<p>I have enjoyed reading both your arguments. You are both very intelligent individuals with good points.</p>
<p>You ask for 5 but you only need two: </p>
<p>1) LSAT
2) GPA</p>
<p>....in that order</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have enjoyed reading both your arguments. You are both very intelligent individuals with good points.
[/quote]
Thanks. By the way, cool screen name you got there, Prince.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps 10% of my time was spent reading. No idea about my classmates.
[/quote]
I would say you were the exception, not the rule. Anyone wishing to determine how much reading is involved, should go to your nearest law school library and observe law students working for hours and hours and determine what they are doing. My observation has been that they are reading cases and legal research journals. Students not in the library are probably in the local Starbucks using the Lexis or Westlaw computer services to read cases as part of their research. The bottom line is that if you cannot read well and remember and apply what you read, you won't be good at law. It all starts with a joy of reading. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyone who goes to law school just so they can get a job is making a big mistake. As I said at the start of the thread, make sure you really want to be an attorney.
[/quote]
Can't say I understand what distinction you are making. I supposed that being an attorney is achieving a certain status, but that status derives from having a job providing legal services. I know attorneys who are working as real estate agents, but I would never recommend anyone attend law school unless that person wishes to have a job as a lawyer.</p>
<p>i would say that reading is important, but the type of reading one does in law school is very different than what one typically finds in undergrad. i majored in liberal arts subjects that involved a lot of pages of reading - i often had hundreds of pages to get thru in a week. but it was not a deep analytical reading of every word on every page. whereas 20 pages of reading in law school could require more intensity and detailed reading than 200 pages in undergrad. this was one thing i found it took a number of my classmates time to get used to -- many were used to being able to plow thru volumes of reading while being able to retain enough relevant information to follow the lecture or do well on the exam in undergrad -- that same type of "plowing" through just didn't cut it in law school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Can't say I understand what distinction you are making.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then let me refresh your recollection a little. Here's what you said earlier:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The "easy route" students are also last in line for jobs with law firms.</p>
<p>Undergraduates who are not exceptional undergraduates should realize they will be at the bottom of the barrel in law school and choose other careers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you seemed to be assuming that the be-all, end-all of law school is to get a law firm job. When I pointed this out, you defended your position by claiming that "employment" is the point of law school.</p>
<p>I still maintain that the point of going to law school is to become an attorney. That's not necessarily the same thing as landing a law firm job; and not necessarily the same thing as generic "employment."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyone wishing to determine how much reading is involved, should go to your nearest law school library and observe law students working for hours and hours and determine what they are doing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That may be true for some law students, but it doesn't follow that taking undergraduate classes that entail a lot of reading is the way to prepare for law school. As alluded to previously, the reading level of an intelligent high school student is more than adequate to do the necessary reading in law school.</p>
<p>JMHO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So you seemed to be assuming that the be-all, end-all of law school is to get a law firm job.
[/quote]
No, I am saying if you don't intend to provide legal services as a lawyer, there is no point in going to law school. Choose some other career. I am not sure we are in disagreement on this point. When I say employment I mean employment providing legal services in the capacity as an attorney whether it is with a law firm, government agency, private corporation, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it doesn't follow that taking undergraduate classes that entail a lot of reading is the way to prepare for law school. As alluded to previously, the reading level of an intelligent high school student is more than adequate to do the necessary reading in law school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My point is that practice makes perfect. I high school quarterback can throw a football, but it does not follow that he is prepared to play in the NFL. Experience in college football makes the difference in something as difficult as playing profesional football. Similarly, the more experience a student has in college with reading and remembering what he reads, the greater are his odds of succeeding in law school. The more a student writes and edits, the better his writing and editing skills get. Thus, in college, a student should take classes requiring writing. A lawyer's ability to communicate is his bread and butter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Experience in college football makes the difference in something as difficult as playing profesional football. Similarly, the more experience a student has in college with reading and remembering what he reads, the greater are his odds of succeeding in law school
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'll concede that playing football is usually good preparation for playing football.</p>
<p>But there are a lot of different activities that entail the basic skill of reading. Doing one of those activities (e.g. reading comic books) is not necessarily good preparation for another (e.g. practicing law). </p>
<p>Succeeding in law school requires certain kinds of thinking skills: Learning a large number of rules; looking at a new situation and figuring out which of those rules apply to the situation; and applying the rules accurately. An individual who can do this well will succeed in law school, even if he or she has average reading and writing ability.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, I am saying if you don't intend to provide legal services as a lawyer, there is no point in going to law school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not what you said before, but I do basically agree with this position.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyone wishing to determine how much reading is involved, should go to your nearest law school library and observe law students working for hours and hours and determine what they are doing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Obviously, you'd run into a ridiculous selection bias by doing this. Or was that the point of your suggesting this?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Obviously, you'd run into a ridiculous selection bias by doing this.
[/quote]
I am not suggesting a random sample in the library. I am saying that a majority of law students will be studying (by reading and reading) in the law library every day and every night seven days a week. If they are not in the library, they will be in their homes or some other convenience location studying and studying and studying. I am saying the "movement of the herd" will tell you the truth that law student read a lot and study hard. As unbelievablem said, the type of reading one does in law school is intense and extensive. The level of competition in law schools is often intense because class rank is very important in getting the best jobs and successful people tend to be used to competing and winning. The harder one studies, the more greater are his or her odds of getting a better grade.</p>
<p>My point was that if you look at the students IN THE LIBRARY to see how much they study, you will not be getting a representative idea of the median of law students' study habits.</p>
<p>It's like going to the gym to examine the fitness levels of a college campus. It's an absurd idea, unless you mean to use it to reinforce preexisting notions.</p>
<p>razorsharp, have you attended law school? If so, what percentage of your time was spent reading? What undergraduate classes did you feel prepared you the most or least?</p>
<p>I'm gonna guess that razorsharp has in fact not attended law school. Which doesn't necessarily invalidate his or her arguments, but I do get the sense that his or her advice is based on assumptions rather than actual experience. </p>
<p>JMHO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm gonna guess that razorsharp has in fact not attended law school. Which doesn't necessarily invalidate his or her arguments, but I do get the sense that his or her advice is based on assumptions rather than actual experience.
[/quote]
One more poor assumption by you.</p>
<p>collegeconfidential encourages posters to use judgment regarding what information they wish to disclose about themselves. In keeping with that spirit, I usually do not disclose my background. Moreover, doing so seems to lead to pi**ing contests among posters that does not seem to resolve anything. I will tell you that my posts are based on my direct observation of several hundred (maybe over a thousand) law students and lawyers over many years. My opinions are based on my legal teachings, writings, and scholarship in several parts of the country.</p>
<p>In short, please feel free to question my arguments, but please refrain from asking questions about me or my background. It is none of your business.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In short, please feel free to question my arguments, but please refrain from asking questions about me or my background. It is none of your business.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm doing something a little different from questioning your arguments. I'm questioning your factual assertions. You made certain claims about the study of law, and I asked you about the basis for that knowledge.</p>
<p>Of course, you are entirely free to refuse to answer my question. However, anyone who is reading this thread is similarly entirely free to give whatever weight they deem appropriate to your assertions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm questioning your factual assertions.
[/quote]
No, your own words show you are not stating the truth.</p>
<p>
[quote]
have you attended law school?
[/quote]
This question is about me. I made no factual assertions about my education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what percentage of your time was spent reading?
[/quote]
This question is about me. I made no factual assertions about my reading. You said you spent only 10 percent of your time reading in law school. I don't believe you, but if that is what you think so be it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What undergraduate classes did you feel prepared you the most or least?
[/quote]
This question is about me. I made no factual assertions about what classes prepared me for law school.</p>
<p>It appears that you cannot accept that someone may have a different opinion from your opinion.</p>
<p>Surely, razor, you realize that these questions were not what LS was referring to when he said he was questioning your assertions. He was discussing the interchange from further back in the thread.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Surely, razor, you realize that these questions were not what LS was referring to when he said he was questioning your assertions. He was discussing the interchange from further back in the thread.
[/quote]
Surely, you can tell that he is not questioning my assertions in his last three postings. skinner is attempting to assess my credibility by determining my personal background. His focus is no longer my arguments, but me. </p>
<p>There are many ways to challenge an argument. One is to address the merits of the argument itself; another is to address the credibility of the person making the argument. skinner started with the first but has now shifted to the second approach. </p>
<p>I suspect skinner will assert that his opinion has greater crediblity becuase of his greater credibility. Unfortunately for him, he has already revealed that his opinion is based on his personal experience and he is not familiar with how much other classmates read in law school. I would suggest his opinion should be given little weight.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This question is about me. I made no factual assertions about my education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But you did make assertions about what law students do in general, claiming that 90% of what law students do in law school is read, and, in essence, that choosing classes that require a lot of reading will therefore be good preparation for law school.</p>
<p>It's implied in your assertion that you are in a position to know what you are talking about. To be sure, you didn't explicitly say so. But still, you appear to have missed part of my last post, in which I qualified and explained what I meant by the statement that I was questioning your factual assertions:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm questioning your factual assertions. You made certain claims about the study of law, and I asked you about the basis for that knowledge.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>(emphasis mine)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Surely, you can tell that he is not questioning my assertions in his last three postings. skinner is attempting to assess my credibility by determining my personal background. His focus is no longer my arguments, but me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You made a claim that 90% of what law school students do is read and that therefore undergraduates should take classes that require a lot of reading in order to prepare for law school. You didn't provide a cite for your claim -- you just made it. </p>
<p>If you had said "My statement is based on Book X," then your credibility would not be at issue. But you didn't. Your own credibility is at issue for the explicit claim that law students spend 90% of their time reading as well as the implicit claim that the kind of reading that is done in an undergraduate class is good preparation for the kind of reading that law students do.</p>
<p>So yes, you have opened the door to discussion of your own experience. Indeed, a reader might wonder why you found it necessary to make statements about having observed hundreds of law students.</p>