Cornell v. Michigan HELP! Forum

[bighead715]

Well, that's not exactly what he said. I asked about the report that showed Cornell students studied way more than their peers. He responded by saying something along the lines of Cornell has trouble attracting higher quality applicants but the school does not want to adjust its teaching to its applicant/class pool.


Besides it completely makes sense that if school A and school B teach the same things but school B's class is below the 25%tile of school A's, then school B students would have to study more to get the material. That might, in part, explain the difference between the number of hours the students at each school spend studying.

Just know that this argument is patently false. Here's the killer: all law schools teach largely the same curriculum. Class content is not more difficult at Harvard than it is at UVA. This is well-known and widely accepted and completely falsifies your argument.

it is 4 am and i could be retarded, but i thought scw acknowledged your point about law schools having the same curriculum. his possible explanation to that survey's results, as i understand it, is that the supposed lower caliber students at cornell need more time to study than their peers at harvard who understand and retain the same information quicker.

someone mentioned texas students studying significantly less than cornell, as indicated in that same survey. if texas' medians are below cornells, then scw's theory is dashed. although i dont think we need evidence to believe that his proposed explanation is wrong.

[Bronte]

Well, that's not exactly what he said. I asked about the report that showed Cornell students studied way more than their peers. He responded by saying something along the lines of Cornell has trouble attracting higher quality applicants but the school does not want to adjust its teaching to its applicant/class pool.


Besides it completely makes sense that if school A and school B teach the same things but school B's class is below the 25%tile of school A's, then school B students would have to study more to get the material. That might, in part, explain the difference between the number of hours the students at each school spend studying.

Just know that this argument is patently false. Here's the killer: all law schools teach largely the same curriculum. Class content is not more difficult at Harvard than it is at UVA. This is well-known and widely accepted and completely falsifies your argument.

it is 4 am and i could be retarded, but i thought scw acknowledged your point about law schools having the same curriculum. his possible explanation to that survey's results, as i understand it, is that the supposed lower caliber students at cornell need more time to study than their peers at harvard who understand and retain the same information quicker.

someone mentioned texas students studying significantly less than cornell, as indicated in that same survey. if texas' medians are below cornells, then scw's theory is dashed. although i dont think we need evidence to believe that his proposed explanation is wrong.

The section you bolded in his quote is not the same as the section you bolded in my quote. His argument is that Cornell is unique in "choosing to teach at Harvard level." This is bull. All schools teach a very similar, very traditional curriculum. Thus, this would be equally true of all schools, not just Cornell. This falsifies the argument that Cornell's higher average study time, as indicated by the survey, is the result of "teaching to a higher level."

[swc65]

Well, that's not exactly what he said. I asked about the report that showed Cornell students studied way more than their peers. He responded by saying something along the lines of Cornell has trouble attracting higher quality applicants but the school does not want to adjust its teaching to its applicant/class pool.


Besides it completely makes sense that if school A and school B teach the same things but school B's class is below the 25%tile of school A's, then school B students would have to study more to get the material. That might, in part, explain the difference between the number of hours the students at each school spend studying.

Just know that this argument is patently false. Here's the killer: all law schools teach largely the same curriculum. Class content is not more difficult at Harvard than it is at UVA. This is well-known and widely accepted and completely falsifies your argument.

it is 4 am and i could be retarded, but i thought scw acknowledged your point about law schools having the same curriculum. his possible explanation to that survey's results, as i understand it, is that the supposed lower caliber students at cornell need more time to study than their peers at harvard who understand and retain the same information quicker.

someone mentioned texas students studying significantly less than cornell, as indicated in that same survey. if texas' medians are below cornells, then scw's theory is dashed. although i dont think we need evidence to believe that his proposed explanation is wrong.

The section you bolded in his quote is not the same as the section you bolded in my quote. His argument is that Cornell is unique in "choosing to teach at Harvard level." This is bull. All schools teach a very similar, very traditional curriculum. Thus, this would be equally true of all schools, not just Cornell. This falsifies the argument that Cornell's higher average study time, as indicated by the survey, is the result of "teaching to a higher level."

RC fail. First I am talking about a possible PARTIAL explanation. The other two thirds were that it was Ithaca and there's nothing else to do. Second, I wrote THAT THEY TEACH THE SAME THINGS, not that Cornell is teaching to a "higher level." Third, I really don't give a shit how much Cornell law students study.

The fact that the schools teach the same things actually bolsters an argument that people with lower measured ability would take longer to learn it.

All I am saying is that with two groups of people being given the same amount of material of the same difficulty, the group that has displayed (i.e. test scores) that they are not as adept at the material may take longer to learn it. That's it. I am not saying that this explains every difference in the number of hours spent studying.

and no just because another school with similar or even lower numbers averages fewer hours of study does not invalidate an argument that is meant to explain a PORTION of the averages. There are obviously a billion other factors that influence study hours i.e. location, competitiveness, etc.


This is probably the most annoying thing about TLS. A bunch of 0Ls and law students who mischaracterize arguments and then try to invalidate those arguments based on mischaracterizations. Well that, and the eternal pessimism. Edit: and people hijacking threads with useless arguments.

[Bronte]

RC fail. First I am talking about a possible PARTIAL explanation. The other two thirds were that it was Ithaca and there's nothing else to do. Second, I wrote THAT THEY TEACH THE SAME THINGS, not that Cornell is teaching to a "higher level." Third, I really don't give a shit how much Cornell law students study.

The fact that the schools teach the same things actually bolsters an argument that people with lower measured ability would take longer to learn it.

All I am saying is that with two groups of people being given the same amount of material of the same difficulty, the group that has displayed (i.e. test scores) that they are not as adept at the material may take longer to learn it. That's it. I am not saying that this explains every difference in the number of hours spent studying.

and no just because another school with similar or even lower numbers averages fewer hours of study does not invalidate an argument that is meant to explain a PORTION of the averages. There are obviously a billion other factors that influence study hours i.e. location, competitiveness, etc.


This is probably the most annoying thing about TLS. A bunch of 0Ls and law students who mischaracterize arguments and then try to invalidate those arguments based on mischaracterizations. Well that, and the eternal pessimism. Edit: and people hijacking threads with useless arguments.

The worst part about TLS is people who get emotional during rational arguments. Here are my points of refutation:

(1) "Teaching to a higher level" and "teaching the same thing" are synonymous for our purposes. If everyone teaches Yale's curriculum, everyone is "teaching the same thing." If everyone teaches Yale's curriculum and all student bodies are intellectually inferior to Yale's student body, everyone is "teaching to a higher level." This is mere semantics, and as such is a red herring.

(2) The fact that all law schools teach the same thing does, in fact, invalidate your "partial explanation" argument. If all law schools teach the same thing, then all law schools would be equally affected by this phenomenon. (The phenomenon being that, because the material is the same as that taught at Yale, lower quality student bodies struggle more with the material and thus have to study more than students at Yale.)

[swc65]

RC fail. First I am talking about a possible PARTIAL explanation. The other two thirds were that it was Ithaca and there's nothing else to do. Second, I wrote THAT THEY TEACH THE SAME THINGS, not that Cornell is teaching to a "higher level." Third, I really don't give a shit how much Cornell law students study.

The fact that the schools teach the same things actually bolsters an argument that people with lower measured ability would take longer to learn it.

All I am saying is that with two groups of people being given the same amount of material of the same difficulty, the group that has displayed (i.e. test scores) that they are not as adept at the material may take longer to learn it. That's it. I am not saying that this explains every difference in the number of hours spent studying.

and no just because another school with similar or even lower numbers averages fewer hours of study does not invalidate an argument that is meant to explain a PORTION of the averages. There are obviously a billion other factors that influence study hours i.e. location, competitiveness, etc.


This is probably the most annoying thing about TLS. A bunch of 0Ls and law students who mischaracterize arguments and then try to invalidate those arguments based on mischaracterizations. Well that, and the eternal pessimism. Edit: and people hijacking threads with useless arguments.

The worst part about TLS is people who get emotional during rational arguments. Here are my points of refutation:

(1) "Teaching to a higher level" and "teaching the same thing" are synonymous for our purposes. If everyone teaches Yale's curriculum, everyone is "teaching the same thing." If everyone teaches Yale's curriculum and all student bodies are intellectually inferior to Yale's student body, everyone is "teaching to a higher level." This is mere semantics, and as such is a red herring.

(2) The fact that all law schools teach the same thing does, in fact, invalidate your "partial explanation" argument. If all law schools teach the same thing, then all law schools would be equally affected by this phenomenon. (The phenomenon being that, because the material is the same as that taught at Yale, lower quality student bodies struggle more with the material and thus have to study more than students at Yale.)

No you wrote that I said (you said I said LoL) that Cornell is "unique" in teaching to a higher level. That is not semantics nor is it a red herring. It's a misunderstanding or mischaracterization.

Also, it is certainly possible that all law schools are equally affected, but that other factors mitigate or exaggerate that effect. This is a pretty basic concept. Without doing a study and controlling for every factor other than LSAT, it is impossible to determine though.

Also, not emotional. Just trying to avoid studying for a prelim. I was trying to lighten the mood with hijacking thread comment considering I was the hijacker.

So you do not believe that two groups of people with different measured ability may spend different amounts of time studying the same material because of their lower ability? I do not see anything controversial about this at all.

Also, someone pointed out that the difference between a 167 and a 172 are pretty low. This is true if you are comparing two people, but when you compare two groups of hundreds each, the score's predictiveness is greater than for two people.

[swc65]

Lastly, I hate quoting this guy but this is the only list I could find without having to register somewhere.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... eview.html

It looks like many of the "top" schools are ranked as studying the least while many of the "lower" schools seem to study more.

[awesomepossum]

Lastly, I hate quoting this guy but this is the only list I could find without having to register somewhere.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... eview.html

It looks like many of the "top" schools are ranked as studying the least while many of the "lower" schools seem to study more.

I don't think that's a difficulty issue. Historically at lower ranked schools, even median grades = death. At higher ranked schools, people didn't bother studying because they were a lock for a cushy job anyway.

Even at Michigan profs have noted that ITE students are more amped up and seem to be working more. Fear is a great motivator. If you average all three years I don't think kids work 6 hours a day at Michigan though... even ITE. I don't think I studied six hours a day seven days a week even as a 1L.

[swc65]

Lastly, I hate quoting this guy but this is the only list I could find without having to register somewhere.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... eview.html

It looks like many of the "top" schools are ranked as studying the least while many of the "lower" schools seem to study more.

I don't think that's a difficulty issue. Historically at lower ranked schools, even median grades = death. At higher ranked schools, people didn't bother studying because they were a lock for a cushy job anyway.

Even at Michigan profs have noted that ITE students are more amped up and seem to be working more. Fear is a great motivator. If you average all three years I don't think kids work 6 hours a day at Michigan though... even ITE. I don't think I studied six hours a day seven days a week even as a 1L.

true. I think the fear factor is probably one of many factors that influence study habits.

I am glad to hear you're not studying 6 hours a day. I can barely manage to get through a few chapters without getting distracted!

[thinkbig]

If it were me in this delightful predicament, I would go for Michigan. But considering you want to stay in NYC, or elsewhere on the East, the wise choice would be Cornell. As far as ranking and opportunities, they are equal. Totally equal. Study in the region in which you want to work.

[thinkbig]

If it were me in this delightful predicament, I would go for Michigan. But considering you want to stay in NYC or elsewhere on the East, the wise choice would be Cornell. As far as ranking and opportunities, they are equal. Totally equal. Study in the region in which you want to work.

[thinkbig]

If it were me in this delightful predicament, I would go for Michigan. But considering you want to stay in NYC or elsewhere on the East, the wise choice would be Cornell. As far as ranking and opportunities, they are equal. Totally equal. As a general rule: Study in the region in which you want to work.

[awesomepossum]

If it were me in this delightful predicament, I would go for Michigan. But considering you want to stay in NYC, or elsewhere on the East, the wise choice would be Cornell. As far as ranking and opportunities, they are equal. Totally equal. Study in the region in which you want to work.

in what rankings are they equal?

[Bronte]

Lastly, I hate quoting this guy but this is the only list I could find without having to register somewhere.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... eview.html

It looks like many of the "top" schools are ranked as studying the least while many of the "lower" schools seem to study more.

This is the point. If the phenomenon you're positing were true, Cornell would be one of the least effected schools because it is in the 95th percentile. Thus, the phenomenon in question is not a valid explanation of the fact that Cornell has the highest study hours. Sure, it partially explains Cornell's increased study hours, but only to the extent that Cornell is lower ranked than other law schools. Considering that Cornell is one of the highest ranked law schools, the degree to which this phenomenon affects Cornell's average study time should be very minimal, even, I would argue, negligible.

[Bronte]

If it were me in this delightful predicament, I would go for Michigan. But considering you want to stay in NYC or elsewhere on the East, the wise choice would be Cornell. As far as ranking and opportunities, they are equal. Totally equal. As a general rule: Study in the region in which you want to work.

Are you double quoting... yourself?

[bighead715]

If it were me in this delightful predicament, I would go for Michigan. But considering you want to stay in NYC or elsewhere on the East, the wise choice would be Cornell. As far as ranking and opportunities, they are equal. Totally equal. As a general rule: Study in the region in which you want to work.

Are you double quoting... yourself?

haha i havent seen that before - narcissism FTW

[holydonkey]

If it were me in this delightful predicament, I would go for Michigan. But considering you want to stay in NYC or elsewhere on the East, the wise choice would be Cornell. As far as ranking and opportunities, they are equal. Totally equal. As a general rule: Study in the region in which you want to work.

thinkbig agrees

[swc65]

Lastly, I hate quoting this guy but this is the only list I could find without having to register somewhere.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... eview.html

It looks like many of the "top" schools are ranked as studying the least while many of the "lower" schools seem to study more.

This is the point. If the phenomenon you're positing were true, Cornell would be one of the least effected schools because it is in the 95th percentile. Thus, the phenomenon in question is not a valid explanation of the fact that Cornell has the highest study hours. Sure, it partially explains Cornell's increased study hours, but only to the extent that Cornell is lower ranked than other law schools. Considering that Cornell is one of the highest ranked law schools, the degree to which this phenomenon affects Cornell's average study time should be very minimal, even, I would argue, negligible.

LoL thank you. That's all I was saying. It is a reasonable beleif that two groups with different measured abilities may study for different amounts of hours holding all other factors constant.

I personally believe that being in Ithaca with four hours of daylight, no large population centers, no shopping, only a handful of bars, frigid temperatures, and having to compete in NYC with the big boys probably play a much stronger part.

[Bronte]

LoL thank you. That's all I was saying. It is a reasonable beleif that two groups with different measured abilities may study for different amounts of hours holding all other factors constant.

I personally believe that being in Ithaca with four hours of daylight, no large population centers, no shopping, only a handful of bars, frigid temperatures, and having to compete in NYC with the big boys probably play a much stronger part.

Okay, as long as we clarify that the point is so negligible that it doesn't bear repeating.

[Ghost Writer]

If it were me in this delightful predicament, I would go for Michigan. But considering you want to stay in NYC or elsewhere on the East, the wise choice would be Cornell. As far as ranking and opportunities, they are equal. Totally equal. Study in the region in which you want to work.

I think for wanting to be in DC Michigan has the edge, but for wanting to practice in NYC Cornell would have more connections right? Since that is its #1 market.

[awesomepossum]

If it were me in this delightful predicament, I would go for Michigan. But considering you want to stay in NYC or elsewhere on the East, the wise choice would be Cornell. As far as ranking and opportunities, they are equal. Totally equal. Study in the region in which you want to work.

I think for wanting to be in DC Michigan has the edge, but for wanting to practice in NYC Cornell would have more connections right? Since that is its #1 market.

NYC is Michigan's #1 market too. We also have a much bigger class.

[jks289]

Well, that's not exactly what he said. I asked about the report that showed Cornell students studied way more than their peers. He responded by saying something along the lines of Cornell has trouble attracting higher quality applicants but the school does not want to adjust its teaching to its applicant/class pool.


Besides it completely makes sense that if school A and school B team the same things but school B's class is below the 25%tile of school A's, then school B students would have to study more to get the material. That might, in part, explain the difference bewtween the number of hours the students at each school spend studying.

I just really don't buy this. I refuse to believe that a difference in 3 or 4 LSAT points truly shows some grand divide in intelligence that makes students who score 167 or 168 incapable of quickly understanding things in the way that 171 and 172 students can.

This. You must have misunderstood. I really really doubt, based on the schools own enthusiasm, that an interviewer would say they had trouble attracting a high quality applicant pool.

[Ghost Writer]

If it were me in this delightful predicament, I would go for Michigan. But considering you want to stay in NYC or elsewhere on the East, the wise choice would be Cornell. As far as ranking and opportunities, they are equal. Totally equal. Study in the region in which you want to work.

I think for wanting to be in DC Michigan has the edge, but for wanting to practice in NYC Cornell would have more connections right? Since that is its #1 market.

NYC is Michigan's #1 market too. We also have a much bigger class.

Do you think the bigger class affects the placement. My biggest concern is considering the resumes are similar will a 3.5 at Michigan in NYC placement usually win over a 3.5 Cornell grad?.

This is basically what my decision comes down to so I hope you can help me out.

Thanks !

[awesomepossum]

The exact info that you're looking for is hard to find. What you're looking for is placement percentages or how deep firms go into a class in NYC.

I don't know that this kind of info exists.

Here is what I can say. As of the latest available information, Michigan does better than Cornell in big firms overall. Our biggest market is NYC as is Cornell's. Michigan ALSO has better clerkship placement. Why this matters is it takes some of the most qualified folks out of the pool of people who might otherwise be looking for firm jobs.

This part I don't have data for, but anecdotally I've heard that this year Cornell has been a total horror show placement wise. While I'm sure we haven't done spectacularly, it seems like most people who were looking for big firm jobs got one. I don't have the data for this, so you can feel free to disregard it if you wish.

I'm pretty confident in saying that we place better than Cornell in NYC overall.

[Ghost Writer]

The exact info that you're looking for is hard to find. What you're looking for is placement percentages or how deep firms go into a class in NYC.

I don't know that this kind of info exists.

Here is what I can say. As of the latest available information, Michigan does better than Cornell in big firms overall. Our biggest market is NYC as is Cornell's. Michigan ALSO has better clerkship placement. Why this matters is it takes some of the most qualified folks out of the pool of people who might otherwise be looking for firm jobs.

This part I don't have data for, but anecdotally I've heard that this year Cornell has been a total horror show placement wise. While I'm sure we haven't done spectacularly, it seems like most people who were looking for big firm jobs got one. I don't have the data for this, so you can feel free to disregard it if you wish.

I'm pretty confident in saying that we place better than Cornell in NYC overall.

Thank you I really appreciate you taking out the time to help me out with this. Your point about the clerkships is well taken and that fact that most people who were looking for big firm jobs got one is also very encouraging.

[NY88]

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/20080414 ... trends.pdf

Cornell places better in NYC