<p>By the way, you seem to be dodging almost everything that I said in post #54.</p>
<p>ST’s winning the argument, but only because he/she has staked out the fundamentally obvious position that boston cannot *definitively *prove his arguments using the available evidence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You got me.</p>
<p>
I’ll refrain from ******baggery, thanks.</p>
<p>
There is more than one graph, there are graphs for each ls. The graphs convey, for the most part, that ug is irrelevant because the admitted students are admitted because of their lsat and gpa scores, and not because of their ug. The graphs illustrate exactly what I’m saying.</p>
<p>
Nothing there to refute that’s way. You ad nauseum say I am begging the question – without going any further. Then you said 7,650 is a large number (for a point you recently conceded).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Put another way: the correlation between numbers and admissions is so strong that no third variable appears to play a particularly important role in admissions.</p>
<p>Here, take a look at Harvard. There’s an astonishingly clean line. Almost everybody with a higher LSAT than 174 and a higher GPA than 3.85 was admitted, while almost everybody who was lower on both fronts was rejected. Harvard doesn’t seem to care whether they’re from Michigan, Diablo Valley, or Yale.</p>
<p>[LSN</a> :: Harvard University - Admissions Graph](<a href=“Recently Updated J.D. Profiles | Law School Numbers”>Recently Updated J.D. Profiles | Law School Numbers)</p>
<p>*why not way</p>
<p>^^ Correct bluedevilmike. Exactly what I’ve been saying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t follow you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, actually I find that the graph does suggest that something more than LSAT and GPA is affecting the decisions. In any case, it’s tough to rely on anonymously self-reported data on the Internet, though I wouldn’t dismiss it entirely.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have elaborated on how you are begging the question, so I don’t know how else I can go any further. Moreover, if I am “ad nauseum [saying you are] begging the question,” why did you have to ask what logical fallacy I was accusing you of committing?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t concede anything.</p>
<p>
Care to explain why? I expect not.
Seriously? The one who claims to be 1/409, 4.0, 2400, 36 is saying anonymous self-reported data is not reliable. I believe your claims, and I believe 95% of the rest of cc. Just the same, there isn’t a real incentive for people on LSN to lie.</p>
<p>
Right, you have said instead you are solely trying to refute me, and not put forth any arguments of your own. I already showed why your 7650 number is irrelevant anyway.</p>
<p>Bluedevilmike hit the nail on the head, though I’d have to say that in the last few posts, silverturtle’s argument has sort of been falling apart. </p>
<p>Especially after:
I assume that silverturtle thinks the graph contradicts boston’s point because of the few random outliers, but boston provided the graphs to show a clear-cut pattern, the exceptions silverturtle is focused on are just that, exceptions. </p>
<p>Silverturtle is making the mistake of assuming boston is trying to make the point that your UG is completely irrelevant. Obviously if an admissions officer was presented two applications, one from Yale and one from UTexas-El Paso with otherwise identical numbers and softs, the admissions officer will probably pick the applicant from Yale. Boston’s just saying that for the most part, the main things you should be focusing on are your numbers and not spend your entire time in college worrying about the fact that you’re from some no-name state U.</p>
<p>^ I agree with everything cobftw just said. Well put.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People with better stats than some receive less favorable decisions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmm.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assume that everyone would agree that anonymous self-reported data are unreliable. Such data, of course, probably have a positive correlation with the reality, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Likewise, there is no disincentive for those who do lie, nor is there a way to tell when people are lying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My goal is to make you question the accuracy of your conception. By presenting data that are consistent with the idea that your conception is inaccurate, I can facilitate that process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I must have missed it. Care to do it again?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When you have a small sample size, exceptions (and I even question the appropriateness of the rarity that that term suggests) are relevant, especially considering that boston1993’s position left no room for exceptions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How else does one interpret this comment, which was in the context of a discussion of the impact of one’s undergrad on law school admissions?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a side note:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Five consecutive prepositional phrases. :)</p>
<p>Well, I just assumed the comment was more of an observation of the overall matriculation process than a literal assertion. If it was meant literally, then you’re absolutely right. I’m just inclined to believe that boston doesn’t actually believe softs don’t play a factor at all in LS admissions.</p>
<p>You haven’t made any false claims, it just seems like the argument has turned into a straw man battle. This is almost as confusing to follow as the agnosticism debate that happened on CC Cafe, maybe more so.</p>
<p>^ What cob just said. ST, you’re a bit naive if you took my comments as literal and absolute.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that it’s been entirely unproductive. Readers should be able to formulate their own opinions on the role of applicants’ undergraduate institutions on law school admissions by assessing, with attention to context (e.g., confounding variables), the data that I and boston1993 presented. I think that it was a good discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Readers should default to a literal interpretation and only question that when the language presents a reason to do so. “completely” does the exact opposite. If you didn’t mean what you wrote during the discussion, then maybe it was pointless.</p>
<p>In any case, I’m not sure what one’s naivete has to do with literal/non-literal interpertation of a sentence.</p>
<p>
Absolutely, I think so too. I enjoyed reading it. I usually hate it when people try to not to take a position, but I’m going to be guilty of it here when I say I think you and boston were both right for the most part.</p>
<p>Musts: Do well on the LSAT, and earn a respectable undergraduate GPA (3.3 and up, higher for top-tier law schools). This means studying a lot for the LSAT and not slacking off in your classes.</p>
<p>Optional, but helpful: Major in Political Science, Legal Studies, Criminal Justice, etc. you can major in anything and go to law school, though. Taking honors classes and joining honors societies helps. Interning/volunteeingr at free/cheap legal help clinics, in courts, in judge’s chambers, in attorney’s offices, and within law enforcement will also help. If you school has a Mock Trail/Moot Court team, join. Speech and Debate is also a good activity.</p>
<p>If you have room for a minor, double major, or even just to take a view elective classes, take additional English and Communications classes. Being a good writer and debater/persuader/speaker is key to becoming a lawyer.</p>