schools' mean LSAT Forum

[kill the headlights]

Also, I can attest to the BYU people being smart. I attend there right now and I am amazed at how smart people are. If someone tells me how to use the "post picture" option I can post a picture of LSAT distribution for BYU. It is pretty interesting and I would be very intrigued to see others school's distribution also. BYU also is in the top ten for putting out graduate students, so we are competing against students who have higher education goals. So good grades can be hard to come by.

[nailbiter]

[edit]

[ari20dal7]

OK - I see where you're coming from, but there is a substantive difference between the rhetoric that I'm willing to stop and that which I'm not that goes well beyond whether I agree with it. Neo-Nazi rhetoric and other hate speech gets people hurt. People get beaten, raped, and killed because of this discourse. It, therefore, is a clear threat to the community, in the same way as shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre. I disagree with the belief that homosexuality is an abomination before God, but it's not a threat to the community for Joe Mormon to advocate this belief.

You're right that my tolerance is not absolute: it stops when people start doing things that will get other people beaten up. Cornell doesn't think homosexuality is wrong, but if it did, it would still be wrong to forbid a different view on campus, because this view doesn't get anyone hurt. Cornell will also not throw me out for being Mormon, even though I suspect their administration disagrees with nearly everything the Church has to say.

Now, BYU doesn't want that kind of debate on campus. That's fine. But not wanting debate is what closed minded means. It can't mean anything else. I don't think the students at BYU are necessarilyany more closed-minded than anyone else: they've just made different commitments. But the institution has decided that substantive debate of all sorts of issues is off limits, and they've resolved the debate in favor of the traditional Mormon view of these issues. Again, they have the right to do that, but I don't believe they should do that. I certainly don't believe that regulating speech that doesn't pose an imminent threat to the university community shows much if any commitment to open and free exchange of ideas.

As for the difference between advocacy and action - you are perhaps correct that this is a distinction without a difference. BYU is free to prohibit advocacy that it believes to be detrimental to its mission: but equating substantive debate with actions such as theft is not the way to justify this liberty. They can create any community they want, and you can play if you like. But you end up making that argument when you try to claim that BYU's restriction of debate doesn't bear on the level to which the collective mind of the community is open.

So, I must ask: if BYU is no less open-minded than Cornell, what does open-minded even mean?

[ari20dal7]

Sure, here are examples of speech being policed & suppressed.

http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/8147.html

http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1201117270.shtml

http://www.shadowuniv.com/excerpts-wb1.html

1st case: stupid, offensive. Newspaper shut down by admin.

2nd case: read about it yourself.

3rd case: speech codes in action.

As for anti-gay or right-to-life groups, they are conspicuous by their absence or powerlessness on campuses across America, even though their views are clearly mainstream. I can't think of better evidence that their speech has been chilled.

In all three cases, I agree that speech was suppressed too much. In the Tufts case, I think the Christmas Carol might have merited disciplinary actions of some kind, as it was clearly designed to create resentment toward African-Americans on campus with no real evidence to support it (although there might have been such evidence posted elsewhere in the publication).

I do not believe that the absence of a group is sufficient evidence of the chilling of speech on campus: rather, I think it's evidence that no group was created, whether by chilling, self selection, apathy, or some combination of the three.

[nailbiter]

[edit]

[bigben]

what does open-minded even mean?

--ImageRemoved--

[nailbiter]

[edit]

[Oklahoma Mike]

It, therefore, is a clear threat to the community, in the same way as shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Well, I actually don't really buy the "no difference between advocacy and action" line being sold by kill the headlights. That said, I think that BYU's curtailment of speech is for the exact same reason there is a legitimate curtailment of speech in the instances you cite. Advocacy of greater rights for homosexuals IS a clear threat to that community. The community really couldn't exist as is with the things being advocated or even with a high level of discourse and advocacy.

By definition, this is close minded. A community or an individual close of the discussion of or consideration of certain things. The mind is closed from considering certain specific options.
Now, is the student community more close minded towards liberal views than a student community somewhere like Berkeley is towards conservative ones? Most likely not.
However- the institution certainly is much more close minded (if you can use the term close minded to refer to an institution- it really is taking a term for individuals and applying it differently but I think everyone in the discussion understands that and understands the way it applies to an institution.) The institution itself closes off the discussion of or consideration of certain viewpoints or policies. And ALL institutions do this to some degree. (Even if it's the AdComm having a inalterable policy of throwing out every app with numbers bellow a certain index regardless of soft factors.) The fact that all institutions do this doesn't mean ALL are equally close minded, there is no doubt difference in degree.

A school like Regent is going to be both socially and institutionally more close minded than average. So will BYU. I suppose there are many ways in which "liberal" schools may be close minded that are never called such, however on balance there are less of those and it's pretty challenging to say that any of those schools are on balance close minded.

And, as Ari said implied before- close minded has negative connotations but it's not entirely inherently negative. Being close minded to some scenarios is required if one is to always exclude certain things. (I may think of myself as an open minded lover- but once a woman gets knives out I'd draw the line no matter what rational was behind it or how much she liked being cut or how much she thought I would.)

I basically agree with Ari's assessment of BYU, except that I might go there. I'd be uncomfortable with many aspects of the Y, but also love many others. (to the Mormons of the board, as much as I say I can't stand Utah, I do think Bishop Edgley's conference talk does a great job of highlighting the positives that can come from living in a community crowded by members of your faith.) I would love to say that my biggest problem would be the restrictions on speech- but I'm far too selfish. I'd have a way bigger problem with having to shave my beard and then having to shave every day. (darn grooming portion of the honor code)

If my choice ends up being between BYU and an only marginally better school I don't think there'd be any question- the lower cost makes BYU almost a no brainer. If any adcomms are smoking crack at my absurd reach schools then it would also be a no brainer to not go to BYU. The problem will be if I'm choosing between someplace like Emory or Iowa and BYU. Emory with no money I'd have to go with the Y, Iowa with no money would be a really tough call.

And- if I don't rewrite my personal statement for the Y and actually get my app in this week then I suppose none of that will matter. Ari- it really is awful. If I write it before Wednesday you still want to look over it for me?

As for Cornell, I think it was just offered earlier as an example of middle of the road liberal leaning school.
A list of law related student organizations can be found here on the site for employers hiring:
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/career ... groups.cfm

Of those, The Federalist Society and Christian Legal Society are pro life. Plus, you've got the J. Ruben Clark Law Society which isn't specifically pro life, but it is specifically Mormon and I imagine most of its members are pro-life. (and man, check out the president's name. That's a Mormon name if I've ever heard one.)

[nailbiter]

[edit]

[ari20dal7]

Dude, I want you to get into BYU so that I can make fun of you forever. Just send it on over any time - isn't their app deadline the 1st?

This is a remarkably civil discussion, and I appreciate that, especially since the topic is so sensitive.

As an introduction, the reason I mention the violent speech is to indicate the limits of my support for speech suppression on college campuses.

I am absolutely certain that Joe Mormon would not get away with "advocating" this - or even letting his opinions become known to the wrong people - at any number of schools. It would be ruled hate speech and he would be punished. See this editorial in the Crimson.

The Crimson piece is solid and on point. I think a major problem is that this speech is so often combined with violent rhetoric, making it tough to distinguish it on its own. I can only say that I disagree - in my experience, plenty of students express their dissatisfaction with homosexual activity and experience no crackdown.

Ari, I disagree. Pro-life and, for lack of a better term, anti-homosexualism* views are clearly part of the American mainstream. Pro-life groups are not exactly noted for their apathy. Frankly, your claim (that their absence from campus is not evidence that their speech has been chilled) seems a bit disingenuous to me. Do you really believe that pro-life groups have nothing to fear from college administrations or from the actions of professors?

Yes, I certainly do. Perhaps it's my experience in attending a fairly conservative public university, but I think there's nothing to fear at all. Our department chair votes Republican all the time; the guy I worked for and one of my LORs worked on the Buchanan campaign. I agree that there's some chilling effect, but it's coming from the students and not the administration. I certainly agree with the point that most BYU students aren't going to be any less tolerant or open minded than Berkeley kids, but the administration is much different.

[nailbiter]

[edit]

[ari20dal7]

I can agree with some of that, but the core question is whether it's nearly as widespread as you're saying it is. I'm against the behavior of overzealous school administrators, who I think are often somewhat impetuous in their attempts to enforce their beliefs. But, nevertheless, I must disagree that the average university is anywhere nearly as inclined to enforce its beliefs as is BYU.

I really don't think being a conservative is going to hurt you in admissions: that seems rather paranoid to me, although I can understand a certain amount of care.

I don't think anyone questions that academia is pretty leftist, but I see no evidence of systematic discrimination. I think it's more likely that lefties self select into academia. Also, it's important to note that how people vote should be distinguished from their views within their disciplines. One pretty good example of this would be John Mearsheimer: although I don't know which lever he pulls, he's as conservative as they come in IR, and yet is probably the strongest critic of the Iraq war among establishment academics. He may or may not be pretty liberal in his politics, but he's not at all liberal in his academics, which is what matters. The stats at Stanford are interesting, but this is in the most liberal part of one of the most liberal states in the country, in a profession known for a graeter interest among lefties. I just think conservatives are more inclined toward the private sector, even if only because they see academia as a leftist endeavor. It doesn't prove discrimination in any way.

[nailbiter]

[edit]

[overcastagain]

One could have the opinion that people who choose to attend any mono-religious school, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Mormon, Muslim etc. are more close-minded, since they are unwilling to encounter the wider range of opinions at a non-denominational university like Harvard or Yale.

Only in that the student body may be self-selected to have a common worldview to begin with. You can argue the same for public schools where many students purposely choose them to avoid a "religious" school - maybe exposure to a religious worldview makes them uncomfortable.

You might be surprised, but it is possible to encounter a very wide range of opinions at a religious school. Just within the Catholic religion you can find a vast array of thought and belief. I sponsored a friend's confirmation and sat through classes taught by Dominicans and it was like night and day between what their positions were on homosexuality and divorce versus what I had heard years earlier in classes taught by Jesuits.

[ari20dal7]

I can get behind all of that. I don't think your conservative views are ever going to hurt you in the admissions process - but I can see why you would want to remain anonymous. I took down my Facebook account for that reason - just to make sure. I think any adcomm who wanted to figure out who I am would be able to see easily - shoot, I'm from OU, I'm Mormon, applying to top schools - that probably is enough to do the job right there. But I figure I'm a nice enough guy that it won't hurt, and I think any adcomm would see you the same way.....

Let me take this opportunity to agree completely with some of the alarming trends in the academic world - people like Daniel Pipes are the obvious problem on the right, but there are also some issues on the left, and I can agree that there's often a rush to condemn for the sake of political correctness. The Duke example is but one example of a pattern that is unhelpful......

[kill the headlights]

So, first off, I agree, this is a great discussion because people are staying level-headed.

Second, I think a description of open-minded is worth discussing. The dictionary says that being open-minded is "willing to consider new ideas; unprejudiced." I love that definition. I think that BYU did CONSIDER new ideas, they just didn't accept them, and deeming them to be harmful to the community as a whole, they deemed that they wouldn't be ADVOCATED. I go to BYU, and as much as others would like to believe that homosexuality is discussed, it is actually quite to the contrary, it is discussed quite often. Also, there isn't anything wrong with discussing it, there is just something wrong with advocating that behavior. Furthermore, you would be shocked to hear the discussions we have in class. We have spoken about almost every topic in class, and MANY BYU students hold very liberal opinions. And I honestly don't think that they are looked down upon for them.

I think much of the issue with the administration is that professors are highly influential at a university. I find myself being highly influenced by my professors. The leadership of our faith doesn't want viewpoints that we hold to be detrimental to society being advocated by the professors, just like other schools do, we just have many more things we deem detrimental. They are open-minded about discussion, just not about advocating, and there is a large difference.

BYU DOES NOT RESTRICT DISCUSSION, they restrict advocacy. If someone said, "I am not advocating this, I am just wanting to get to the bottom of it using some reason", nobody would have any problem with that.

But, being open-minded is being able to consider different beliefs. Open-mindedness does not require people to let others advocate ideas, it requires that people consider them. BYU does this just fine.

That said, I am excited to leave BYU so I can have some more conversations like these, where the opinions in class are not AS HOMOGENEOUS. Though BYU does have a variety of beliefs, many people are coming to these beliefs while using the same grounding assumptions, and I think there is a lot more diversity of thought when the grounding assumptions are different.

[kill the headlights]

Also, I wanted to comment on the unprejudiced part of the definition. I think being unprejudiced means a couple of things. I think it means that you consider all people largely the same. Meaning, you don't categorize or lump whole groups of people into the same group based on things like skin color or nationality. Also, I think it means that you consider all people equal to yourself.

I think that BYU, and its administration, is unprejudiced. I think they agree with all the things I said above.

[paulie]

damn, this thread got seriously hijacked.

um, how do i find my school's mean LSAT score? i checked my score report (dec 07) but it doesn't say...

[conch republic]

...

[conch republic]

...

[conch republic]

...

[nailbiter]

Lawrence University - 156.

[Oklahoma Mike]

Has anyone else noticed how the vast majority of schools have averages above 150?
It's like Lake Wobegon.

Well, we're recording scores from the schools where posters attend- and it seems clear that in general those looking at national law schools probably went to better undergrads than those who aren't looking at national schools.
There are a lot of little schools in Oklahoma other than OU, OSU, and Tulsa. There are lots of schools in Michigan other than UofM and MSU. So, these (some slightly) above average schools should probably have scores above the average. I'm pretty certain Panhandle State will have an lsat average under 150.

[Hitachi]

BYUers seem to do pretty well at U of Chicago, here are all the UGs represented by 10 or more students in last year's class (1L-3L):
U of Chicago: 33
Illinois - Urbana: 25
Northwestern: 22
Yale: 22
BYU: 21
Berkeley: 18
Notre Dame: 17
Dartmouth: 16
Michigan - Ann Arbor: 16
Cornell: 15
Georgetown: 15
Stanford: 15
Duke: 13
UCLA: 13
Penn: 12
Wisconsin - Madison: 12
Amherst: 11
NYU: 10
Princeton: 10

Probably some of that is due to matriculation patterns based on perception of University of Chicago as more conservative than its peers.

The other interesting thing I notice there (besides UIUC, which is understandable based on location) is how many more there are from Yale than Harvard (which had eight). One explanation is that HLS favors its UGs so much that most of them who get into Chicago also get into Harvard. YLS obviously is much smaller and more selective, so it can't absorb much of its own UG class.

[Oklahoma Mike]

I think your explanation is spot on. Lots of Harvard grads are going to stay at Harvard. Chicago's conservative reputation flies well with a lot of conservative Mormons (I know a few who have it as their number one choice) and with Oaks having served as dean there I think a lot of Mormons are assured that it would be an environment that suits them.
I also think with BYU grads there are a number that want to teach eventually because they don't want the biglaw lifestyle. If HYS are out and but you are in at the rest of the t14, Chicago really makes a lot of sense when your career aspirations are academic.

Amherst sure sends a lot of people there- their graduating class is what, 400 students? It's by far the smallest school with more than ten students at Chicago. I'm wondering whether their students favor Chicago, or if they are sending similar numbers to the rest of the t14. I suppose it wouldn't be surprising that many students from a small liberal arts school want to go to law school, or that Amherst students do really well getting into grad programs and law schools.