going to affect your own learning and how you grow intellectually. You'll not get taught by them; you'll get taught by some shit T.A.

and it is widely regarded as one of the top public university systems in the world.

No it is not.

UCs are regarded as the best public school system in the country.

This was true years ago, but not anymore.

California EConomy will bounce back, they will be swimming in greenbacks.

No california economy will not come back.

Any and all UCs are a good investment.

The only decent is berkeley. And even that, the average time to graduate is 5 to 6 years.

[Cobretti]

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

No the UC's suck. Berkeley is the only decent school (maybe UCLA).

The University of California's campuses boast large numbers of distinguished faculty in almost every field and it is widely regarded as one of the top public university systems in the world.

UCs are regarded as the best public school system in the country. California EConomy will bounce back, they will be swimming in greenbacks. Any and all UCs are a good investment.

Numbers Never Lie.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=irvine

Outperforms some T-14s and you get to become a UC Irvine Anteater

+George Michael goes there

[Dr. Dre]

Numbers Never Lie.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=irvine

Outperforms some T-14s and you get to become a UC Irvine Anteater

You do know those numbers are representative of ONE graduating class who all got full scholarships to attend and Chemerinsky hustled his ass to get em' jerbs. You think that's going to occur everytime?

[LetsGoRangers]

Which state has a stronger public university system?

California economy is stinky right now, but what signs point to it contracting for the next decade?


UCLA, UC-B, UCD, UCI and many others are fine schools. Better than any that my state offers and my state is not nearly as economically crippled as California

[LetsGoRangers]

Numbers Never Lie.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=irvine

Outperforms some T-14s and you get to become a UC Irvine Anteater

You do know those numbers are representative of ONE graduating class who all got full scholarships to attend and Chemerinsky hustled his ass to get em' jerbs. You think that's going to occur everytime?

I would still roll the dice on UCI's impressive one year record over established peer schools who boast much more depressing numbers.

[Dr. Dre]

The texas public school system is really good, so is New York's, so is Pennsylvania's.

[LetsGoRangers]

The texas public school system is really good, so is New York's, so is Pennsylvania's.

UT is the only school that matches UCLA or Berk.

Pennsylvania has PSU, Temple, Pitt. Fine schools but don't even come close to UCLA or Berk's reputation.

SUNY. Has some good schools too but nothing comes close to the UC system.

UCI, UCSD, UCD all better schools than the aforementioned schools except UT.

Berk and UCLA are global schools that have a long history of terrific academics and research. If you think the other states have public schools that match their prowess you are kidding yourself.

edit. TAMU is also a great school.

[Dr. Dre]

berkeley and ucla are the only uc's worth going to. Everyone else is TTT.

Yes berkeley and ucla aren't that great compared the to the private schools in california.

[worldtraveler]

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.

I think I read this about 10 times and I'm still trying to figure out about what you're trying to prove.

[sflyr2016]

To the logic.guy:

You are logically inconsistent in your assertion that those who overly defend themselves are wrong, but
then, overly defend your points. Unless of course, you know you are wrong, which makes you one big logical inconsistency. And a poopyhead.

Lawyer's interpret and apply laws, often to win cases. Sometimes they argue their cases, and many times win on on the merits of the case, the laws that apply, and the juries they convince, which usually would score average on an last but yet, are the standard to which such arguments are held to.

[Dr. Dre]

joeant, i think his main point is that your arguments suck.

(which quite frankly, they do)

[Dr. Dre]

Lawyer's interpret and apply laws, often to win cases. Sometimes they argue their cases, and many times win on on the merits of the case, the laws that apply, and the juries they convince, which usually would score average on an last but yet, are the standard to which such arguments are held to.

what a load of crap.


please study this http://www.amazon.com/Manhattan-Logical ... 193570785X then come back and apologize to mcdiddy on why your arguments sucked.

[bearjew]

Johnnie Cochran the most legendary lawyer of our time went to Loyola LA. He invented the chewbacca defense and changed lawyering forever.

My cousin Vinny took six stabs at the NY bar. I don't think he went to CLS/NYU. Possibly BLS as a native Brooklynite

Abe Lincoln didn't even go to law school. Springfield IL was TTTT

All signers of the constitution scored lower on the LSAT than you.

Its not T14 or bust. These were not mediocre minded people but lawyering legends who are bannermen of our great profession.

[rinkrat19]

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.

I'm giggling at the image of this guy trying to formulate a synthesized rule for a memo without using any of that pesky logical consistency.

[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.

i don't see it like that at all. how does the LSAT measure raw intellectual horsepower when people are spending months, some even a year or more, to prepare for it? what about those that take it multiple times? the LSAT is a very learnable exam, and the best scores often go to those that have a natural inclination to do well, but also to those that work at it for a long time (practice test after practice test). just look at the LSAT section of this forum; even the naturals have retaken the exam, and the process has taken several months. i don't know that an exam that calls for such deliberate preparation can be a raw indicator of anything.

I think you need to be able to read quickly and accurately and you have to be able to remember what you read. These are skills you either have or you don't. I think it's a bit of a stretch to insinuate that literally everyone can ace the LSAT, especially when it's getting harder every year. Some people read more accurately, quickly, and effectively than others. Some people can connect the logical dots faster than others. Of course you can improve these skills, but there is certainly an aspect of doing well on the LSAT that you can't just teach yourself over a long period of time.

[Scotusnerd]

To the logic.guy:

Lawyers interpret and apply laws bullshit, often to win cases. Sometimes they argue their cases become friends with the judge, and many times win on on the merits of the case, the laws that apply, and the juries they convince, which usually would score average on an last but yet, are the standard to which such arguments are held to because they paid attention during voir dire and weren't asshats.

Fixed your second paragraph.

[sflyr2016]

Lawyer's interpret and apply laws, often to win cases. Sometimes they argue their cases, and many times win on on the merits of the case, the laws that apply, and the juries they convince, which usually would score average on an last but yet, are the standard to which such arguments are held to.

what a load of crap.


please study this http://www.amazon.com/Manhattan-Logical ... 193570785X then come back and apologize to mcdiddy on why your arguments sucked.

Lmao. I won't even bother with you.

My overall point, mcdiddy's syllogistic reasoning and.critique.of.logical soundness is irrelevant to the posts he responded.to. And him.continuing to so is annoying.

[LetsGoRangers]

Johnnie Cochran the most legendary lawyer of our time went to Loyola LA. He invented the chewbacca defense and changed lawyering forever.

My cousin Vinny took six stabs at the NY bar. I don't think he went to CLS/NYU. Possibly BLS as a native Brooklynite

Abe Lincoln didn't even go to law school. Springfield IL was TTTT

All signers of the constitution scored lower on the LSAT than you.

Its not T14 or bust. These were not mediocre minded people but lawyering legends who are bannermen of our great profession.

This is the smartest thing I have ever read on here or any site for that matter.

[Dr. Dre]

Johnnie Cochran the most legendary lawyer of our time went to Loyola LA. He invented the chewbacca defense and changed lawyering forever.

My cousin Vinny took six stabs at the NY bar. I don't think he went to CLS/NYU. Possibly BLS as a native Brooklynite

Abe Lincoln didn't even go to law school. Springfield IL was TTTT

All signers of the constitution scored lower on the LSAT than you.

Its not T14 or bust. These were not mediocre minded people but lawyering legends who are bannermen of our great profession.

This is the smartest DUMBEST thing I have ever read