<p>Is a lack of competence in math a legitimate reason for attending law school?</p>
<p>Nope.</p>
<p>10 char</p>
<p>Not at all… That is actually a terrible reason.</p>
<p>Yes :P</p>
<p>Actually, not really.</p>
<p>But, most lawyers (and indeed, most people in America) are quite math-■■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>“most lawyers (and indeed, most people in America) are quite math-■■■■■■■■”</p>
<p>Wow, that’s quite an overgeneralization, isn’t it? In my experience, actually, lawyers are on the whole a very well rounded and generally intelligent lot, and many of them are quite good at math. In my practice, which consists mainly of M&A and corporate finance, I would be lost without a substantial understanding of the math that is used in finance. Granted, it is hardly Calc III (which I did take with the engineers while I was an undergrad), but I and most of my colleagues are far from “math-■■■■■■■■”.</p>
<p>Try to take some math classes in college such as stats, computer science, or just fundamental calculus if your really not the math type. Believe me you may not be really strong in math but if you take some classes it will definitely help you in the long run.</p>
<p>Speaking as one coming from a math/analysis background, I disagree with the math-■■■■■■■■ statement as well. I am only semi-■■■■■■■■ having taken four semesters of pure math, and several more of combinatorics and prob/stat. </p>
<p>But to the OP, no a disdain for all things numeric is going to make a pretty lame PS :)</p>
<p>math sucks. i never even used algebra, and as a law and society major, i’m learning many interesting things in this world rather than a bunch of tedious equations and formulas that are only good if you want to go technical. the social sciences make me think like no other.</p>
<p>“math sucks. i never even used algebra, and as a law and society major, i’m learning many interesting things in this world rather than a bunch of tedious equations and formulas that are only good if you want to go technical. the social sciences make me think like no other.”</p>
<p>That was surprisingly eloquent, actually…</p>
<p>how dare you be sarcastic</p>
<p>No, I actually agree with what you said in that comment. The other posters arguments boil down to the fact that math will only help you, not hurt you, but you retorted that studying other subjects will help you more. So the opportunity cost of math for you is high. That was clear from reading your argument. Although someone like sakky would have phrased it noticeably differently, your argument is logical and I agree with it (to an extent. SOME math is definitely necessary)</p>
<p>
About as legitimate as having watched Legally Blonde too many times. 
Or about as legitimate as going to med school because you can’t write worth a darn.</p>
<p>Re: math… a lot of the law students that I know are mediocre at math, relative to their intelligence. The ones who are good in math migrate towards tax, M&A, and finance. I do think that Sally is seeing a self-selecting group of lawyers there.</p>
<p>You know Sally, you are from a top 14 law school and are almost exclusively associating yourself with people that ranked at the 95th percentile and above on the LSAT. This is hardly a sample set that is more “generalizable” than mine.</p>
<p>I believe I read a few studies that showed that the Math and Science compotency of the top 20 or 30% of Americans was quite high in relation to the rest of the world whereas the rest of the population’s compotency was abysmally low. </p>
<p>So in general, most people are bad at math and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when people come up with reasons to justify not becoming better at it, i.e.:</p>
<p>“math sucks. i never even used algebra, and as a law and society major, i’m learning many interesting things in this world rather than a bunch of tedious equations and formulas that are only good if you want to go technical. the social sciences make me think like no other.”</p>
<p>Sadly, if America were better at math and mathematical subjects, we would have more rational discussions about policy and net benefits rather than endless philosophical bickering.</p>
<p>I guess I should be happy I’m one of the people compotent at Math. My poker winnings are over half of my income right now, mostly from beating math-■■■■■■■■ people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…yes, because philosophy and mathematics are diametrically opposed…</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics</a></p>
<p>Just because one subject may be a subset of another does not mean that in common usage this is the case.</p>
<p>Noting an exception does not have any practical value for most people. </p>
<p>Indeed, most of the best judges of the century, such as Learned Hand, were compotent at math and rendered astute business decisions–which is a far cry from the second-rate philosophy many Supreme Court justices of the last generation have forced into the annals of legal jurisprudence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…sorry, but your assumption, that philosophy of mathematics is a mere exception, was the illicit one…</p>
<p>…it dominated philosophy in the former half of the twentieth century, and the dominating method for performing philosophy today is grounded in its achievements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and they could also spell “competent” correctly.</p>
<p>At first I thought it was a typographical error, and then I saw that you did it twice. Man, you are an idiot.</p>
<p>Economics is probably the new dominant theory in most of legal thought. Math is becoming more and more useful, if not necessary, in understandin the law.</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic</a></p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>So, Shiboing Boing, you are not a law student yet? I do wonder if your opinions re: law and the legal profession will change in the next few years.</p>
<p>“Sadly, if America were better at math and mathematical subjects, we would have more rational discussions about policy and net benefits rather than endless philosophical bickering.”</p>
<p>true. but who said philosophical bickering has to always be the norm when engaging in the social sciences? i don’t bicker, and i’ve learned many interesting facts about the world, lawyers, legal consciousness, and moral issues. having said that, we also at some point -would- need philsophical arguing, because we need to analyze such issues sometimes. if we leave things untouched, social issues or justice can be endangered. this is where the social sciences comes in to help correct or preserve particular things.</p>