About those US News Ranks Forum

[MKC]

Stating or implying that affirmative action students aren't qualified to attend the top institutions that are admitting them with discounted tuitions isn't a political opinion, it's a shitty personal one. Maybe "racist" is too strong but it's certainly a distasteful prejudiced opinion to have. As if your LSAT score alone makes one qualified to attend a top institution.

You're going to get banned for debating AA unless you do it in here.

I'm not debating AA! I didn't even start that conversation.

However, actively debating the merits of affirmative action (such as the "fairness" of the URM boost) is forbidden in any on topic forum, including this one. If you wish to debate the merits of affirmative action, we have set up a thread in the off topic forums for you to do so, which you can find here: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 0&t=178724

This includes any attempt to troll or incite a debate about affirmative action. Use caution when posting anything that gets to the merits of affirmative action as you may be banned for trolling.

I'd say stating that OP is racist for writing that AA leads to the admission of unqualified students goes to the merits.

[Anon.y.mousse.]

Stating or implying that affirmative action students aren't qualified to attend the top institutions that are admitting them with discounted tuitions isn't a political opinion, it's a shitty personal one. Maybe "racist" is too strong but it's certainly a distasteful prejudiced opinion to have. As if your LSAT score alone makes one qualified to attend a top institution.

You're going to get banned for debating AA unless you do it in here.

I'm not debating AA! I didn't even start that conversation.

However, actively debating the merits of affirmative action (such as the "fairness" of the URM boost) is forbidden in any on topic forum, including this one. If you wish to debate the merits of affirmative action, we have set up a thread in the off topic forums for you to do so, which you can find here: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 0&t=178724

This includes any attempt to troll or incite a debate about affirmative action. Use caution when posting anything that gets to the merits of affirmative action as you may be banned for trolling.

I'd say stating that OP is racist for writing that AA leads to the admission of unqualified students goes to the merits.

I'm also not the one who called OP racist but okay done posting here.

[MKC]

Stating or implying that affirmative action students aren't qualified to attend the top institutions that are admitting them with discounted tuitions isn't a political opinion, it's a shitty personal one. Maybe "racist" is too strong but it's certainly a distasteful prejudiced opinion to have. As if your LSAT score alone makes one qualified to attend a top institution.

You're going to get banned for debating AA unless you do it in here.

I'm not debating AA! I didn't even start that conversation.

However, actively debating the merits of affirmative action (such as the "fairness" of the URM boost) is forbidden in any on topic forum, including this one. If you wish to debate the merits of affirmative action, we have set up a thread in the off topic forums for you to do so, which you can find here: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 0&t=178724

This includes any attempt to troll or incite a debate about affirmative action. Use caution when posting anything that gets to the merits of affirmative action as you may be banned for trolling.

I'd say stating that OP is racist for writing that AA leads to the admission of unqualified students goes to the merits.

I'm also not the one who called OP racist but okay done posting here.

Excuse me. You used "distastefully prejudiced" instead, which isn't the same thing at all.

[Anon.y.mousse.]

Stating or implying that affirmative action students aren't qualified to attend the top institutions that are admitting them with discounted tuitions isn't a political opinion, it's a shitty personal one. Maybe "racist" is too strong but it's certainly a distasteful prejudiced opinion to have. As if your LSAT score alone makes one qualified to attend a top institution.

You're going to get banned for debating AA unless you do it in here.

I'm not debating AA! I didn't even start that conversation.

However, actively debating the merits of affirmative action (such as the "fairness" of the URM boost) is forbidden in any on topic forum, including this one. If you wish to debate the merits of affirmative action, we have set up a thread in the off topic forums for you to do so, which you can find here: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 0&t=178724

This includes any attempt to troll or incite a debate about affirmative action. Use caution when posting anything that gets to the merits of affirmative action as you may be banned for trolling.

I'd say stating that OP is racist for writing that AA leads to the admission of unqualified students goes to the merits.

I'm also not the one who called OP racist but okay done posting here.

Excuse me. You used "distastefully prejudiced" instead, which isn't the same thing at all.

Also didn't call OP anything - called that particular opinion something. Again, glad that I'm the one being targeted when, again, I did not start or incite the conversation. Chicagoburger and others did.

[MKC]

Also didn't call OP anything - called that particular opinion something. Again, glad that I'm the one being targeted when, again, I did not start or incite the conversation. Chicagoburger and others did.

I'm not a mod, and I wasn't targeting anyone. You happened to be the last post in the string. I just wanted to give everyone in the thread a heads up before things got out of hand outside of the designated unsafe triggering space.

[A. Nony Mouse]

TBF, Mark, it looks like you brought up the AA stuff in the original article. (But you're right that it shouldn't get debated here.)

[sublime]

Like merkin said, try to limit the AA discussion in here. If you feel like discussing if OP is racist or whatever feel free to do so in the thread merk linked.

Eta. Scooped by nony.

[MKC]

TBF, Mark, it looks like you brought up the AA stuff in the original article. (But you're right that it shouldn't get debated here.)

That was an editing suggestion, and I intentionally omitted any commentary on the merits of that position.

[waldorf]

At the top of the food chain, tuition discounting rewards admitting applicants who are not qualified to attend that institution. Ironically, there is an ABA regulation that prohibits such a practice. However, since law schools use this practice primarily for affirmative action students, the ABA turns a blind-eye to enforcement.

You might want to ease off of implying (or maybe stating outright?) that affirmative action candidates are unqualified and that admitting them is an ABA violation.

Well he is a committed conservative so that might be hard

Don't be a jerk.

Maybe we should focus on the OP being an awful, racist human being instead of people calling him out for it.

So you wanna be a keyboard hero now? Shut down and stick "racist" to anybody who has a different political opinion, sounds legit.

Stating or implying that affirmative action students aren't qualified to attend the top institutions that are admitting them with discounted tuitions isn't a political opinion, it's a shitty personal one. Maybe "racist" is too strong but it's certainly a distasteful prejudiced opinion to have. As if your LSAT score alone makes one qualified to attend a top institution.

OP shared an article. If you disagree, you are welcome to just simply not comment at all. If you don't like it, don't read it. Pretty damn simple concept.

[A. Nony Mouse]

However we got there: stop discussing the AA element here. (and Mark you have to have known that people would respond to what you posted.)

[rpupkin]

OP shared an article. If you disagree, you are welcome to just simply not comment at all. If you don't like it, don't read it. Pretty damn simple concept.

Yes, what a simple, lovely concept: do not comment on—in fact, do not even read—arguments with which you disagree. That's a very healthy approach to debate.

[favabeansoup]

Ooh, and your fascinating article about "Immigrants doing the jobs aborted Americans could have done." Interesting stuff. http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/richa ... -have-done

L..O..L

I mean people can be against abortion, but this is quite the leap in logic here.

[chicagoburger]

OP shared an article. If you disagree, you are welcome to just simply not comment at all. If you don't like it, don't read it. Pretty damn simple concept.

Yes, what a simple, lovely concept: do not comment on—in fact, do not even read—arguments with which you disagree. That's a very healthy approach to debate.

You can disagree but don't label "racist" and other inflammatory bs to shut people up. OP offered a good read about law school rankings, that's all.

[goldenbear2020]

As if your LSAT score alone makes one qualified to attend a top institution.

The ABA's position is that a low LSAT score alone makes one "unqualified" to attend law school at all because that indicates their low probability of passing the bar exam and becoming a practicing attorney. It does not necessarily follow, as the author states, that having an LSAT score below a given law school's usual standards makes one unqualified to attend that law school. However, neither the author nor the ABA has said anything about whether "your LSAT score alone makes one qualified to attend a top institution."

[A. Nony Mouse]

OP shared an article. If you disagree, you are welcome to just simply not comment at all. If you don't like it, don't read it. Pretty damn simple concept.

Yes, what a simple, lovely concept: do not comment on—in fact, do not even read—arguments with which you disagree. That's a very healthy approach to debate.

Also not sure how you can know you don't like it without reading it. As for "inflammatory" labels, people can call it as they see it. I'm sure it would have been really productive not to use "inflammatory" labels on, say, segregationists.

Tl;dr - OP posted the link here to get readers (which he's not actually supposed to do). He opened himself up to commentary.

[waldorf]

OP shared an article. If you disagree, you are welcome to just simply not comment at all. If you don't like it, don't read it. Pretty damn simple concept.

Yes, what a simple, lovely concept: do not comment on—in fact, do not even read—arguments with which you disagree. That's a very healthy approach to debate.

I mean, commenting on this article was pretty unnecessary.

[A. Nony Mouse]

OP shared an article. If you disagree, you are welcome to just simply not comment at all. If you don't like it, don't read it. Pretty damn simple concept.

Yes, what a simple, lovely concept: do not comment on—in fact, do not even read—arguments with which you disagree. That's a very healthy approach to debate.

I mean, commenting on this article was pretty unnecessary.

when is commenting necessary?

[rpupkin]

OP shared an article. If you disagree, you are welcome to just simply not comment at all. If you don't like it, don't read it. Pretty damn simple concept.

Yes, what a simple, lovely concept: do not comment on—in fact, do not even read—arguments with which you disagree. That's a very healthy approach to debate.

I mean, commenting on this article was pretty unnecessary.

I don't understand what you're saying. Is this your way of throwing shade at the article--like, the article is so bad that it's not worthy of comment? Or are you taking issue with the basic concept of online forums, which encourage the posting of opinions and the responses of others?

[queso]

OP shared an article. ... If you don't like it, don't read it. Pretty damn simple concept.

Actually, this concept blew my mind. Too complex for me.

Buuuuuut, if you disagree with my comment, don't read it.

(The site is political ... the piece is not)

I also love this little gem from the OP. There's a particular word that explains what he did but it escapes me. He basically shielded his obviously political post from being called political.

It's like the "I'm not racist but, ..." sentence stem.

[poptart123]

I also love this little gem from the OP. There's a particular word that explains what he did but it escapes me. He basically shielded his obviously political post from being called political.

It's like the "I'm not racist but, ..." sentence stem.

Don't care too much about the article, but I am really curious about this word. Let me know if you figure it out.

[PrezRand]

For the record, I wasn't coming at the OP. I was just making a joke about the website name. My avatar is Rand Paul....

[queso]

I also love this little gem from the OP. There's a particular word that explains what he did but it escapes me. He basically shielded his obviously political post from being called political.

It's like the "I'm not racist but, ..." sentence stem.

Don't care too much about the article, but I am really curious about this word. Let me know if you figure it out.

All I could muster was prefacing, but that's unsatisfying.

[KissMyAxe]

OP shared an article. If you disagree, you are welcome to just simply not comment at all. If you don't like it, don't read it. Pretty damn simple concept.

Yes, what a simple, lovely concept: do not comment on—in fact, do not even read—arguments with which you disagree. That's a very healthy approach to debate.

I mean, commenting on this article was pretty unnecessary.

when is commenting necessary?

+1

bwaldorf makes a really absurd argument here. OP shared his article on law school and admissions on a law school and admissions forum. He intended for it to be read. He's presenting a policy argument. This is a forum, people are free to comment both in favor and in opposition to his points. If those who disagreed with him followed his rule, we'd only have a post and then 2 pages of agreement. That's not the purpose of a forum. (Also, bwaldorf, how do you know you don't like it if you don't read it?). I could not care less about his political leanings, but I think his argument here is weak and could potentially hurt law school applicants if adopted. I also disagreed with some of his other writings, and thought they all merited discussion. That is the purpose of a message board. If you don't like it bwaldorf, don't read this board (am I using your logic right?) Also, this discussion has no doubt generated some traffic for the OP, so he's being helped by this discussion as well.

Edit: Sorry nony, didn't realize you made some of these points further down the page.

[jbagelboy]

KissMyAxe is the hero of this thread

But I truly do loathe US News. Just not for all the reasons OP articulated.

[Toni V]

Since I am occasionally asked How to Become a Lawyer and what school they should attend I am glad that USNWR is available. I keep it short n’ sweet. The advantage of attending a top ten school regards OCI ― law firms visit these campuses in significant numbers. The likelihood of receiving high-paying multiple offers is favorable (dependent on grades).

The one particular point in the article that I totally concur with is that the high/high outcome provides the leverage for negotiating tuition. Without a solid outcome, there is less hope for a substantial tuition deduction, or worse, the school takes the position that the applicant should consider it a privilege that the school is permitting the applicant to give them money.

How USNWR determines the rankings is like discussing the making of sausage. However, the debate on what school is a better choice, that in itself has some entertainment value.