Date: November 18th, 2022 6:07 PM Author: histrionic effete partner
"The woke law schools argued that many lower scorers on the LSAT can't afford exam prep courses and guides, and schools that admit the poor test takers are penalized by ranking lower on the prestigious US News list."
The LSAC already gives poors free LSAT online prep materials for one year and can register for two LSAT exams at no charge. There's no excuse for doing poorly on the test other than sheer laziness or stupidity.
Date: November 18th, 2022 9:18 PM Author: Naked messiness
A lot of them know they're fucking stupid after they they beaten down a few times, so they often stop communicating by anything other than formal filings.
When you get two of the idiots together, they can lead judges to make bad law.
They're more annoying to deal with than smart lawyers.
Date: November 19th, 2022 8:06 AM Author: gunneratttt (gunneratttt)
there is already a huge push everywhere to nomination poc judges, so they won't just be the ones leading the judge, they'll BE the judge making bad law
Civil law is a zero-sum game and an arms race that produces no good for society, so this is credited. If this diverts smart people from law to more productive careers, it will actually be a net positive for society
Date: November 18th, 2022 6:10 PM Author: avocado aromatic black woman tank
ABA’s House of Delegates has two opportunities to reject any proposed changes to the law school accreditation standards before they become final, meaning that the legal education council would have the final say.
The House of Delegates thwarted the same rule change in 2018. The council approved removing the testing requirement but withdrew it just moments before it was to be considered for final approval by the House of Delegates.
Date: November 18th, 2022 6:35 PM Author: Lascivious mustard stead
"Fellow conservative bro here, big 'law and order' guy deeply sympathetic to the 1488 -- but here's why it's actually just fine that niggers and beaners are killing and raping white people all over the country as Jews laugh, buckle up buddy I have a lot to share with you..."
Date: November 18th, 2022 8:21 PM Author: Buff becky
I know it’s some degree of confirmation bias and fully anecdotal, but this just isn’t at all what I’ve experienced. Regardless of race a TTT grad or pure AA T14 admit who clearly couldn’t break 165 sticks out like a sore thumb to me. I check the linkedins of most people I work with sooner or later, and especially for people ages 30-50 (ie the ages after WSGR went to 125k and USNWR started to really influence IRL admission and hiring and admissions got more competitive in the top schools) it’s like a 99% certainty that you can tell when someone is a TTT hustler v a legit 125+ IQ. With black and Latino people it seems the most obvious. Hardest is lazy Asians (though I love these people) but you can always tell as soon as you get them talking about something they actually enjoy.
That said I fully agree with the sentiment that there are tons of things that 105-120 IQ people do well—far better than I do them—that constitute “legal work.” But the ability to perform that work is not why firms and megacorps tend to prefer higher IQs. You keep the 135+ IQ people around for the times when something that’s intellectually taxing needs to be worked quickly, to make clients feel better about the high cost of lawyers, and because they keep the 115 IQs humble and focused on proving their worth by working harder. The times when you actually need a 135+ happen relatively rarely at a law firm and like 1/10th as often inhouse, but when they do it 1) avoids bigger problems and 2) maintains order to have a sufficient stockpile of legit smart people.
Date: November 18th, 2022 8:25 PM Author: Gay bawdyhouse marketing idea
People who don't cluster around the 99.9%'ile in practices and hit at least 175+ in legitimate (i.e., pre-2020) LSAT's are not just unfit to practice law -- they should, by rights, be sterilized as a matter of public hygiene.
one thing that's not clear to me is whether schools that drop the LSAT requirement will still consider LSAT scores that are submitted. i assume that the top schools still want to skim off white and asian applicants with super high g-loaded credentials like LSATs and SATs.
also i think the ABA requires schools to provide information about their admissions process. if a school drops the LSATs but will consider them if voluntarily submitted, does that get publicly reported?
i assume the schools are war gaming how to game the brave new world.
Date: November 18th, 2022 9:21 PM Author: Naked messiness
In practice, they're only going to be optional for favored identity groups. There won't be any regular white or Asian people getting in who didn't take the LSAT.
YLS could have a 50% black class if they really wanted it. but what YLS wants most of all is the utter cream of the crop whites and asians based on credentials -- and the best hispanic and black candidates it can attract regardless of credentials. so they have to keep lying.
Date: November 18th, 2022 7:13 PM Author: Buff becky
Seems like it’s time to really get cracking on the software/AI that will replace all the lawyers. That’s usually how our country solves a problem like this in 2022.
Date: November 18th, 2022 7:28 PM Author: Purple famous landscape painting
The ABA's ruling will take effect in the fall 2025 semester, after a final determination from the association's Hose of Delegates in February.
Despite its ruling, individual law schools are still free to require an admissions test.
The ABA's move comes as Yale and Harvard withdrew from US News & World Report's law school ranking system, criticizing its heavily reliance on LSAT and GRE testing scores that they argued hurts low-income applicants.
The woke law schools argued that many lower scorers on the LSAT can't afford exam prep courses and guides, and schools that admit the poor test takers are penalized by ranking lower on the prestigious US News list.
However, proponents of the tests fear that dropping the exams altogether may not actually help promote diversity but instead benefit wealthy applicants.
Woke school dean Heather Gerken argued that the system incentivizes schools to give aid to those who get high scores rather than for the low-income applicants who need it more.
Gerken said the current list devalues programs aimed at providing aid for low-income students and programs that encourage low-paying public interest jobs.
'The U.S. News rankings are profoundly flawed,' Gerken said in a statement. 'They disincentivize programs that support public interest careers, champion need-based aid, and welcome working-class students into the profession.
'Its approach not only fails to advance the legal profession, but stands squarely in the way of progress.'
With about 20 percent of the overall ranking score based on median LSAT or GRE test scores and grad-point averages, Gerken said the ranking hurts school that admit students who couldn't afford the test-prep courses and scored lower points.
Conversations over the testing requirement became heated over the spring, when the lack of diversity in women and people of color in law became widely reported upon.
In written comments submitted to the ABA in May, a prospective law student named Fariha Amin, said the LSAT remains the primary hurdle for her dream job.
Amin, a full-time worker and mother of a 6-year-old boy, noted that despite taking tutoring courses, her scores were still not enough for law schools to admit her.
'I would hate to give up on my dream of becoming a family lawyer, just due to not being able to successfully handle this test,' she wrote.
Date: November 18th, 2022 7:52 PM Author: Purple famous landscape painting
Why do that when you can admit more minorities who score poorly and can get student loans? Nobody will notice your prestige has dropped bc there’s no lsat requirement anymore and soon there will be no bar either. Law schools will be accountable to nobody but themselves and will decide who becomes a lawyer
Date: November 18th, 2022 9:22 PM Author: spectacular old irish cottage
So why take it and go to law school in 2023, 2024 when you can just wait until 2025 and not have to worry about studying for the LSAT? I suppose I would still take it for the prestige.
Date: November 19th, 2022 8:22 AM Author: gunneratttt (gunneratttt)
they already give a massive, massive bump for these groups? what is the point of eliminating it? haven't they already accomplished what they want? or is this just preemptive action because they know how that harvard case is gonna turn out?
Date: November 19th, 2022 8:34 AM Author: Opaque dilemma
No one is stating the obvious: the deans of the top schools are all connected and know that SCOTUS will be abolishing AA this term. The schools are just getting ahead of it by obfuscating their admission criteria so they can continue to discriminate based on race.
Date: November 19th, 2022 8:36 AM Author: titillating corn cake
As somebody who spent a couple hundred $ and self-studied the Powerscore books, it is infuriating the unquestioned lies we allow (“Rich get better test prep!”) to shape public policy and society at large
Date: November 19th, 2022 8:54 AM Author: gunneratttt (gunneratttt)
i mean, it is true. coming from a prole who boot-strappped and self studied.
but there are innumerable advantages to coming from a wealthy family versus a poor one. from quality of upbringing, primary school, etc.
but all of this is beside the point because they are doing this for racial diversity. if they went to correct for access to test prep and other economic factors than they would be balancing based on the wealth/income of parents, which is what the plaintiffs in the harvard case were arguing for. but the fact is that if they did that it would enormously benefit poor whites/azns.
the black folx getting into the t14 are primarily carlton banks type patagonia nigs that already have access to good test prep. this whole thing is a farce and they know it. all this is going to do is benefit privileged blacks who are already benefiting from countless boosts. meanwhile, ghetto nigs making it to the t14 is still going to be vanishingly low.
Date: November 19th, 2022 9:07 AM Author: titillating corn cake
Law schools admit and graduate underqualified minorities. Law firms then hire underqualified minorities. Corporate legal departments then have requirements that 30% of billed time is performed by the underqualified minorities.
Does any of that seem like a well-functioning meritocracy to you?
Date: November 19th, 2022 4:54 PM Author: pea-brained public bath trust fund
We actually require 50% to be billed by “diverse” timekeepers. Which means black/Hispanic OR female OR gay/tranny OR veteran. I asked where they came up with 50% as a target, since those groups all have varying percentages in the population and it wouldn’t make sense to think about them as some kind of monolithic group and the corporate wokester peons basically looked at me like I was David Duke and I ended the call early due to a “work emergency” I faked.
Date: November 19th, 2022 9:08 AM Author: exhilarant jet gunner double fault
I grew up prole, went to public schools, didn't take an LSAT prep course but dominated it anyway, got accepted to a bunch of top schools, became a 180 lawyer.