February 2012 Waiting Thread (NEW POLL!!!1!) Forum

[lsacqueen]

We can sit here and ponder and hmmm and haw about what scores we would've gotten if we were all rich, but the fact of the matter is it's not what you were given but what you make of it that counts.

This.

Thank you. *bows*

[jigglebottom]

so who here is down for the categorical imperative?

[bernaldiaz]

so who here is down for the categorical imperative?

I'm not, because I don't think it would be fair for everyone else to have to be down with it

[Jsa725]

.

[jigglebottom]

so who here is down for the categorical imperative?

I'm not, because I don't think it would be fair for everyone else to have to be down with it

thats a really dope response actually... i feel like kant is the guilt-tripper of the ethical realm. Its a pretty serious standard with little room for flexibility, but I can't really pinpoint why I keep coming back to it.

[bernaldiaz]

so who here is down for the categorical imperative?

I'm not, because I don't think it would be fair for everyone else to have to be down with it

No Kant do, I ain't too smart...

A professor told me this story about a colleague, which I doubt is actually true, but it's still pretty funny:

So this philosophy professor needs to run in to liquor store to pick up a bottle of wine before going home to dinner. He quickly double parks, buys the bottle, and is back to his car within a minute or two. When he gets outside, a cop is there writing him a ticket. He pleads with the cop, explaining how he only was inside for a minute and had looked for a spot for half an hour with no avail, and really needed to get home.

The cop says, "I wish I could. But if I let you go, then I'd have to let off every single person who double parked and that would just lead to chaos."

The professor says, "Who do you think you are, Kant?"

He got arrested.

[Jsa725]

.

[Betharl]

I don't know how much of a role income/wealth plays in LSAT scores. I mean, for the very rich or the very poor, I can see it making a difference, but there are a whole lot of people in the middle. I am sure wealth plays a bigger role in ACT/SAT scores, because all high-schoolers are required to take those exams (or at least I know we were required to take the ACT at my HS). Remember, when it comes to the LSAT, we are talking about people who have graduated or plan to graduate from college, which excludes a lot of very poor people.

I guess what I am saying is I agree that wealth plays a role, but I think RR is exaggerating things a little bit. It seems like he is writing people off who got great scores simply because they aren't poor, when in reality, they are outscoring most of the rich kids too.

[wakka!]

I don't know how much of a role income/wealth plays in LSAT scores. I mean, for the very rich or the very poor, I can see it making a difference, but there are a whole lot of people in the middle. I am sure wealth plays a bigger role in ACT/SAT scores, because all high-schoolers are required to take those exams (or at least I know we were required to take the ACT at my HS). Remember, when it comes to the LSAT, we are talking about people who have graduated or plan to graduate from college, which excludes a lot of very poor people.

I guess what I am saying is I agree that wealth plays a role, but I think RR is exaggerating things a little bit. It seems like he is writing people off who got great scores simply because they aren't poor, when in reality, they are outscoring most of the rich kids too.

I don't know; a lot of people don't have a few thousand dollars laying around to take a prep class. I know I couldn't afford one; I actually spent $0 and torrented like 50 practice tests and that was all the prep I got.

[Betharl]

I didn't shell out for a prep class either, although I did buy prep material for self-study. I guess I don't know what % of people actually do take a prep class and for what % it actually helps (I was perfectly happy with self study).

I don't know how much of a role income/wealth plays in LSAT scores. I mean, for the very rich or the very poor, I can see it making a difference, but there are a whole lot of people in the middle. I am sure wealth plays a bigger role in ACT/SAT scores, because all high-schoolers are required to take those exams (or at least I know we were required to take the ACT at my HS). Remember, when it comes to the LSAT, we are talking about people who have graduated or plan to graduate from college, which excludes a lot of very poor people.

I guess what I am saying is I agree that wealth plays a role, but I think RR is exaggerating things a little bit. It seems like he is writing people off who got great scores simply because they aren't poor, when in reality, they are outscoring most of the rich kids too.

I don't know; a lot of people don't have a few thousand dollars laying around to take a prep class. I know I couldn't afford one; I actually spent $0 and torrented like 50 practice tests and that was all the prep I got.

[RodionRaskolnikov]

I don't know how much of a role income/wealth plays in LSAT scores. I mean, for the very rich or the very poor, I can see it making a difference, but there are a whole lot of people in the middle. I am sure wealth plays a bigger role in ACT/SAT scores, because all high-schoolers are required to take those exams (or at least I know we were required to take the ACT at my HS). Remember, when it comes to the LSAT, we are talking about people who have graduated or plan to graduate from college, which excludes a lot of very poor people.

I guess what I am saying is I agree that wealth plays a role, but I think RR is exaggerating things a little bit. It seems like he is writing people off who got great scores simply because they aren't poor, when in reality, they are outscoring most of the rich kids too.

When I say wealth, I don't mean just $$.. I mean the entire lifestyle. Rich people are more likely to focus on education, avoid doing stupid things (drugs, drinking excessively), etc. The kids of rich parents then usually get easier paths not only because they have money for prep materials, tutors, etc. but also because they have a better view of life.

You know what 5+5 is, right? It's 10. Now, suppose it's actually 11. You went through your entire life thus far with the belief that it was 10 and your belief was so strong that nearly nothing could make you believe that it was 11. Kids from not so wealthy backgrounds don't just suffer from lack of $$, but suffer whollistically (sp?). Some think doing drugs and selling them is good just as you think going to school is good, and these kids don't understand why the cops take them to jail for doing something good just as you would be shocked by getting the answer wrong to 5+5 if you said 10. Seriously, they think that and it's hard for you to imagine that since you come from a place where doing and selling drugs is obviously wrong.

There is a strong correlation between wealth and doing the "right" thing in respect to being successful and poverty and doing what is "wrong." So someone who is taking the LSAT and is from a wealthy background is more likely to have taken studying for the LSAT as important, have studied a lot, gotten tutors, classes, and did really well in school. Someone who isn't from a wealthy background and who is also going to go to law school is, though more in tune with school and successful ways than the most poor, is more likely to not take school as seriously, study, get a tutor, etc, as the rich kid. At the end, because of the environment they were in, they ended at different places mentally and academically, but at the same place in respect to taking the LSAT.

Now these kids take the LSAT. The rich kid is more likely to get a 170+ while the not so rich kid can do well but isn't likely to get as high of a score as the rich kid. That's why I'm not very impressed by rich kids who get 170+. It's like asking me to be impressed that you or I aren't in jail for trafficking women...

[bernaldiaz]

This was posted on Reddit today about the people on Reddit atheism. Thought it pretty appropriately combined a few of our major discussions today.

[bernaldiaz]

Now these kids take the LSAT. The rich kid is more likely to get a 170+ while the not so rich kid can do well but isn't likely to get as high of a score as the rich kid. That's why I'm not very impressed by rich kids who get 170+. It's like asking me to be impressed that you or I aren't in jail for trafficking women...

You're taking this way too far. A 170+ is impressive regardless of SES. My siblings and I have varying degrees of intelligence/ work ethic. While I score 98/99th percentile on tests, they are normally 85ish or so. I think it's because I hunkered down and busted my ass studying while they did not. That's not because of how rich or poor I am, its a personal work ethic. Also, all the kids in my rich New England town didn't get a 2100+ on their SAT's, I'd say out of 400 kids in may class, maybe 25-30 were that high (in the top 1-2%). So maybe you are more likely, but it's still a big achievement. I almost no one of those 400 kids scored below the 40-50th percentile, so obviously we have a leg up, but to day you aren't impressed with a 170+ is a little crazy.

[Jsa725]

.

[RodionRaskolnikov]

Now these kids take the LSAT. The rich kid is more likely to get a 170+ while the not so rich kid can do well but isn't likely to get as high of a score as the rich kid. That's why I'm not very impressed by rich kids who get 170+. It's like asking me to be impressed that you or I aren't in jail for trafficking women...

You're taking this way too far. A 170+ is impressive regardless of SES. My siblings and I have varying degrees of intelligence/ work ethic. While I score 98/99th percentile on tests, they are normally 85ish or so. I think it's because I hunkered down and busted my ass studying while they did not. That's not because of how rich or poor I am, its a personal work ethic. Also, all the kids in my rich New England town didn't get a 2100+ on their SAT's, I'd say out of 400 kids in may class, maybe 25-30 were that high (in the top 1-2%). So maybe you are more likely, but it's still a big achievement. I almost no one of those 400 kids scored below the 40-50th percentile, so obviously we have a leg up, but to day you aren't impressed with a 170+ is a little crazy.

A 170+ is impressive but it's less impressive when it's done by a wealthy kid than by a non-wealthy kid. And again, it's not just $$. The reason we hunkered down and studied our butts off is because of the environment we lived in that lead us to think that it was a good thing to do that. Wealthy kids are more likely to be in this environment than non-wealthy kids. That's why it's more likely a wealthy kid will score higher; not just because of more $$ for prep but because of the view of life....

170+ still impressive, but depends on how impressive on who got it. Just saying.

[Jsa725]

.

[Betharl]

I agree with you on some things and disagree on others. I definitely know what you mean when talk about wealth and the correlation with a more productive/supportive academic upbringing etc. I just don't know that this applies AS much when you talk about the LSAT.

Because, as I said, I don't think the people you talk about below take the LSAT, or at least not in large numbers.

Some think doing drugs and selling them is good just as you think going to school is good, and these kids don't understand why the cops take them to jail

I would imagine most of the people taking the LSAT are neither very rich nor very poor, and although their academic opportunities might not have been equal (due to money, being in a neighborhood with sub-par public schools, w/e), they are close enough. If a middle class kid get's a 173 and scores in the 99th percentile, it means he did better than many, many people who grew up with equal or greater wealth than he did, and I'd be impressed. Sure, it's more impressive if a poor kid who struggled with gangs/violence etc comes out of a terrible situation and get's the same score, but that doesn't mean the first kids score isn't still impressive. Maybe that's all you're saying, that it's more impressive when poor people do as well as rich people. But the way you come off it seems like you are completely discrediting people who weren't disadvantaged, as if not being disadvantaged actually gives you an advantage.

[wakka!]

I don't know how much of a role income/wealth plays in LSAT scores. I mean, for the very rich or the very poor, I can see it making a difference, but there are a whole lot of people in the middle. I am sure wealth plays a bigger role in ACT/SAT scores, because all high-schoolers are required to take those exams (or at least I know we were required to take the ACT at my HS). Remember, when it comes to the LSAT, we are talking about people who have graduated or plan to graduate from college, which excludes a lot of very poor people.

I guess what I am saying is I agree that wealth plays a role, but I think RR is exaggerating things a little bit. It seems like he is writing people off who got great scores simply because they aren't poor, when in reality, they are outscoring most of the rich kids too.

When I say wealth, I don't mean just $$.. I mean the entire lifestyle. Rich people are more likely to focus on education, avoid doing stupid things (drugs, drinking excessively), etc. The kids of rich parents then usually get easier paths not only because they have money for prep materials, tutors, etc. but also because they have a better view of life.

You know what 5+5 is, right? It's 10. Now, suppose it's actually 11. You went through your entire life thus far with the belief that it was 10 and your belief was so strong that nearly nothing could make you believe that it was 11. Kids from not so wealthy backgrounds don't just suffer from lack of $$, but suffer whollistically (sp?). Some think doing drugs and selling them is good just as you think going to school is good, and these kids don't understand why the cops take them to jail for doing something good just as you would be shocked by getting the answer wrong to 5+5 if you said 10. Seriously, they think that and it's hard for you to imagine that since you come from a place where doing and selling drugs is obviously wrong.

There is a strong correlation between wealth and doing the "right" thing in respect to being successful and poverty and doing what is "wrong." So someone who is taking the LSAT and is from a wealthy background is more likely to have taken studying for the LSAT as important, have studied a lot, gotten tutors, classes, and did really well in school. Someone who isn't from a wealthy background and who is also going to go to law school is, though more in tune with school and successful ways than the most poor, is more likely to not take school as seriously, study, get a tutor, etc, as the rich kid. At the end, because of the environment they were in, they ended at different places mentally and academically, but at the same place in respect to taking the LSAT.

Now these kids take the LSAT. The rich kid is more likely to get a 170+ while the not so rich kid can do well but isn't likely to get as high of a score as the rich kid. That's why I'm not very impressed by rich kids who get 170+. It's like asking me to be impressed that you or I aren't in jail for trafficking women...

Well some drugs are good...you should be more specific.

[RodionRaskolnikov]

RR... Do you feel bad for coming from a wealthy family? You keep saying "our"
Stop painting the "poor" as a bunch of fucking idiots..... You sound retarded

No. Actually I don't come from a wealthy family. You just lack analytical skills to comprehend my ideas. When I say "our" sometimes in this argument, it refers to our (people like us') view of life, our thought that hunkering down and studying is good. Non-wealthy kids can have that view too, just not as likely. And wealth is just the background quality that I use to refer to other qualities like likeliness to do good stuff (i.e. study) and avoid doing bad stuff (i.e. drugs, trafficking women).

[wakka!]

RR... Do you feel bad for coming from a wealthy family? You keep saying "our"
Stop painting the "poor" as a bunch of fucking idiots..... You sound retarded

No. Actually I don't come from a wealthy family. You just lack analytical skills to comprehend my ideas. When I say "our" sometimes in this argument, it refers to our (people like us') view of life, our thought that hunkering down and studying is good. Non-wealthy kids can have that view too, just not as likely. And wealth is just the background quality that I use to refer to other qualities like likeliness to do good stuff (i.e. study) and avoid doing bad stuff (i.e. drugs, trafficking women).

again not all drugs are bad. You're overgeneralizing.

[RodionRaskolnikov]

I agree with you on some things and disagree on others. I definitely know what you mean when talk about wealth and the correlation with a more productive/supportive academic upbringing etc. I just don't know that this applies AS much when you talk about the LSAT.

Because, as I said, I don't think the people you talk about below take the LSAT, or at least not in large numbers.

Some think doing drugs and selling them is good just as you think going to school is good, and these kids don't understand why the cops take them to jail

I would imagine most of the people taking the LSAT are neither very rich nor very poor, and although their academic opportunities might not have been equal (due to money, being in a neighborhood with sub-par public schools, w/e), they are close enough. If a middle class kid get's a 173 and scores in the 99th percentile, it means he did better than many, many people who grew up with equal or greater wealth than he did, and I'd be impressed. Sure, it's more impressive if a poor kid who struggled with gangs/violence etc comes out of a terrible situation and get's the same score, but that doesn't mean the first kids score isn't still impressive. Maybe that's all you're saying, that it's more impressive when poor people do as well as rich people. But the way you come off it seems like you are completely discrediting people who weren't disadvantaged, as if not being disadvantaged actually gives you an advantage.

I meant what you thought I meant, that it's still impressive no matter who gets 170+ but a bit more impressive if a poor person does it.

[Jsa725]

.

[Betharl]

I meant what you thought I meant, that it's still impressive no matter who gets 170+ but a bit more impressive if a poor person does it

You see why I made that mistake though. I'm not going to go back and look, but it felt like when people said they scored 170+ you had a very short reply asking about their SES. Then, when they all said they were high income or whatever, you sort of replied back, "ok, thought so". Sometimes it seemed like you were trying to be funny, other times I couldn't really tell. So, as someone from an upper middle class family who may have scored above 170, I was not sure if I should take offense, lol. Maybe this is why people claim you have aspergers.

[bernaldiaz]

Haha we have now come full circle. RR has aspergers and a napoleon complex again.

[RodionRaskolnikov]

RR... Do you feel bad for coming from a wealthy family? You keep saying "our"
Stop painting the "poor" as a bunch of fucking idiots..... You sound retarded

No. Actually I don't come from a wealthy family. You just lack analytical skills to comprehend my ideas. When I say "our" sometimes in this argument, it refers to our (people like us') view of life, our thought that hunkering down and studying is good. Non-wealthy kids can have that view too, just not as likely. And wealth is just the background quality that I use to refer to other qualities like likeliness to do good stuff (i.e. study) and avoid doing bad stuff (i.e. drugs, trafficking women).

You presuppose that all poor people come from shitty households, because the only argument you have made is that poor= dumb. Furthermore, your doucebaggery is evidenced all over this thread: your insatiable appetite for being right, and putting others down demonstrates this quite clearly.

IMHO you have a severe self righteous,Napoleon, complex.

What? I don't presuppose that! I specifically said poor people and households can have the same view on life as rich househols... And all I've been doing is explaining my posts because two of the same posters keep misunderstanding everything I write. Then when I explain it and they see they misunderstood, they feel like I looked down on them..