Do people who get into reaches struggle more than others? Forum

[krogers]

I agree with your point, but wonder if this is true:

sample a group that has shown to do exceptionally well relative to their numbers.

I don't understand this. Do you mean to say that someone who is #1 at Cardozo, and whose LSAT/GPA were within the school's 25th/75th is performing "exceptionally well relative to their numbers?"

[Always Credited]

vanwinkle can "lay the internet smackdown" all he wants. at the end of the day, he's still a dumbshit basement dwelling virgin who posts shit i cannot even be bothered to read (and to be honest, haven't read).

0/10...a very poor effort indeed.

[krogers]

vanwinkle can "lay the internet smackdown" all he wants. at the end of the day, he's still a dumbshit basement dwelling virgin who posts shit i cannot even be bothered to read (and to be honest, haven't read).

0/10...a very poor effort indeed.

yes, because x has chosen not to argue against y on a trivial point (seriously, arguing over what's a "personal belief" would have derailed the thread, at which point i would have been flamed), not only is y correct, but y is laying smackdown. brilliant reasoning.

i just cant win. no point.

[FunkyJD]

vanwinkle can "lay the internet smackdown" all he wants. at the end of the day, he's still a dumbshit basement dwelling virgin who posts shit i cannot even be bothered to read (and to be honest, haven't read).

You should start reading them.

Also, FWIW: Bad form to talk personal shit to a man on the Internet, behind the safety of a keyboard. Very emo of you to do that.

[Always Credited]

vanwinkle can "lay the internet smackdown" all he wants. at the end of the day, he's still a dumbshit basement dwelling virgin who posts shit i cannot even be bothered to read (and to be honest, haven't read).

0/10...a very poor effort indeed.

yes, because x has chosen not to argue against y on a trivial point (seriously, arguing over what's a "personal belief" would have derailed the thread, at which point i would have been flamed), not only is y correct, but y is laying smackdown. brilliant reasoning.

i just cant win. no point.

I was commenting only on the comedic nature of the thread, and my remark was in no way relevant to the argument at hand. From previous posts, which had been making me laugh, I felt the random rage insult was a step down. It was funniest when you were offhandedly disregarding posts.

That's all.

[krogers]

It was funniest when you were offhandedly disregarding posts.

Dang well I guess that should be my MO from now on.

[Kohinoor]

It was funniest when you were offhandedly disregarding posts.

Dang well I guess that should be my MO from now on.

Nah bro, internet tough guy suits you just fine.

[rando]

yes, because x has chosen not to argue against y on a trivial point (seriously, arguing over what's a "personal belief" would have derailed the thread, at which point i would have been flamed), not only is y correct, but y is laying smackdown. brilliant reasoning.

i just cant win. no point.

F'ing hypocrite. I took the high road in another thread and stopped arguing because you were being an asshole and you insinuated something akin to me being a jackoff.

There are a lot of intelligent people on this board. I have no doubt you are among them. But when everyone around you is telling you that you are wrong, isn't that at least reason enough to step back from your argument and re-evaluate your position? And at least to not be such a dick.

[krogers]

F'ing hypocrite. I took the high road in another thread and stopped arguing because you were being an asshole and you insinuated something akin to me being a jackoff.

That's the problem. You call it the "high road" because it was ultimately a massive dick-stroking attempt to prove you're right and above everything. I opted not to argue here because I have a presentation to write, there's basically no way I can win an argument in this thread, and there's no point in trying even if I did have a chance to win. It's not so much the high road as it is the "i cant be fucked" road.

But when everyone around you is telling you that you are wrong,

I'm sorry, but how exactly are people telling me that I'm wrong? Yes, a few questioned my source. I agreed it's shaky because, hey, it's anecdotal. My response was: If you believe me, great. If you don't, fuck you, do what you want. The only thing I asked kohinoor to do (even if somewhat douchebaggingly) was not to dismiss my claim merely because I don't have an asston of statistics to post here. vanwinkle got pissed because i didnt suck his dick when i made the request.

Am I wrong about transfers not being a good case -study? I never really insisted that I'm right. I just made a suggestion. When people disputed it, I sought clarification. Kohinoor's points were essentially moot since a) my 2L classmates are still gunning hardcore and b) people are experienced exam takers after the first semester of law school. A better argument against my suggestion would have been, "transfers might take uncurved seminar courses, so that might skew the results," but I digress.

The other argument I simply don't understand, so I sought clarification.

god damn this is so retarded haha (providing a thread recap because people cant seem to read it)

[Unemployed]

so ill throw out an example just to show that im not completely talking out of my ass. im NOT saying this definitively proves my point (as rando, kohinoor, etc. will be eager to point out), but it's just interesting:

Wachtell has 0 African American partners. 0. How do I know this? It's basically what keeps them pretty low on the A-List (and I believe one of the amlaw articles actually discusses how diversity SUCKS at the firm). To boot, they earnestly try to get african americans on the team. From what I know, the only people who ever get the highly desired 1L SA-ship at the firm are... African Americans (at least as far as I know, this was the case for last summer and is the case for this summer). Yet somehow, they don't make it through the ranks.

Is that voluntary or involuntary? I don't know. ONce you're at Wachtell, making partner isn't all that bad (at least not nearly as bad as other V10s, where it's basically impossible. So you'd think that'd be evidence for why people would have an incentive to stay. It is also Wachtell, though, so im sure people have plenty of reasons to leave...

edit: on second thought. bad example. it is INTERESTING though.

Well... speaking of talking out of your ass... NALP disagrees with you, at least as of Feb 2010. There is one African American partner.

(If not out of your ass, how in the world did you come up with your claim anyway? Do you "know" somebody at Wachtell?)

[krogers]

There is one African American partner.

(If not out of your ass, how in the world did you come up with your claim anyway? Do you "know" somebody at Wachtell?)

Nah, just remember reading an article in AmLaw about how Wachtell's diversity in the partnership ranks sucks. this was a month or two ago, so yes things could have changed (and obvi did, but even just 1 AA partner sucks. we need more).

Another reason my example sucked is that, if I'm not mistaken, 1Ls are not given an offer to return to the firm as 2Ls (or after they graduate). They have to do the screening interview, etc. all over again, no matter how good they were during the summer.

[Unemployed]

There is one African American partner.

(If not out of your ass, how in the world did you come up with your claim anyway? Do you "know" somebody at Wachtell?)

Nah, just remember reading an article in AmLaw about how Wachtell's diversity in the partnership ranks sucks. this was a month or two ago, so yes things could have changed (and obvi did, but even just 1 AA partner sucks. we need more).

Another reason my example sucked is that, if I'm not mistaken, 1Ls are not given an offer to return to the firm as 2Ls (or after they graduate). They have to do the screening interview, etc. all over again, no matter how good they were during the summer.

I don't understand how "Wachtell's diversity in the partnership rank sucks" allows you to authoritatively assert "Wachtell has 0 African American partners. 0," and then berate others for questioning your source, which in all fairness should not lead any rational person to the conclusion that you assert.

[krogers]

I don't understand how "Wachtell's diversity in the partnership rank sucks" allows you to authoritatively assert "Wachtell has 0 African American partners. 0,"

I don't think you understand the chain of inferences here. It's the other way around: Wachtell has 0 African American partners, therefore Wachtell's diversity in the partnership rank sucks (anlaw further attests to this in their diversity scores--I referenced amlaw in my post).

And, as it stands per your nalp-verification, i was pretty close and my claim wasnt as outlandish as it seemed, so stop jerking off to yourself and get over it.

and ps. no one questioned my source. some people expected me to fish it out and paste it here. if i was in a more procrastinating mood, id do it. but since im not, ill just let you not believe me (or let curiosity get the best of you and check it out yourself). i dont really care!

[Unemployed]

I don't understand how "Wachtell's diversity in the partnership rank sucks" allows you to authoritatively assert "Wachtell has 0 African American partners. 0,"

I don't think you understand the chain of inferences here. It's the other way around: Wachtell has 0 African American partners, therefore Wachtell's diversity in the partnership rank sucks (anlaw further attests to this in their diversity scores--I referenced amlaw in my post).

And, as it stands per your nalp-verification, i was pretty close and my claim wasnt as outlandish as it seemed, so stop jerking off to yourself and get over it.

and ps. no one questioned my source. some people expected me to fish it out and paste it here. if i was in a more procrastinating mood, id do it. but since im not, ill just let you not believe me (or let curiosity get the best of you and check it out yourself). i dont really care!

You are not gonna make partner making mistakes like that! What, you think the partners will care that Amlaw, and not you, f'd up?

[krogers]

also interesting: wachtell's pro bono score was 0.

[atttorney]

[strike]Despite popular belief on this site, it really isn't all about #'s. Ad comms actually place value on other experiences. Having a 180 only shows that one either (a) had a lot of time to study for the LSAT or (b) had a lot of $ to pay for an LSAT course. If they were admitted, then obviously there is a quality that ad comms see that are beyond the obvious[/strike].

[strike]no[/strike]

annoying
http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 0#p2788900

[atttorney]

[strike]From what I've heard many schools stack sections with students that have similar scores (or receive merit scholarships, etc.) and base the grading curve on individual sections - not the entire 0L class. Thus, if a URM scored poorly on the LSAT, in many schools its unlikely that he/she will be in a section with a high scorer.[/strike]

[strike]Not at any school worth attending.[/strike]

is
http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 5#p2788897

[D. H2Oman]

I like you already atttorney.

[deadatheist]

re: Post subject: Do people who get into reaches struggle more than others?

nope.
hth.
okay carry on bai.

[OperaSoprano]

re: Post subject: Do people who get into reaches struggle more than others?

nope.
hth.
okay carry on bai.

Oh, hello DA! I am heartily glad to hear it.

I fear this is an obnoxious thread, so I skipped over most of it. I would like to point out that it is possible to struggle in law school without doing poorly on exams.

EDIT: Upon closer reading, I hereby put this thread to rest, and with it all the ridiculous conjecture about how URM students fare on the curve.