Was this a bad cycle for splitters and T14? Forum

[WinterComing]

Frankly, the idea that someone who has done a 4-year degree has encountered exclusively profs who are so incompetent that their GPA is a sham sounds pretty paranoid.

or maybe someone just took the information that was useful, applied it, and proved they were actually good at what they wanted to do professionally given the fact they went to a lower tiered school, their profession is judged based on a standard metric, and beating that metric that most professionals don't beat would be a great way to over come going to a lower tiered school?

I have no idea what this means. My point was that your problem with profs knowing their material is weird and unsubstantiated.

I think it is pretty apparent at any major university. I know that you don't know what that means, just like you don't know what I am talking about; which, is the same reason you shouldn't be making assumptions about what I am saying which is the same reason you shouldn't be making assumptions about people's GPA.

Ha! So the argument here is "I said something opaque and incomprehensible, and since you don't understand it, that means I win"?

I love that the esteemed Ms. Nony Mouse, Esq., has been sucked into your web of nonsense.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Oh I am the worst, I am so easily sucked in, it's embarrassing. I keep making vows I won't respond to certain posters and I always break them.

[EnderWiggin]

Oh I am the worst, I am so easily sucked in, it's embarrassing. I keep making vows I won't respond to certain posters and I always break them.

cc:

[+] Spoiler

[A. Nony Mouse]

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Seriously though, I don't know what you're trying to say by any of that. Try explaining yourself more clearly.

(FWIW: I used to reach at the university level. All the profs know there are some - few - profs who aren't very good. Profs also know there are tons of students who come into college with assumptions about what a given subject "should" be about and what they "should" learn, based on a popular assumptions and no rigorous study or background at all. For the most part, I promise you, people who have earned a doctorate in a given subject really do know more than their students about it. So you claiming that there's an epidemic of profs who are teaching inaccurate, unimportant information, and more importantly, that you are somehow in a position to evaluate that that's what they're doing, is entirely unconvincing. You having to take one accounting course in an area you didn't plan to go into is not a sign that higher education is bankrupt. There are lots of problems with higher ed, admittedly, but you thinking your profs don't know their subjects is really not one of them.)

What subject did you teach?

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Oh I am the worst, I am so easily sucked in, it's embarrassing. I keep making vows I won't respond to certain posters and I always break them.

It isn't nonsense. Just respond here for a minute.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Frankly, the idea that someone who has done a 4-year degree has encountered exclusively profs who are so incompetent that their GPA is a sham sounds pretty paranoid.

or maybe someone just took the information that was useful, applied it, and proved they were actually good at what they wanted to do professionally given the fact they went to a lower tiered school, their profession is judged based on a standard metric, and beating that metric that most professionals don't beat would be a great way to over come going to a lower tiered school?

I have no idea what this means. My point was that your problem with profs knowing their material is weird and unsubstantiated.

I think it is pretty apparent at any major university. I know that you don't know what that means, just like you don't know what I am talking about; which, is the same reason you shouldn't be making assumptions about what I am saying which is the same reason you shouldn't be making assumptions about people's GPA.

Ha! So the argument here is "I said something opaque and incomprehensible, and since you don't understand it, that means I win"?

I love that the esteemed Ms. Nony Mouse, Esq., has been sucked into your web of nonsense.

No and it wasn't incomprehensible unless you are illiterate. The argument is you know nothing about the field of study I studied or the context in which I studied it so to make broad generalizations over my work habits based on a number is ridiculous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory

Let's start with something really basic and just an obvious example that reaffirms what I have been saying in here. In undergraduate Finance education Modern Portfolio Theory is taught over and over again. Modern Portfolio theory state's that the risk of purchasing a stock is it's variance, or it's Beta. Is that true? I mean anyone with half a brain knows that is false.

Here is a common criticism that should take you about two seconds to realize is true-

"Despite its theoretical importance, critics of MPT question whether it is an ideal investment tool, because its model of financial markets does not match the real world in many ways.[3]"

Ok so why should I sit there and memorize this for your test in multiple different classes? This doesn't bring me any value because the theory itself is unequivocally false. Doing practice problems with theoretical examples of modern portfolio theory is a waste of time. So you cross it off and keep going. You don't sit there wasting your time studying/ memorizing debunked theories in multiple classes with different names. It is an over convolution of reality and trying to apply fancy statistics to human behavior.

It's garbage.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Look, reading that wiki page alone makes clear the significance of MPT to finance as a scholarly field. Because it's criticized doesn't mean it's wrong - all scholarly theories get criticized. And because you don't think a theoretical model is worth studying doesn't make you objectively correct that it's garbage. Sorry your field contains a lot of stuff you don't agree with? That doesn't make the profs idiots to teach it - in fact if it was taught in multiple classes, that suggests a scholarly consensus on its importance to the field.

There are a few constitutional law cases I read at least 3-4 times in different law school classes. I can think that the cases are completely wrong and even harmful, but that doesn't make my profs idiots for teaching them.

You have a really narrow view of what it's worthwhile to study. That's fine, you can value what you want to value. But you can't say that your profs were full of shit for teaching you something that's important to the field just because it doesn't fit your narrow view.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Look, reading that wiki page alone makes clear the significance of MPT to finance as a scholarly field. Because it's criticized doesn't mean it's wrong - all scholarly theories get criticized. And because you don't think a theoretical model is worth studying doesn't make you objectively correct that it's garbage. Sorry your field contains a lot of stuff you don't agree with? That doesn't make the profs idiots to teach it - in fact if it was taught in multiple classes, that suggests a scholarly consensus on its importance to the field.

There are a few constitutional law cases I read at least 3-4 times in different law school classes. I can think that the cases are completely wrong and even harmful, but that doesn't make my profs idiots for teaching them.

You have a really narrow view of what it's worthwhile to study. That's fine, you can value what you want to value. But you can't say that your profs were full of shit for teaching you something that's important to the field just because it doesn't fit your narrow view.

Lol, I DON'T care if there is a "scholarly" consensus if what you are teaching is blatantly false. Since when does opinion trump fact? So if there is a scholarly consensus the ski is Purple and we make up fun word problems about it are you just going to sit there and memorize them? I am not even that smart, this is just obviously wrong. So why are they making hypothetical problems and trying to get people to sit around and memorize them over and over again?

No, I did study it, and pretty reasonably concluded it wasn't true. So did Long-term Capital management when they went bankrupt.

It isn't that I agree or disagree, it's that it is just wrong. It isn't a debate any more.

I never said a professor was an idiot, I just said I wasn't going to sit there and memorize theories I know aren't true because it is a waste of time. Shall we keep going? I have more examples of theoretical financial garbage that makes ridiculous assumptions and is a waste of time and brain space to know.

Plus think about it, if this is what you are "teaching" and charging people money for and putting them into debt to "get an education" then what you are doing is charging people money to learn theories that aren't true. I am pretty sure that is called fraud.

[somethingElse]

asdfasdfasdfsaf,

I think you should definitely go to lawl school! You seem to love arguing a whole lot!

Love,

Your Mom

[asdfdfdfadfas]

asdfasdfasdfsaf,

I think you should definitely go to lawl school! You seem to love arguing a whole lot!

Love,

Your Mom

I like winning arguments, get it right.

[drblakedowns]

My entire argument has always been that accepting X candidate for simply having a 3.7 GPA over Y candidate with a 3.5 GPA is dumb and a lazy way for admissions committees to simply cut people out of the race. I stand by that 100%.

Your argument is based on the assumption that law school adcoms have the goal of selecting those who will do best in law school/succeed in a legal career. Given the behavior of law schools, this assumption does not really hold.

I think it is far more likely, given the documented behavior of law schools, that the goal of adcoms is to protect the brand/prestige/well being of the law school. Part of protecting that brand is making sure the ranking of the law schools stays at whatever arbitrary point the law school believes it needs to be. GPA median plays a large role in the rankings, so it is very logical for an adcom to choose the 3.7 over the 3.5 (so long as they believe the 3.7 can cut it (or have enough other competent folks that the 3.7 washing out doesn't hurt the brand)).

[asdfdfdfadfas]

My entire argument has always been that accepting X candidate for simply having a 3.7 GPA over Y candidate with a 3.5 GPA is dumb and a lazy way for admissions committees to simply cut people out of the race. I stand by that 100%.

Your argument is based on the assumption that law school adcoms have the goal of selecting those who will do best in law school/succeed in a legal career. Given the behavior of law schools, this assumption does not really hold.

I think it is far more likely, given the documented behavior of law schools, that the goal of adcoms is to protect the brand/prestige/well being of the law school. Part of protecting that brand is making sure the ranking of the law schools stays at whatever arbitrary point the law school believes it needs to be. GPA median plays a large role in the rankings, so it is very logical for an adcom to choose the 3.7 over the 3.5 (so long as they believe the 3.7 can cut it (or have enough other competent folks that the 3.7 washing out doesn't hurt the brand)).

I agree and that is because my argument is based on the entire purpose of why people go to law school in the first place........ to succeed in a legal career.

[emkay625]

Frankly, the idea that someone who has done a 4-year degree has encountered exclusively profs who are so incompetent that their GPA is a sham sounds pretty paranoid.

or maybe someone just took the information that was useful, applied it, and proved they were actually good at what they wanted to do professionally given the fact they went to a lower tiered school, their profession is judged based on a standard metric, and beating that metric that most professionals don't beat would be a great way to over come going to a lower tiered school?

I have no idea what this means. My point was that your problem with profs knowing their material is weird and unsubstantiated.

I think it is pretty apparent at any major university. I know that you don't know what that means, just like you don't know what I am talking about; which, is the same reason you shouldn't be making assumptions about what I am saying which is the same reason you shouldn't be making assumptions about people's GPA.

Ha! So the argument here is "I said something opaque and incomprehensible, and since you don't understand it, that means I win"?

I love that the esteemed Ms. Nony Mouse, Esq., has been sucked into your web of nonsense.

No and it wasn't incomprehensible unless you are illiterate. The argument is you know nothing about the field of study I studied or the context in which I studied it so to make broad generalizations over my work habits based on a number is ridiculous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory

Let's start with something really basic and just an obvious example that reaffirms what I have been saying in here. In undergraduate Finance education Modern Portfolio Theory is taught over and over again. Modern Portfolio theory state's that the risk of purchasing a stock is it's variance, or it's Beta. Is that true? I mean anyone with half a brain knows that is false.

Here is a common criticism that should take you about two seconds to realize is true-

"Despite its theoretical importance, critics of MPT question whether it is an ideal investment tool, because its model of financial markets does not match the real world in many ways.[3]"

Ok so why should I sit there and memorize this for your test in multiple different classes? This doesn't bring me any value because the theory itself is unequivocally false. Doing practice problems with theoretical examples of modern portfolio theory is a waste of time. So you cross it off and keep going. You don't sit there wasting your time studying/ memorizing debunked theories in multiple classes with different names. It is an over convolution of reality and trying to apply fancy statistics to human behavior.

It's garbage.

Arguing that GPAs should be weighed less heavily in ls admissions because many subjects teach outdated/useless information is silly, bc 90% of law school is learning useless and/or outdated information.

So if anything, the point you're making here means they should be given MORE weight, not less. Bc succeeding in law school means memorizing bullshit you will never use as a practicing attorney, including learning black letter law that has been subsequently overturned in many cases. Your ability to memorize pointless bs that is a waste of time is key to succeeding on exams. So proof that someone in undergrad has no problem memorizing pointless bs would be a plus.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Frankly, the idea that someone who has done a 4-year degree has encountered exclusively profs who are so incompetent that their GPA is a sham sounds pretty paranoid.

or maybe someone just took the information that was useful, applied it, and proved they were actually good at what they wanted to do professionally given the fact they went to a lower tiered school, their profession is judged based on a standard metric, and beating that metric that most professionals don't beat would be a great way to over come going to a lower tiered school?

I have no idea what this means. My point was that your problem with profs knowing their material is weird and unsubstantiated.

I think it is pretty apparent at any major university. I know that you don't know what that means, just like you don't know what I am talking about; which, is the same reason you shouldn't be making assumptions about what I am saying which is the same reason you shouldn't be making assumptions about people's GPA.

Ha! So the argument here is "I said something opaque and incomprehensible, and since you don't understand it, that means I win"?

I love that the esteemed Ms. Nony Mouse, Esq., has been sucked into your web of nonsense.

No and it wasn't incomprehensible unless you are illiterate. The argument is you know nothing about the field of study I studied or the context in which I studied it so to make broad generalizations over my work habits based on a number is ridiculous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory

Let's start with something really basic and just an obvious example that reaffirms what I have been saying in here. In undergraduate Finance education Modern Portfolio Theory is taught over and over again. Modern Portfolio theory state's that the risk of purchasing a stock is it's variance, or it's Beta. Is that true? I mean anyone with half a brain knows that is false.

Here is a common criticism that should take you about two seconds to realize is true-

"Despite its theoretical importance, critics of MPT question whether it is an ideal investment tool, because its model of financial markets does not match the real world in many ways.[3]"

Ok so why should I sit there and memorize this for your test in multiple different classes? This doesn't bring me any value because the theory itself is unequivocally false. Doing practice problems with theoretical examples of modern portfolio theory is a waste of time. So you cross it off and keep going. You don't sit there wasting your time studying/ memorizing debunked theories in multiple classes with different names. It is an over convolution of reality and trying to apply fancy statistics to human behavior.

It's garbage.

Arguing that GPAs should be weighed less heavily in ls admissions because many subjects teach outdated/useless information is silly, bc 90% of law school is learning useless and/or outdated information.

So if anything, the point you're making here means they should be given MORE weight, not less. Bc succeeding in law school means memorizing bullshit you will never use as a practicing attorney, including learning black letter law that has been subsequently overturned in many cases. Your ability to memorize pointless bs that is a waste of time is key to succeeding on exams. So proof that someone in undergrad has no problem memorizing pointless bs would be a plus.

jesus........ how pathetic. Why don't they quit wasting people's time and just update the curriculum?

[drblakedowns]

My entire argument has always been that accepting X candidate for simply having a 3.7 GPA over Y candidate with a 3.5 GPA is dumb and a lazy way for admissions committees to simply cut people out of the race. I stand by that 100%.

Your argument is based on the assumption that law school adcoms have the goal of selecting those who will do best in law school/succeed in a legal career. Given the behavior of law schools, this assumption does not really hold.

I think it is far more likely, given the documented behavior of law schools, that the goal of adcoms is to protect the brand/prestige/well being of the law school. Part of protecting that brand is making sure the ranking of the law schools stays at whatever arbitrary point the law school believes it needs to be. GPA median plays a large role in the rankings, so it is very logical for an adcom to choose the 3.7 over the 3.5 (so long as they believe the 3.7 can cut it (or have enough other competent folks that the 3.7 washing out doesn't hurt the brand)).

I agree and that is because my argument is based on the entire purpose of why people go to law school in the first place........ to succeed in a legal career.

Unfortunately, the reason why people go to law school in the first place and the desire to succeed in a legal career has absolutely no bearing on the motivation and incentives of adcoms.

In fact, I believe that you can find many examples on these boards of adcoms acting in ways that actually hurt student's chances to succeed in a legal career (such as suggesting they take debt at a school with poor outcomes).

Your argument is not sound because it makes assumptions about the world that don't hold.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

My entire argument has always been that accepting X candidate for simply having a 3.7 GPA over Y candidate with a 3.5 GPA is dumb and a lazy way for admissions committees to simply cut people out of the race. I stand by that 100%.

Your argument is based on the assumption that law school adcoms have the goal of selecting those who will do best in law school/succeed in a legal career. Given the behavior of law schools, this assumption does not really hold.

I think it is far more likely, given the documented behavior of law schools, that the goal of adcoms is to protect the brand/prestige/well being of the law school. Part of protecting that brand is making sure the ranking of the law schools stays at whatever arbitrary point the law school believes it needs to be. GPA median plays a large role in the rankings, so it is very logical for an adcom to choose the 3.7 over the 3.5 (so long as they believe the 3.7 can cut it (or have enough other competent folks that the 3.7 washing out doesn't hurt the brand)).

I agree and that is because my argument is based on the entire purpose of why people go to law school in the first place........ to succeed in a legal career.

Unfortunately, the reason why people go to law school in the first place and the desire to succeed in a legal career has absolutely no bearing on the motivation and incentives of adcoms.

In fact, I believe that you can find many examples on these boards of adcoms acting in ways that actually hurt student's chances to succeed in a legal career (such as suggesting they take debt at a school with poor outcomes).

Your argument is not sound because it makes assumptions about the world that don't hold.

Lol my argument is still sound. That is like saying People shouldn't kill each other, but people do kill each other, so the argument that people shouldn't kill each other isn't valid because that's not what happens in the real world ........

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Look, reading that wiki page alone makes clear the significance of MPT to finance as a scholarly field. Because it's criticized doesn't mean it's wrong - all scholarly theories get criticized. And because you don't think a theoretical model is worth studying doesn't make you objectively correct that it's garbage. Sorry your field contains a lot of stuff you don't agree with? That doesn't make the profs idiots to teach it - in fact if it was taught in multiple classes, that suggests a scholarly consensus on its importance to the field.

There are a few constitutional law cases I read at least 3-4 times in different law school classes. I can think that the cases are completely wrong and even harmful, but that doesn't make my profs idiots for teaching them.

You have a really narrow view of what it's worthwhile to study. That's fine, you can value what you want to value. But you can't say that your profs were full of shit for teaching you something that's important to the field just because it doesn't fit your narrow view not factually accurate.

No response to my previous post addressing this post?

[jnwa]

Look, reading that wiki page alone makes clear the significance of MPT to finance as a scholarly field. Because it's criticized doesn't mean it's wrong - all scholarly theories get criticized. And because you don't think a theoretical model is worth studying doesn't make you objectively correct that it's garbage. Sorry your field contains a lot of stuff you don't agree with? That doesn't make the profs idiots to teach it - in fact if it was taught in multiple classes, that suggests a scholarly consensus on its importance to the field.

There are a few constitutional law cases I read at least 3-4 times in different law school classes. I can think that the cases are completely wrong and even harmful, but that doesn't make my profs idiots for teaching them.

You have a really narrow view of what it's worthwhile to study. That's fine, you can value what you want to value. But you can't say that your profs were full of shit for teaching you something that's important to the field just because it doesn't fit your narrow view not factually accurate.

No response to my previous post addressing this post?

If you cant see the value in learning about contested theories then you have a ridiculously narrow view of education. Try trade school.

[drblakedowns]

My entire argument has always been that accepting X candidate for simply having a 3.7 GPA over Y candidate with a 3.5 GPA is dumb and a lazy way for admissions committees to simply cut people out of the race. I stand by that 100%.

Your argument is based on the assumption that law school adcoms have the goal of selecting those who will do best in law school/succeed in a legal career. Given the behavior of law schools, this assumption does not really hold.

I think it is far more likely, given the documented behavior of law schools, that the goal of adcoms is to protect the brand/prestige/well being of the law school. Part of protecting that brand is making sure the ranking of the law schools stays at whatever arbitrary point the law school believes it needs to be. GPA median plays a large role in the rankings, so it is very logical for an adcom to choose the 3.7 over the 3.5 (so long as they believe the 3.7 can cut it (or have enough other competent folks that the 3.7 washing out doesn't hurt the brand)).

I agree and that is because my argument is based on the entire purpose of why people go to law school in the first place........ to succeed in a legal career.

Unfortunately, the reason why people go to law school in the first place and the desire to succeed in a legal career has absolutely no bearing on the motivation and incentives of adcoms.

In fact, I believe that you can find many examples on these boards of adcoms acting in ways that actually hurt student's chances to succeed in a legal career (such as suggesting they take debt at a school with poor outcomes).

Your argument is not sound because it makes assumptions about the world that don't hold.

Lol my argument is still sound. That is like saying People shouldn't kill each other, but people do kill each other, so the argument that people shouldn't kill each other isn't valid because that's not what happens in the real world ........

Not at all. It's more like if your argument was "It is never rational for someone to kill another, therefore people shouldn't kill each other" and I pointed out examples were killing another was rational.

Also I never said anything about the validity of your argument. Given different assumptions about adcoms, your argument may very well be valid. It's just not sound. I know its a minor semantic thing, but words do have specific meanings, and clear communication is important in any kind of discussion.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Look, reading that wiki page alone makes clear the significance of MPT to finance as a scholarly field. Because it's criticized doesn't mean it's wrong - all scholarly theories get criticized. And because you don't think a theoretical model is worth studying doesn't make you objectively correct that it's garbage. Sorry your field contains a lot of stuff you don't agree with? That doesn't make the profs idiots to teach it - in fact if it was taught in multiple classes, that suggests a scholarly consensus on its importance to the field.

There are a few constitutional law cases I read at least 3-4 times in different law school classes. I can think that the cases are completely wrong and even harmful, but that doesn't make my profs idiots for teaching them.

You have a really narrow view of what it's worthwhile to study. That's fine, you can value what you want to value. But you can't say that your profs were full of shit for teaching you something that's important to the field just because it doesn't fit your narrow view not factually accurate.

No response to my previous post addressing this post?

If you cant see the value in learning about contestedtheories that are factually inaccurate that make poor assumptions then you have an accurate ridiculously narrowview of education. Try trade school.

I fixed it for you.

[drblakedowns]

Look, reading that wiki page alone makes clear the significance of MPT to finance as a scholarly field. Because it's criticized doesn't mean it's wrong - all scholarly theories get criticized. And because you don't think a theoretical model is worth studying doesn't make you objectively correct that it's garbage. Sorry your field contains a lot of stuff you don't agree with? That doesn't make the profs idiots to teach it - in fact if it was taught in multiple classes, that suggests a scholarly consensus on its importance to the field.

There are a few constitutional law cases I read at least 3-4 times in different law school classes. I can think that the cases are completely wrong and even harmful, but that doesn't make my profs idiots for teaching them.

You have a really narrow view of what it's worthwhile to study. That's fine, you can value what you want to value. But you can't say that your profs were full of shit for teaching you something that's important to the field just because it doesn't fit your narrow view not factually accurate.

No response to my previous post addressing this post?

If you cant see the value in learning about contestedtheories that are factually inaccurate that make poor assumptions then you have an accurate ridiculously narrowview of education. Try trade school.

I fixed it for you.

In many cases the importance is not in learning the simplified model or toy system, but in learning how to work with it. You seem to be missing that.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Look, reading that wiki page alone makes clear the significance of MPT to finance as a scholarly field. Because it's criticized doesn't mean it's wrong - all scholarly theories get criticized. And because you don't think a theoretical model is worth studying doesn't make you objectively correct that it's garbage. Sorry your field contains a lot of stuff you don't agree with? That doesn't make the profs idiots to teach it - in fact if it was taught in multiple classes, that suggests a scholarly consensus on its importance to the field.

There are a few constitutional law cases I read at least 3-4 times in different law school classes. I can think that the cases are completely wrong and even harmful, but that doesn't make my profs idiots for teaching them.

You have a really narrow view of what it's worthwhile to study. That's fine, you can value what you want to value. But you can't say that your profs were full of shit for teaching you something that's important to the field just because it doesn't fit your narrow view not factually accurate.

No response to my previous post addressing this post?

If you cant see the value in learning about contestedtheories that are factually inaccurate that make poor assumptions then you have an accurate ridiculously narrowview of education. Try trade school.

I fixed it for you.

In many cases the importance is not in learning the simplified model or toy system, but in learning how to work with it. You seem to be missing that.

What are you talking about? That is exactly what I did during my undergraduate education- applied theory to practice. The theory I am referencing is factually wrong and does not apply to the real world nor can it be used in the real world as a reliable measure of allocating capital.

If I teach in a class all cars are black and we all walk outside and see a blue car we now know that not all cars are black. So you shouldn't keep teaching the theory all cars are black year after year, class after class.

[poptart123]

Look, reading that wiki page alone makes clear the significance of MPT to finance as a scholarly field. Because it's criticized doesn't mean it's wrong - all scholarly theories get criticized. And because you don't think a theoretical model is worth studying doesn't make you objectively correct that it's garbage. Sorry your field contains a lot of stuff you don't agree with? That doesn't make the profs idiots to teach it - in fact if it was taught in multiple classes, that suggests a scholarly consensus on its importance to the field.

There are a few constitutional law cases I read at least 3-4 times in different law school classes. I can think that the cases are completely wrong and even harmful, but that doesn't make my profs idiots for teaching them.

You have a really narrow view of what it's worthwhile to study. That's fine, you can value what you want to value. But you can't say that your profs were full of shit for teaching you something that's important to the field just because it doesn't fit your narrow view not factually accurate.

No response to my previous post addressing this post?

If you cant see the value in learning about contestedtheories that are factually inaccurate that make poor assumptions then you have an accurate ridiculously narrowview of education. Try trade school.

I fixed it for you.

In many cases the importance is not in learning the simplified model or toy system, but in learning how to work with it. You seem to be missing that.

What are you talking about? That is exactly what I did during my undergraduate education- applied theory to practice. The theory I am referencing is factually wrong and does not apply to the real world nor can it be used in the real world as a reliable measure of allocating capital.

If I teach in a class all cars are black and we all walk outside and see a blue car we now know that not all cars are black. So you shouldn't keep teaching the theory all cars are black year after year, class after class.

Unless you were taught an incorrect theory that blue really is a color and not just a shade of black. Seems the problem potentially goes all the way back to pre-school!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[asdfdfdfadfas]

My entire argument has always been that accepting X candidate for simply having a 3.7 GPA over Y candidate with a 3.5 GPA is dumb and a lazy way for admissions committees to simply cut people out of the race. I stand by that 100%.

Your argument is based on the assumption that law school adcoms have the goal of selecting those who will do best in law school/succeed in a legal career. Given the behavior of law schools, this assumption does not really hold.

I think it is far more likely, given the documented behavior of law schools, that the goal of adcoms is to protect the brand/prestige/well being of the law school. Part of protecting that brand is making sure the ranking of the law schools stays at whatever arbitrary point the law school believes it needs to be. GPA median plays a large role in the rankings, so it is very logical for an adcom to choose the 3.7 over the 3.5 (so long as they believe the 3.7 can cut it (or have enough other competent folks that the 3.7 washing out doesn't hurt the brand)).

I agree and that is because my argument is based on the entire purpose of why people go to law school in the first place........ to succeed in a legal career.

Unfortunately, the reason why people go to law school in the first place and the desire to succeed in a legal career has absolutely no bearing on the motivation and incentives of adcoms.

In fact, I believe that you can find many examples on these boards of adcoms acting in ways that actually hurt student's chances to succeed in a legal career (such as suggesting they take debt at a school with poor outcomes).

Your argument is not sound because it makes assumptions about the world that don't hold.

"
Unfortunately, the reason why people go to law school in the first place and the desire to succeed in a legal career has absolutely no bearing on the motivation and incentives of adcoms"

Sure it does. To suggest law schools don't have an incentive to put people in their school that are most likely to have a successful legal career is nonsense.