Article: How the LSAT Destroys Socioeconomic Diversity Forum

[Barack O'Drama]

weird that they focused on the most equalizing part of LS admissions as the cause of inequality in admissions.

Great point!

[nealric]

The privilege on the board is so thick you could cut a slice of it off, toss it into an urban area, and it would gentrify an entire neighborhood.

While this is probably true, it has little to do with critiquing the article, which was very poorly reasoned regardless of whether you agree with its premise.

[Barack O'Drama]

The privilege on the board is so thick you could cut a slice of it off, toss it into an urban area, and it would gentrify an entire neighborhood.

While this is probably true, it has little to do with critiquing the article, which was very poorly reasoned regardless of whether you agree with its premise.

I agree with you Aristolgeniton. But as Nealric points out, it has basically nothing to do with the article.

[amta]

The privilege on the board is so thick you could cut a slice of it off, toss it into an urban area, and it would gentrify an entire neighborhood.

can i add this to my TLS box?

[amta]

I can see both sides of the argument I guess. Though I mostly agree with all of you guys above who say it's bullshit in one way or another. Someone made a good point about not having reliable internet access, though. That's something to consider.

I guess the simple answer for me is: Life isn't fair. There are disadvantages all throughout life and if you are incapable of navigating them then entering the legal profession probably isn't a good idea anyway.

I've always been a sort of "que sera sera" guy when it comes to shit like this. If you're smart, you'll find a way. Be it broke, completely poor, homeless, etc. Believe it or not, I've been all of those things... Where there's a will there's a way.


That's just how I see it....

I think to consider the bolded a compelling reason for lending credence to the article is a bit of a stretch. it's just unrealistic to assume that a significant portion of potential candidates have internet access comparable to the homeless. shit there's one homeless dude i see every day on my way home from work sitting at a local coffee shop working on his laptop.

[A. Nony Mouse]

weird that they focused on the most equalizing part of LS admissions as the cause of inequality in admissions.

I think this is way overstating the case for the LSAT.

[amta]

weird that they focused on the most equalizing part of LS admissions as the cause of inequality in admissions.

I think this is way overstating the case for the LSAT.

i didn't say it was perfect or a great equalizer. just that all other things considered, it really is the only thing in LS admissions that puts everyone on the same playing field.

[A. Nony Mouse]

weird that they focused on the most equalizing part of LS admissions as the cause of inequality in admissions.

I think this is way overstating the case for the LSAT.

i didn't say it was perfect or a great equalizer. just that all other things considered, it really is the only thing in LS admissions that puts everyone on the same playing field.

Oh, yeah, that's fair.

[Barack O'Drama]

I can see both sides of the argument I guess. Though I mostly agree with all of you guys above who say it's bullshit in one way or another. Someone made a good point about not having reliable internet access, though. That's something to consider.

I guess the simple answer for me is: Life isn't fair. There are disadvantages all throughout life and if you are incapable of navigating them then entering the legal profession probably isn't a good idea anyway.

I've always been a sort of "que sera sera" guy when it comes to shit like this. If you're smart, you'll find a way. Be it broke, completely poor, homeless, etc. Believe it or not, I've been all of those things... Where there's a will there's a way.


That's just how I see it....

I think to consider the bolded a compelling reason for lending credence to the article is a bit of a stretch. it's just unrealistic to assume that a significant portion of potential candidates have internet access comparable to the homeless. shit there's one homeless dude i see every day on my way home from work sitting at a local coffee shop working on his laptop.

Like I said, it is just something to consider.

[devilsadvocatetroll]

weird that they focused on the most equalizing part of LS admissions as the cause of inequality in admissions.

I think this is way overstating the case for the LSAT.

i didn't say it was perfect or a great equalizer. just that all other things considered, it really is the only thing in LS admissions that puts everyone on the same playing field.

Oh, yeah, that's fair.

I can see both sides of the argument I guess. Though I mostly agree with all of you guys above who say it's bullshit in one way or another. Someone made a good point about not having reliable internet access, though. That's something to consider.

I guess the simple answer for me is: Life isn't fair. There are disadvantages all throughout life and if you are incapable of navigating them then entering the legal profession probably isn't a good idea anyway.

I've always been a sort of "que sera sera" guy when it comes to shit like this. If you're smart, you'll find a way. Be it broke, completely poor, homeless, etc. Believe it or not, I've been all of those things... Where there's a will there's a way.


That's just how I see it....

I think to consider the bolded a compelling reason for lending credence to the article is a bit of a stretch. it's just unrealistic to assume that a significant portion of potential candidates have internet access comparable to the homeless. shit there's one homeless dude i see every day on my way home from work sitting at a local coffee shop working on his laptop.

Like I said, it is just something to consider.

Looks like everyone lost their ability to LSAT (i.e. read carefully).

[amta]

Looks like everyone lost their ability to LSAT (i.e. read carefully).

fight me on the internet, bro.