The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Correlation between A grade and being outspoken in class?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 5th, 2010 4:22 PM Author: electric liquid oxygen I noticed every single person on our 1L Deans List in my section is very outspoken in class. Why this correlation? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14025769) |
 |
Date: February 5th, 2010 4:27 PM Author: azure hot immigrant two kinds of loudmouths, which is why some book the class and others do not do well
(1) this loudmouth just likes to pontificate and hear himself talk. Most of his comments are irrelevent. he gets owned on the exam
(2) this loudmouth is engaged in class. his comments are usually questions that are on point and help him develop a more nuanced understanding of the issue. This loudmouth tends to do well on the exam if he exploits this nuanced understanding of the issues. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2010 6:31 PM Author: talking harsh stage that seems like a good analysis (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14026891) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 12:54 PM Author: Bright razzmatazz toaster All loudmouths are #1, although some comments are obviously more relevant than others. All loudmouths do better grade-wise, all other things equal, since professors have find some basis with which to separate exams that are largely the same. Plus, most profs pay at least lip service to class participation.
But loudmouths are almost uniformly socially awkward and reviled by likable people, no matter whether their comments are relevant or not. |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 1:02 PM Author: deep mexican filthpig Except that law school exams are blind graded, so this isn't a real consideration. Often they will separately give a small bump (at most a half grade) for participation, but I don't think that bump is sufficient to overcome the very strong relationship between talking too much and being imperceptive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14032700) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 1:08 PM Author: Hilarious heady yarmulke if you get a .33 bump in all of your classes that's actually pretty fucking huge. Like top third to top ten if you had all Bplus bumped to A-. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14032744) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 1:14 PM Author: deep mexican filthpig Doesn't seem to make a big difference. Everyone I know in the top 10% is fairly quiet in class. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14032804) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 1:58 PM Author: Hilarious heady yarmulke Not totally my experience. Some of them speak often but aren't annoying. Like they answer questions posed by the Prof intelligently (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14033144) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 2:19 PM Author: azure hot immigrant sorry about your bottom third (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14033317) |
Date: February 5th, 2010 4:24 PM Author: Fishy boyish property keepsake machete the conventional wisdom is the opposite is true; the loudmouths get medianpwnd and it's the quiet ones you've gotta watch.
my personal opinion is the two things are more or less unrelated. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2010 4:25 PM Author: amber talented dragon persian /*\GUNNER ALERT/*\ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14025799) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2010 4:25 PM Author: Excitant Jewess Brunch The three people who booked classes in my 1L section were cute girls. I'm flabbergasted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14025800) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 2:19 PM Author: Dark Digit Ratio You're a virgin right (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14033319) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 6:17 PM Author: Excitant Jewess Brunch No. Why? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14035446) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 7:43 PM Author: red garrison main people because there are no cute girls in LS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14036347) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 7:44 PM Author: Excitant Jewess Brunch There are at my school. UCLA/Vandy/Texas (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14036355) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2010 4:28 PM Author: turquoise racy shrine makes sense if you don;t fuckup (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14025836) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2010 5:34 PM Author: Hilarious heady yarmulke One kid in 1L got a 4.0 and another booked 2 of 3 classes and probably had like a 4.2. Both asked a lot of good questions and offered answers when the prof asked questions to the class.
Other doods were annoying faggot gunners who would fight the hypo and were likely medianpwned. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2010 5:48 PM Author: soul-stirring sanctuary How do you know their grades? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14026547) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2010 5:52 PM Author: Hilarious heady yarmulke They told me. The booked grades were made public. Both transferred to T6.
The other loudmouths were really excited about the public interest career fairs and that kind of shit. |
|
Date: February 5th, 2010 5:50 PM Author: Misunderstood avocado party of the first part idea he suggested 4.2? what ttt did you go to? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14026567) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2010 5:52 PM Author: Hilarious heady yarmulke lots of places give 4.3 for Aplus (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14026592) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2010 5:56 PM Author: Dun massive feces space Yeah most gunners flunk out. Come on, you know your 2L classes have far fewer gunners. And 3L classes have none. Now if I could just take 3L classes are the way through. Apathetic competitors and no gunners, sounds like heaven. :)
|
|
Date: February 5th, 2010 6:04 PM Author: Misunderstood avocado party of the first part idea he suggested is this cooleytransfer (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14026695) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2010 6:02 PM Author: Stimulating marketing idea newt Some, but not for everyone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14026687) |
|
Date: February 5th, 2010 10:01 PM Author: Henna elite tattoo Negative correlation in my case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14028620) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 12:19 PM Author: high-end location community account this is sort of unrelated, but my participation strategy is to ask questions when not called on in order to avoid cold calling later on so I'm not obligated to actually do the readings. This strategy is especially successful when employed early in the semester, beginning immediately. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14032409) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 1:12 PM Author: aqua partner organic girlfriend (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14032789) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 6:14 PM Author: Sickened irradiated associate ticr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14035427) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 6:32 PM Author: titillating confused rehab generalized bond I knew a dood who did this exact thing, sat in the front of class and asked tons of questions in the first two weeks he was never called on again |
|
Date: February 7th, 2010 1:05 AM Author: well-lubricated milk area o hai me (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14039511) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 12:21 PM Author: Thriller Fortuitous Meteor IME most loudmouths (including myself) ended up near median (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14032425) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 12:23 PM Author: Unholy ruddy lodge kitty negative correlation. but sometimes someone will make some comment, and they will sound nervous talking, and the professor might not even understand wtf they're talking about, and then all of a sudden it will hit you that "damn, i get what that dood is saying. he's a smart dood." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14032438) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 12:26 PM Author: diverse naked theater I used to volunteer to answer after someone botches a question because I ahte hearing idiots w ho don't know what they're talking about or didn't do the reading. I'm very impatient when dealing with idiots
If someone fucks up, I wanted to get it right and move us along rather than fucking dwell on the idiocy and have a long out explanation from the professor for the sake of the morons in the class
I was top 20% throughout |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 12:35 PM Author: Hilarious heady yarmulke same boat here. when someone starts drowning I sometimes raise my hand if the prof is looking around and set the record straight.
It's the best when it's some gunner that asks a question that was clearly answered in the book and he just didn't do the reading. |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 12:47 PM Author: Charismatic Fluffy Boltzmann lol gunner faggot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14032605) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 1:08 PM Author: Hilarious heady yarmulke Trust me I would never be confused with a gunner. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14032749) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 1:53 PM Author: orange therapy half-breed You just fucking posted something that only a gunner would think. STFU gunner faggot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14033095) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 2:28 PM Author: Hilarious heady yarmulke Because I sometimes want the class to get back on track and no one is volunteering and some douche is derailing shit?
That's not gunning my man. |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 2:29 PM Author: stubborn station queen of the night Yes, yes it is (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14033421) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 2:30 PM Author: Hilarious heady yarmulke I think you are confused as to what true gunning is. Is volunteering an answer always gunning? I don't think it is man. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14033429) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 2:31 PM Author: Charismatic Fluffy Boltzmann "It's the best when it's some gunner that asks a question that was clearly answered in the book and he just didn't do the reading."
did the reading ---> GUNNER |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 2:33 PM Author: Hilarious heady yarmulke Then I'm gunning about 10% of the time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14033441) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 2:24 PM Author: stubborn station queen of the night gunner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14033381) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 12:44 PM Author: blue rigor coldplay fan Usually, there's a correlation, as many professors give extra points for class participation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14032594) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 12:49 PM Author: deep mexican filthpig lol. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14032617) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 1:01 PM Author: Chocolate school cafeteria candlestick maker 1L at my irish T23, the opposite was true. kids who talked didn't make dean's list (~top 10%), even the one older guy who seemed really smart and asked good questions. 2nd semester, one of the super loudmouths who finally shut up made dean's list. was shocked. |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 2:21 PM Author: learning disabled vibrant dingle berry Definitely true at ND. Of the entire Dean's list my 1L year, I can't think of anyone who spoke up more than a couple of times beyond when they were called on. It's a great environment for people to stay quiet and succeed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14033339) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 6:37 PM Author: Chest-beating hall son of senegal Quality v. quantity. Hardly anyone with voluminous class contributions who did exceptionally well, but a majority of the highest quality participants quite well. So you have to be a bit more specific to deal with correlation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14035697) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 6:37 PM Author: Dull Hairraiser Institution Voyeur I'd wager that hard data would show a small but definite positive corellation. Pooping again btw. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14035698) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 6:38 PM Author: Yapping Private Investor I would guess +0.183 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14035707) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 6:39 PM Author: Dull Hairraiser Institution Voyeur *pays 60k a year for law school*
*sits in back and snickers at people who ask questions* |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 6:40 PM Author: Chest-beating hall son of senegal If you have a question, why would you waste the time of the other 99 people in the class? Why not wait until after class to delve into the issue if you have a private need? Class time isn't an open forum to air grievances. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14035730) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 6:42 PM Author: Stimulating marketing idea newt Cr. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14035744) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 6:42 PM Author: Dull Hairraiser Institution Voyeur ITE bro. Fuck everyone else, I'm getting my moneys worth.
|
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 7:53 PM Author: Dull Hairraiser Institution Voyeur The best part is I'm on scholarship, so these kids are paying my tuition to listen to me talk. <3 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14036448) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 7:07 PM Author: Mind-boggling Shitlib Pretty high. Once people get that A grade, they get cocky and start running their mouths. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14035921) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 7:11 PM Author: Yapping Private Investor But will it work (running the mouth) in the next classroom, is the thing. Getting good grades is mastering your professor, first and foremost. Opening your mouth does you little instrinsic good, unless you are increasing your professor's well being, preferably w/o them knowing it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14035956) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 7:30 PM Author: Mind-boggling Shitlib it will have no causative effect on your grades at all, no one's argued that. the reasons for a correlation would be a) smarter people are more/less likely to talk or b) people who have gotten good grades previously, and thus are likely to in the future, are more likely to talk (after the 1st semester only of course). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14036186) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 7:41 PM Author: Yapping Private Investor If people who have gotten good grades previously are thus more likely to be smarter in the future, then, this seems like a fair enough definition for smartness. Once this smart population has been isolated and made a control group, the question will boil down to: are they more talkative? I think the answer is, talkativeness alone predicts smartness roughly eighteen percent of the time. Being smart has to do with too many different things of which being vocal plays no part. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14036319) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 9:49 PM Author: deep mexican filthpig I don't think this is true at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14037619) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 9:32 PM Author: crystalline base messiness True story, there was was a person in my class who never volunteered a response and sound VERY unimpressive when called on. Really just didn't seem very bright.
This person not only wound up number one in the class, but got the highest GPA in the history of the school. |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 9:36 PM Author: Vigorous Arrogant Cuckold Point getting good grades in law school isn't entirely about being a genius, as much as those with the good grades want to perpetuate that myth (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14037500) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 9:48 PM Author: deep mexican filthpig Is it "entirely about" being smart? No. Some base level of work ethic is required, to be sure. But after that, what are you going to attribute high grades to? Luck? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14037609) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 9:52 PM Author: Vigorous Arrogant Cuckold Point luck, 'proper' policy choice, etc., but overall, being able to take all of the dry kindling laid out in the course and stack it up in syllogisms on an exam. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14037651) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 9:55 PM Author: Lavender Scourge Upon The Earth and to do that well you need to be intelligent (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14037671) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 9:56 PM Author: deep mexican filthpig "being able to take all of the dry kindling laid out in the course and stack it up in syllogisms on an exam"
Is that not a function of intelligence? |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 10:00 PM Author: Vigorous Arrogant Cuckold Point it doesn't require brilliant insight. it just requires paying attention and being diligent inside a formula that some people intuit better than others.
if you want to say that latter part is 'intelligence,' then skilled machinists and carpenters are also highly intelligent. it's all just a skilled trade. |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 10:05 PM Author: contagious temple deer antler Inapt analogy to the extent that skilled machinists and carpenters execute predetermined algorithms. To get a good law exam grade, you have to be able to identify issues in an unfamiliar fact pattern under intense time pressure and then write coherently about them. That takes more intelligence than performing a memorized procedure.
I don't know how you'd go about measuring "brilliant insight," but you're right that someone's law school grades probably don't predict very well whether the person could make significant contributions to the literature in hard sciences like physics and math. But they are a decent measure of many aspects of intelligence relevant to law practice. If it makes you feel better to call this a skills test that's unrelated to intelligence, that's fine, but it's not an intuitive use of the word intelligence. |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 10:21 PM Author: Vigorous Arrogant Cuckold Point You're missing the point. It IS a memorized procedure. By the time you get to the exam, if you've prepared properly, there's nothing "unfamiliar" about it. Just as a carpenter picks up a new piece of wood and sees that there are knots here and here, and hard grain there, the prepared law student sees that there will be spots on the exam requiring special attention and treatment. This is all done under "time pressure."
Physics and math are irrelevant. Presumably, if someone could make significant contributions there, she wouldn't be in law school. To stick to the point at hand, I'm not convinced there's any meaningful correlation between getting top law school grades and being able to make significant contributions to legal doctrine and theory, except to the extent that the two may significantly overlap.
This is just a skills test. If it makes you feel better to call it a measure of intelligence, fine, but clearly we differ in our intuitions regarding the meaning of that word. |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 10:22 PM Author: Lavender Scourge Upon The Earth um, if you're more intelligent you are better able to execute this memorized procedure. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14037894) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 10:31 PM Author: Vigorous Arrogant Cuckold Point That's what we call skilled. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14037964) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 10:26 PM Author: deep mexican filthpig You seem to be using a very unconventional definition of intelligence. Computational and recall power has a hell of a lot to do with intelligence but doesn't predict any ability to make "contributions" to any given field. If you can correctly recall a string of 20 numbers backwards, you're a fucking genius. That doesn't mean you're going to revolutionize physics, math, or anything else. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14037920) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 10:36 PM Author: Vigorous Arrogant Cuckold Point I don't see what's unconventional about it other than your saying so. Recalling a string of 20 numbers backwards isn't genius, it's a sign of a freakishly good memory. Genius connotes originality—or, more appropriately, since nothing is truly original—large-scale syntheses yielding stunningly simple conclusions that somehow had not before been produced. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14038020) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 10:50 PM Author: deep mexican filthpig See entire body of psychometric literature. Creativity (or ability to contribute meaningfully to whatever field) is pretty much never deemed a necessary feature of intelligence. The number recollection game is a classic measure of intelligence and predicts performance on IQ tests very well.
That said, I don't discount the importance of creativity. It's pretty crucial to the advancement of humans. It's just that it's really not within the traditional scope of intelligence. |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 10:45 PM Author: contagious temple deer antler Being a "prepared law student" requires intelligence, because you have to understand the lectures and figure out what material in them is important. Identifying issues worthy of discussion in an unfamiliar scenario problem also requires intelligence. None of these tasks is comparable to following a list of instructions.
To prepare for an exam, you have to process and retain a lot of information. When you take an exam, you have to identify matching information where it has been intentionally obscured. Then, you have to compose a readable response that compares the information in the exam with the data set you mastered during your preparation.
People who do these tasks better are smarter in meaningful ways than people who do them poorly. I'm not going to do a web search on psychometrics for you to show you that psychologists agree with me, though.
Identifying knots and hard grain in wood also requires some intelligence. Distinguishing yourself in these tasks probably has more to do with perceptual acuity than intelligence, though. |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 11:43 PM Author: Vigorous Arrogant Cuckold Point You seem to assume that "understanding the lectures" and "figuring out what['s] . . . important" is difficult. I've already explained how exam scenarios are not unfamiliar. And if you don't think it's comparable to following a list of instructions, I'm inclined to believe you've never seen a top-notch Civ Pro/Contracts/ConLaw outline.
Nothing is "intentionally obscured" on an exam. The prof just writes it w/knowledge including some inherently obscure wrinkles, runs it by a couple of colleagues, and gives it. |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 11:55 PM Author: deep mexican filthpig If it's not difficult to understand or figure out what's important or apply the law to arguably novel fact patterns, what is it that determines who gets A's and who gets B's? Work ethic? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14038844) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2010 12:03 AM Author: contagious temple deer antler "You seem to assume that "understanding the lectures" and "figuring out what['s] . . . important" is difficult."
It's difficult enough that the quality of students' exam responses serve as a rough indicator of their intelligence, even at the law schools with the smartest students. I've seen shitty answers and brilliant answers to exams at my school (HYS). Maybe you think taking an exam only requires you to regurgitate because straightforward exams adequately separate students at your school.
Law exam grades aren't perfect indicators of intelligence, of course. Things like luck, level of preparation, and even differences in typing speed make them unreliable. Standardized tests like the LSAT are much better. Still, to say that grades are wholly unrelated to intelligence is silly. |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 10:31 PM Author: Sienna stain regret Issue-spotting is a very, very small step from rote memorization. If you claim otherwise, I kind of feel sorry for you-- you're hanging your hat on something pretty irrelevant.
Also, you surprisingly overlook the fact that one's law school grades don't predict the person's ability to contribute to *legal* literature. Half the kids at top schools on law review write shitty and useless notes, and have useless criticisms of/insights into legal literature. And many who don't do that well or are at lower-ranked schools are *vastly* more insightful-- whether they are self-motivated enough to make something of it in an academic setting is another question.
Also pls note how you conflate both study habits (which includes more than just time spent studying), and the ability to perform under exam pressure with intelligence, with intelligence.
Bottom line is there are some people at good law schools who just don't get it, but for the most part, people at the top just study way harder/way smarter. |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 10:32 PM Author: deep mexican filthpig This is hilarious. By this account, the people in the top 10% of the class should have 90th percentile work ethic. I think it's pretty clear that this is rarely the case.
Also, what is with these constant references to contributions to the field? Intelligence may be necessary but I don't think anyone has claimed it is sufficient to make any sort of meaningful contribution to any field. |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 11:31 PM Author: Sienna stain regret We just have an empirical disagreement here. I think for the most part, top of the class does have 90% of the work ethic-- with some outliers, of course.
Also, intelligence really is necessary to contribute to the field. Being observant enough about the world, and being able to condense large amounts of information through the lens of current thinking are much better indicators of intelligence than being able to do well on a law school exam.
This is from someone who does well on law school exams and could never hack it as a law prof.
|
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 11:37 PM Author: deep mexican filthpig Seems like you're having a hard time distinguishing between necessary and sufficient. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14038598) |
|
Date: February 6th, 2010 11:48 PM Author: Sienna stain regret Nope. Intelligence varies in intensity. You're no longer worth debating go home plz. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14038756) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2010 1:08 AM Author: rambunctious step-uncle's house degenerate this thread blows, but i just want to pipe in to say that the correlation is 100%. take heed 0Ls (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1213451&forum_id=2#14039542) |
|
Date: February 7th, 2010 1:09 AM Author: well-lubricated milk area Talked all the motherfucking time and made top 5%. I talked when
1) I wanted to avoid getting called on 2) I wanted to drag out a little so we didn't get all the way through the reading I didn't do 3) I actually did have something I wanted to clarify
I never EVER volunteered personal experience and tried to avoid making "comments" as opposed to questions. |