TLS is a mindless echo chamber Forum

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

You said less than 70% of people work in Colorado, and that is the misleading statistic.

124/183 work in the Mountain States. That's less than 70%. How is that misleading?

In the context of the convo we were having, it implied that 30%+ of people were going elsewhere (or, in your view, probably going to where they have "ties").

They could be staying in Colorado. But they're not working in Colorado. So I don't care where they are. The point is employment. If you're saying people can go UC without ties and wind up unemployed in Colorado, I think you'll find that assertion completely uncontroversial.

You seem too obtuse to get this, so I'll say it again:
It doesn't matter where they live, it matters both if, and where, they got a job. You said, 90% are working in state. Let's look at the possibilities:

(1) If they got a job in Colorado.
(2) If they got a job elsewhere.
(3) If they didn't get a job and live in Colorado.
(4) If they didn't get a job and live elsewhere.

The 84% number only looks at (1) and (2), and says 84% of the people who were in either (1) or (2) were in (1). But that's not the question. The question is, for a prospective student going to UC to work in Colorado, what are the chances they wind up in (1)? We have to ask, how many people, out of (1) (2) (3) and (4) wound up in (1). That's not 90% or 84%. It's 124/183, or about 68%. The 84% statistic only looks at those who have jobs. Get it?

I know the 84% statistic only looks at people who have jobs. I get that, and that was my point. As soon as I realized you purposely counted the people who were unemployed and looking (2.7%) and those who were unemployed and not looking (9.8%), I made it a point to call your statement misleading, not incorrect.

This side issue is unimportant. The data on this particular school shows that the majority come in without ties and the majority get work in Colorado-- 40% to 68%. That was the (minor) anecdote that all this was about.

Everyones assumptions about whether those not working were all without ties is hilarious. Groupthink desperately protecting groupthink.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

You said less than 70% of people work in Colorado, and that is the misleading statistic.

124/183 work in the Mountain States. That's less than 70%. How is that misleading?

In the context of the convo we were having, it implied that 30%+ of people were going elsewhere (or, in your view, probably going to where they have "ties").

They could be staying in Colorado. But they're not working in Colorado. So I don't care where they are. The point is employment. If you're saying people can go UC without ties and wind up unemployed in Colorado, I think you'll find that assertion completely uncontroversial.

You seem too obtuse to get this, so I'll say it again:
It doesn't matter where they live, it matters both if, and where, they got a job. You said, 90% are working in state. Let's look at the possibilities:

(1) If they got a job in Colorado.
(2) If they got a job elsewhere.
(3) If they didn't get a job and live in Colorado.
(4) If they didn't get a job and live elsewhere.

The 84% number only looks at (1) and (2), and says 84% of the people who were in either (1) or (2) were in (1). But that's not the question. The question is, for a prospective student going to UC to work in Colorado, what are the chances they wind up in (1)? We have to ask, how many people, out of (1) (2) (3) and (4) wound up in (1). That's not 90% or 84%. It's 124/183, or about 68%. The 84% statistic only looks at those who have jobs. Get it?

Also assumes "Mountain West" is a synonym for CO.

So CU is portable?

Like I said, CSO said 80% worked in CO last year, so I'm 2% of that Mountain West statistic is is outside of the beautiful state of Colorado. On a no ties defense day I would think you'd agree.

[bk1]

C'mon guys, everyone knows that Boulder is the special snowflake school where trust fund babies go to law school with no intention of ever practicing law or even getting a jerb. Your normal "statistics" and "analyses" don't apply here.

[JusticeHarlan]

I know the 84% statistic only looks at people who have jobs. I get that, and that was my point. As soon as I realized you purposely counted the people who were unemployed and looking (2.7%) and those who were unemployed and not looking (9.8%), I made it a point to call your statement misleading, not incorrect.

I get it now. TLS groupthink is "getting a job is important." Lord Randolph McDuff boldly bucks this echo chamber logic to defend those who think going to law school to get a job is just kinda cool.

This side issue is unimportant. The data on this particular school shows that the majority come in without ties and the majority get work in Colorado-- 40% to 68%. That was the (minor) anecdote that all this was about.

Ah, the admission of defeat. Thanks.

Everyones assumptions about whether those not working were all without ties is hilarious. Groupthink desperately protecting groupthink.

If you actually read my initial post on the matter instead of throwing a hissy fit, you'd see I wasn't making the ties argument. I was saying your statistic was inaccurate, which you've now conceded.

[rad lulz]

C'mon guys, everyone knows that Boulder is the special snowflake school where trust fund babies go to law school with no intention of ever practicing law or even getting a jerb. Your normal "statistics" and "analyses" don't apply here.

logic and reason are for the sheeple brah

[rad lulz]

Everyones assumptions about whether those not working were all without ties is hilarious. Groupthink desperately protecting groupthink.

No, we said your statistics don't show what you think they do.

Just keep on mowin down them strawmen bro

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

No. I haven't conceded anything, I just told you that this argument about where CU places has very little to do with the thread.

Here is what is so hilarious about the argument from the "ties" crew, as it relates to CU Law: You assume the truth of your assertion to enable your own argument.

Why can't we exclude the people who don't work? Uhm, cuz they didn't get jerbs due to a lack of "ties," duh McDuff.. Really? Data? What if you assume for a second that the distribution of people who worked and not worked was evenly spread between people with "ties" and people with no "ties." Does this... blow your mind? To not assume the truth of your argument from the outset? If an even spread, then what we have is a bunch of people go to the school, some work, and of those, 82% or so work in Colorado. That is exactly the argument I initially made, exempt I said 90% instead of 80%. Uh.. I'm sorry, but 80% doesn't change the purpose of the anecdote-- most people here don't have ties, and most end up working in Colorado. Even using your own numbers, the numbers that are entirely misleading because they assume the truth of your ridiculous position, some odd 30% of 2010 DESTROYED TIES AND FUCKED THE SYSTEM. The reason you harp on the fact that I lazily typed 90% instead of doing the research is because you sniffed out turf where you could hold your ground. If, instead, we debated about the actual topic, you have very little go to own because the "ties" theory that sprung up on TLS in the last year doesn't apply to non-OCI state schools. You all go to private schools and are gunning for big law-- you don't get it.

[stillwater]

This is a circle jerk and a half. This thread is more like screaming in a padded room than an echo chamber.

[beachbum]

This is a circle jerk and a half. This thread is more like screaming in a padded room than an echo chamber.

How do you get half of a circle jerk? That kinda defeats the purpose, no?

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

This is a circle jerk and a half. This thread is more like screaming in a padded room than an echo chamber.

How do you get half of a circle jerk? That kinda defeats the purpose, no?

Great point. Some thing sounds so funny but are so impractical. Maybe the half is the lube guy?

[stillwater]

This is a circle jerk and a half. This thread is more like screaming in a padded room than an echo chamber.

How do you get half of a circle jerk? That kinda defeats the purpose, no?

Great point. Some thing sounds so funny but are so impractical. Maybe the half is the lube guy?

The fluffer.

[skers]

No. I haven't conceded anything, I just told you that this argument about where CU places has very little to do with the thread.

Here is what is so hilarious about the argument from the "ties" crew, as it relates to CU Law: You assume the truth of your assertion to enable your own argument.

Why can't we exclude the people who don't work? Uhm, cuz they didn't get jerbs due to a lack of "ties," duh McDuff.. Really? Data? What if you assume for a second that the distribution of people who worked and not worked was evenly spread between people with "ties" and people with no "ties." Does this... blow your mind? To not assume the truth of your argument from the outset? If an even spread, then what we have is a bunch of people go to the school, some work, and of those, 82% or so work in Colorado. That is exactly the argument I initially made, exempt I said 90% instead of 80%. Uh.. I'm sorry, but 80% doesn't change the purpose of the anecdote-- most people here don't have ties, and most end up working in Colorado. Even using your own numbers, the numbers that are entirely misleading because they assume the truth of your ridiculous position, some odd 30% of 2010 DESTROYED TIES AND FUCKED THE SYSTEM. The reason you harp on the fact that I lazily typed 90% instead of doing the research is because you sniffed out turf where you could hold your ground. If, instead, we debated about the actual topic, you have very little go to own because the "ties" theory that sprung up on TLS in the last year doesn't apply to non-OCI state schools. You all go to private schools and are gunning for big law-- you don't get it.

Bro, you realize someone can have ties to the Mountain West and Colorado without being a Colorado resident, right? If I'm from Laramie, Wyoming and go to CU law, I can reasonably say I have ties to the region with my family all of two hours away from Boulder/Denver. Same goes for a lesser extent for people coming from Montana, Utah, and Idaho (and probably N. Mex for the meth-infused shithole that is C Springs). Someone who came in from out of state to CU undergrad, really dug the mountains and Colorado KB enough to stick around burning one down for a couple more years at CU law, can say they have ties too. I'm born and raised Mountain West, bro, have worked with hiring committees with three different organizations here and have strong connections to state gov't legal hiring. With less available positions, it's become increasingly important to evaluate someone's commitment to the Mountain West and make sure they're not a flight risk.

Do people from other Mountain West states and out of state CU/CSU/DU undergrad kids account for all of that extra 28% or so that got jobs in Colorado? Probably not, but I'd still bet it's a significant percentage and you'd have to account for them before you assert that CU blows the ties theory out of the water. You also need to account for the percentage of short-term and part-time work counted as employed as no one here is saying you need ties to work at a Boulder Starbucks.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Bro, you realize someone can have ties to the Mountain West and Colorado without being a Colorado resident, right? If I'm from Laramie, Wyoming and go to CU law, I can reasonably say I have ties to the region with my family all of two hours away from Boulder/Denver. Same goes for a lesser extent for people coming from Montana, Utah, and Idaho (and probably N. Mex for the meth-infused shithole that is C Springs). Someone who came in from out of state to CU undergrad, really dug the mountains and Colorado KB enough to stick around burning one down for a couple more years at CU law, can say they have ties too. I'm born and raised Mountain West, bro, have worked with hiring committees with three different organizations here and have strong connections to state gov't legal hiring. With less available positions, it's become increasingly important to evaluate someone's commitment to the Mountain West and make sure they're not a flight risk.

Do people from other Mountain West states and out of state CU/CSU/DU undergrad kids account for all of that extra 28% or so that got jobs in Colorado? Probably not, but I'd still bet it's a significant percentage and you'd have to account for them before you assert that CU blows the ties theory out of the water. You also need to account for the percentage of short-term and part-time work counted as employed as no one here is saying you need ties to work at a Boulder Starbucks.

Thanks for coming on and posting your take. First, I'm not sure you've read the whole thread but I never meant CU to "blow ties out of the water," I just mentioned it because it is an odd school. Most people who are OOS (although, some are from Laramie like locals, certainly), and that is very strange when you start talking about non-elite state schools.

I completely agree with you about the kind of students who attend CU and also that hiring committees must take "flight risks" into serious consideration. Ignoring the fact for a moment that most grads here aren't hired by "hiring committees," I wanted to ask you your opinion.. Will the percentage that doesn't have mountain west ties, about 40% of the 1Ls by my take, need to do anything extra above and beyond coming to law school in Boulder to negate a fear about being a flight risk? Specifically, if they spend their summers here working, and then interview for a permanent gig after school, will they still be seen as a flight risk if they interview and honestly tell employers that they want to work in X town/Denver?

Appreciate it

[rad lulz]

Why can't we exclude the people who don't work? Uhm, cuz they didn't get jerbs due to a lack of "ties," duh McDuff..

Keep mowin em down

[skers]

Bro, you realize someone can have ties to the Mountain West and Colorado without being a Colorado resident, right? If I'm from Laramie, Wyoming and go to CU law, I can reasonably say I have ties to the region with my family all of two hours away from Boulder/Denver. Same goes for a lesser extent for people coming from Montana, Utah, and Idaho (and probably N. Mex for the meth-infused shithole that is C Springs). Someone who came in from out of state to CU undergrad, really dug the mountains and Colorado KB enough to stick around burning one down for a couple more years at CU law, can say they have ties too. I'm born and raised Mountain West, bro, have worked with hiring committees with three different organizations here and have strong connections to state gov't legal hiring. With less available positions, it's become increasingly important to evaluate someone's commitment to the Mountain West and make sure they're not a flight risk.

Do people from other Mountain West states and out of state CU/CSU/DU undergrad kids account for all of that extra 28% or so that got jobs in Colorado? Probably not, but I'd still bet it's a significant percentage and you'd have to account for them before you assert that CU blows the ties theory out of the water. You also need to account for the percentage of short-term and part-time work counted as employed as no one here is saying you need ties to work at a Boulder Starbucks.

Thanks for coming on and posting your take. First, I'm not sure you've read the whole thread but I never meant CU to "blow ties out of the water," I just mentioned it because it is an odd school. Most people who are OOS (although, some are from Laramie like locals, certainly), and that is very strange when you start talking about non-elite state schools.

I completely agree with you about the kind of students who attend CU and also that hiring committees must take "flight risks" into serious consideration. Ignoring the fact for a moment that most grads here aren't hired by "hiring committees," I wanted to ask you your opinion.. Will the percentage that doesn't have mountain west ties, about 40% of the 1Ls by my take, need to do anything extra above and beyond coming to law school in Boulder to negate a fear about being a flight risk? Specifically, if they spend their summers here working, and then interview for a permanent gig after school, will they still be seen as a flight risk if they interview and honestly tell employers that they want to work in X town/Denver?

Appreciate it

I think a lot of people just don't get how rough hiring is ITE. A really good friend of mine who handles hiring for a state government office said with the huge increase of applications they've started getting, they're looking more than ever for reasons to cut someone. They cut someone who had good grades and ties to the Mountain West region (born and raised in Utah, BYU law grad) because his hair looked like a lego piece. They're looking for reasons to toss out an application and commitment to the region is one on shortlist of factors that often gets people axed.

Best thing you could do to get a job? Marry someone who's related to a hiring partner.

Beyond that working in Colorado over summers will help show commitment. Grades and personality will probably be a big factor for you than they would be for someone who was born and raised in Colorado and then went to CSU and CU law.

[romothesavior]

Why can't we exclude the people who don't work? Uhm, cuz they didn't get jerbs due to a lack of "ties," duh McDuff..

Keep mowin em down

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

39% of voters think ties are bullshit or overstated.
38% of voters think ties are legit.

In light of the fact your argument has reminded me of that one girl in high school with the bitchy attitude and great tits that I always secretly wanted to bang who loved saying "omg everyone THINKS SO, McDuff.." I think this poll is just awesome.

[Ludo!]

I like how you keep claiming the "I don't know maybe?" votes in for your side

[angrybird]

your poll is so awesome that if you had a fifth option, "potato???" it would have won in a landslide

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

your poll is so awesome that if you had a fifth option, "potato???" it would have won in a landslide

Thanks. Not my poll.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

I like how you keep claiming the "I don't know maybe?" votes in for your side

I actually voted for that, so yes I'm going to count it.

Ties = bullshit is wrong because in some contexts ties are really important in legal hiring.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Ok everyone should look at this photo right now.

http://gawker.com/5905518/heres-a-photo ... anquilized

[09042014]

Also, he added "albeit recent discovery" to yes. But it;s not recent.

[Lord Randolph McDuff]

Also, he added "albeit recent discovery" to yes. But it;s not recent.

Not my poll. People love to be wrong on this site.