Are There More Christians or Atheists in Law School? Forum

[Fish127]

More specifically T50 and T14 schools.

[John Mill]

You know this is a weird thread, but I think I actually kind of get the OP's concern, religious arguments can get ugly on the internet where everybody is anonymous and has balls behind a computer screen.

Anyway as for your question, I'm sure there are a lot of both, but I doubt that it ever really becomes an issue for either side. To be successful as a lawyer you have to be intelligent, mature and tactful, there are interviewers of all faiths, so most Atheists, Christians, and people of other faiths will probably be respectful and not always trying to push their ideas down your throat. The hardcore Bible thumping Christians tend to thin out the higher you get in education, and the super pushy atheists who wear themselves out trying to disprove God don't usually make it out of their parents basement. There are exceptions, but based on the talks I've had with people there aren't a lot of extremists on either side you will have to deal with.

[3ThrowAway99]

Go to Regent if you want a Christian focused law school (not recommending that though). At most law schools there will be plenty of people of various faiths, but don't expect any decent law school to have a predominant amount of people who are going to openly make their religion a focus or talk about it regularly. I guess what I am getting at is that I am not sure where exactly this question is coming from.

[IAFG]

I was the only non-Asian law student at my bible study most of the time.

[sinfiery]

I would be shocked if it was proportional to society in general.

[Tom Joad]

70% Christians of varying levels of intensity

20% Just not religious

5% Jews/Muslims/etc.

5% Atheist/Agnostic

[sinfiery]

70% Christians of varying levels of intensity

20% Just not religious

5% Jews/Muslims/etc.

5% Atheist/Agnostic

damn

[John Mill]

I would be shocked if it was proportional to society in general.

Why is that?

[sinfiery]

I would be shocked if it was proportional to society in general.

Why is that?

Basic assumptions being greater IQ than average for society = less likely to be religious

Second assumption being greater IQ than average for society = more likely to be in law school

And that's about it

[AreJay711]

I don't think this is really a bid deal in any law school, ever. Maybe it might come up in a discussion about what the establishment clause means or should mean but that's about it. Here are my guesses and observations:

1) There are probably fewer practicing religious but I have no idea beyond the people that send the catholic law students email out (I've never bothered to go) and one other person who never stays out late on Saturday's.

2) There are a higher than proportional number of jews but idk how many are religious. I don't think taking off for Jewish holidays is a very good gauge for that.

3) There are a relatively high number of agnostics with a cosmology -- inasmuch as it isn't just people saying they aren't sure but having thought out ideas about a clockwork god or a prime moving force that isn't a personal god.

[071816]

Who gives a fuck?

[John Mill]

I would be shocked if it was proportional to society in general.

Why is that?

Basic assumptions being greater IQ than average for society = less likely to be religious

Second assumption being greater IQ than average for society = more likely to be in law school

And that's about it

Neither of those assumptions are true, and the first one is actually fairly stupid

[09042014]

I would be shocked if it was proportional to society in general.

Why is that?

1) Jews like the law
2) People are less religious the more education they have.

[sinfiery]

Neither of those assumptions are true, and the first one is actually fairly stupid

Statistically, they are both most definitely true.

[Tom Joad]

Neither of those assumptions are true, and the first one is actually fairly stupid

Statistically, they are both most definitely true.

People at the extremely successful end of the spectrum are almost uniformly religious.

[sinfiery]

Neither of those assumptions are true, and the first one is actually fairly stupid

Statistically, they are both most definitely true.

People at the extremely successful end of the spectrum are almost uniformly religious.

Extremely successful has a weaker correlation with IQ than does someone in Academia/Scientist/etc. which are shockingly 40-80% different than society in general as far as their reported views.

Also, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would like to have a word with you. But you did say 'almost' so nevermind.

[Tom Joad]

Neither of those assumptions are true, and the first one is actually fairly stupid

Statistically, they are both most definitely true.

People at the extremely successful end of the spectrum are almost uniformly religious.

Extremely successful has a weaker correlation with IQ than does Academia/Scientist/etc.

Also, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would like to have a word with you. But you did say 'almost' so nevermind.

Those guys aren't extremely successful. I am talking presidents. Until you get to the extreme success level you see weird deviations, but people who run for president and get elected are religious.

[sinfiery]

Those guys aren't extremely successful. I am talking presidents. Until you get to the extreme success level you see weird deviations, but people who run for president and get elected are religious.

So to be succesful you have to appeal to the ethics of the masses.


Lol. I can't retort your argument, only profess that I strongly disagree with the definitions you give for certain words. IE: The criteria.


Never did I think Obama would be professed as to be more successful than Bill Gates. Or Einstein.
But to each their own.

[John Mill]

Statistically, they are both most definitely true.

You start off by saying both are assumptions, now your claiming their statistics? No statistically neither are true, if people in law schools had generally higher IQ's than the job market would be in a very different situation since law schools would have higher standards and less graduates every year, kind of like med schools. I'm not even going to dignify the idea that religious people have statistically lower IQ's than atheists by arguing with you, anybody with half a brain can tell how dumb a suggestion that is.

Extremely successful has a weaker correlation with IQ than does someone in Academia/Scientist/etc

First of all IQ =/= education, there are plenty of UG degrees you can get by being good at regurgitation. Secondly hard sciences may attract more of a secular crowd than other fields, but that in no way makes it a field that requires a higher level of intelligence than all others.

Your making yourself sound like the same kind of idiot I mentioned in my first post, just drop it and quit while your ahead. If you want to think that your own view is the "superior" one and people who believe otherwise have lower IQs then I can't stop you, but that kind of arrogant and uneducated attitude won't get you very far in law, or anywhere else in life really.

[bk1]

1. Who cares?

2. It's not like law students try and push their beliefs on fellow law students all the time.

[09042014]

1. Who cares?

2. It's not like law students try and push their beliefs on fellow law students all the time.

2 is hilariously false, but strangely true about religion.

[John Mill]

1. Who cares?

2. It's not like law students try and push their beliefs on fellow law students all the time.

2 is hilariously false, but strangely true about religion.

Religion, atheism, politics, it happens with everything. I would hope that by grad school and later in the job world it falls off a bit though...

[bk1]

1. Who cares?

2. It's not like law students try and push their beliefs on fellow law students all the time.

2 is hilariously false, but strangely true about religion.

I meant religion specific beliefs. Not sure why "I LOVE TO ARGUE" doesn't bleed over into religious debates.

[sinfiery]

You start off by saying both are assumptions, now your claiming their statistics?

They are assumptions because I didn't provide data. I still haven't provided data and I will not. I know I am right, and I have no motivation to do the leg work. Sorry.

No statistically neither are true, if people in law schools had generally higher IQ's than the job market would be in a very different situation since law schools would have higher standards and less graduates every year, kind of like med schools.

This argument doesn't deserve a response. It's absolutely terrible.

I'm not even going to dignify the idea that religious people have statistically lower IQ's than atheists by arguing with you, anybody with half a brain can tell how dumb a suggestion that is.

Okay. If you say so. Guess I'll go buy a half of a brain.

First of all IQ =/= education, there are plenty of UG degrees you can get by being good at regurgitation. Secondly hard sciences may attract more of a secular crowd than other fields, but that in no way makes it a field that requires a higher level of intelligence than all others.

Statistically, they have higher IQs in hard sciences than society in general. The same is true for people in Academica. IE: Professors.
IQ is greater for students with PHDs in hard sciences and for professors than the general public. Statistically.

Your making yourself sound like the same kind of idiot I mentioned in my first post, just drop it and quit while your ahead. If you want to think that your own view is the "superior" one and people who believe otherwise have lower IQs then I can't stop you, but that kind of arrogant and uneducated attitude won't get you very far in law, or anywhere else in life really.

If I am making myself sound like an idiot, then I am absolutely okay with being an idiot.

I won't drop it. Ever. You can cease to respond, and that will cause me to be quiet.

I never mentioned the word superior.

I never asked for life advice, thanks though.

[John Mill]

They are assumptions because I didn't provide data. I still haven't provided data and I will not. I know I am right, and I have no motivation to do the leg work. Sorry.

So your claiming something is "most definitely statistically true" meanwhile you don't have any statistics to back it up. That's not the way to be taken seriously.

This argument doesn't deserve a response. It's absolutely terrible.

Actually its a widely accepted fact. TTTs flooding the market with graduates because they will take anybody who can click the 'agree' button on a loan application, and making a five digit surplus in new lawyers to legal jobs every year.

Statistically, they have higher IQs in hard sciences than society in general. The same is true for people in Academica. IE: Professors.
IQ is greater for students with PHDs in hard sciences and for professors than the general public.

Your making the comparison between hard sciences and the rest of society, what I said was that hard sciences do not have an IQ advantage compared to every other graduate field. And last I checked there are no statistics that say academia is more secular than religious, more liberal maybe, but there are plenty of liberals that prescribe to one religion or another.

And btw it's extremely difficult to track IQs in statistics, so idk where your getting your numbers from...

If I am making myself sound like an idiot, then I am absolutely okay with being an idiot.

I won't drop it. Ever. You can cease to respond, and that will cause me to be quiet.

Your just acting like a troll now...