Top law students vs. top med students Forum

[follagordas]

I'm literally disgusted.

?

[pancakes3]

are you prepared for the possibility that you're asking an unanswerable question?

[follagordas]

are you prepared for the possibility that you're asking an unanswerable question?

Oh sure, though certainly not any less "answerable" than many of the ones dealt by attorneys on a daily basis. In fact, that's actually kind of the whole idea behind having lawyers. If things were 100% "answerable," there would be no need to have a separate attorney for the defense and the plaintiff/prosecution, trying to hash out the gray areas and provide the most convincing and plausible case for their client in the absence of clear-cut facts.

I assume you're not in favor of throwing out the court system though, right?

[pancakes3]

lol, i sincerely hope for your sake you're not a 1L at HYS.

[follagordas]

lol, i sincerely hope for your sake you're not a 1L at HYS.

idk what to tell you, other than a) your hopes have been crushed, and b) at the risk of having my own benign wishes destroyed, I hope for your sake that your everyday thoughts are considerably more substantive than the shallow and irrelevant comments that you have thus far posted on this thread.

Edit: Also assuming you don't go to HYS, or else you'd realize how tolerant and reasonable law students at those schools tend to be of others' opinions (that's at least the case with virtually everyone I've met here).

[Nebby]

lol, i sincerely hope for your sake you're not a 1L at HYS.

idk what to tell you, other than a) your hopes have been crushed, and b) at the risk of having my own benign wishes destroyed, I hope for your sake that your everyday thoughts are considerably more substantive than the shallow and irrelevant comments that you have thus far posted on this thread.

Edit: Also assuming you don't go to HYS, or else you'd realize how tolerant and reasonable law students at those schools tend to be of others' opinions (that's at least the case with virtually everyone I've met here).

Definitely Harvard. I can smell the methane fumes through my computer

[pancakes3]

lol, i sincerely hope for your sake you're not a 1L at HYS.

idk what to tell you, other than a) your hopes have been crushed, and b) at the risk of having my own benign wishes destroyed, I hope for your sake that your everyday thoughts are considerably more substantive than the shallow and irrelevant comments that you have thus far posted on this thread.

Edit: Also assuming you don't go to HYS, or else you'd realize how tolerant and reasonable law students at those schools tend to be of others' opinions (that's at least the case with virtually everyone I've met here).

Just because you're not finding the discourse to your liking or expectations doesn't mean the responses haven't been substantial. Sorry I'm not spoon feeding you block-quoted counter-arguments like Nony. Does Harvard not teach via the socratic any more? Would you like me to put my thoughts and critiques on powerpoint and upload them online?

Also, "tolerance" by your classmate is probably the right word in its truest sense. You're probably being tolerated because it's just not worth the effort to engage you in real life. I believe some of your fellow HLS classmates have already dropped in with their eye-rolls behind the anonymity of the internet? When an overwhelming majority (pretty much everyone except Hikko) drops into your OP with shitty, short snipes it's not because they can't poke holes at it and are resorting to pot shots from the peanut gallery. It's because your premise is so fundamentally flawed it would take way too much effort just to get you to understand how fundamentally wrong you are.

And finally, your laughably poor characterization of how the "court system" works? If you don't have the facts, you don't have the facts. Not all positions are created equal. True conflicts only exist where there are legitimate competing interests. You're making the assumption that there is a difference between top law students and top med students when you haven't posited a reason as to why. From a scientific method perspective, you're working backwards in deciding that the dependent variable exists and then begging the question of what the independent variable(s) is/are. Basically you're just making shit up and expecting other people to do the intellectual legwork for you in framing a viable question, then delivering a viable answer.

I will say, you probably are intellectually curious. The problem is whether you're intellectually capable.

[elterrible78]

Did you mean your username to refer to sex with overweight women?

[Clearly]

I'm literally disgusted.

?

Your thread and the seriousness with which you approach utter bullshit is actually nauseating.

[follagordas]

I'm literally disgusted.

?

Your thread and the seriousness with which you approach utter bullshit is actually nauseating.

examples, please? If you don't offer any guidance I'll have no choice but to keep doing what I'm doing and continue to nauseate you (not on purpose but because I have no idea what you're talking about), which doesn't seem to be in either of our best interests.

[poptart123]

.

[follagordas]

I'm literally disgusted.

?

Your thread and the seriousness with which you approach utter bullshit is actually nauseating.

examples, please? If you don't offer any guidance I'll have no choice but to keep doing what I'm doing and continue to nauseate you (not on purpose but because I have no idea what you're talking about), which doesn't seem to be in either of our best interests.

You can't teach the a blind man what a color is, or as we say in Texas, you can't teach an Okie how to rope a steer.

If you want to use the blind man analogy and say I'm incapable of reason despite my willingness to understand, that's fine, I'll go with that. but you wouldn't insult the blind man for his blindness. You wouldn't become "disgusted" by the blind man for being blind. You wouldn't dangle a cookie in front of a blind man wanting to eat and then move it away so he can't get to it, all while ganging up on the blind man and making fun of him for his deficiency. You also wouldn't scoff at a blind man for asking what a firetruck looks like and say with condescension, "as we say in Texas, you can't teach an Okie how to rope a steer."

I am sure you wouldn't do those things to a blind man, because he can't help it. and yet if you are going to use that metaphor, you have to consider that you've done something similar here, and that the ridicule was misplaced.

if not, and you want to say that I am not helpless like the blind man, that's also fine, but then you ought to help me out, for both of our interests, as I said before.

[poptart123]

I'm literally disgusted.

?

Your thread and the seriousness with which you approach utter bullshit is actually nauseating.

examples, please? If you don't offer any guidance I'll have no choice but to keep doing what I'm doing and continue to nauseate you (not on purpose but because I have no idea what you're talking about), which doesn't seem to be in either of our best interests.

You can't teach the a blind man what a color is, or as we say in Texas, you can't teach an Okie how to rope a steer.

If you want to use the blind man analogy and say I'm incapable of reason despite my willingness to understand, that's fine, I'll go with that. but consider this...You wouldn't insult the blind man for his blindness. You wouldn't become "disgusted" by the blind man for being blind. You wouldn't dangle a cookie in front of a blind man wanting to eat and then move it away so he can't get to it, all while ganging up on the blind man and making fun of him for his deficiency. You also wouldn't scoff at a blind man for asking what a firetruck looks like and say with condescension, "as we say in Texas, you can't teach an Okie how to rope a steer."

I am sure you wouldn't do those things to a blind man, because he can't help it. and yet if you are going to use that metaphor, you have to consider that you've done something similar here, and that the ridicule was misplaced.

if not, and you want to say that I am not helpless like the blind man, that's also fine, but then you ought to help me out, for both of our interests, as I said before.

Whoops! The rope missed, told y'all about dem Okies.

[cdotson2]

You're making the assumption that there is a difference between top law students and top med students when you haven't posited a reason as to why. From a scientific method perspective, you're working backwards in deciding that the dependent variable exists and then begging the question of what the independent variable(s) is/are. Basically you're just making shit up and expecting other people to do the intellectual legwork for you in framing a viable question, then delivering a viable answer.

[follagordas]

Just because you're not finding the discourse to your liking or expectations doesn't mean the responses haven't been substantial. Sorry I'm not spoon feeding you block-quoted counter-arguments like Nony. Does Harvard not teach via the socratic any more? Would you like me to put my thoughts and critiques on powerpoint and upload them online?

I didn't realize that when you asked me if I knew the definition of masturbatory that that was a socratic inquiry. I also didn´t immediately assume you considered yourself to be the equal of a ´'harvard' law professor and could break into Socrates lecture whenever you wanted.

You're making the assumption that there is a difference between top law students and top med students when you haven't posited a reason as to why. From a scientific method perspective, you're working backwards in deciding that the dependent variable exists and then begging the question of what the independent variable(s) is/are.

It appears like you guys are directly contradicting each other. A Nony Mouse suggests the two are so dissimilar as to not warrant a comparison. You seem to suggest that the idea of them being different at all is an assumption so absurd that it qualifies my initial question as unanswerable. Those two positions seem paradoxical and perhaps mutually exclusive.

Also, I would love for you to explain how your assumption of me going to Harvard (not to mention your beliefs as to how and why people treat me irl) was somehow a scientific process and not the same 'working backwards' formula you are currently accusing me of. And for the record, I made no such assumption about there being specific differences. I offered my thoughts as to what I thought was the most likely possibility, making sure to say that they were simply preliminary thoughts, which I wanted you guys to weigh in on in a constructive manner. If I had honestly made the assumptions you are currently accusing me of, I would not have even bothered to post on here to solicit advice. I would have carried on with my life believing I knew everything there is to know about the two subgroups, never creating an account on this site. Also, If you don´t think there are any differences between the two groups, then you could simply say that instead of ridiculing me this whole time.

I will say, you probably are intellectually curious. The problem is whether you're intellectually capable.

I will refrain from the easy appeal to authority and say that putting aside the dubiousness of the second half of this statement (which I imagine you yourself don´t even believe), it adds nothing to your comment, other than you wanting to make clever wordplay.

[DrRighteous]

1) the higher selectivity in med school apps is because there are fewer med school openings in relation to doctor positions than there are law school openings for lawyers, so fewer people are selected. That doesn't make med students inherently smarter or more competent than law students - just a smaller selection. Also, there are lots and lots of law students with impressive softs, especially at the top schools, as you've already acknowledged. Just because (many) law schools don't select for those things doesn't mean students don't have them.

2) I don't think comparing law students and med students is productive because the structure of the admissions process in each selects for different things. Compare doctors and lawyers who've each made it through their respective graduate schools if you want to make some kind of comparison (which I still don't think is very useful, because they're different professions requiring different skills/personality types and emphasizing different abilities, but it's still a more useful comparison than between med students and law students).

3) comparing people's performance on a test you take as a high school senior to judge their relative intelligence or ability to succeed in their field seems really really pointless to me. Lots of smart people who go on to be really successful punt in high school and get their act together later. Others who ace standardized tests in high school can't function in the real world to save their lives. Unless you're hikiko, who is obsessed with test scores, SAT scores are really uninteresting, and likely shaped much more by socioeconomic background than anything else.

4) yes, I think your question is bogus because its value is based on a lot of presumptions I disagree with. Not sure why that's impermissible.

For comparing one med. student with one law student, SAT scores probably aren't great. But across the populations of med. students and law students, they work fairly well, though they obviously still have their limitations. As to the bolded, I'm pretty sure there have been studies conclusively disproving that.

You're saying that ability to access prep courses and other prep material, as well as access to better schools generally, don't affect someone's ability to succeed on the SAT?

I'm saying that differences in test scores are not primarily driven by those factors, though there is probably considerable correlation.

Haven't read the whole thing, so not sure what the take away is, but the below may illuminate the issue somewhat:
https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/pu ... e-2006.pdf

[cdotson2]

You're making the assumption that there is a difference between top law students and top med students when you haven't posited a reason as to why. From a scientific method perspective, you're working backwards in deciding that the dependent variable exists and then begging the question of what the independent variable(s) is/are.

It appears like you guys are directly contradicting each other. A Nony Mouse suggests the two are so dissimilar as to not warrant a comparison. You seem to suggest that the idea of them being different at all is an assumption so absurd that it qualifies my initial question as unanswerable. Those two positions seem paradoxical and perhaps mutually exclusive.

Pancakes is saying they are most likely intellectual equals and you havn't given us a reason to question it, Nony is saying they are most likely intellectual equals but have different types of intellegence to do different types of jobs so why do we care. it isn't a paradox. Even if it was it doesnt matter because they are two different people and can combat your argument using different theories. There is no reason Nony and pancakes have to have compatable theories for why they think you are wrong.

[DrRighteous]

Sadly, it doesn't look like it talks about SATs. SAT and SES literature suggests a very strong correlation between SAT and SES - see, e.g. Zwick 2004. Some research, however, suggests that this relationship does not account for the relationship between SAT and first year grades (Sackett, Kuncel, Arneson, Cooper, & Waters, 2009). However, the Sackett et al. (2009) meta-analysis does show a stable and moderate correlation between SES and SAT and a stable and small relationship between SES and first year GPA. However, the data reported in the Sackett et al. (2009) study are about 20 years old at this point, so it is possible the relationships shifted.

[follagordas]

You're making the assumption that there is a difference between top law students and top med students when you haven't posited a reason as to why. From a scientific method perspective, you're working backwards in deciding that the dependent variable exists and then begging the question of what the independent variable(s) is/are.

It appears like you guys are directly contradicting each other. A Nony Mouse suggests the two are so dissimilar as to not warrant a comparison. You seem to suggest that the idea of them being different at all is an assumption so absurd that it qualifies my initial question as unanswerable. Those two positions seem paradoxical and perhaps mutually exclusive.

Pancakes is saying they are most likely intellectual equals and you havn't given us a reason to question it, Nony is saying they are most likely intellectual equals but have different types of intellegence to do different types of jobs so why do we care. it isn't a paradox. Even if it was it doesnt matter because they are two different people and can combat you argument using different theories. There is no reason Nony and pancakes have to have compatable theories for why they think you are wrong.

except I never made an assertion, only "preliminary thoughts," as I've reiterated several times. Also "intellectual equals" only addresses at best 1/3 of the question, so even ifor you thought there was something I could be wrong about, you've only addressed 1/3 of whatever that is.

I also think the contradictory positions are much more undermining to each other than you are conceding, since if they are contradictory they can't both be valid. I'll respond more in depth when I have time.

[Hikikomorist]

Sadly, it doesn't look like it talks about SATs. SAT and SES literature suggests a very strong correlation between SAT and SES - see, e.g. Zwick 2004. Some research, however, suggests that this relationship does not account for the relationship between SAT and first year grades (Sackett, Kuncel, Arneson, Cooper, & Waters, 2009). However, the Sackett et al. (2009) meta-analysis does show a stable and moderate correlation between SES and SAT and a stable and small relationship between SES and first year GPA. However, the data reported in the Sackett et al. (2009) study are about 20 years old at this point, so it is possible the relationships shifted.

Yes, I admit the correlation is reasonably strong. But wouldn't that be expected due to the heritability of intelligence?

[A. Nony Mouse]

You're making the assumption that there is a difference between top law students and top med students when you haven't posited a reason as to why. From a scientific method perspective, you're working backwards in deciding that the dependent variable exists and then begging the question of what the independent variable(s) is/are.

It appears like you guys are directly contradicting each other. A Nony Mouse suggests the two are so dissimilar as to not warrant a comparison. You seem to suggest that the idea of them being different at all is an assumption so absurd that it qualifies my initial question as unanswerable. Those two positions seem paradoxical and perhaps mutually exclusive.

Pancakes is saying they are intellectual equals, Nony is saying they are intellectual equals but have different types of intellegence. it isn't a paradox. Even if it was it doesnt matter because they are two different people and can combat you argument using different theories. There is no reason Nony and pancakes have to have compatable theories for why they think you are wrong.

I'm also not quite saying what OP claims above. I'm saying that I think law & med students are differently enough situated that what you identify as differences in intelligence and work ethic actually reflect differences in the two grad programs and so the comparison doesn't work because it doesn't measure what you're trying to measure. That doesn't mean I think that the groups actually *are* different *wrt intelligence and work ethic.* (though I agree there could be different kinds of intelligence and also that pancakes and I don't have to agree.)

Also even if we did contradict (which I don't think is true), it doesn't make your argument correct. Pancakes would be wrong, of course. jk love you pancakes

[A. Nony Mouse]

Sadly, it doesn't look like it talks about SATs. SAT and SES literature suggests a very strong correlation between SAT and SES - see, e.g. Zwick 2004. Some research, however, suggests that this relationship does not account for the relationship between SAT and first year grades (Sackett, Kuncel, Arneson, Cooper, & Waters, 2009). However, the Sackett et al. (2009) meta-analysis does show a stable and moderate correlation between SES and SAT and a stable and small relationship between SES and first year GPA. However, the data reported in the Sackett et al. (2009) study are about 20 years old at this point, so it is possible the relationships shifted.

Yes, I admit the correlation is reasonably strong. But wouldn't that be expected due to the heritability of intelligence?

So you're saying that upper SES people are just smarter because they are?

[DrRighteous]

Sadly, it doesn't look like it talks about SATs. SAT and SES literature suggests a very strong correlation between SAT and SES - see, e.g. Zwick 2004. Some research, however, suggests that this relationship does not account for the relationship between SAT and first year grades (Sackett, Kuncel, Arneson, Cooper, & Waters, 2009). However, the Sackett et al. (2009) meta-analysis does show a stable and moderate correlation between SES and SAT and a stable and small relationship between SES and first year GPA. However, the data reported in the Sackett et al. (2009) study are about 20 years old at this point, so it is possible the relationships shifted.

Yes, I admit the correlation is reasonably strong. But wouldn't that be expected due to the heritability of intelligence?

So you're saying that upper SES people are just smarter because they are?

NATURE VIA NURTURE BITCHES

[devilsadvocatetroll]

.

[lymenheimer]

except I never made an assertion, only "preliminary thoughts," as I've reiterated several times.

Preliminary thoughts based on what?

I also think the contradictory positions are much more undermining to each other than you are conceding, since if they are contradictory they can't both be valid. I'll respond more in depth when I have time.

They don't both have to be valid, nor do they have to agree. They just have to be better/stronger than your argument. Maybe you'll learn something similar at Harvard. Otherwise, dunno how you'll effectively represent your client.