Northwestern Law School Dean Daniel B. Rodriguez and his claim of Diversity Forum

[Kali the Annihilator]

What ive gathered is that bulla is a sub 160 fucktard who is mad it couldnt get into NU.

[Kali the Annihilator]

"If we can't keep up the discussion, lets resort to attacking the OP who we don't know anything about and we are just assuming." It is not usually the best practice to challenge an argument or change a discussion.

This topic was meant as a reference for future applicants.

Translation: yes BUT IM SO LOGICAL LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE MISSING OUT ON

[Paul Campos]

I can't really make heads or tails of what OP is arguing -- not that I tried very hard -- but I do want to add that certain elite schools are very aggressive about soliciting applications from people who have no shot at admission. When Harvard sends a letter to a non-URM with a 3.6 and a 167 who hasn't won an Olympic gold/a Pulitzer prize etc. inviting him/her to apply (and they do this routinely), that's a bad practice.

[Bulla]

Now we are getting trolls aiming to attack the OP. I am neither mad nor any of these non sense replies. If it wasn't for ABA comments that they file, this topic wouldn't be created to begin with but they invited this conversation.

I can't really make heads or tails of what OP is arguing -- not that I tried very hard -- but I do want to add that certain elite schools are very aggressive about soliciting applications from people who have no shot at admission. When Harvard sends a letter to a non-URM with a 3.6 and a 167 who hasn't won an Olympic gold/a Pulitzer prize etc. inviting him/her to apply (and they do this routinely), that's a bad practice.

Are you the real Prof. Paul Campos or impersonating him or just a similar username ? We see students in their 170 failing their first semester of law school at T14 law schools because LSAT is nothing like law school and we've seen 155 LSAT As 1L and it is a mixed bag of this. So those who are in their 170s but aren't in their top 5 - 10% of their class, you have your answer.

We've seen topics here times and times again about students complaining how law school is different from the LSAT and how their grades were in the 2.7 - 3.0 GPA range in T14 law schools when their LSAT score were in the 170s. We know that studying for law school is different than preparing for an LSAT.

[Paul Campos]

I'm sincerely curious about what your view is. Is it that LSAT/GPA are given too much weight in admissions? That the LSAT is given too much weight over GPA? That these numbers are given too much weight in regard to URM candidates? In any case, what do you propose as an alternative? If LSAT/GPA are given too much weight in law school admissions, or in admissions of URM candidates, what should be given more weight?

[Bulla]

I'm sincerely curious about what your view is. Is it that LSAT/GPA are given too much weight in admissions? That the LSAT is given too much weight over GPA? That these numbers are given too much weight in regard to URM candidates? In any case, what do you propose as an alternative? If LSAT/GPA are given too much weight in law school admissions, or in admissions of URM candidates, what should be given more weight?

The way an applicant prepares for an LSAT is different than the 3 rigorous years of law school. LSAT requires certain set of skills, the critical thinking ones and dissecting their language pattern. As LSAT tutors will tell you, LSAT exam is dumb, don't try to understand it but just learn its pattern. We now talk about diversity applicants and many come from different status and backgrounds such as low-income students, racial and ethnic minorities, student of color, and first generation students. We all know that these applicants don't get the same education quality and preparation others have to prepare well for the LSAT and we all know where they end up and many after their 1L transfer out to top tier law schools. 509 reports reveals it, it is the new trend. So when some come here arguing an applicant with 170 lsat is smarter than a 155, please don't give me that.

I am an avid believer that if you teach someone who is determined to succeed and give him or her all the proper tools, he or she will succeed. Why do you think top tier law schools have an online encyclopedia and access to past professors' exams and outlines compare to bottom tier law schools who do not and have lazy professors who don't want to offer the same service. Who will be more exposed to legal questions and be prepared more ? Now i know there are supplements you can buy but supplements many times are not recommended by the professor because his or her style on the exam is different.

What is the difference between a professor who may be giving a take home essay on the Contracts for 25% of the final grade and another who don't.

This year NU faculties decided to curve all their classes and I know why they did that. Before, they didn't curve classes that exceeded 41 students. They did it to show that they are at the same level of rigorous grading that bottom tier law schools does because we all know top tier law schools grade finals differently than bottom tier. Curve comes to mind. That is another reason why i saw applicants who were admitted to NU were asking 1L about what they think about this amendment to curve all courses regardless of the size of the class. Many hated it while others appreciated it. But the many who hate it, wants the easier grades for employment purpose.

Yale for instance gives credit/no credit courses for the first semester instead of a letter grade. So when many come here and say "We are smater because we got into tier 1 law schools" may be so also because you had the proper preparation and resources. I can understand why you said this topic is depressing

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 9&t=175395

You see here an applicant who is 25 years old and getting married and had enough study time for the LSAT and wants to start his career journey. This is a decision many diverse students take. They don't have the luxurious life those who attend T14 law schools. I attended my interview at NU. My bf was accepted, but I wasn't and went to a different law school but i was looking at the applicants who were interviewed and i saw few stuck up faces just by the way they were sitting on the couch speaking about their summer vacation. I don't call this confidence.

Now an applicant is done with LSAT, he or she go into law school and you find you have 500 pages of reading material every day beside quizzes, writing papers, and exam and you better be prepared for the next lecture with your outline ready. And than you find an applicant with 155 very determined to succeed and beat the curve because they are being provided proper direction to study for an exam. It is a mix bag.

Are top tier law schools serving diversity, the answer is no they don't. They care more about their Rank.

[cavalier1138]

I attended my interview at NU. My bf was accepted, but I wasn't and went to a different law school but i was looking at the applicants who were interviewed and i saw few stuck up faces just by the way they were sitting on the couch speaking about their summer vacation. I don't call this confidence.

Quoting for posterity. And for proof that this is just bitter ranting.

They don't have the luxurious life those who attend T14 law schools.

And quoting this because fuck off. You don't get to bitch about diversity and then denigrate all the students at top schools who didn't have lives of luxury before law school.

[TheSpanishMain]

Are top tier law schools serving diversity, the answer is no they don't. They care more about their Rank.

Do you think having a diverse class should be the number one goal for a top tier law school?

[Bulla]

I attended my interview at NU. My bf was accepted, but I wasn't and went to a different law school but i was looking at the applicants who were interviewed and i saw few stuck up faces just by the way they were sitting on the couch speaking about their summer vacation. I don't call this confidence.

Quoting for posterity. And for proof that this is just bitter ranting.

They don't have the luxurious life those who attend T14 law schools.

And quoting this because fuck off. You don't get to bitch about diversity and then denigrate all the students at top schools who didn't have lives of luxury before law school.

You missed it again. I am having a good life but i also feel strong about diversity and these applicants. I am also in a good law school. My bf is at NU and doesnt like it that much because the school lacks diversity but he knows he will get a good employment out of it.

Good luck resorting to name calling. Only the weaks do it to shield themselves with barriers when they couldnt have a better counter argument. U certainly wont use it in an actual court setting.

I'm sincerely curious about what your view is. Is it that LSAT/GPA are given too much weight in admissions? That the LSAT is given too much weight over GPA? That these numbers are given too much weight in regard to URM candidates? In any case, what do you propose as an alternative? If LSAT/GPA are given too much weight in law school admissions, or in admissions of URM candidates, what should be given more weight?

To better answer this as an alternative to LSAT, Law schools should provide a 6 - 8 month study period of a typical 1L courses i.e., 2 - 3 courses, let say (contracts, tort and property) and if students pass them, they gain admission to the regular JD program. the courses have to be approved by ABA and the structure of a test would be a typical law school final exam and also approved by ABA.

This will provide the following:
1. Provide diverse applicants to learn actual skills that they will encounter in a real law school curriculum.

2. It will provide more opportunities to see who can succeed in law school vs who can't because who who pass with a high gpa in 1L is determined to pass the bar exam. We won't get the controversy about LSAT scores being a better predication for the success of law students and ultimately passing the bar exam.

3. It will eliminate advantages and provide equality for diverse student body. Not every applicant graduates from elite undergraduate schools and not everyone has the same GPA for various reasons but knowing human kind, many do surprise when they are determined. We've seen it times and times again.

Also the same fee LSAT collects, Law school can collect in exchange of teaching these courses and providing final exams for them. This will not create barriers rather open more opportunities and will distinguish applicants who can pass actual law school exams vs who who can't. The fees applicants pay for lsat prep courses if they can afford it could be better paid to law school to prepare students for admission to the actual JD program. Schools can set the gpa cut off by percentile 75, 50, 25. Now you've just opened up more opportunity knowing your applicant pool are capable of passing 1L and ultimately the bar exam because they undertook actual law school courses for admission.

Are top tier law schools serving diversity, the answer is no they don't. They care more about their Rank.

Do you think having a diverse class should be the number one goal for a top tier law school?

Yes it should be a priority, the legal academia 15 years ago is different than today. Economy changed as well. You want to expend, not restrict.

To answer those who are curious about my race, i am white, french and i can tell you it is more fun and productive to work with a group of diverse minds than when you're not. It brings different experience to the table and different views that you've never thought about when you're just focusing on a discussion from a particular race or social status.

[cavalier1138]

To answer those who are curious about my race, i am white, french.

Well, there we have it, folks. Northwestern took out its institutional bias on America's regular punching-bags, the French! Has any minority group in history ever been treated as unfairly as ces miserables?

[Bulla]

To answer those who are curious about my race, i am white, french.

Well, there we have it, folks. Northwestern took out its institutional bias on America's regular punching-bags, the French! Has any minority group in history ever been treated as unfairly as ces miserables?

You know i can feed you answers knowing you will resort to attacks and trolling but i simply don't care about someone like you
You're leaving everything and quoting irrelevant parts. Cest la vie, boring you are. I wonder how your classmates view you.

[lucretius_]

That's a terrible alternative plan. That sounds like a way for ALL law schools to be more exploitative of diverse applicants.

So let's say I want to go to Yale (I mean, who doesn't). I move to New Haven to do my 6-8 month stint as a pre-law applicant. I have another 5000 people I compete with that are somehow all on campus taking 1L classes for, liberally, $500 a credit hour (money that would have gone to LSAT fees, prep, and CAS fees) at the most prestigious law school in the world. I take the exams at the end and I'm ranked 260/5000. Well, Yale's class size is more like 220, so they don't extend me an offer of admission. Guess I'm shit out of luck. Better just go repeat the same process at Stanford, et al., until I find a school that will take me.

Is this really how you imagined it? What if all of those 220 people are upper middle-class white students? This plan does fuck-all to fight diversity and nothing to address the problems of exploiting minority or otherwise more disadvantaged students. If anything, it makes it much, much worse as Yale or any other law school is now collecting $5k from each applicant only to turn away 95% of them.

[cavalier1138]

That's a terrible alternative plan. That sounds like a way for ALL law schools to be more exploitative of diverse applicants.

So let's say I want to go to Yale (I mean, who doesn't). I move to New Haven to do my 6-8 month stint as a pre-law applicant. I have another 5000 people I compete with that are somehow all on campus taking 1L classes for, liberally, $500 a credit hour (money that would have gone to LSAT fees, prep, and CAS fees) at the most prestigious law school in the world. I take the exams at the end and I'm ranked 260/5000. Well, Yale's class size is more like 220, so they don't extend me an offer of admission. Guess I'm shit out of luck. Better just go repeat the same process at Stanford, et al., until I find a school that will take me.

Is this really how you imagined it? What if all of those 220 people are upper middle-class white students? This plan does fuck-all to fight diversity and nothing to address the problems of exploiting minority or otherwise more disadvantaged students. If anything, it makes it much, much worse as Yale or any other law school is now collecting $5k from each applicant only to turn away 95% of them.

Hey now, don't go and ruin everyone's ideas by actually playing them out.

To be fair, the OP is just calling for the American system to become more like the French one (although I assume without the inherent segregation that the French system brings with it). French law classes start with well over a thousand students and get winnowed down throughout their training. And everyone who doesn't make it through is pretty much fucked.

It wouldn't do anything about the diversity of law school classes. It wouldn't do anything positive for the job market. It wouldn't work in a country where the law is exclusively a post-graduate field. But aside from all that, it's perfect!

[Bulla]

That's a terrible alternative plan. That sounds like a way for ALL law schools to be more exploitative of diverse applicants.

So let's say I want to go to Yale (I mean, who doesn't). I move to New Haven to do my 6-8 month stint as a pre-law applicant. I have another 5000 people I compete with that are somehow all on campus taking 1L classes for, liberally, $500 a credit hour (money that would have gone to LSAT fees, prep, and CAS fees) at the most prestigious law school in the world. I take the exams at the end and I'm ranked 260/5000. Well, Yale's class size is more like 220, so they don't extend me an offer of admission. Guess I'm shit out of luck. Better just go repeat the same process at Stanford, et al., until I find a school that will take me.

Is this really how you imagined it? What if all of those 220 people are upper middle-class white students? This plan does fuck-all to fight diversity and nothing to address the problems of exploiting minority or otherwise more disadvantaged students. If anything, it makes it much, much worse as Yale or any other law school is now collecting $5k from each applicant only to turn away 95% of them.

An average of 1.2k is what LSAT prep course is cost, we wouldn't be paying 5k and there could be a cutoff in how many can take the courses and the exam. Do you have a better idea? or you're just going to keep the old system as is and not try something new and better.

LSAT doesn't teach you any thing about law school's curriculum or how rigorous law school is. So you can have someone better at preparing for the LSAT and gets in and doesn't do well in 1L and we've seen many of these topics here complaining of 2.5 gpa in top law schools first semester. Why ? because they entered with a different expectation.

[yyyuppp]

An average of 1.2k is what LSAT prep course is cost, we wouldn't be paying 5k and there could be a cutoff in how many can take the courses and the exam. Do you have a better idea? or you're just going to keep the old system as is and not try something new and better.

LSAT doesn't teach you any thing about law school's curriculum or how rigorous law school is. So you can have someone better at preparing for the LSAT and gets in and doesn't do well in 1L and we've seen many of these topics here complaining of 2.5 gpa in top law schools first semester. Why ? because they entered with a different expectation.

your idea of how to solve minority student's problem of being the victims of shitty education which puts them at an academic disadvantage to affluent whites is to pit them against those affluent whites in a year long academic battle.

also, you're idea is practically infeasible

[lucretius_]

That's a terrible alternative plan. That sounds like a way for ALL law schools to be more exploitative of diverse applicants.

So let's say I want to go to Yale (I mean, who doesn't). I move to New Haven to do my 6-8 month stint as a pre-law applicant. I have another 5000 people I compete with that are somehow all on campus taking 1L classes for, liberally, $500 a credit hour (money that would have gone to LSAT fees, prep, and CAS fees) at the most prestigious law school in the world. I take the exams at the end and I'm ranked 260/5000. Well, Yale's class size is more like 220, so they don't extend me an offer of admission. Guess I'm shit out of luck. Better just go repeat the same process at Stanford, et al., until I find a school that will take me.

Is this really how you imagined it? What if all of those 220 people are upper middle-class white students? This plan does fuck-all to fight diversity and nothing to address the problems of exploiting minority or otherwise more disadvantaged students. If anything, it makes it much, much worse as Yale or any other law school is now collecting $5k from each applicant only to turn away 95% of them.

An average of 1.2k is what LSAT prep course is cost, we wouldn't be paying 5k and there could be a cutoff in how many can take the courses and the exam. Do you have a better idea? or you're just going to keep the old system as is and not try something new and better.

LSAT doesn't teach you any thing about law school's curriculum or how rigorous law school is. So you can have someone better at preparing for the LSAT and gets in and doesn't do well in 1L and we've seen many of these topics here complaining of 2.5 gpa in top law schools first semester. Why ? because they entered with a different expectation.

As I said, the $5k estimate was a liberal one based on the cost of an LSAT prep course, books, CAS records fee and application fees that an applicant may pay in one admissions cycle. $1200 is still too much to pay for what you're asking for and is certainly not enough to cover the costs of the school's resources. The dollar number here is irrelevant to the validity of your idea.

Just because you made a proposal does not mean that I have to make a complete counter proposal. You stated that your idea is a better one, and I argue that it has a litany of flaws. Arguing against your idea is not the same as arguing that we should just keep things the way they are. I can agree that the current law school acceptance system has flaws while also thinking that your idea is a bad one.

The LSAT is not marketed as a law school preparation tool, and I really don't believe anyone thinks of it as such. No one here is arguing against the fact that some people that score well on the LSAT will not do well in their particular law school.

Also, how is the cutoff determined as to who or how many can enroll in these courses and take the exams? Wouldn't this also have to be merit based? Wouldn't this just lead to another arbitrary numerical standard like a test or a GPA floor? If so, we're right back where we started and nothing has been accomplished.

[Bulla]

An average of 1.2k is what LSAT prep course is cost, we wouldn't be paying 5k and there could be a cutoff in how many can take the courses and the exam. Do you have a better idea? or you're just going to keep the old system as is and not try something new and better.

LSAT doesn't teach you any thing about law school's curriculum or how rigorous law school is. So you can have someone better at preparing for the LSAT and gets in and doesn't do well in 1L and we've seen many of these topics here complaining of 2.5 gpa in top law schools first semester. Why ? because they entered with a different expectation.

your idea of how to solve minority student's problem of being the victims of shitty education which puts them at an academic disadvantage to affluent whites is to pit them against those affluent whites in a year long academic battle.

also, you're idea is practically infeasible

Then i would change the structure of the LSAT and give actual prep courses tailored toward actual law school curriculum + an exam by LSAC based on actual law school materials + exam. Applicants shouldn't sit learning non sense LSAT skills that you don't see in law school curriculum. How about they teach tort, property, and contracts on an exam given by LSAC ? Why do you think 15 years ago we didn't have diversity in law schools ? Tuition ? No child left behind ? Student loan structure ? The list can go on and on.

An example, medical or dental schools, you have to take prerequisite undergraduate courses to apply to them. Then whether you take the MCAT or the DAT many of the tested subjects on the exam use questions and materials that you've learned in these prerequisite courses. In law school you don't have such system and any major can apply to law school. That is good but how will applicants be exposed to actual law school curriculum if they haven't even tried it ? They also do weight LSAT scores more then undergraduate major and their GPA. They will tell you it is a holistic review but just tell them in the face, it is not because they know it.

Many go to law school for the wrong reasons and those who love law school from the diversity community don't end up in top tier law schools because the system is messed up. Time and education have changed. Law schools 15 years ago is different than today and we have the student loan crisis and predatory schools feeding on these diversity community with false promises.

If top law schools wants to take a stance, then they better act on it or simply stop it with their claim of supporting diversity because what they care about times and times again is their Rank.

That's a terrible alternative plan. That sounds like a way for ALL law schools to be more exploitative of diverse applicants.

So let's say I want to go to Yale (I mean, who doesn't). I move to New Haven to do my 6-8 month stint as a pre-law applicant. I have another 5000 people I compete with that are somehow all on campus taking 1L classes for, liberally, $500 a credit hour (money that would have gone to LSAT fees, prep, and CAS fees) at the most prestigious law school in the world. I take the exams at the end and I'm ranked 260/5000. Well, Yale's class size is more like 220, so they don't extend me an offer of admission. Guess I'm shit out of luck. Better just go repeat the same process at Stanford, et al., until I find a school that will take me.

Is this really how you imagined it? What if all of those 220 people are upper middle-class white students? This plan does fuck-all to fight diversity and nothing to address the problems of exploiting minority or otherwise more disadvantaged students. If anything, it makes it much, much worse as Yale or any other law school is now collecting $5k from each applicant only to turn away 95% of them.

An average of 1.2k is what LSAT prep course is cost, we wouldn't be paying 5k and there could be a cutoff in how many can take the courses and the exam. Do you have a better idea? or you're just going to keep the old system as is and not try something new and better.

LSAT doesn't teach you any thing about law school's curriculum or how rigorous law school is. So you can have someone better at preparing for the LSAT and gets in and doesn't do well in 1L and we've seen many of these topics here complaining of 2.5 gpa in top law schools first semester. Why ? because they entered with a different expectation.

As I said, the $5k estimate was a liberal one based on the cost of an LSAT prep course, books, CAS records fee and application fees that an applicant may pay in one admissions cycle. $1200 is still too much to pay for what you're asking for and is certainly not enough to cover the costs of the school's resources. The dollar number here is irrelevant to the validity of your idea.

Just because you made a proposal does not mean that I have to make a complete counter proposal. You stated that your idea is a better one, and I argue that it has a litany of flaws. Arguing against your idea is not the same as arguing that we should just keep things the way they are. I can agree that the current law school acceptance system has flaws while also thinking that your idea is a bad one.

The LSAT is not marketed as a law school preparation tool, and I really don't believe anyone thinks of it as such. No one here is arguing against the fact that some people that score well on the LSAT will not do well in their particular law school.

Also, how is the cutoff determined as to who or how many can enroll in these courses and take the exams? Wouldn't this also have to be merit based? Wouldn't this just lead to another arbitrary numerical standard like a test or a GPA floor? If so, we're right back where we started and nothing has been accomplished.

We're not back at where we started. Either they improve and propose something better that works and provide more opportunities or they should stop marketing diversity and their claim for diversity because it is plain false. And then they speak about ethics and equality and you have to sit down listening to them lecturing us about it.

Do you see Dean Rodriguez argument to ABA to relay on bar passage as predictive to student success ? if so how will they be able to determine this for admission ? I don't see his logic here other then throwing words in the air without concrete planning. More for marketing purpose. "oh look NU is seeking justice for minority, but hey if you apply to them, you won't get in after being wait-listed because they care more about their rank. " We all see it don't we ?

I am having issues with T14 admission practice and they should be called out on. Grab them out from their shadows and bubble.

[lucretius_]

We're not back at where we started. Either they improve and propose something better that works and provide more opportunities or they should stop marketing diversity and their claim for diversity because it is plan false. And then they speak about ethics and equality.

Your black and white thinking on this matter stifles conversation and discourages innovation and change. By saying that there is an ultimatum between two mutually exclusive choices, you are not allowing for a nuanced view outside of the bound of your own ideas for what is right. I agree (as has pretty much everyone else on this thread, including the Dean of NU in his letter) that the current admissions system is flawed and does not allow equal opportunities to diverse applicants. Radical change on the scale you are suggesting is not practical or feasible. I'm up for talking about the memo that these Dean's sent to the ABA and the pros and cons of their suggestion to eliminate the testing requirements for law schools and the implications that this may have for the future of the LSAT and law school admissions in general. I'm not looking for a lecture about what radical changes should be made to satisfy your standard of ethical admissions standards.

[Bulla]

We're not back at where we started. Either they improve and propose something better that works and provide more opportunities or they should stop marketing diversity and their claim for diversity because it is plan false. And then they speak about ethics and equality.

Your black and white thinking on this matter stifles conversation and discourages innovation and change. By saying that there is an ultimatum between two mutually exclusive choices, you are not allowing for a nuanced view outside of the bound of your own ideas for what is right. I agree (as has pretty much everyone else on this thread, including the Dean of NU in his letter) that the current admissions system is flawed and does not allow equal opportunities to diverse applicants. Radical change on the scale you are suggesting is not practical or feasible. I'm up for talking about the memo that these Dean's sent to the ABA and the pros and cons of their suggestion to eliminate the testing requirements for law schools and the implications that this may have for the future of the LSAT and law school admissions in general. I'm not looking for a lecture about what radical changes should be made to satisfy your standard of ethical admissions standards.

Then share your thoughts. What is your resolution to resolve and improve diversity and what should admission do ?

I'm up for talking about the memo that these Dean's sent to the ABA and the pros and cons of their suggestion to eliminate the testing requirements for law schools and the implications that this may have for the future of the LSAT and law school admissions in general.

[lucretius_]

It seems like these Dean's are trying to make a change, and I respect them for doing so. The LSAT and LSAC are on their heels trying to adapt to the new reality of admissions, even though they are a decade late to the party. Sounds like we will see a shake up in the admissions process in the next few years if the GRE thing becomes widespread, which may, in turn, lead the USNWR to change their ranking methodology. This could be a benefit to applicants, but it could also get worse depending on how it's handled.

I'm interested to see if and when the LSAT is able to make sufficient changes to the test in order to stay relevant. I think it's even possible that LSAC is currently trying to completely overhaul the test into a new format that both provides test takers with more options to take the test (we see this already in the change of the 3x in 2 years rule and the recent electronic pilot testing) and making changes that increase the tests ability to predict law school success.

It could all turn out to be a wash, but I am definitely not smart enough or invested enough to try to fix the problem wholesale myself.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I am an avid believer that if you teach someone who is determined to succeed and give him or her all the proper tools, he or she will succeed.

I wish that were true. I don't think it's universally true.

Why do you think top tier law schools have an online encyclopedia and access to past professors' exams and outlines compare to bottom tier law schools who do not and have lazy professors who don't want to offer the same service. Who will be more exposed to legal questions and be prepared more ?

...there's access to former exams and outlines at all schools. And lower tier schools don't have lazier professors than top tier schools.

What is the difference between a professor who may be giving a take home essay on the Contracts for 25% of the final grade and another who don't.

I've never heard of any prof doing this, but to the extent anyone does, it's not a top school/lower school thing. And a take-home exam isn't the same as a take home essay. And there isn't a particular advantage to one over the other?

This year NU faculties decided to curve all their classes and I know why they did that. Before, they didn't curve classes that exceeded 41 students. They did it to show that they are at the same level of rigorous grading that bottom tier law schools does because we all know top tier law schools grade finals differently than bottom tier.

lol no.

It's true that law students aren't exposed to the law school curriculum before they get there. That's just the way it is. Law, unlike medicine, takes a ton of people into schools and then winnows them out along the way/at the bar exam. Medical schools just take very few people. There are arguments for both approaches.

No one has disagreed with you that schools care most about rank.

[Bulla]

I am an avid believer that if you teach someone who is determined to succeed and give him or her all the proper tools, he or she will succeed.

I wish that were true. I don't think it's universally true.

Why do you think top tier law schools have an online encyclopedia and access to past professors' exams and outlines compare to bottom tier law schools who do not and have lazy professors who don't want to offer the same service. Who will be more exposed to legal questions and be prepared more ?

...there's access to former exams and outlines at all schools. And lower tier schools don't have lazier professors than top tier schools.

What is the difference between a professor who may be giving a take home essay on the Contracts for 25% of the final grade and another who don't.

I've never heard of any prof doing this, but to the extent anyone does, it's not a top school/lower school thing. And a take-home exam isn't the same as a take home essay. And there isn't a particular advantage to one over the other?

This year NU faculties decided to curve all their classes and I know why they did that. Before, they didn't curve classes that exceeded 41 students. They did it to show that they are at the same level of rigorous grading that bottom tier law schools does because we all know top tier law schools grade finals differently than bottom tier.

lol no.

It's true that law students aren't exposed to the law school curriculum before they get there. That's just the way it is. Law, unlike medicine, takes a ton of people into schools and then winnows them out along the way/at the bar exam. Medical schools just take very few people. There are arguments for both approaches.

No one has disagreed with you that schools care most about rank.

1. About applicants' determination, it is true to some extent. Of course you also see students who come to lectures unprepared and they have no business going to law school.

2. Take a look at bottom tier law schools and their curriculum along with what resources they provide to their students. So that part is true. Not all law schools give access to former exams and especially outlines! They won't give you any premade outlines. Take a look at Harvard or Northwestern, they have access to an online encyclopedia with previous exams by professors and outline. You don't get that system, especially in bottom tier law schools. They want to screw your grades to prevent high transfer out rates. Take a look at John Marshall Law School Chicago 509 report and their attrition rate for 1L and 2L. That is just one example out of many.

So in 2016 they matriculated 282 students, they academically attributed 41 students (1L + 2L) while 31 transferred out by 2L. I also wonder what are they doing so that 0 transfer out in 1L. Must be something about their system. You see some bottom tier law schools violation ABA standard by academically attriting more than 20% of their students in a year, so they figured, lets spread them across 2 years or even 3.

https://www.jmls.edu/consumer-informati ... mation.pdf

3. Yes bottom tier law schools have some lazy professors, may be i was too general but they do have lazy professors.

4. Some professors do and friends i have at a different law school had their professor give 1 final exam for Contracts, it was not a take home exam. It was the standard 3 hours final. While another section, the professor preferred to give a group essay worth 25% of the final exam and the final exam was just multiple choice without any writings. That was messed up.

[RedPurpleBlue]

I have no clue why all of you are taking the bait on this one. OP is clearly daft and not open to incredibly basic reasoning. Let this sucker die, because it's not going anywhere.

[Bulla]

I have no clue why all of you are taking the bait on this one. OP is clearly daft and not open to incredibly basic reasoning. Let this sucker die, because it's not going anywhere.

Go away if you don't have any thing better to say.

[Jclubb]

They want to screw your grades to prevent high transfer out rates.

If all law schools grade on a curve (im not sure they do but I believe at least most do) then how is this possible. Nobody in the lower tiered school without the outline bank would have an advantage in that school. Everyone has the same resources provided at their particular school as their classmates. Then grades are based on a curve. So then you end up with some people with a high gpa, some with a mediocre gpa, and some with a low gpa. I do not see how a lower tiered school could screw you out of your grades to prevent transfers. There will inevitably be people with high grades that are able to transfer if they wish simply due to the fact that there is a curve. The curve does not put people with outline banks against those without. If you get a low gpa at a school without an outline bank it's not due to the lack of an outline bank. It's due to the fact that the others in your class (also with no access to an outline bank) performed better than you.

Also while the lsat does not perfectly predict law school success, there is enough of a correlation to say that at least part of the reason too law schools have higher bar passage rates is because their students are on average better equipped for law school before entering and it cannot be entirely blamed on worse professors and lower ranked schools.

The lsat and gpa numbers are not perfect. But they're the best predictors they currently have and that's why they are used.

Also I am one of those admitted to a top school without living a life of luxury. I find it someone demeaning to say that a first generation student cannot score high enough to get into good schools. I am first gen and scored well on the lsat without taking a practice course while also having a job.

As for diversity, I think law schools do make an attempt to accept a diverse class. That's why urms can beat their numbers. Numbers don't drive everything during admissions however I will say they matter a lot. I do not see a problem with a school trying to build a diverse class of elite students. Meaning taking high scores from those that did well from a variety of backgrounds. Diversity of Lsat does not equal diversity.