Was this a bad cycle for splitters and T14? Forum

[asdfdfdfadfas]

None of this makes sense to me. In fact, it is so terribly written I am not even going to respond.

You said that the math major was valuable because is shows that the person was smart enough to pick a math major. I told you that your rationale is stupid and that criteria should not matter at all to admcoms.


No it isn't shocking and who knows, maybe in some people's opinion Philosophy is more intellectually challenging. What type of "research" skills are feminism majors gathering up by the bunches, by the way? If I major in children's TV shows from the 1990s am I gaining research skills? Certainly if I had a 4.0 I would be a prime candidate for top law schools.........

...... So if I go to college and major in underwater basket weaving but walk out with a 4.0, so long as I sit around in my mother's basement and do well on the LSAT I am more desirable than let's say someone who is a well known Engineer who took the test while working? LSAT and GPA together give ........what? Also, I am not stating they should care, I am stating that humanity majors aren't the only one's changing careers and I am pretty sure their real world work experience would be more applicable to being lawyer than researching feminism.

Did you take a humanities class during your undergrad? I took a few. In a Women and Development course, i had to research feminist development theories then write a paper discussing their impact on development practice and make a case for the one i thought was the most successful. Is that directly related to law school? No. But its a lot more relevant to it than the math class i took.

Theres tons of 4.0s. If you get one then get a 167+ on the LSAT, THEN youre a prime candidate for a t14 law school. At that point however youve given an indication that you can do well on a test that correlates fairly well with law school grades. Taking the test while working isnt that hard, it just takes longer. If youre not saying that adcoms should care then youre missing the entire point. This discussion started as an argument for whether or not law school adcoms should be more holistic in their analysis of candidates; you started there and then devolved into a bad argument about why engineers are the greatest.

If youre a 4.0 in underwater basketweaving and got a 170 on the LSAT, yes, id rather gamble on you doing better in law school than the 3.3 165 famous engineer bro.

Just lol. Do you understand how they get paid for their work? You understand they use the student loan market to artificially raise the prices of education right?

Some of them have less debt.........

Here...... just read this. After that go to the vale of tears thread that has 58,000 posts or whatever the number is.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=261392

Teachers didnt create the student loan system, the government did. It may be a bad idea but ill leave it to you to think of a better idea that allows education to be accessible.

Just lol. I have an idea, that is woefully unoriginal- how about not lending money to a bunch of 20 year olds at interest? What do you think would happen if all of a sudden the government quit subsidizing people's education with the student loan program? People would stop going to college. Then what? What happens when demand falls? I'll let you ponder that for a bit.



If youre some priviledged dude who thinks student loans shouldnt exist and the only people who should be allowed to go to school are the rich then youre stupid. Because theres a biglawyer who hates his job and people in the vale that didnt get jobs i should think what?

Your lack of understanding of even the most fundamental, basic Economic principles is petrifying.


What the fuck is your point exactly? I replied initially because i was arguing that the objective admissions criteria we have now is preferable to one where adcoms make subjective judgements about major difficulty. You turned it into a rant about random parts of law school and higher ed that you dont like. I get it., you dont want to go to law school, judging by your reasoning skills its probably for the best.

Totally, bro. Someone asked me for my further thoughts after reviewing the thread, I obliged. You sound like a stereotypical college bro who is about to make a large mistake in life. I hope you borrow as much money as you can for law school and go out there and prove me wrong!

My point is still the same as when we started which I don't think I need to reiterate at this point. Seriously do yourself a favor and pick up a basic Economics textbook. I recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. It doesn't have any graphs so it should be a little bit easier for you

[landshoes]

Could you guys stop writing within the quotes? It's hard for dumb feminism majors like me to understand. Thanks

Also that guy who asked a question was pretty clearly trolling you because you can't not flip out over this topic.

Seriously, though, it sucks to feel unfairly disadvantaged about stupid and arbitrary criteria. I get it.

At the same time, you have to realize how funny it is for you to think law school admissions is INCREDIBLY UNFAIR and also that feminist scholarship is silly/feminists have nothing to whine about.

I mean, do you see the irony at all?

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Could you guys stop writing within the quotes? It's hard for dumb feminism majors like me to understand. Thanks

Also that guy who asked a question was pretty clearly trolling you because you can't not flip out over this topic.

Seriously, though, it sucks to feel unfairly disadvantaged about stupid and arbitrary criteria. I get it.

At the same time, you have to realize how funny it is for you to think law school admissions is INCREDIBLY UNFAIR and also that feminist scholarship is silly/feminists have nothing to whine about.

I mean, do you see the irony at all?

See that is the part you aren't getting. I am not whining that picking someone who has a 3.7 GPA in basket weaving vs an Engineering major with a 3.6 strictly based on the numerical value of their GPA is unfair. I am pointing out the fact it's dumb, illogical, and absolutely comical given the fact that we are talking about admissions for law school here. Do you see the irony in that?

[WinterComing]

OK, ASDF, I think all the windmills are dead now. You've successfully made the same point in this thread that you've made in every other thread. Please go away.

Look, this forum has a bunch of people who went to TTT law schools and got burned when they couldn't find jobs. It also has a bunch of people who took out huge loans to go to a T-14 and got burned when they realize that Big Law sucks but they couldn't quit because they had to pay back their loans. Hearing cautionary stories from them is really valuable. Since you haven't had those experiences, all you can do is read those cautionary stories and then try to repeat them, but like a game of telephone, when you deliver the message second-hand, it's been warped and no longer makes any sense.

I don't understand your motivations at all. Why are you, as someone who does not intend to attend law school, participating in a forum for prospective law students and lawyers? How do you not have something better to do with your time?

Also, the borderline sexist stuff is just asinine.

P.S. Not that any of your arguments are worthy of a response, but on this point...

An alternative? Sitting down, going through every single resume, interviewing every single candidate with a set of a questions and critically thinking about why they actually want to attend.

...isn't that exactly what Yale—and to a lesser extent Harvard and Chicago and probably some other schools—already do now?

[asdfdfdfadfas]

OK, ASDF, I think all the windmills are dead now. You've successfully made the same point in this thread that you've made in every other thread. Please go away.

A poster quoted my post from awhile ago and asked for my opinion, so I gave it?

Look, this forum has a bunch of people who went to TTT law schools and got burned when they couldn't find jobs. It also has a bunch of people who took out huge loans to go to a T-14 and got burned when they realize that Big Law sucks but they couldn't quit because they had to pay back their loans. Hearing cautionary stories from them is really valuable. Since you haven't had those experiences, all you can do is read those cautionary stories and then try to repeat them, but like a game of telephone, when you deliver the message second-hand, it's been warped and no longer makes any sense.

I don't understand your motivations at all. Why are you, as someone who does not intend to attend law school, participating in a forum for prospective law students and lawyers? How do you not have something better to do with your time?

My job is incredibly easy, and takes about 1/8th of the time I am here. So I am bored at work. Plus, I enjoy some of the topics and if I can prevent someone from going 200k+ in debt and getting screwed over occasionally, why not? Also, I never said I would never go to law school, I have simply said I am not going currently. I still get a lot of information out of this forum that I find useful that I didn't know previously.

Also, the borderline sexist stuff is just asinine.

What sexist stuff? If you want to PM me, I will discuss it with you if you'd like rather than just making some weird accusation.

P.S. Not that any of your arguments are worthy of a response, but on this point...

An alternative? Sitting down, going through every single resume, interviewing every single candidate with a set of a questions and critically thinking about why they actually want to attend.

...isn't that exactly what Yale—and to a lesser extent Harvard and Chicago and probably some other schools—already do now?

I don't know, to some extent right? From a historical standpoint, Yale has a pretty questionable/ jaded history itself. I am not on the admissions committee there, so I don't know their exact current practices. To the extent they do look at applicants holistically I applaud them.

[jnwa]

Just lol. I have an idea, that is woefully unoriginal- how about not lending money to a bunch of 20 year olds at interest? What do you think would happen if all of a sudden the government quit subsidizing people's education with the student loan program? People would stop going to college. Then what? What happens when demand falls? I'll let you ponder that for a bit.


So i shouldnt give a shit about the people who cant go to college because they are too poor? College should be inaccessible to the poor so that the demand can drop which results in a price drop. Okay ill bite.
If youre some priviledged dude who thinks student loans shouldnt exist and the only people who should be allowed to go to school are the rich then youre stupid. Because theres a biglawyer who hates his job and people in the vale that didnt get jobs i should think what?

Your lack of understanding of even the most fundamental, basic Economic principles is petrifying.



What the fuck is your point exactly? I replied initially because i was arguing that the objective admissions criteria we have now is preferable to one where adcoms make subjective judgements about major difficulty. You turned it into a rant about random parts of law school and higher ed that you dont like. I get it., you dont want to go to law school, judging by your reasoning skills its probably for the best.

Totally, bro. Someone asked me for my further thoughts after reviewing the thread, I obliged. You sound like a stereotypical college bro who is about to make a large mistake in life. I hope you borrow as much money as you can for law school and go out there and prove me wrong!

My point is still the same as when we started which I don't think I need to reiterate at this point. Seriously do yourself a favor and pick up a basic Economics textbook. I recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. It doesn't have any graphs so it should be a little bit easier for you

I do not disagree that eliminating student loans would hypothetically reduce the cost of higher ed. I am telling you that the current system of crazy high student debt is preferable to one where higher education is limited to those who have large sums of cash at age 20. Youll probably argue that the drop in demand would make education more accessible, however that still fucks people in the meantime and i dont think the price gets affordable enough before schools start shutting down and driving the costs back up. I think its important to ensure that lack of wealth doesnt prevent people from attending institutions of higher education, if you disagree with that, we have different philosophies on the role of the state and you can continue to worship at the altar of the market with your people. Your pov is defensible, i just dont agree with it.

Just because i dont agree with your reductionist efficiency arguments doesnt mean i dont understand economics. Fuck, i get it, you read Sowell now you think youre intelligent for reducing every argument into a case for efficiency while conveniently leaving out things you dont like. How does generational poverty factor into your economic analysis of the student loan system. Im sure you and your fellow economists would love to eliminate students loans, fuck a swath of people in the process than marvel at your efficient market, thats fine, i dont agree with it. Making efficiency arguments doesnt make you right if i disagree with the premise that efficiency is the sole goal.

Also i got a full ride plus stipend to a t14 so im good. Thanks though. Like i said, its a shame you couldnt get into a good law school without paying an arm and a leg and youre smart for not paying a ton to go to a shitty one. At no point did i say paying a ton of money for law school was unequivocally a great idea, so im not sure where you even got that from.

[Hildegard15]

Firstly, Lol what? Can males not major in Feminism? I don't think anyone mentioned a woman specifically here.

Congrats she had to research things...... wow. That is so impressive learning about things that aren't relevant to making an income or to life in general and that are factually inaccurate. Totally worth that tuition money especially given the fact all of that is all over the internet now. Clearly you have earned your right at Harvard over Mr. Petroleum Engineering.

You were saying?

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Just lol. I have an idea, that is woefully unoriginal- how about not lending money to a bunch of 20 year olds at interest? What do you think would happen if all of a sudden the government quit subsidizing people's education with the student loan program? People would stop going to college. Then what? What happens when demand falls? I'll let you ponder that for a bit.


So i shouldnt give a shit about the people who cant go to college because they are too poor? College should be inaccessible to the poor so that the demand can drop which results in a price drop. Okay ill bite.
If youre some priviledged dude who thinks student loans shouldnt exist and the only people who should be allowed to go to school are the rich then youre stupid. Because theres a biglawyer who hates his job and people in the vale that didnt get jobs i should think what?

Your lack of understanding of even the most fundamental, basic Economic principles is petrifying.



What the fuck is your point exactly? I replied initially because i was arguing that the objective admissions criteria we have now is preferable to one where adcoms make subjective judgements about major difficulty. You turned it into a rant about random parts of law school and higher ed that you dont like. I get it., you dont want to go to law school, judging by your reasoning skills its probably for the best.

Totally, bro. Someone asked me for my further thoughts after reviewing the thread, I obliged. You sound like a stereotypical college bro who is about to make a large mistake in life. I hope you borrow as much money as you can for law school and go out there and prove me wrong!

My point is still the same as when we started which I don't think I need to reiterate at this point. Seriously do yourself a favor and pick up a basic Economics textbook. I recommend Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. It doesn't have any graphs so it should be a little bit easier for you

I do not disagree that eliminating student loans would hypothetically reduce the cost of higher ed. I am telling you that the current system of crazy high student debt is preferable to one where higher education is limited to those who have large sums of cash at age 20. Youll probably argue that the drop in demand would make education more accessible, however that still fucks people in the meantime and i dont think the price gets affordable enough before schools start shutting down and driving the costs back up. I think its important to ensure that lack of wealth doesnt prevent people from attending institutions of higher education, if you disagree with that, we have different philosophies on the role of the state and you can continue to worship at the altar of the market with your people. Your pov is defensible, i just dont agree with it.

I agree with you- I don't think poverty should restrict someone from achieving their dream of becoming a lawyer either. I just don't think the government financing education via student loan debt is the right answer due to the fact it is a certainty you take on the debt and an absolute uncertainty you are guaranteed a great job outcome. So really, the student/ government is bearing the blunt of the risk here if it doesn't work out, whereas professors get a guaranteed pay out. If you remove the student loan program demand drops, and therefore schools are forced to adjust prices downward. This is, in general, the exact same type of financing scheme that caused the mortgage crisis. I don't see it playing out well for a lot of people over the long run.

Just because i dont agree with your reductionist efficiency arguments doesnt mean i dont understand economics. Fuck, i get it, you read Sowell now you think youre intelligent for reducing every argument into a case for efficiency while conveniently leaving out things you dont like. How does generational poverty factor into your economic analysis of the student loan system. Im sure you and your fellow economists would love to eliminate students loans, fuck a swath of people in the process than marvel at your efficient market, thats fine, i dont agree with it. Making efficiency arguments doesnt make you right if i disagree with the premise that efficiency is the sole goal.

I never argued that grants for low income students should be removed. Just as with other welfare policies I agree that society has an obligation to help those who have been left behind, to some extent. That extent is always a subjective debate.

Also i got a full ride plus stipend to a t14 so im good. Thanks though. Like i said, its a shame you couldnt get into a good law school without paying an arm and a leg and youre smart for not paying a ton to go to a shitty one. At no point did i say paying a ton of money for law school was unequivocally a great idea, so im not sure where you even got that from.

Congratulations, that is great for you if that is what you want to do. I've never applied. I already posted in another thread that given my current income/ career forgoing three years of opportunity cost+ the cost of going to law school doesn't make sense for me personally at the current moment.

[WinterComing]

If I can prevent someone from going 200k+ in debt and getting screwed over occasionally, why not?

But see, there's really no possibility that you will do that. And in fact, you might have the opposite effect unintentionally. Imagine that a clueless 0L comes to TLS. They read someone else making a coherent argument about why law school is a bad idea. They consider changing their life plan and pursuing a different career. Then they read one of your incoherent arguments against law school, and they think, oh, I guess the anti-law school people don't know what they're talking about, and they go on their merry way.

What I'm suggesting is that you give the smart people who warn against law school a bad name.

What sexist stuff? If you want to PM me, I will discuss it with you if you'd like rather than just making some weird accusation.

I think Hildy did a pretty good job of responding to this in her post above.

I don't know, to some extent right? From a historical standpoint, Yale has a pretty questionable/ jaded history itself. I am not on the admissions committee there, so I don't know their exact current practices. To the extent they do look at applicants holistically I applaud them.

See, this is exactly my point. You readily admit that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to how admissions decisions are made. So why did you make that huge argument about how stupid the admissions process is, when you don't know anything about it?

You shoot first and aim later, and that results in a lot of nonsense.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Firstly, Lol what? Can males not major in Feminism? I don't think anyone mentioned a woman specifically here.

Congrats she had to research things...... wow. That is so impressive learning about things that aren't relevant to making an income or to life in general and that are factually inaccurate. Totally worth that tuition money especially given the fact all of that is all over the internet now. Clearly you have earned your right at Harvard over Mr. Petroleum Engineering.

You were saying?

I should have included he/she, my mistake.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

If I can prevent someone from going 200k+ in debt and getting screwed over occasionally, why not?

But see, there's really no possibility that you will do that.

Glad to see you are the master at predicting the future and think in absolutes.

And in fact, you might have the opposite effect unintentionally. Imagine that a clueless 0L comes to TLS. They read someone else making a coherent argument about why law school is a bad idea. They consider changing their life plan and pursuing a different career. Then they read one of your incoherent arguments against law school, and they think, oh, I guess the anti-law school people don't know what they're talking about, and they go on their merry way.

What I'm suggesting is that you give the smart people who warn against law school a bad name.

I don't really care what you are suggesting because I disagree with you here.

What sexist stuff? If you want to PM me, I will discuss it with you if you'd like rather than just making some weird accusation.

I think Hildy did a pretty good job of responding to this in her post above.

I just stated I accidentally included she instead of he. That was my mistake that I readily admitted, but it doesn't detract from my initial argument.

I don't know, to some extent right? From a historical standpoint, Yale has a pretty questionable/ jaded history itself. I am not on the admissions committee there, so I don't know their exact current practices. To the extent they do look at applicants holistically I applaud them.

See, this is exactly my point. You readily admit that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to how admissions decisions are made. So why did you make that huge argument about how stupid the admissions process is, when you don't know anything about it?


Simply because I am not on the admissions committee there, so I don't know their exact current practices, doesn't mean I "readily admit that I have no idea what I am talking about."

You shoot first and aim later, and that results in a lot of nonsense.
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%.

[WinterComing]

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%.

And my entire argument is that, because your hypothetical is oversimplified and not drawn from how things work in reality, you're tilting at windmills. I stand by that 100 percent.

Maybe we can compromise. Instead of you leaving TLS entirely, perhaps you can just make your own thread called like "ASDF rails against the system." That way, you can stop filling threads that are supposed to be about other things with your broken record of "law schools suck" and "professors are evil."

[jnwa]

Could you guys stop writing within the quotes? It's hard for dumb feminism majors like me to understand. Thanks

Also that guy who asked a question was pretty clearly trolling you because you can't not flip out over this topic.

Seriously, though, it sucks to feel unfairly disadvantaged about stupid and arbitrary criteria. I get it.

At the same time, you have to realize how funny it is for you to think law school admissions is INCREDIBLY UNFAIR and also that feminist scholarship is silly/feminists have nothing to whine about.

I mean, do you see the irony at all?

See that is the part you aren't getting. I am not whining that picking someone who has a 3.7 GPA in basket weaving vs an Engineering major with a 3.6 strictly based on the numerical value of their GPA is unfair. I am pointing out the fact it's dumb, illogical, and absolutely comical given the fact that we are talking about admissions for law school here. Do you see the irony in that?

If the aim of law school admissions is to select candidates who are most likely to excel in law school, tell me why i should believe that the 3.6 in engineering would do better in law school than the 3.7 in basketweaving? Neither major is relevant to law school. Colleges grade on curves so a 3.7 from Harvard basketweaving is probably have been a more difficult feat to achieve than the 3.6 engineer from TTTT undergrad. My GPA in humanities classes was much lower than in the science and stats classes i took because my profs were never going to give anyone a 95 on an essay but if i answered all the questions right on a stats midterm i was getting my 100. Should that be a rational basis for inflating humanities majors? The only argument ill make about GPA is that inconsistency with regards to grade inflation makes it an essentially useless metric and i think it should be weighed even less than it already is. Im also a splitter from a school with grade deflation so take my opinion with salt grains.

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%.

This doesnt happen. The LSAT is a thing that exists. Asking for admissions to be more subjective and opaque is dumb imo.

[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%.

And my entire argument is that, because your hypothetical is oversimplified and not drawn from how things work in reality, you're tilting at windmills. I stand by that 100 percent.

Lol, but for the vast majority of schools that is what the data suggests. I never said it applied to EVERY school and every single person/ admissions committee.

Maybe we can compromise. Instead of you leaving TLS entirely, perhaps you can just make your own thread called like "ASDF rails against the system." That way, you can stop filling threads that are supposed to be about other things with your broken record of "law schools suck" and "professors are evil."

Actually, last time I checked a poster quoted my post and asked for my further opinion, that is why I am here. Pretty simple stuff.

[WinterComing]

Simply because I am not on the admissions committee there, so I don't know their exact current practices, doesn't mean I "readily admit that I have no idea what I am talking about."

Here's the thing: You don't need to be on the admissions committee at Yale to know how Yale admissions works. Their system is super transparent. You can spend 10 minutes on Google reading about the 12-point process. You're just unwilling to do the research to actually have an informed opinion.

Your self-confidence and ignorance is a really lethal combination.

Oh, and give it a rest with the "another poster asked for my opinion." Look at other posts from that other poster, and you'll see that he's a troll. You didn't have to take the bait.

[jnwa]

I agree with you- I don't think poverty should restrict someone from achieving their dream of becoming a lawyer either. I just don't think the government financing education via student loan debt is the right answer due to the fact it is a certainty you take on the debt and an absolute uncertainty you are guaranteed a great job outcome. So really, the student/ government is bearing the blunt of the risk here if it doesn't work out, whereas professors get a guaranteed pay out. If you remove the student loan program demand drops, and therefore schools are forced to adjust prices downward. This is, in general, the exact same type of financing scheme that caused the mortgage crisis. I don't see it playing out well for a lot of people over the long run.


You havent proposed a solution to the poverty point besides remove government financing and wait until schools get cheap enough for poors to attend. So now we have entire classes of people who cant attend school at all, but hey at least we cut off that professorial gravy train. Thats the real goal here. Students should bear the brunt of the risk, theyre making an investment in themselves, the government is making an investment in the youth it comes with risk. The current system has issues. Id argue that fixing it would require more grants and less loans but that costs money that the government may not be willing to spend.



I never argued that grants for low income students should be removed. Just as with other welfare policies I agree that society has an obligation to help those who have been left behind, to some extent. That extent is always a subjective debate.

If grants for low income students were sufficient to cover the costs of school then loans would not be needed. Eliminating loans, forces those students out.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Simply because I am not on the admissions committee there, so I don't know their exact current practices, doesn't mean I "readily admit that I have no idea what I am talking about."

Here's the thing: You don't need to be on the admissions committee at Yale to know how Yale admissions works. Their system is super transparent. You can spend 10 minutes on Google reading about the 12-point process. You're just unwilling to do the research to actually have an informed opinion.

No I have and again, like I said, did I state specifically that the GPA argument was FOR EVERY SINGLE ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE IN THE WORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRLD? No. You are just taking my generally true statement and trying to apply it to certain instances. Most tigers are orange, that doesn't mean all tigers are orange.

Your self-confidence and ignorance is a really lethal combination.

Thanks. Your input on my personality is really awe-inspiring.

Oh, and give it a rest with the "another poster asked for my opinion." Look at other posts from that other poster, and you'll see that he's a troll. You didn't have to take the bait.

No, that is why I am posting in this thread. The poster asked me a question and I answered it. Like I said, real basic stuff here. Sorry I didn't do a full analysis on the poster's history.

[WinterComing]

Lol, but for the vast majority of schools that is what the data suggests. I never said it applied to EVERY school and every single person/ admissions committee.

I don't really want to agree with you, because disagreeing with you is more fun, but yeah, I do think that many schools probably give raw GPA numbers a little bit too much credit. As another poster said, I think the shortcoming is more the difference in difficulty between schools rather than the difference in difficulty between majors. That said, I think the solution is to consider GPA in context—what school, what course work—rather than eliminating it from consideration entirely. As compared to the few hours spent on the LSAT, a GPA does give some indication of the quality of a person's sustained work over a period of years.

[nate3869]

And my entire argument is that, because your hypothetical is oversimplified and not drawn from how things work in reality, you're tilting at windmills. I stand by that 100 percent.

Maybe we can compromise. Instead of you leaving TLS entirely, perhaps you can just make your own thread called like "ASDF rails against the system." That way, you can stop filling threads that are supposed to be about other things with your broken record of "law schools suck" and "professors are evil."

Not going to comment on the argument one way or another, except to say that I really appreciate your use of Don Quixote references.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Lol, but for the vast majority of schools that is what the data suggests. I never said it applied to EVERY school and every single person/ admissions committee.

I don't really want to agree with you, because disagreeing with you is more fun, but yeah, I do think that many schools probably give raw GPA numbers a little bit too much credit.

See, I knew you'd come around.

As another poster said, I think the shortcoming is more the difference in difficulty between schools rather than the difference in difficulty between majors.

ehhhhhh.... I agree with you that the difference in how difficult the schools are is an important shortcoming that should be considered and I think the LSAT is a good way to reconcile that shortcoming as it is a standardized test.



That said, I think the solution is to consider GPA in context—what school, what course work—rather than eliminating it from consideration entirely.As compared to the few hours spent on the LSAT, a GPA does give some indication of the quality of a person's sustained work over a period of years.

Ok I agree, but I think my biggest problem is is that you are assuming the information being taught is valuable, correct, up to date, and that teachers are being held 100% accountable on their end and are always right. I don't believe that is the case.

[A. Nony Mouse]

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.

[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?

[A. Nony Mouse]

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.

[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.

[A. Nony Mouse]

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.)