WUSTL Recent Grad (and others) Taking Questions Forum

[Bob_loblaw34]

ok FuturePaulClement is actually funny now but bob_loblaw you're trying too hard

"At least he is putting some effort into the trolling, unlike LawSchoolisHard, etc"
-Sublime

Can't please everyone i guess ...

Sublime, this seems like a spam post from peanutsnjam (first excerpt quoted above). He's just feeding the trolls. Any chance you could warn him so we can keep this thread helpful? Thanks!

[Bob_loblaw34]

I actually dont drink hehe. I eat an all organic diet, and jog 5x a week. Drinking harms not only the body but the soul as well. I highly recommend to all law students that turn to alcohol as a crutch to abandon this unhealthy habit.[/quote][/quote]
It's the lubricant that keeps the gears of the legal profession turning. That, and KY.[/quote]

You don't do drugs do you?!?[/quote]

Knowledge is my only drug.

[Bob_loblaw34]

The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site.

This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 9#p9440439 .

Don't troll the on topics.

Enough with the secret admonishments. How about you try and apply uniform standards when deciding who to warn and who not to?

What in the fuck are you talking about?

This is a private site with volunteer mods, not some protected first amendment public forum you dweeb.

No, sir, what in the f are you talking about? I never said anything about first amendment protection. All i was advocating for was transparent and uniform policies regarding warnings and bans. It has nothing to do with the first amendment which is wildly inapplicable in this situation (even though this is a public forum).

Try and think before you spout out random Law School jargon and references in the hopes that someone will jump on your bandwagon. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. Thanks for trying though.

[whatwhatinthebutt]

But if you can write a lot of words on topic, that's probably a decent indicator that you have a good grasp of the nuances of the law. It's hard to write a lot about something you don't really understand. If your essay appeals to an English major, it probably means your essay is well constructed and has sound analysis.

Assumptions like these are exactly why thinking people are wary of what goes into grading law school exams.

[hoos89]

But if you can write a lot of words on topic, that's probably a decent indicator that you have a good grasp of the nuances of the law. It's hard to write a lot about something you don't really understand. If your essay appeals to an English major, it probably means your essay is well constructed and has sound analysis.

Assumptions like these are exactly why thinking people are wary of what goes into grading law school exams.

I'm pointing out that there are other explanations for these correlations that are valid. I'm not saying that these things are always true. It's obviously possible to write a ton of on topic BS that misses the issues or doesn't perform legitimate analysis, just as it's possible to write a well-formed essay that is a great read but is ultimately 100% fluff. However, on average it is probably true that essays that are both long and well written have found more issues and performed better, more cogent analysis. Just because there are counterexamples doesn't mean you wouldn't still expect to see a decently strong correlation.

Also, a decent chunk of the correlation to length probably comes from very short exams doing very poorly. I'd bet that the correlation between length and grades is stronger at the bottom. You're guaranteed an F if you write nothing; and below a certain number of words it's just not possible to adequately address enough issues to do well. Just as if your essay is largely incoherent, you're not going to do well. Again, it seems reasonable that these things should correlate with grades on an essay exam. I can't prove that this is actually what's going on, but similarly you can't prove that it isn't.

[sublime]

My grades were pretty consistent.

I am generally of the view that above a certain point, typing speed isn't a huge deal, that law school exams are a testable skill, however that skill probably doesn't indicate as much about what kind of a practitioner a person will be as is ideal, or as it is treated as showing, esp among big firms.

Although I'm not sure that I can think of a better, workable system, and at the end, I think firms know exams are bullshit, but just use grades among other things as signaling, and an easy way to narrow a field.

[whatwhatinthebutt]

But if you can write a lot of words on topic, that's probably a decent indicator that you have a good grasp of the nuances of the law. It's hard to write a lot about something you don't really understand. If your essay appeals to an English major, it probably means your essay is well constructed and has sound analysis.

Assumptions like these are exactly why thinking people are wary of what goes into grading law school exams.

I'm pointing out that there are other explanations for these correlations that are valid. I'm not saying that these things are always true. It's obviously possible to write a ton of on topic BS that misses the issues or doesn't perform legitimate analysis, just as it's possible to write a well-formed essay that is a great read but is ultimately 100% fluff. However, on average it is probably true that essays that are both long and well written have found more issues and performed better, more cogent analysis. Just because there are counterexamples doesn't mean you wouldn't still expect to see a decently strong correlation.

Also, a decent chunk of the correlation to length probably comes from very short exams doing very poorly. I'd bet that the correlation between length and grades is stronger at the bottom. You're guaranteed an F if you write nothing; and below a certain number of words it's just not possible to adequately address enough issues to do well. Just as if your essay is largely incoherent, you're not going to do well.

You understand that this is simply a longer restatement of the same assumptions, correct? I appreciate that you believe there is a correlation between length and understanding, and between structure and analysis, but to assert that "on average that it's probably true" ("it" being a positive correlation) is pure speculation.

[hoos89]

But if you can write a lot of words on topic, that's probably a decent indicator that you have a good grasp of the nuances of the law. It's hard to write a lot about something you don't really understand. If your essay appeals to an English major, it probably means your essay is well constructed and has sound analysis.

Assumptions like these are exactly why thinking people are wary of what goes into grading law school exams.

I'm pointing out that there are other explanations for these correlations that are valid. I'm not saying that these things are always true. It's obviously possible to write a ton of on topic BS that misses the issues or doesn't perform legitimate analysis, just as it's possible to write a well-formed essay that is a great read but is ultimately 100% fluff. However, on average it is probably true that essays that are both long and well written have found more issues and performed better, more cogent analysis. Just because there are counterexamples doesn't mean you wouldn't still expect to see a decently strong correlation.

Also, a decent chunk of the correlation to length probably comes from very short exams doing very poorly. I'd bet that the correlation between length and grades is stronger at the bottom. You're guaranteed an F if you write nothing; and below a certain number of words it's just not possible to adequately address enough issues to do well. Just as if your essay is largely incoherent, you're not going to do well.

You understand that this is simply a longer restatement of the same assumptions, correct? I appreciate that you believe there is a correlation between length and understanding, and between structure and analysis, but to assert that "on average that it's probably true" ("it" being a positive correlation) is pure speculation.

It seems to me like a reasonable explanation for two correlations presented by someone else in this thread. You're right, I can't prove that it's an accurate explanation, just as you can't prove that it isn't. My ultimate point is that just because law school exams are correlated with length and appeal to an English major doesn't mean that they are invalid because there are plausible, if not probable, explanations for those correlations that (at least in my opinion) are legitimate. (Also I don't think the 2nd paragraph is controversial at all. A 0 word essay cannot earn any points on an essay. There is a necessary number of words to adequately address enough issues to stand even a chance of earning a decent grade. Any essay that falls below that will and should do poorly. This effect accounts for at least some of that correlation.)

[whatwhatinthebutt]

Again, it seems reasonable that these things should correlate with grades on an essay exam. I can't prove that this is actually what's going on, but similarly you can't prove that it isn't.

It's not my job to prove you wrong. I just pointed out that your "reasonable" assumptions aren't reasonable and that they assume the answer you're trying to get to. Now stop editing.

[hoos89]

Again, it seems reasonable that these things should correlate with grades on an essay exam. I can't prove that this is actually what's going on, but similarly you can't prove that it isn't.

It's not my job to prove you wrong. I just pointed out that your "reasonable" assumptions aren't reasonable and that they assume the answer you're trying to get to. Now stop editing.

No, what you're pointing out isn't an assumption. I am asserting that it is legitimate for a law school exam to measure people on the basis of their ability to spot a large number of issues and perform in-depth and cogent legal analysis in a well-formed essay.


E: I am also saying that it is at least plausible that length and quality of an essay in the eyes of an English major correlate with these things. In other words: because there is a plausible legitimate explanation for the correlations, the mere existence of the correlations can't be used to impugn the legitimacy of law school exams.

[ek5dn]

Again, it seems reasonable that these things should correlate with grades on an essay exam. I can't prove that this is actually what's going on, but similarly you can't prove that it isn't.

It's not my job to prove you wrong. I just pointed out that your "reasonable" assumptions aren't reasonable and that they assume the answer you're trying to get to. Now stop editing.

Frankly, there's a lot of anecdotal support for what hoos is saying and only the bitter grumblings of people who didn't perform as well as they wanted to in support of your view. And you have no cause to be so dismissive to someone who's done a lot more to help out 0Ls and 1Ls on this thread than you have.

[Bob_loblaw34]

But if you can write a lot of words on topic, that's probably a decent indicator that you have a good grasp of the nuances of the law. It's hard to write a lot about something you don't really understand. If your essay appeals to an English major, it probably means your essay is well constructed and has sound analysis.

Assumptions like these are exactly why thinking people are wary of what goes into grading law school exams.

I'm pointing out that there are other explanations for these correlations that are valid. I'm not saying that these things are always true. It's obviously possible to write a ton of on topic BS that misses the issues or doesn't perform legitimate analysis, just as it's possible to write a well-formed essay that is a great read but is ultimately 100% fluff. However, on average it is probably true that essays that are both long and well written have found more issues and performed better, more cogent analysis. Just because there are counterexamples doesn't mean you wouldn't still expect to see a decently strong correlation.

Also, a decent chunk of the correlation to length probably comes from very short exams doing very poorly. I'd bet that the correlation between length and grades is stronger at the bottom. You're guaranteed an F if you write nothing; and below a certain number of words it's just not possible to adequately address enough issues to do well. Just as if your essay is largely incoherent, you're not going to do well.

You understand that this is simply a longer restatement of the same assumptions, correct? I appreciate that you believe there is a correlation between length and understanding, and between structure and analysis, but to assert that "on average that it's probably true" ("it" being a positive correlation) is pure speculation.

It seems to me like a reasonable explanation for two correlations presented by someone else in this thread. You're right, I can't prove that it's an accurate explanation, just as you can't prove that it isn't. My ultimate point is that just because law school exams are correlated with length and appeal to an English major doesn't mean that they are invalid because there are plausible, if not probable, explanations for those correlations that (at least in my opinion) are legitimate. (Also I don't think the 2nd paragraph is controversial at all. A 0 word essay cannot earn any points on an essay. There is a necessary number of words to adequately address enough issues to stand even a chance of earning a decent grade. Any essay that falls below that will and should do poorly. This effect accounts for at least some of that correlation.)

"You're right, I can't prove that it's an accurate explanation, just as you can't prove that it isn't." This is the most ignorant thing I have read in a while. You put forth an explanation explaining a phenomenon so the onus of proof regarding the explanation is yours to carry. Saying: "you can't prove my explanation is wrong" is illogical (See: Russell's teapot) and childish. If you cant prove your explanation is correct maybe its not as grand a theory as you might think. Don't be blinded by your hubris.

[PeanutsNJam]

Just to contribute my ancedotal experience, I had consistent grades across all my classes. 5 of them were within .24 of each other (all same letter grade), and another was a little lower than the others. One had a word limit, some were horse races, and some required more analytical writing. One requested well structured writing and said bullet points would make you lose points.

I will say though that grading is beyond me. I got an exam back where a professor shows you where he gave you points. Things I thought were meh got points, and things I thought were worth points didn't get any. On the whole, however, it averaged out I guess.

[JCougar]

That isn't surprising nor does it counter the validity of law school exams.

Yes, it does. Unless typing a legal brief in 3 hours instead of four where longer = better is the difference between a good attorney and an average one is a major performance criterion for attorneys in practice, than it shows that law exams lack validity.

Any lawyer who's been out in practice will know that this is simply irrelevant. Writing well is a very relevant skill, but being able to do so in an artificially-compressed timeframe is not, and extra word count is mostly irrelevant and even counter-productive. A lot of judges don't like it when you don't get to the point, and many enforce page limits on motions/briefs, because attorneys are notorious for filling up paper with irrelevant arguments and surplusage.

In fact, the billable hour makes a somewhat-longer-but-still-reasonable timeframe a lot more effective.

Biglaw firms themselves have admitted that law exams have no validity. That's another article I've posted previously that I will try to find. Their hiring practices are all about billing out empty prestige to clients.

[whatwhatinthebutt]

Again, it seems reasonable that these things should correlate with grades on an essay exam. I can't prove that this is actually what's going on, but similarly you can't prove that it isn't.

It's not my job to prove you wrong. I just pointed out that your "reasonable" assumptions aren't reasonable and that they assume the answer you're trying to get to. Now stop editing.

No, what you're pointing out isn't an assumption. I am asserting that it is legitimate for a law school exam to measure people on the basis of their ability to spot a large number of issues and perform in-depth and cogent legal analysis in a well-formed essay.


E: I am also saying that it is at least plausible that length and quality of an essay in the eyes of an English major correlate with these things. In other words: because there is a plausible legitimate explanation for the correlations, the mere existence of the correlations can't be used to impugn the legitimacy of law school exams.

You saved me the trouble of quoting your first post by editing the same assumption into your second paragraph. Your "plausible legitimate explanation" is the assumption of multicollinearity, which may or may not be valid. The burden rests with you, not me.
Your first paragraph is not your original argument. But man, you sure are able to write a lot of words.

[hoos89]

"You're right, I can't prove that it's an accurate explanation, just as you can't prove that it isn't." This is the most ignorant thing I have read in a while. You put forth an explanation explaining a phenomenon so the onus of proof regarding the explanation is yours to carry. Saying: "you can't prove my explanation is wrong" is illogical (See: Russell's teapot) and childish. If you cant prove your explanation is correct maybe its not as grand a theory as you might think. Don't be blinded by your hubris.

I'm actually replying to the initial assertion by JCougar that the mere existence of these correlations means, to paraphrase him, that all you need in order to do well on a law school exam is to write a lot of words in a way that appeals to an English major. Built into that is the assumption that there isn't a legitimate reason for those correlations to exist. My counter point is that there is a plausible legitimate explanation for those correlations, and therefore the mere existence of those correlations doesn't mean that law school examinations are invalid.

That isn't surprising nor does it counter the validity of law school exams.

Yes, it does. Unless typing a legal brief in 3 hours instead of four where longer = better is the difference between a good attorney and an average one is a major performance criterion for attorneys in practice, than it shows that law exams lack validity.

Any lawyer who's been out in practice will know that this is simply irrelevant. Writing well is a very relevant skill, but being able to do so in an artificially-compressed timeframe is not, and extra word count is mostly irrelevant and even counter-productive. A lot of judges don't like it when you don't get to the point, and many enforce page limits on motions/briefs, because attorneys are notorious for filling up paper with irrelevant arguments and surplusage.

In fact, the billable hour makes a somewhat-longer-but-still-reasonable timeframe a lot more effective.

Biglaw firms themselves have admitted that law exams have no validity. That's another article I've posted previously that I will try to find. Their hiring practices are all about billing out empty prestige to clients.

Longer may not be better, but missing issues is definitely worse than spotting them, and spotting issues is correlated with length. You seem to be focusing on only one end of the correlation (long = good), but missing the other (short = bad). I suspect the correlation gets weaker the more words you have (I can guarantee there's a perfect correlation between 0 words and grade). I know it's good to be concise, but there's a minimum number of words you need to write to adequately address the issues on any given law school exam. Again: there are alternate explanations for this correlation besides merely "more words = more points." Length is correlated with things besides word count.

[whatwhatinthebutt]

Frankly, there's a lot of anecdotal support for what hoos is saying and only the bitter grumblings of people who didn't perform as well as they wanted to in support of your view. And you have no cause to be so dismissive to someone who's done a lot more to help out 0Ls and 1Ls on this thread than you have.

I performed fine and very consistently both semesters and I write very short exams. I don't care how much he has "helped" on this thread. It's garbage speculation that longer exams are "on average" positively correlated with an understanding of legal nuance and that well structured exams contain better analysis. As far as anecdotal support goes, nobody knows how they rank in understanding of nuance or analysis besides their grade; which literally includes every other independent variable and error that goes into that grade and controls for nothing.

[Bob_loblaw34]

"You're right, I can't prove that it's an accurate explanation, just as you can't prove that it isn't." This is the most ignorant thing I have read in a while. You put forth an explanation explaining a phenomenon so the onus of proof regarding the explanation is yours to carry. Saying: "you can't prove my explanation is wrong" is illogical (See: Russell's teapot) and childish. If you cant prove your explanation is correct maybe its not as grand a theory as you might think. Don't be blinded by your hubris.

I'm actually replying to the initial assertion by JCougar that the mere existence of these correlations means, to paraphrase him, that all you need in order to do well on a law school exam is to write a lot of words in a way that appeals to an English major. Built into that is the assumption that there isn't a legitimate reason for those correlations to exist. My counter point is that there is a plausible legitimate explanation for those correlations, and therefore the mere existence of those correlations doesn't mean that law school examinations are invalid.

just because you keep calling something a "plausible legitimate explanation" doesn't make it so. The plausibility and legitimacy of your explanation was questioned and you responded with "you can't prove it's wrong!" This is not a strong response. Also, the first two sentences of your post are irrelevant.

[JCougar]

Frankly, there's a lot of anecdotal support for what hoos is saying and only the bitter grumblings of people who didn't perform as well as they wanted to in support of your view. And you have no cause to be so dismissive to someone who's done a lot more to help out 0Ls and 1Ls on this thread than you have.

Actually, it's quite the reverse. The low validity view is the one backed up by data--although likely not enough data.

The current law exam was invented something like 130 years ago, when medical doctors still thought hitting a hammer on a certain portion of your skull was a good way to cure disease. The entire legal curriculum was invented by a crazy, hyper-type-A lunatic named Christopher Columbus Langdell, who thought that by studying judicial decisions really, really hard, you could extract scientific principles from legal opinions. If you don't realize how crazy this sounds, you should watch Darren Aronofsky's Pi sometime. It's a great movie regardless.

This was before educators started designing tests as reliable and valid skill assessments. Law still adheres to the tradition, but this tradition was never ever based on any sort of study or evidence.

PNJ said it best in a previous post: unless you really do end up at the bottom of the class due to lack of effort, law grades shouldn't be taken personally by anyone. Good ones don't make you a good lawyer, and bad ones don't make you a bad one.

The reason I brought this up again is that I believe law students have little control over the grades they are going to get, and even if they're not totally random, the majority of their variance is made up of factors that you can't control for by studying harder. A lot of those factors have questionable validity, too. I would do the best you can on them, but it doesn't make sense to prioritize them over stuff like networking and getting practical experience. Grades are irrelevant to most legal employers outside Biglaw and some prestigious FedGov and PI positions, and most WUSTL grads won't get these positions.

[Bob_loblaw34]

"You're right, I can't prove that it's an accurate explanation, just as you can't prove that it isn't." This is the most ignorant thing I have read in a while. You put forth an explanation explaining a phenomenon so the onus of proof regarding the explanation is yours to carry. Saying: "you can't prove my explanation is wrong" is illogical (See: Russell's teapot) and childish. If you cant prove your explanation is correct maybe its not as grand a theory as you might think. Don't be blinded by your hubris.

I'm actually replying to the initial assertion by JCougar that the mere existence of these correlations means, to paraphrase him, that all you need in order to do well on a law school exam is to write a lot of words in a way that appeals to an English major. Built into that is the assumption that there isn't a legitimate reason for those correlations to exist. My counter point is that there is a plausible legitimate explanation for those correlations, and therefore the mere existence of those correlations doesn't mean that law school examinations are invalid.

That isn't surprising nor does it counter the validity of law school exams.

Yes, it does. Unless typing a legal brief in 3 hours instead of four where longer = better is the difference between a good attorney and an average one is a major performance criterion for attorneys in practice, than it shows that law exams lack validity.

Any lawyer who's been out in practice will know that this is simply irrelevant. Writing well is a very relevant skill, but being able to do so in an artificially-compressed timeframe is not, and extra word count is mostly irrelevant and even counter-productive. A lot of judges don't like it when you don't get to the point, and many enforce page limits on motions/briefs, because attorneys are notorious for filling up paper with irrelevant arguments and surplusage.

In fact, the billable hour makes a somewhat-longer-but-still-reasonable timeframe a lot more effective.

Biglaw firms themselves have admitted that law exams have no validity. That's another article I've posted previously that I will try to find. Their hiring practices are all about billing out empty prestige to clients.

Longer may not be better, but missing issues is definitely worse than spotting them, and spotting issues is correlated with length. You seem to be focusing on only one end of the correlation (long = good), but missing the other (short = bad). I suspect the correlation gets weaker the more words you have (I can guarantee there's a perfect correlation between 0 words and grade). I know it's good to be concise, but there's a minimum number of words you need to write to adequately address the issues on any given law school exam. Again: there are alternate explanations for this correlation besides merely "more words = more points." Length is correlated with things besides word count.

To be clear, I have no stance on typing speed and exams. I just take offence to such prolific and unabashed use of an appeal to ignorance.

[hoos89]

Frankly, there's a lot of anecdotal support for what hoos is saying and only the bitter grumblings of people who didn't perform as well as they wanted to in support of your view. And you have no cause to be so dismissive to someone who's done a lot more to help out 0Ls and 1Ls on this thread than you have.

I performed fine and very consistently both semesters and I write very short exams. I don't care how much he has "helped" on this thread. It's garbage speculation that longer exams are "on average" positively correlated with an understanding of legal nuance and that well structured exams contain better analysis. As far as anecdotal support goes, nobody knows how they rank in understanding of nuance or analysis besides their grade; which literally includes every other independent variable and error that goes into that grade and controls for nothing.

It's plausible that these things would be correlated. 0 words = 0 points. A 1,000 word answer to a 3 hour no word-limit exam probably didn't cover everything and thus won't get a good grade. I'd bet a large sum of money that the correlation between grade and length gets weaker as word limit increases (in other words, that the shortest 10% of exams are more strongly correlated with grades than the longest 10%). Similarly, the more you understand the topic, the more you are likely to have to say about the topic. It's tough to write in-depth about something you don't really know much about.

Quality legal analysis is accessible, well-structured, and easy to follow. These are all things that are likely to appeal to an English major.

Again: I'm not saying that these things are true. I'm saying that it seems reasonable, if not even likely that they would be correlated.

just because you keep calling something a "plausible legitimate explanation" doesn't make it so. The plausibility and legitimacy of your explanation was questioned and you responded with "you can't prove it's wrong!" This is not a strong response. Also, the first two sentences of your post are irrelevant.

That's not what happened. "You can't prove me wrong" was in response to someone pointing out that I can't prove that those things are correlated, not questioning the underlying belief that these explanations would be legitimate if true (or at least that's how I interpreted it).

[whatwhatinthebutt]

"You're right, I can't prove that it's an accurate explanation, just as you can't prove that it isn't." This is the most ignorant thing I have read in a while. You put forth an explanation explaining a phenomenon so the onus of proof regarding the explanation is yours to carry. Saying: "you can't prove my explanation is wrong" is illogical (See: Russell's teapot) and childish. If you cant prove your explanation is correct maybe its not as grand a theory as you might think. Don't be blinded by your hubris.

I'm actually replying to the initial assertion by JCougar that the mere existence of these correlations means, to paraphrase him, that all you need in order to do well on a law school exam is to write a lot of words in a way that appeals to an English major. Built into that is the assumption that there isn't a legitimate reason for those correlations to exist. My counter point is that there is a plausible legitimate explanation for those correlations, and therefore the mere existence of those correlations doesn't mean that law school examinations are invalid.

just because you keep calling something a "plausible legitimate explanation" doesn't make it so. The plausibility and legitimacy of your explanation was questioned and you responded with "you can't prove it's wrong!" This is not a strong response. Also, the first two sentences of your post are irrelevant.

He's moving the goalposts again. If it's about JCougar's study, the response to him is simple: read the study. It attempted to control for both of his assumptions by comparing testing formats. Once again, in the above quoted post, he says because there's a plausible assumption made, that the correlation actually does exist.

[Jmart082]

"You're right, I can't prove that it's an accurate explanation, just as you can't prove that it isn't." This is the most ignorant thing I have read in a while. You put forth an explanation explaining a phenomenon so the onus of proof regarding the explanation is yours to carry. Saying: "you can't prove my explanation is wrong" is illogical (See: Russell's teapot) and childish. If you cant prove your explanation is correct maybe its not as grand a theory as you might think. Don't be blinded by your hubris.

I'm actually replying to the initial assertion by JCougar that the mere existence of these correlations means, to paraphrase him, that all you need in order to do well on a law school exam is to write a lot of words in a way that appeals to an English major. Built into that is the assumption that there isn't a legitimate reason for those correlations to exist. My counter point is that there is a plausible legitimate explanation for those correlations, and therefore the mere existence of those correlations doesn't mean that law school examinations are invalid.

just because you keep calling something a "plausible legitimate explanation" doesn't make it so. The plausibility and legitimacy of your explanation was questioned and you responded with "you can't prove it's wrong!" This is not a strong response. Also, the first two sentences of your post are irrelevant.

He's moving the goalposts again. If it's about JCougar's study, the response to him is simple: read the study. It attempted to control for both of his assumptions by comparing testing formats. Once again, in the above quoted post, he says because there's a plausible assumption made, that the correlation actually does exist.

I completely endorse JCougar's assessment of law school exams. For every person that says their grades were consistent, there are quite the opposite. I've seen disparities of nearly 1.0 in the exams I've taken during law school, and oftentimes my effort negatively correlated with my final grade.

[Bob_loblaw34]

Frankly, there's a lot of anecdotal support for what hoos is saying and only the bitter grumblings of people who didn't perform as well as they wanted to in support of your view. And you have no cause to be so dismissive to someone who's done a lot more to help out 0Ls and 1Ls on this thread than you have.

I performed fine and very consistently both semesters and I write very short exams. I don't care how much he has "helped" on this thread. It's garbage speculation that longer exams are "on average" positively correlated with an understanding of legal nuance and that well structured exams contain better analysis. As far as anecdotal support goes, nobody knows how they rank in understanding of nuance or analysis besides their grade; which literally includes every other independent variable and error that goes into that grade and controls for nothing.

It's plausible that these things would be correlated. 0 words = 0 points. A 1,000 word answer to a 3 hour no word-limit exam probably didn't cover everything and thus won't get a good grade. I'd bet a large sum of money that the correlation between grade and length gets weaker as word limit increases (in other words, that the shortest 10% of exams are more strongly correlated with grades than the longest 10%). Similarly, the more you understand the topic, the more you are likely to have to say about the topic. It's tough to write in-depth about something you don't really know much about.

Quality legal analysis is accessible, well-structured, and easy to follow. These are all things that are likely to appeal to an English major.

Again: I'm not saying that these things are true. I'm saying that it seems reasonable, if not even likely that they would be correlated.

just because you keep calling something a "plausible legitimate explanation" doesn't make it so. The plausibility and legitimacy of your explanation was questioned and you responded with "you can't prove it's wrong!" This is not a strong response. Also, the first two sentences of your post are irrelevant.

That's not what happened. "You can't prove me wrong" was in response to someone pointing out that I can't prove that those things are correlated, not questioning the underlying belief that these explanations would be legitimate if true (or at least that's how I interpreted it).

First, you committed the appeal to ignorance fallacy at least twice that I have seen (though perhaps regarding the same issue). And questioning whether they are correlated is a subset of questioning plausibility and legitimacy. In other words, if the correlation you blindly assert and assume to exist does, then you explanation seems much more plausible and legitimate. If the correlation actually does not exist, then your argument is pretty worthless (i.e., implausible and illegitimate) isn't it? Again I just take issue with someone retorting with a clear logical fallacy. Actually trying to help you out.

[hoos89]

"You're right, I can't prove that it's an accurate explanation, just as you can't prove that it isn't." This is the most ignorant thing I have read in a while. You put forth an explanation explaining a phenomenon so the onus of proof regarding the explanation is yours to carry. Saying: "you can't prove my explanation is wrong" is illogical (See: Russell's teapot) and childish. If you cant prove your explanation is correct maybe its not as grand a theory as you might think. Don't be blinded by your hubris.

I'm actually replying to the initial assertion by JCougar that the mere existence of these correlations means, to paraphrase him, that all you need in order to do well on a law school exam is to write a lot of words in a way that appeals to an English major. Built into that is the assumption that there isn't a legitimate reason for those correlations to exist. My counter point is that there is a plausible legitimate explanation for those correlations, and therefore the mere existence of those correlations doesn't mean that law school examinations are invalid.

just because you keep calling something a "plausible legitimate explanation" doesn't make it so. The plausibility and legitimacy of your explanation was questioned and you responded with "you can't prove it's wrong!" This is not a strong response. Also, the first two sentences of your post are irrelevant.

He's moving the goalposts again. If it's about JCougar's study, the response to him is simple: read the study. It attempted to control for both of his assumptions by comparing testing formats. Once again, in the above quoted post, he says because there's a plausible assumption made, that the correlation actually does exist.

Uh...that's not what I said at all. My point is that we don't know what actually accounts for those correlations; that just because the two correlations from that study exist doesn't mean that they disprove the validity of law school exams. There are plausible confounding factors, and therefore we should be careful how much significance we give to those correlations.