Are law school finals roughly the same difficulty everywhere Forum

[Helmholtz]

but speaking about "the average" guy at anywhere is kind of pointless, who gives a shit?

People trying to get above median?

Speaking about "the median" guy is marginally more useful than the "average" guy, but even so, comparing the statistical center of different schools as part of a plan to get above median at a particular school seems to resonate with the "who gives a shit?" feeling.

I don't think that I was trying to show how comparing the statistical center of schools might be part of a plan to get above median at a particular school; it was just an off-hand, very unserious remark. This entire thread doesn't really have any particular impact on any of us. IMO, it's probably easier to get an A at Michigan than it is at Columbia, and it's probably easier to get an A at GULC Cornell than Michigan, and it's probably easier to get an A at WUSTL than GULC Cornell, and so on (I'm assuming the curves are all comparable). Does this have any influence on my life? Not really. Do you have to give a shit? No, not really. By all means, feel free not to.

[2807]

Smart > intelligent

[kalvano]

Sorry to break it to you, but, yes, it does.

No, it doesn't. It correlates to study habits and test-taking ability.

Any idiot can get decent grades in undergrad with only a minimal effort, if any effort at all.

And the LSAT is not a measure of intelligence.

[Helmholtz]

Sorry to break it to you, but, yes, it does.

No, it doesn't. It correlates to study habits and test-taking ability.

Are you considering what you see as potentially the strongest correlation to the exclusion of all other possible correlations?

[Helmholtz]

Sorry to break it to you, but, yes, it does.

And the LSAT is not a measure of intelligence.

Are you saying there's no correlation? Even a minimal one?

[kalvano]

Sorry to break it to you, but, yes, it does.

And the LSAT is not a measure of intelligence.

Are you saying there's no correlation? Even a minimal one?

No. Obviously a full-on Rain Main won't do well on the LSAT.

However, admissions to law school aren't based on how smart you are - they are based on on what numbers you bring to the table. You can show up to classes drunk and pissing your pants and watching porn in undergrad and still pull decent grades.

I think if you work your way down the law school ladder and start getting into the T3/T4 places, then yeah, you'll see a definite correlation in intelligence and the school.

But I don't think the comparison would hold between say, Penn and BYU.

[dresden doll]

But there are lots of people who are as smart or smarter than T14 students at a T2, for whatever reason. Just as there are people who don't believe anywhere near a T14 going to one.

And there were razor sharp intelligent people at my TTT UG. Likewise, I am sure there were duds at Harvard. Doesn't mean that the average Harvard kid isn't much, much smarter than the average kid at my UG.

T2 is sufficiently far down the ladder for there to be intelligence distinctions. Even transfer students who transfer out of higher T1s to T14s will typically acknowledge that their new classmates tend to be much more intelligent than classmates they left behind.

[09042014]

but speaking about "the average" guy at anywhere is kind of pointless, who gives a shit?

People trying to get above median?

Speaking about "the median" guy is marginally more useful than the "average" guy, but even so, comparing the statistical center of different schools as part of a plan to get above median at a particular school seems to resonate with the "who gives a shit?" feeling.

I don't think that I was trying to show how comparing the statistical center of schools might be part of a plan to get above median at a particular school; it was just an off-hand, very unserious remark. This entire thread doesn't really have any particular impact on any of us. IMO, it's probably easier to get an A at Michigan than it is at Columbia, and it's probably easier to get an A at GULC than Michigan, and it's probably easier to get an A at WUSTL than GULC, and so on (I'm assuming the curves are all comparable). Does this have any influence on my life? Not really. Do you have to give a shit? No, not really. By all means, feel free not to.

Check yo LSAT Medians son.

[Borhas]

I don't think that I was trying to show how comparing the statistical center of schools might be part of a plan to get above median at a particular school; it was just an off-hand, very unserious remark. This entire thread doesn't really have any particular impact on any of us. IMO, it's probably easier to get an A at Michigan than it is at Columbia, and it's probably easier to get an A at GULC than Michigan, and it's probably easier to get an A at WUSTL than GULC, and so on (I'm assuming the curves are all comparable). Does this have any influence on my life? Not really. Do you have to give a shit? No, not really. By all means, feel free not to.

that's too bad I wanted to troll out some dbags

maybe next time

now, back to not giving a shit

[Helmholtz]

No. Obviously a full-on Rain Main won't do well on the LSAT.

However, admissions to law school aren't based on how smart you are - they are based on on what numbers you bring to the table. You can show up to classes drunk and pissing your pants and watching porn in undergrad and still pull decent grades.

I think if you work your way down the law school ladder and start getting into the T3/T4 places, then yeah, you'll see a definite correlation in intelligence and the school.

But I don't think the comparison would hold between say, Penn and BYU.

I'm really confused as to your line of reasoning.

[rayiner]

People trying to get above median?

Speaking about "the median" guy is marginally more useful than the "average" guy, but even so, comparing the statistical center of different schools as part of a plan to get above median at a particular school seems to resonate with the "who gives a shit?" feeling.

I don't think that I was trying to show how comparing the statistical center of schools might be part of a plan to get above median at a particular school; it was just an off-hand, very unserious remark. This entire thread doesn't really have any particular impact on any of us. IMO, it's probably easier to get an A at Michigan than it is at Columbia, and it's probably easier to get an A at GULC than Michigan, and it's probably easier to get an A at WUSTL than GULC, and so on (I'm assuming the curves are all comparable). Does this have any influence on my life? Not really. Do you have to give a shit? No, not really. By all means, feel free not to.

Check yo LSAT Medians son.

Pwnt.

[09042014]

Sorry to break it to you, but, yes, it does.

And the LSAT is not a measure of intelligence.

Are you saying there's no correlation? Even a minimal one?

No. Obviously a full-on Rain Main won't do well on the LSAT.

However, admissions to law school aren't based on how smart you are - they are based on on what numbers you bring to the table. You can show up to classes drunk and pissing your pants and watching porn in undergrad and still pull decent grades.

I think if you work your way down the law school ladder and start getting into the T3/T4 places, then yeah, you'll see a definite correlation in intelligence and the school.

But I don't think the comparison would hold between say, Penn and BYU.

Obviously there are multiple ways one can be intelligent, and someone who is only gifted at math, won't excel at the LSAT. LSAT measures a more well rounded intelligence. There is no test that can accurately measure intelligence because there is no accurate definition of intelligence. But the lay definition of quick, smart, able to reason fast, and learn fast, it does measure.

However I can barely read, spell or write and I got a 176. What the fuck are the rest of you retards doing? Serious it asks basic logic and you answer it with a circle. If you can't do that, you can't be that smart.

[Helmholtz]

Check yo LSAT Medians son.

Since law school success is more in line with LSAT+GPA combined, wouldn't it be best to check that?

[kalvano]

No. Obviously a full-on Rain Main won't do well on the LSAT.

However, admissions to law school aren't based on how smart you are - they are based on on what numbers you bring to the table. You can show up to classes drunk and pissing your pants and watching porn in undergrad and still pull decent grades.

I think if you work your way down the law school ladder and start getting into the T3/T4 places, then yeah, you'll see a definite correlation in intelligence and the school.

But I don't think the comparison would hold between say, Penn and BYU.

I'm really confused as to your line of reasoning.

Just because someone got into a really highly ranked school doesn't make them smarterer.

I was talking with a guy who did very well on the LSAT who is dumb as a box of rocks.

[Helmholtz]

No. Obviously a full-on Rain Main won't do well on the LSAT.

However, admissions to law school aren't based on how smart you are - they are based on on what numbers you bring to the table. You can show up to classes drunk and pissing your pants and watching porn in undergrad and still pull decent grades.

I think if you work your way down the law school ladder and start getting into the T3/T4 places, then yeah, you'll see a definite correlation in intelligence and the school.

But I don't think the comparison would hold between say, Penn and BYU.

I'm really confused as to your line of reasoning.

Just because someone got into a really highly ranked school doesn't make them smarterer.

I was talking with a guy who did very well on the LSAT who is dumb as a box of rocks.

Are you confusing correlation with causation? I never was arguing for causation. Unless it is perfect correlation, there's going to be outliers to a certain extent. Just to be clear, and I'm sorry if this sounds demeaning, but do you know how correlation works and what is meant by it? I never said that getting a high LSAT score automatically makes you more intelligent or that every single person in every single case who gets a high LSAT score is going to be intelligent.

[Borhas]

intelligence is the capacity to think of solutions to problems

the difficulty in measuring intelligence is not its definition, but the fact that humans face a variety of problems... not many of which have been reassembled in standardized test format

[kalvano]

Are you confusing correlation with causation? I never was arguing for causation. Unless it is perfect correlation, there's going to be outliers to a certain extent. Just to be clear, and I'm sorry if this sounds demeaning, but do you know how correlation works and what is meant by it?

No, not confusing, and yes, I know what it means.

One thing doesn't necessarily equal another.

Although I am using the literal definition and I am betting, this being TLS, you are using a statistical definition.

[Helmholtz]

Are you confusing correlation with causation? I never was arguing for causation. Unless it is perfect correlation, there's going to be outliers to a certain extent. Just to be clear, and I'm sorry if this sounds demeaning, but do you know how correlation works and what is meant by it?

No, not confusing, and yes, I know what it means.

One thing doesn't necessarily equal another.

Although I am using the literal definition and I am betting, this being TLS, you are using a statistical definition.

Explain to me the "literal definition" of correlation, so I can make sure we're on the same page.

[kalvano]

Are you confusing correlation with causation? I never was arguing for causation. Unless it is perfect correlation, there's going to be outliers to a certain extent. Just to be clear, and I'm sorry if this sounds demeaning, but do you know how correlation works and what is meant by it?

No, not confusing, and yes, I know what it means.

One thing doesn't necessarily equal another.

Although I am using the literal definition and I am betting, this being TLS, you are using a statistical definition.

Explain to me the "literal definition" of correlation, so I can make sure we're on the same page.

correlation
cor·re·la·tion
   /ˌkɔrəˈleɪʃən, ˌkɒr-/ Show Spelled[kawr-uh-ley-shuhn, kor-] Show IPA
–noun
1.mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.
2.the act of correlating or state of being correlated.
3.Statistics . the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.


I'm just saying the two are generally unrelated. Intelligence and a highly-ranked law school are not necessarily mutually inclusive. Is it more possible that you'll find smart people higher up the ladder? Sure. Is it more probable? Not necessarily. I guess it would also depend on the dividing line in the schools. UChi versus Cooley? No contest. UChi versus Wake Forest? Probably a lot closer than many people would care to admit.

If you'd like to get into a statistical analysis, you'll have to find someone else.

[09042014]

Check yo LSAT Medians son.

Since law school success is more in line with LSAT+GPA combined, wouldn't it be best to check that?

If you weight LSAT higher than GPA when you combine. I bet it's damn near a tie.

[Helmholtz]

Are you confusing correlation with causation? I never was arguing for causation. Unless it is perfect correlation, there's going to be outliers to a certain extent. Just to be clear, and I'm sorry if this sounds demeaning, but do you know how correlation works and what is meant by it?

No, not confusing, and yes, I know what it means.

One thing doesn't necessarily equal another.

Although I am using the literal definition and I am betting, this being TLS, you are using a statistical definition.

Explain to me the "literal definition" of correlation, so I can make sure we're on the same page.

correlation
cor·re·la·tion
   /ˌkɔrəˈleɪʃən, ˌkɒr-/ Show Spelled[kawr-uh-ley-shuhn, kor-] Show IPA
–noun
1.mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.
2.the act of correlating or state of being correlated.
3.Statistics . the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.


I'm just saying the two are generally unrelated. Intelligence and a highly-ranked law school are not necessarily mutually inclusive.

If you'd like to get into a statistical analysis, you'll have to find someone else.

I could have looked up the definition. I was just confused by you saying that rank of school definitely doesn't correlate to intelligence, but then you also seemed to agree that there existed at least some correlation between LSAT and intelligence. Do you think there is a correlation (you can interpret this word in the literal sense if you like) between LSAT scores and school rank?

Of course intelligence and highly-ranked law schools are not mutually inclusive. Who implied that?

[kalvano]

Of course intelligence and highly-ranked law schools are not mutually inclusive. Who implied that?

Of course they're harder. What makes an exam hard isn't the question being asked but the people against whom you are graded.

[Helmholtz]

Check yo LSAT Medians son.

Since law school success is more in line with LSAT+GPA combined, wouldn't it be best to check that?

If you weight LSAT higher than GPA when you combine. I bet it's damn near a tie.

Substitute Cornell for GULC then in my example, plz.

[Helmholtz]

Of course intelligence and highly-ranked law schools are not mutually inclusive. Who implied that?

Of course they're harder. What makes an exam hard isn't the question being asked but the people against whom you are graded.

I don't think that's what that statement is implying. If marshponds comes back on and posts that, yes, he did intend his statement to mean that there is zero intelligence at any law school not highly ranked, then I will concede the point.

[kalvano]

I guess I read it differently than you. We shall simply have to wait for clarification.

Or, being that this TLS, would you prefer to just jump straight to insults, slurs, and snide remarks?