Tier 3/Tier 4 Snail Mail Spam: Unethical? Forum

[BillsFan9907]

I know nothing about environmentalism/environmentalist philosophy. For those who consider themselves environmentalists:

Is your given Tier 3/Tier 4 sending out large, multi-page packets seen as a bad offense?

I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but it does kind of disturb me how schools are needlessly wasting paper.

[20160810]

Finally, someone asking the hard questions.

[anonid]

Well, we'd first have to make the generous assumption that T3/4 are being ethical in their use of any resources at all to get to the question of whether the paper is a waste.

I don't know how much the CRS opt-in changes things. I did it to get my T14 waivers without asking, but perhaps the number of people opting into CRS for my reasons is dwarfed by people in the lower-middle of the LSAT curve who are self-signalling as people who really have no idea where they want to go. I'd love to know the ratio of sent packets to applications at these schools is. It's not unreasonable to assume they're valuing a single application at more than the application fee (I've noticed the bad schools tend not to send huge books/packets like the T14, so postage and paper are significantly lower for them).

In any case, the schools should know that the accuracy-by-volume approach for more apps makes apps from 160+ LSAT scorers astronomically more expensive than lower scorers and would probably put the school's benefit far below the social cost.

We should also look at ourselves, in this age of higher-ed money-grubbing, we should have expected this madness and opted out of CRS to conserve trees, carbon emissions, and despair.

[BillsFan9907]

Well, we'd first have to make the generous assumption that T3/4 are being ethical in their use of any resources at all to get to the question of whether the paper is a waste.

I don't know how much the CRS opt-in changes things. I did it to get my T14 waivers without asking, but perhaps the number of people opting into CRS for my reasons is dwarfed by people in the lower-middle of the LSAT curve who are self-signalling as people who really have no idea where they want to go. I'd love to know the ratio of sent packets to applications at these schools is. It's not unreasonable to assume they're valuing a single application at more than the application fee (I've noticed the bad schools tend not to send huge books/packets like the T14, so postage and paper are significantly lower for them).

In any case, the schools should know that the accuracy-by-volume approach for more apps makes apps from 160+ LSAT scorers astronomically more expensive than lower scorers and would probably put the school's benefit far below the social cost.

We should also look at ourselves, in this age of higher-ed money-grubbing, we should have expected this madness and opted out of CRS to conserve trees, carbon emissions, and despair.

Hats off. That was both intelligent and very witty. Love it.

[phillywc]

Seoulless threads: Unethical?

[Mack.Hambleton]

lol