harveyspecter993

Members
  • Content count

    352
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

harveyspecter993 last won the day on December 15 2016

harveyspecter993 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

113 Good People

1 Follower

About harveyspecter993

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

714 profile views
  1. When I asked this question previously, the answer was in sometime in August.
  2. It's the score that ultimately matters so I don't think you should be too bothered.
  3. Interesting.
  4. I just went on LSAC and noticed that my LSAT percentile for the Dec 2016 has gone up by one. The PDF report still states my original percentile but the percentile on the website's score table has gone up by one. Has this happened to anyone else before?
  5. Failing 2 classes and still having a 3.5 is quite a feat, I must say.
  6. Is that 3.5 based off both of your transcripts?
  7. When I used the word "gifted" I did not mean to imply that mathematical ability was innate. I was simply referring to a high degree of skill. Furthermore, where in this thread did I say that reading comprehension and critical thinking skills were inherent? I simply have not said that so please stop putting words in my mouth. What I've repeatedly stressed is that these skills are developed over the course of an arts degree.
  8. Quantitative intelligence is an established an accepted fact.[1] You're from the sciences so perhaps it's hard to understand that not everyone is good at math. Concerning the liberal arts, second and third year courses were the first time I had to read dense texts and draft responses to them. Such activity builds your comprehension and critical thinking skills. I could go on but I've made my point. 1. http://www.iapsych.com/articles/mcgrew2009.pdf
  9. You're strawmanning. You can't reduce what I've said above to "arts is easy, maths is hard". What I said was that success in math requires one to be quantitatively gifted. The difference that I outlined between the liberal arts and maths was not "easy and hard", it was that the latter presents a technical barrier to entry whilst the former does not. Indeed, if one is quantitatively gifted to a very high degree maths becomes very easy. Furthermore, I was very clear that success in upper level arts courses requires one to develop a specific set of skills. This further highlights the strawman you've constructed. I'll try to put this in as plain a form of English as I can muster, My line of reasoning cannot be extrapolated to maths because of its technical barrier to entry, not because of its perceived difficulty, but because of the technical barrier to entry. On the other hand, introductory liberal arts courses present no such initial barrier, however, as one progresses from first year, certain skills are called upon for the first time, and repeatedly so. In so doing, these skills grow to a point of maturity, at which time the liberal arts major just so happens to be preparing for the LSAT.
  10. I'm not really sure what your point is here. Could you please rephrase?
  11. First of all, the data I've cited shows that all liberal arts majors have higher LSAT medians/means. I did not select one liberal arts major to speak for all of them. That is categorically untrue. Secondly, I also ammended my argument to advocate that correlation, in the absence of evidence of causation, was enough to reach a conclusion. If you've missed that then I'd kindly direct you to the post at the top of this page (page 2). Last but not least, I do not believe I made an attempt to rebut your point regarding mathematics. What I will say on that matter is that success in mathematics requires one to be quantitatively gifted. If one is not so then it would be ill-advised to pursue a degree in mathematics. However, there is, to the best of my knowledge, no technical barrier preventing a potential criminology major from majoring in the liberal arts instead. @BlockedQuebecois Edit: To recap, I limited my comparison to criminology v. the liberal arts because the latter presents no technical barrier for entry. Your new introduction, mathematics, does however present such a barrier. That is why I do not think it is useful to stretch my original argument. However, I will add that if one is quantitatively gifted and wishes to go to law school then a math degree may be the way to go. I thus concede your point but only to a very limited degree.
  12. My point regarding correlation was with specific reference to the liberal arts v. criminology. You're using my rationale to make a far more reaching argument, one that is entirely your own.