esmithers1 at losthorizons

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

So, now lawyers are admitted to states without even being required to know anything about that state's laws. Good lord.

Ah, what they don't know they can just look up on Sooey.

You're so comforting thank you.

I'm glad someone appreciates my efforts.

[Burzmali]

You believe that GPA and standardized test scores are an absolute measures of a person's ability to perform a job? I'm sure my wife, who is forced to memorize hundred of trivial tidbits of information that are easily accessible from standard texts in order to inflate her GPA, would disagree with you.

[Prof]

Your various replies made me curious, so I went to the Nationa Conference of Bar Examiner's web site and learned that:

All but 4 jurisdicitons require the MPRE (professional responsibility) which is 2 hours and 5 minutes, and is usually taken separately.

The Multistate Bar Exam itself is 6 hours.

The NCBE also offers subject specific essay examins, of 30 min's each, in a variety of common subjects like Criminal or Civil Procedure, Con Law, Business Associations, etc. These are substituted in whole or in part, I assume, for the state-specific essays I faced on Texas Oil & Gas, etc.

There is also the MPT, or Performance examintion, which consists of 2 fact situations which are analyzed at 90min's each.

Some states, like Texas and Alabama, have a state specific essay or more on state procedure.

For more information, and links to states, go to http://www.ncbex.org/

[Imalawman]

You believe that GPA and standardized test scores are an absolute measures of a person's ability to perform a job?

No, of course not. But they should be a very determinative when it comes to getting into school. Keep in mind people, I'm just saying get rid of the bottom of the barrel, not only keeping the top 10%. Christ! You would think that I said only keep Yale and Harvard and screw everyone else. But I think that GPA and LSAT should be a BIG factor in restricting the law school admittance. With my "plan" (if it can be called that), anyone with a 3.2 GPA and 154 LSAT should be go to go. I don't think that is very prohibitive at all. Like I said, I just want a modicum of intellectual rigor required of law school admittees. There's so much room left for intangibles here as well baselines requirements. I strongly believe that GPA and Test scores provide baselines requirements and above that there can be a lot of room for leeway for intangibles.

I'm sure my wife, who is forced to memorize hundred of trivial tidbits of information that are easily accessible from standard texts in order to inflate her GPA, would disagree with you.

I'm sure I couldn't care less.

[Burzmali]

With my "plan" (if it can be called that), anyone with a 3.2 GPA and 154 LSAT should be go to go. I don't think that is very prohibitive at all. Like I said, I just want a modicum of intellectual rigor required of law school admittees. There's so much room left for intangibles here as well baselines requirements. I strongly believe that GPA and Test scores provide baselines requirements and above that there can be a lot of room for leeway for intangibles.

So, you believe that standardized tests are accurate measures of intelligence then? Or courses that involve memorizing vast quantities of data that is trivially available? I'm with Judge on this one, the bottom of the barrel isn't determined until long after the admissions process.

[Imalawman]

With my "plan" (if it can be called that), anyone with a 3.2 GPA and 154 LSAT should be go to go. I don't think that is very prohibitive at all. Like I said, I just want a modicum of intellectual rigor required of law school admittees. There's so much room left for intangibles here as well baselines requirements. I strongly believe that GPA and Test scores provide baselines requirements and above that there can be a lot of room for leeway for intangibles.

So, you believe that standardized tests are accurate measures of intelligence then?

For the most part, certainly. I've yet to meet someone that scored high on a major standardized test that isn't intelligent. I've met some intelligent people that had low scores, but very rarely. It is definitely the exception. I've never come across someone that scored high on an IQ test that wasn't a smart person. So we're not dealing with absolutes, but with baseline assurances. If you've got 5,000 people applying for 500 spots, you're not going to take a chance with someone that has really lows scores and may or may not be the exception to the rule. Seriously, I'm talking about a 154 or so LSAT - not exactly the hardest thing in the world to do. I truly believe that if you get less than a 3.0 in undergrad, you didn't try hard enough. So in my opinion, grades show aptitude and willingness to work hard. LSAT scores show an aptitude for analytical thinking that carries forward to the practice of law very nicely. So, yes, I do in fact believe grades and test scores reveal a tremendous amount of a person's intelligence and work ethic. Sure there are exceptions, but I don't believe in basing policy on exceptions.

Or courses that involve memorizing vast quantities of data that is trivially available?

huh? What does this have to do with entrance requirements? If the undergrad classes don't put enough information into their courses that's another issue altogether. If that is the case and undergrad classes are too easy, then we should have even higher standard for grades. I assure you my accounting classes had nothing to do with "memorizing vast quantities of data that is trivially available" (whatever that even means). Sack up and do well in school or maybe life's not fair and your career options are limited by your intelligence. Everyone is not fit for the same jobs. Intelligence is not the measure of the person, but it is an measure of aptitude for a certain profession.

I'm with Judge on this one, the bottom of the barrel isn't determined long after the admissions process.

I would just say that you've established a second bottom of the barrel. But you must have standards. Otherwise we admit everyone and have a communistic society. I'm arguing for tougher standards and not even substantially so - but enough to ensure the integrity of the profession.

[Burzmali]

So, you believe that standardized tests are accurate measures of intelligence then?

For the most part, certainly. I've yet to meet someone that scored high on a major standardized test that isn't intelligent. I've met some intelligent people that had low scores, but very rarely. It is definitely the exception. I've never come across someone that scored high on an IQ test that wasn't a smart person. So we're not dealing with absolutes, but with baseline assurances. If you've got 5,000 people applying for 500 spots, you're not going to take a chance with someone that has really lows scores and may or may not be the exception to the rule. Seriously, I'm talking about a 154 or so LSAT - not exactly the hardest thing in the world to do. I truly believe that if you get less than a 3.0 in undergrad, you didn't try hard enough. So in my opinion, grades show aptitude and willingness to work hard. LSAT scores show an aptitude for analytical thinking that carries forward to the practice of law very nicely. So, yes, I do in fact believe grades and test scores reveal a tremendous amount of a person's intelligence and work ethic. Sure there are exceptions, but I don't believe in basing policy on exceptions.

So, you've lowered the ceiling from 3.2 to 3.0, can I hear 2.8

Maybe law school is unique, but I've noticed that standardized tests only determine those that are good at taking standardized tests. In my experience, lots of idiots can do well on those tests through classes specializing in maximizing your score. Undergrad GPAs are so variable from school to school and from major to major that they aren't an easy number to use with confidence.

Or courses that involve memorizing vast quantities of data that is trivially available?

huh? What does this have to do with entrance requirements? If the undergrad classes don't put enough information into their courses that's another issue altogether. If that is the case and undergrad classes are too easy, then we should have even higher standard for grades. I assure you my accounting classes had nothing to do with "memorizing vast quantities of data that is trivially available" (whatever that even means). Sack up and do well in school or maybe life's not fair and your career options are limited by your intelligence. Everyone is not fit for the same jobs. Intelligence is not the measure of the person, but it is an measure of aptitude for a certain profession.

I was spoiled by being an engineer, when we take thermodynamics we learn how to calculate efficiencies, yields and all kinds of cool stuff, we don't just memorize the yields for all the power plants on the eastern seaboard. The level of hard-core, largely pointless, memorization in many courses that fall into the "pre-law" curriculum, at least at my undergrad university (Northeastern), is mind numbing. I understand that a trial lawyer might need to spout random knowledge like a spastic encyclopaedia, but I'd hope most lawyers will trust a minute or two of research over their memory for non-time sensitive issues.

[Trippy]

I understand that a trial lawyer might need to spout random knowledge like a spastic encyclopaedia

Hey! I resemble that remark!

(Seven years in radio journalism ... talk about brain-baking, crick-in-the-neck work. You think some people can't write succinctly or cogently? Try about half the people I worked with at any given station .... including WGN AM 720 in Chicago.)

[ErsatzAnatchist]

Maybe law school is unique, but I've noticed that standardized tests only determine those that are good at taking standardized tests. In my experience, lots of idiots can do well on those tests through classes specializing in maximizing your score.

I was spoiled by being an engineer, when we take thermodynamics we learn how to calculate efficiencies, yields and all kinds of cool stuff, we don't just memorize the yields for all the power plants on the eastern seaboard. The level of hard-core, largely pointless, memorization in many courses that fall into the "pre-law" curriculum, at least at my undergrad university (Northeastern), is mind numbing. I understand that a trial lawyer might need to spout random knowledge like a spastic encyclopaedia, but I'd hope most lawyers will trust a minute or two of research over their memory for non-time sensitive issues.

I have a real talent at taking standardized tests. Probably one of my best skills. Unfortunately, its real world applicability is pretty limited.

As for being an engineer, in my prior life I was a chemist (not a good chemist though). I actually found law school to be pretty easy once I figured out that the faculty was mostly playing hide the ball and got over the vocabulary/legal jargon issue. I definitely worked much harder in undergrad and got worse grads. It helped that I am a fast reader and have pretty good retention of what I read. Before I went to law school, a buddy of mine told me of some study (no doubt published in a newspaper read by his cousin's ex-wife) that people with science backgrounds tend to do better in law school than people with non-science degrees. This does not surprise me at all as science tends to focus on critical thinking and analytical thinking.

Another important skill that I see lacking in my colleagues is the ability to write in plain, effective English. Unfortunately, I lack this skill as well.

[Cpt Banjo]

I actually found law school to be pretty easy once I figured out that the faculty was mostly playing hide the ball and got over the vocabulary/legal jargon issue.

One of the professors at my law school reportedly had the habit of ending the final class in Contracts with the observation, "Gentlemen, there is no ball."