The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
dogfucker's response to Brian Leiter -- an open letter
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:12 PM Author: canary legal warrant Fellow "students," feel free to email a copy of this to Brian Leiter himself, or point him to this thread: bleiter@law.utexas.edu
-----
Dear Professor Leiter,
It appears as if a "student" informed you of my recent post on the xoxohth.com messageboard regarding the US News top 14, and, without my consent, you reprinted my comments in full on your blog ( http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/bleiter/archives/002095.html ), without citation to xoxohth.com. One would think that an esteemed academic such as you would know how to properly cite sources, but I'll chalk it up to internet informality.
I find it truly unfortunate that you lack basic reading comprehension skills. If you would carefully examine my post, you will see that I am indeed referring to the US News Top 14 - I am not referring to any other set of rankings, whether they be your (highly subjective and inaccurate) "faculty quality rankings," the Cooley rankings, or any other set of misleading rankings that do nothing but shill for a particular school. In your reply, you have provided no evidence showing that my assessment about the US News Top 14 is incorrect. Barring a major US News methodology change, or a nuclear bomb detonating in New York City, there is no way that Texas, UCLA, or any other strong regional school will break into the US News Top 14.
Despite this, I find your argument rather interesting, to say the least. I find it curious that you claim there is "no statistically meaningful difference in student credentials between Cornell, Berkeley, UCLA, Texas, and USC." I don't know what set of statistics you're looking at, but the numbers say otherwise. In the 2002/2003 application cycle, the 25th/75th percentile LSAT and GPA numbers were as follows for Cornell, Berkeley, and Texas:
Cornell University: 165/168, 3.50/3.75 UC Berkeley: 162/168, 3.65/3.90 Texas: 160/166, 3.41/3.83
Based on the numbers, Texas can hardly be put in the same category as Cornell and Berkeley, or any other school in the US News Top 14. The fact that Texas's 25th percentile LSAT is an entire 5 points lower says it all about how Texas stacks up to Cornell. Now, it is true that the difference between Texas and Berkeley is slightly less -- a mere 2 point difference at both the 25th and 75th percentiles. While it is true that there is no statistically significant difference between a 160 and a 162 and a 166 and a 168 when it comes to one individual, when it comes to hundreds of individuals, such differences certainly are significant. To claim that Texas students are as equally qualified as Cornell and Berkeley students is simply ridiculous given this information.
That said, student quality is only tangently relevant to this discussion. You may be right that the same 17 schools have been ranked in the "top 17" by US News since 1999. However, you once again miss the point. The Top 14 is not based solely on US News rankings -- if US News methodology were to radically change in a way that caused Texas and UCLA to move to the #13 and #14 spots, bumping Cornell and Georgetown to #15 and #16, the Top 14 as defined by xoxohth.com would remain the same way it is today. This is because Texas, and to a lesser extent, UCLA, are not national schools, but strong regional schools. If Texas were to somehow game the rankings and break into the top 14, it would not magically become a national school overnight -- on the contrary, Texas graduates would continue to have poor employment prospects in major legal markets outside of its region, such as New York.
Now, I am not saying that a rise in the US News rankings would be meaningless -- if Texas were to continue to rise in the rankings, and remain in the top 14 for a sustained amount of time, and if the law school was no longer required to maintain such high levels of instate matriculation, its student quality may rise to the point where employers from outside the region may decide to do OCI at Texas, and hire Texas grads in larger numbers than they do now. Unfortunately, considering that neither US News methodology nor Texas legislation is likely to change anytime soon, this is not going to happen anytime in your lifetime. Thus, for the foreseeable future, Texas will neither break the US News top 14, nor become a national school for employment purposes.
At this point, it’s important to stress that prospective law students, many of whom invest more than $100,000 in their legal education, do not have the luxury of valuing faculty publishing rates over employment prospects. If Texas’s career services office did a better job of appealing to employers in regions where most top law students want to work, perhaps students with LSAT scores greater than 165/166 would choose to enroll – without Texas having to be bribe them away from top 14 schools with merit scholarships.
Sincerely, dogfucker
|
 |
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:14 PM Author: Flatulent area This is very poorly written. It is, as a result, ineffective. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436149) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:18 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration what is wrong with it?
i think it is just as well written as leiters blog. |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:23 PM Author: Flatulent area What do you mean whats wrong with it? Can you read? All kinds of stuff is wrong. Grammar and syntax are terrible. The logic in some parts is actually paradoxical. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436215) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:25 PM Author: Dashing painfully honest native it has a number of problems (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436226) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:28 PM Author: primrose unhinged hunting ground Such as? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436248) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:29 PM Author: Flatulent area "...you lack basic reading comprehension skills. If you would carefully examine my post..."
Abhorrent. |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:31 PM Author: Dashing painfully honest native Correct.
"Barring a major US News methodology change, or a nuclear bomb detonating in New York City, there is no way that Texas, UCLA, or any other strong regional school will break into the US News Top 14."
Sarcasm can be funny when applied lightly, but that's not exactly witty reparte. Who writes things like that in response to a formal critique? |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:42 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration what is wrong? i guess i am an idiot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436328) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:45 PM Author: Dashing painfully honest native Leiter obviously has "basic reading comprehension skills," whether or not he's a jerk and whether or not he misinterpreted this guy's post.
This just isn't a polite or effective way to respond to criticism. |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:47 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration i see. i thought you meant grammatically or something. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436364) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:47 PM Author: Dashing painfully honest native No, bad grammar offends me less than hyperbolic huffing and puffing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436368) |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 12:39 AM Author: Appetizing Parlour Foreskin it's not any worse than what leiter said...something about anyone who knows anything...what an asswipe (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1438077) |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 2:55 AM Author: Disgusting cream toaster chapel "This just isn't a polite or effective way to respond to criticism."
Polite? Not particularly.
Effective? Give reasons. You people are dipshits. Things aren't effective or ineffective based on ineffable characteristics. Just come out and say what you mean if you have something to say. |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 3:08 AM Author: Dashing painfully honest native The thing is just poorly written. I find Leiter snide and pompous (and not being a radical leftist I don't particularly like his political commentary), but this isn't a great rebuttal. I don't care about quality of writing on a message board, but if you're going to engage in a dialogue with a reasonably influential professor you ought to make an effort to be clear and convincing.
A few examples:
"without my consent, you reprinted my comments in full on your blog"
Are you kidding? You love the attention.
"I find it truly unfortunate that you lack basic reading comprehension skills."
What's the point of hyperbolic shit like this? It doesn't do anything to advance the argument, and it makes you sound like a dumb kid.
"If you would carefully examine my post, you will see that I am indeed referring to the US News Top 14 - I am not referring to any other set of rankings, whether they be your (highly subjective and inaccurate) "faculty quality rankings," the Cooley rankings, or any other set of misleading rankings that do nothing but shill for a particular school."
Overuse of the word "ranking." Rephrase.
"In your reply, you have provided no evidence showing that my assessment about the US News Top 14 is incorrect."
"Assessment of," not "assessment about." Or perhaps "argument concerning," if "assessment of" doesn't capture what you're trying to say.
"Barring a major US News methodology change, or a nuclear bomb detonating in New York City, there is no way that Texas, UCLA, or any other strong regional school will break into the US News Top 14."
Wow, what cutting sarcasm.
"Despite this, I find your argument rather interesting, to say the least."
Oooh, really?
"Now, it is true that the difference between Texas and Berkeley is slightly less -- a mere 2 point difference at both the 25th and 75th percentiles."
It's either slightly smaller or slightly less significant. Not "slightly less."
"While it is true that there is no statistically significant difference between a 160 and a 162 and a 166 and a 168 when it comes to one individual, when it comes to hundreds of individuals, such differences certainly are significant."
Poor comma use.
" ... the Top 14 as defined by xoxohth.com would remain the same way it is today."
How about just "remain the same"?
"This is because Texas, and to a lesser extent, UCLA, are not national schools, but strong regional schools."
Poor comma use.
"Now, I am not saying that a rise in the US News rankings would be meaningless -- if Texas were to continue to rise in the rankings ... its student quality may rise to the point where employers from outside the region may decide to do OCI at Texas ... "
If Texas were to continue to rise its student quality MIGHT rise (rather than "may").
"Unfortunately, considering that neither US News methodology nor Texas legislation is likely to change anytime soon, this is not going to happen anytime in your lifetime."
Clumsy. |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 4:44 AM Author: Disgusting cream toaster chapel "The thing is just poorly written."
If you're a grammar teacher. Unfortunately for your thesis, there isn't a straight line connecting prescriptive grammar and rhetorical effectiveness. You don't even seem to try to support your previous claim about effectiveness.
[Overuse of the word "ranking." Rephrase.]
So what? Looks like a case of antistrophe to me.
[It's either slightly smaller or slightly less significant. Not "slightly less."]
So what? What implication should we draw from that? Should we assume the author is not credible?
[If Texas were to continue to rise its student quality MIGHT rise (rather than "may").]
Same thing as above. So what?
[Poor comma use.]
So what? Would comma movement turn the piece into a shining star of persuasiveness?
I'll grant that there are violations of prescriptive grammar in his response. But what does that say about effectiveness?
I'm trying to see whether you really have something to say (you might) or whether you're being a nit-picky asshole fixated on form and devoid of substantive comment. |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 11:47 AM Author: Magical Irradiated School "there isn't a straight line connecting prescriptive grammar and rhetorical effectiveness."
I don't know if there's a straight line, but there's probably a correlation. A couple of my umich teachers told me about a study that found a substantial correlation between quality of writing (and quality writing generally adheres to most all widely followed grammatical norms) and grades given (supposedly, the study controlled for content).
|
|
Date: October 6th, 2005 6:30 AM Author: Frum doobsian institution "A couple of my umich teachers told me about a study that found a substantial correlation between quality of writing (and quality writing generally adheres to most all widely followed grammatical norms) and grades given (supposedly, the study controlled for content)."
A correlation by itself does not prove causation. |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 1:00 PM Author: Dashing painfully honest native It's true that a statement doesn't have to be grammatical to be effective. I'm not a grammar Nazi, especially when it comes to posting on here. But we're not looking at a Jesse Jackson speech here -- the OP's failure to write clearly detracts from his argument.
I am of the opinion that this "letter" would be taken more seriously if it weren't so poorly written. As it is, Leiter can simply dismiss this as another jumbled screed hammered out by some irrational and deluded college kid who has been brainwashed by US News and xoxo. A better presentation would, in my opinion, enhance the writer's credibility by making him look more intelligent and thoughtful and make it harder for Leiter to dismiss his argument out of hand. (This assumes, of course, that the OP is actually trying to have some kind of effect on Leiter's thinking on this subject.) |
|
Date: October 7th, 2004 2:44 AM Author: Laughsome Yellow Keepsake Machete Spot on. And very funny. I'm no fan of Leiter's, but I bet he had a good laugh before deleting dogfucker's unintentionally clumsy message. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1449229) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:39 PM Author: adventurous pink juggernaut stead Texas's (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436310) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:18 PM Author: Dashing painfully honest native true (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436175) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:14 PM Author: erotic really tough guy roommate I *love* the moniker. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436150) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:16 PM Author: canary legal warrant I figured you of all people would. How're the boys? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436162) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:17 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration pretty please email this to him yourself. i will feel stupid if i have to do it for you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436169) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:19 PM Author: Offensive contagious house I've heard that you're hot.
I want to see a picture. |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:20 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration from who? my pic only goes to a trusted few. you are not one of them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436193) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:21 PM Author: Offensive contagious house Lame.
Why not? |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:22 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration i like being able to post freely w/o worrying about the judgement of my fellow peers. where do you go to school? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436206) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:23 PM Author: Offensive contagious house The only one that matters. NYU.
Have you seen my picture? |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:25 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration no (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436229) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:26 PM Author: Offensive contagious house Then how about this. I'll post a link to my pic and if you find me fuckable, you send me yours. You have to be honest, though. Okay? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436239) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:27 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration ok (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436246) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:28 PM Author: Offensive contagious house http://community.webshots.com/photo/134261286/134263006GBOvjn (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436249) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:29 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration you are not my type. are you part asian? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436260) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:30 PM Author: Offensive contagious house Yes, and therefore superior to any supposed "type" of yours. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436263) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:32 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration you being asian is not part of the type, it is your overly-clean cut style and muscle-headishness. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436272) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:34 PM Author: Offensive contagious house Oh. Would it help if I was skinny, had shaggy hair, a 3-day scruff of a beard and was wearing a vintage t-shirt? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436282) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:44 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration chill man, a lot of girls love your style. I am not one of them. HTH.
edit: for me, it would help if you were a little squishyer, but still big & tall, had longer hair, and some facial hair. |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:45 PM Author: Offensive contagious house Whatever. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436358) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:47 PM Author: electric autistic death wish How about inexperienced ectomorphic Jewish boys with as much facial and body hair as you could ever hope for? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436369) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:48 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration excessive body hair not included. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436373) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:48 PM Author: Offensive contagious house re: your edit
So, in other words, you want a fat slob. Nice to know. |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:51 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration not a fat slob, just someone who has teddy-bear appeal. thick and healthy without being overly toned. I am obviously not the only one who thinks you are excessive given the caption on your pic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436394) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:54 PM Author: Offensive contagious house I'm really not that big and not nearly as toned as you seem to think I am. But again, whatever.
I still want to see your pic, though. Please? I'll even promise not to say a word about it on the board if you want. |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:56 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration email? and you can feel free to discuss it on board. just no sharing it.
edit: i have really long nails in the pic b/c it was an amateur nail salon modeling thing i did. my nails aren't like this IRL and I am not a goth or anything, this is just the only pic i have on this comp. b/c it is posted on a website. |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:59 PM Author: Offensive contagious house earl_manigoat@yahoo.com (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436435) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 8:02 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration sent (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436450) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 8:06 PM Author: Offensive contagious house Fuck.
I was hoping that I'd be able to insult you and shatter your self-esteem, but you're hot.
Are you sure that I don't have a shot? |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 8:09 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration regardless of all the superficial reasons i listed above (which may or may hold if i knew your personality), you are in NYC, I am in Chicago.
edit: Thanks btw.
also: it is not like you are unattrative, just not my style. |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 9:00 PM Author: Transparent hairraiser crackhouse legend Umm, that was not me, thats not my email, and thirdly, I am offended that I am not your type!
however if you want to send a pick, my real address is above. |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 12:35 PM Author: Histrionic silver step-uncle's house boltzmann so, you want a fat dude with long hair and a goatee?
that's fucking disgusting.
I'm positive you are not hot. |
|
Date: October 7th, 2004 9:47 AM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration well you would be positvely wrong. see above. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1449457) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 9:17 PM Author: Magical Irradiated School "email? and you can feel free to discuss it on board. just no sharing it."
Email it to me. I won't blab.
|
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:49 PM Author: bull headed chestnut heaven Do you imagine him having a small wanker? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436380) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:52 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration well i didn't at first but now that it is obvious he has an ego problem about not being my type i do. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436397) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:56 PM Author: bull headed chestnut heaven All Asian guys have small penises. HTH (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436420) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:48 PM Author: bull headed chestnut heaven "muscle-headishness"
?? |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:50 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration looks like a musclehead.
excessive muscular physique at the cost of downgrading perceived mental abilities. |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:51 PM Author: bull headed chestnut heaven I thought he looked kind of gay. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436392) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:53 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration me too. honestly that was a big part of it. I was just trying to say it in a non-offensive manner. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436403) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 11:15 PM Author: Cobalt coiffed gaping base that's one of the benefits to being smart and getting jacked - people underestimate your intelligence. it's absolutely retarded to hold against a guy the "fact" that he "looks" like a dumb jock when you already know he's extremely intelligent. that's like continuing to refer to a hot girl as a complete ditz even after you find out she goes to a top 5 LS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1437624) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:36 PM Author: bull headed chestnut heaven "you are not my type."
*double barrel shotgun blast* BOOYA! |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:23 PM Author: Cracking state how about me? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436210) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:25 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration definitely not you. you are the type of person who would "out" someone. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436227) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 8:45 PM Author: Garnet fragrant point What about me? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436736) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 8:58 PM Author: Transparent hairraiser crackhouse legend YOU FUCKING SICKO! WHO IS THIS? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436838) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 10:26 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration a fucking sicko stalker indeed. now i am moving. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1437359) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:20 PM Author: canary legal warrant Nah, no point. I'm sure a friendly "student" will be sure to inform him of this thread's existence, just like last time. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436192) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:54 PM Author: Magical Irradiated School I just emailed him the piece. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436408) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:57 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration excellent work. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436423) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 8:20 PM Author: Magical Irradiated School Just asked him if I could post his response. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436578) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 8:29 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration ha ha. please let us know, not like you wouldn't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436629) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 9:04 PM Author: Magical Irradiated School He emailed me about half an hour ago and said that he'd prefer that I not post it, so I'll respect his wishes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436869) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:49 PM Author: adulterous locus bbw "If Texas were to somehow game the rankings and break into the top 14, it would not magically become a national school overnight -- on the contrary, Texas graduates would continue to have poor employment prospects in major legal markets outside of its region, such as New York."
Care to explain why Cravath, arguably the most selective firm in NYC has: (1) more than twice as many Texas grads as Boalt grads, (2) three more grads than Cornell, and (3) as many grads as NU, Michigan and Duke grads combined?
Even if we look as far away as Los Angeles, there are more Texas grads at OMM than Duke, Chicago, Cornell UPENN, and Northwestern. At Munger (arguably the most elite in L.A.), Texas has more representatives than UPENN, UVA and Duke, and just as many as NYU, Cornell and NU. |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:58 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration see this is the one thing i was wondering. i got a letter from UT trying to get me to enroll there which had NY stats which far exceeded my expectations.
but on the edit, Texas does have a large student body.
and on the edit again, Texans are more likely to want LA than most of those other schools both being in the southwest with similar weather, etc. |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 8:28 PM Author: Odious copper lodge Cravath is nowhere near as selective as Wachtell and arguably less selective than Davis Polk and perhaps S & C. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436626) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 8:43 PM Author: adulterous locus bbw Ok, well in that case Texas has just as many grads in Wachtell as Michigan and Duke, and more than NU. UVA and Cornell beat Texas only by a margin of one associate.
Either way, I'm not insinuating that Texas is better than any of the Top 14's for placement in NYC. That would be silly. However, I think it's pretty harsh to relegate a school like UT (or UCLA for that matter) to strictly "regional" status, when the numbers indicate that the school's degree does have a national presence. |
|
Date: October 7th, 2004 2:47 AM Author: Laughsome Yellow Keepsake Machete Davis Polk? Funny. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1449238) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 7:59 PM Author: adulterous locus bbw "This is because Texas, and to a lesser extent, UCLA, are not national schools, but strong regional schools."
They are also both STATE schools, with high in-state student populations. Has it ever occured to you that the reason why so many graduates of UT and UCLA stay in their "region" is because of self-selection, and not necessarily because jobs aren't open to them elsewhere?
Not everyone with a J.D. wants to venture off to NYC. Many people who are born and raised Texans (and for that matter, Southern Californians) are in no big hurry to skip town, especially when so many great job opportunities are available to them in their own backyard. The fact that less than twenty UCLA graduates sat for the New York bar exam last year illustrates this point. I, for one, had slightly above-average grades at UCLA and was able to land plenty of callbacks and offers at top NYC firms. However, I was one of only a dozen or so UCLA candidates (out of a class of 300+) who even bothered to apply to NY firms during OCIP, so the competition was much less fierce. In fact, with 40+ NYC firms interviewing at UCLA, there was at least 3 New York firms for every UCLA grad who wanted one (provided they met the min. req's).
If a UT or UCLA student wants a job in a market outside of their "region", it is theirs for the taking (again, provided they meet the GPA req's). The simple fact is, many just don't want to take it. |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 8:04 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration correct. and as far as Texans are concerned (me being a native born Texan) Texas = NYU/Columbia, no joke.
|
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 12:29 PM Author: green floppy electric furnace mental disorder This is correct, Texans have a very high opinion of UT:
"Only Harvard University and Stanford University ranked higher than The University of Texas at Austin on a recent statewide survey designed to determine, among other things, what people consider to be the leading universities in the United States."
http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/03newsreleases/nr_200302/nr_survey030213.html
|
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 12:49 PM Author: Ocher hall internal respiration ha ha! and i was just going off my perception of general opinion. nice to have facts to back it up! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1439493) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2004 5:51 PM Author: jade charismatic telephone Typical reasons given by the survey participants when explaining why they believed The University of Texas at Austin is one of the best universities in the United States include:
“State university, very large school, lower tuition, very good value for education.” “Availability; number and type of programs; the professors; the reputation.” “Because I live in Texas and I know it's good.” “I know a lot of people that went there.” “Good reputation.”
haha |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 9:59 AM Author: Apoplectic passionate theatre Subject: brevity... would have been key here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1438817) |
Date: October 4th, 2004 8:53 PM Author: Dun titillating site national security agency what an atrociously written little manifesto. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1436799) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 9:31 PM Author: Exciting skinny woman The writing seems fine to me.
And I would seldom consider Leiter's personal comments regarding this message board to be a "formal critique." |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 10:26 PM Author: Dun titillating site national security agency this paragraph is about 100% too long:
"Now, I am not saying that a rise in the US News rankings would be meaningless -- if Texas were to continue to rise in the rankings, and remain in the top 14 for a sustained amount of time, and if the law school was no longer required to maintain such high levels of instate matriculation, its student quality may rise to the point where employers from outside the region may decide to do OCI at Texas, and hire Texas grads in larger numbers than they do now. Unfortunately, considering that neither US News methodology nor Texas legislation is likely to change anytime soon, this is not going to happen anytime in your lifetime. Thus, for the foreseeable future, Texas will neither break the US News top 14, nor become a national school for employment purposes."
|
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 10:27 PM Author: Exciting skinny woman It's three sentences long.
Are you saying that paragraphs can be no longer than one and a half sentences? |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 12:28 AM Author: Dun titillating site national security agency i'll put it this way: if you spend a fair amount of time here reading posts you can get an excellent sense of how well people write. in some ways it's far more reliable than the typical "writing sample," and i wouldn't hesitate to recommend that a great many people be hired solely least on the basis of their writing ability as it turns up here. i'd be surprised if the person who wrote this, however, could write a good brief or a memo i'd find useful. at many points it's obvious that the ambition for expressing a particular idea exceeds the ability to execute it. alternatively, i constantly found myself having absorbed the point, but being forced to plod through excess. obviously, too, the fact that i had any reaction to it at all had more to do with my finding it silly, no matter how well expressed. i just find something odd about such an earnest, unironic chauvanism for the idea that there are fourteen "national" law schools; and the invective toward leiter is strange, too. whoever posted the point about the number of cravath partners from texas as opposed to cornell, or whereever, seems to have captured the only really interesting point among it all. the observation that a university of texas law professor overvalues the university of texas law school doesn't quite rise to the level of being noteworthy. (but i stick around here because the subsequent exchanges often are interesting; and more often than not i find that people write well, are witty, etc... three's just a bias in favor of the negative, which i'm guilty of.) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1438011) |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 12:30 AM Author: primrose unhinged hunting ground Hi Brian. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1438027) |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 12:35 AM Author: Exciting skinny woman I don't think one's writing on an online message board is a necessary indicator of their ability to write a serious academic or professional piece.
Also, the hiring numbers for Texas are misleading. Conventional wisdom is that Texas (and probably UCLA) place as well as a T14 *if* you're in the top quarter or third or so of the class. After that, the numbers drop off precipitously, and they become strong regionals. Despite the similarities in medians and raw numeric representations at top firms, there is still a significant placement difference between the lower T14s and UCLA/UT/Vandy. This is why the cutoff is drawn at 14, and it's a point that Leiter fails to address. |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 12:40 AM Author: Dun titillating site national security agency no, it's not a "necessary" indicator. but thereare several people who, if they were interviewing with me and they announced they were any number of people who post here, it would weigh heavily in their favor because: 1) i know they write well on the fly, 2) i have some feel at least for their created on-line persona, which i assume embodies at least some of their actual traits, and 3) i know whether they trim their dingleberries. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1438080) |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 12:42 AM Author: Boyish avocado center Absolutely classic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1438088) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2005 7:29 AM Author: Mustard Bateful Coffee Pot Note: this turgid post was especially poorly written and difficult to get through. Was this meant to be ironic?
P.S.: I would never hire anyone who wasn't familiar with basic capitalization skills. |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 11:10 PM Author: green floppy electric furnace mental disorder What I find interesting is that Professor Leiter is in agreement with dogfucker’s observations, except as to the proper cutoff point (14 v. 17-18). I’m sure Professor Leiter’s cutoff point seems as arbitrary to the professors at Washington University and George Washington University as dogfucker’s cutoff point appears to Professor Leiter.
I also find it odd that Professor Leiter attributes dogfucker’s “rather fantastic view” to U.S. News even though U.S. News only classifies schools into four tiers and does not attempt distinguish the elite schools from the rest of the first tier. The top-14 classification is, more or less, a consensus developed on this board. Not everyone agrees, but most people see the distinction.
Further, if Professor Leiter sees no “statistically meaningful difference in student credentials” between Texas (165, 3.62), and schools such as UCLA (166, 3.64) or USC (166, 3.66), then surely he doesn’t see a “statistically meaningful difference” between Texas and schools such as: Fordham (165, 3.66), Vanderbilt (165, 3.63), George Washington (165, 3.6), WUSTL (165, 3.6), Notre Dame (165, 3.53), BYU (164, 3.71), W&M (164, 3.67), Boston College (164, 3.6), and Boston University (164, 3.59).
And surely, if he doesn’t see a “statistically meaningful difference in student credentials” between Texas (165, 3.62) and Cornell (167, 3.6), then he can’t possibly see a difference in student quality between Texas and schools such as: SMU (163, 3.75), Minnesota (163, 3.7), GMU (163, 3.62), etc.
Professor Leiter repeatedly suggests that a school’s faculty quality (and the research it produces) should define a school’s reputation to the exclusion of almost every other factor, including student quality.
If we replaced Cooley’s faculty with the current Texas faculty and made no change in Cooley’s student credentials, would it be fair to refer to Cooley as a top ranked school? Of course not! Professor Leiter does not want to acknowledge that other factors, including student quality, have a major impact on a law school’s reputation. After all, it is the students who will be entering the work force upon graduation, not their professors!
Finally, Professor Leiter fails to acknowledge that a school’s expenditures-per-student can have a great impact on the quality of a student’s law school education. His economies-of-scale argument only means larger class sizes, less resources available to each student, and a less favorable student/faculty ratio.
If Texas wants to become an elite law school, it needs to lobby the Texas Legislature to abandon the 80% residency requirement so that Texas can recruit a national student body. Texas also needs to make further cuts in it's class size. It is very difficult to become an elite law school with classes that are so large. In addition, Texas needs to increase its spending-per-student to become more competitive with the elite schools.
If Texas continues to take the vast majority of its students from Texas and continues to place the vast majority of its graduates in Texas (instead of the country's major legal centers), it will retain its regional flavor.
In short, Texas can't have it both ways!
http://www.utexas.edu/law/depts/admissions/application/quickfacts.html |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 11:12 PM Author: Exciting skinny woman Good post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1437606) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 11:27 PM Author: Cobalt coiffed gaping base indeed. excellent post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1437685) |
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 11:32 PM Author: startling nursing home true (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1437709) |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 1:16 PM Author: Chest-beating Hell >Professor Leiter does not want to acknowledge that other factors, including student quality, have a major impact on a law school’s reputation.
Yes, and not only on its reputation, but on the quality of education it offers. You can have the best faculty in the world, and if they have to spend all their time explaining basic concepts to students who can't keep up, their knowledge won't do the top students much good. Conversely, in a class full of brilliant kids, students will learn at least as much from one another as they will from the professor.
So IMHO, even if you're focusing just on the academic side of school and ignoring recruiting, as Leiter largely does, student quality matters. |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 6:00 PM Author: Azure fortuitous meteor Yeah, the student body quality at the University of Washington, which Leiter seems to have special contempt towards, is not much lower than Texas' either. (I think this year the medians are 163 3.6) I am sure it bothers him tremendously, especially in light of the fact that the UW has a %70 in-state target. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1441065) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2004 4:18 PM Author: amethyst black woman trump supporter Subject: Perfect This email is pitch perfect. I wanted to write the same damn thing myself before I read it.
|
|
Date: October 4th, 2004 11:15 PM Author: startling nursing home good job dogfucker (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1437626) |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 8:57 AM Author: charcoal hyperactive abode "Sincerely, Dogfucker" - 180! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1438704) |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 9:22 AM Author: primrose unhinged hunting ground Looks like Leiter is ignoring this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1438748) |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 11:22 PM Author: Magical Irradiated School I think I can say this much: he thought it was dumb. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1442917) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2005 7:24 AM Author: Mustard Bateful Coffee Pot Given that he is both gay and retarded, this isn't surprising. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#3985340) |
|
Date: October 5th, 2004 8:26 PM Author: Maroon Vibrant Incel Degenerate Somebody should figure out a way to switch the text of Dogfucker's message to tubgirl. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1441833) |
|
Date: October 31st, 2004 4:21 PM Author: Clear Razzmatazz Spot "TANGENTIALLY" not "tangently" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#1576155) |
|
Date: March 12th, 2005 4:57 PM Author: canary legal warrant sorry (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#2317111) |
|
Date: March 12th, 2005 5:19 PM Author: Thriller glassy pit Oh, and GTO - "tangently" is used in your study once. find/replace that bitch, because it is an absolutely stellar piece of work. If it were a woman, I would have sex with it until my wang fell off. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#2317237) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2005 12:28 AM Author: heady halford ratface (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#3984306) |
|
Date: October 6th, 2005 7:24 AM Author: Mustard Bateful Coffee Pot The link isn't working, and I can't find where he posts it on his blog. Anyone else have a working link? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=90098&forum_id=2#3985341) |