maximumbob

Members
  • Content count

    7405
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    118

maximumbob last won the day on June 19

maximumbob had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4921 Good People

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

1258 profile views
  1. It makes me feel good, though, I was one of elite few who didn't wash out of my economics program, yay me! And since it's so popular, I bet the ones who couldn't make it as economists majored in psych.
  2. Wow, are you trying to demonstrate what it takes to get a 130ish lsat score? Well played sir/ma'am! Its a popular major, fair enough. But, note that's consistent with the example I set out above. If 70 out of 300 students major in psych that makes it a more popular major (e.g., it's getting 70 out of 300 students, instead of the 60 that you would expect if all majors were equally popular).
  3. Not to make the obvious point, you're assuming 100% of people who take first year psych want to major in psych. Think that's plausible? And, not to make the even more obvious point, people don't "wash" out of psych and "have" to do something else. People may decide they don't want to major in psych, that isn't the same as "washing" out.
  4. No, not everyone who takes a first year course wants to major in that field. This should be obvious. People take, what, 5 full course equivalents in first year. Each one of those courses is a "intro" course. They can major in one field (ignore duelmdegrees for a second). If there are 300 students in each course, on average 1 in 5 (60) will major in that field. So 70 is roughly what you would expect. I'm pretty sure this is an LSAT logical reasoning problem.
  5. But that's a very different scenario. Of the 230 people who don't become psych majors most don't drop out of school, they simply don't major in psych. I took 1st year Spanish and, after earning a gentlemen's D, didn't take Spanish in upper year. I didn't drop out of undergrad. Totally different.
  6. I don't think anyone argues that the LSAT was perfect. If it were perfect, we could do away with law school entirely: "Hmm, you got a 179, congratulations, we're making you a "partnor at Davies". You, you got a 174, you're our new Supreme Court justice. A 170 and you have no personality? Partner at Blakes. You, you got a 165' you're a crown a attorney. Hmm, a 155? I hear an ambulance, go chase it. 140? You're a hot dog vendor. A 135? What, did you fall asleep during the test? No? Oh well, you're a partner at Cassels. It's not perfect, it's just better than the alternatives.
  7. Your partner seems to have missed the point of the movie. I don't think they were supposed to take away that the hunger games were a good thing...
  8. Right, the let's accept for a second that that's not a likely scenario. How about a 3.6, 165 and her parents are dockworkers.
  9. That isn't the practice at every school - some put a focus on providing needs based aid. In any event, you get my point - at some point you will get people who we want at law school but wouldn't be able to borrow to pay for it.
  10. There is an abundance of evidence showing that undergrad grades and LSAT scores are moderately strong predictors of first year success. More importantly, the evidence is that they are better predictors than the alternatives (interviews, personal statements, reference letters, etc.). Google it, there's no shortage of research.
  11. There isn't - Canadian law schools lack the transparency of their Us cousins - but if I recall correctly the first time bar pass rate for graduates of Canadian law schools in Ontario is something like 90%. Given the small number of schools, it's hard for them to have numbers far out of whack with that average. 'Course, there's an element of comparing apples and Oranges. The Ontario bar exam is nowhere near as rigorous as the NY bar, for example
  12. Think that through. The banks wouldn't refuse to loan money to everyone. If you have a 2.0 GPA, a 130 LSAT score and a wealthy parent willing to co-sign a loan, you're fine. If you have a 4.0 GPA, a 179 LSAT score and your parents are drug addicted vagrants (making your achievements that much more impressive), you're SOL (well, no, you're going to Harvard). Think that's a good outcome for Canada's legal system? Recall, American law students have access to early unlimited government backed student loans. That means two things. First, they can charge tuitions high enough to allow for a fair degree of cross-subsidization (typically far in excess of what canadian schools charge). Two, it means that the taxpayers end up in the hook for the large numbers of losers who go to toilet law schools and are functionally unemployable as lawyers post graduation (the number I gave above are bar exam pass rates, the percentage of graduates from those toilet schools who are actually working as lawyers or making enough money to service their debts are even lower). As many of those are privately owned schools, this means that the fisc is essentially bankrolling people selling snake oil to students. That's a terrible idea. Finally, obvious point, most American Schools don't pursue such strategies - they admit only people who they think can pass the bar. That is actually a require,met for ABA accreditation and part of the reason the dodgy private schools are being shut down/disaccredited
  13. I don't think that's right - otherwise the government would have kicked up much more of a fuss about the significant expansion of class sizes. I doubt the law schools get a per student grant. If anything, it goes the other way. Law schools make money with every extra student - which is why they've been cranking up admissions.
  14. Well, not allowing student loans would be a bit of issue wouldn't it? I don't know about you, I didn't have 16k (back then) kicking around to pay my tuition. And no bank would lend money to students in those circumstances (without guarantors at any rate) since the process of sorting the winners from losers is costly. Current admission practices translate into a very high conversion rate, making loans to the type of people who are admitted to law school relatively low risk (hence the stupidly low interest rates). And there is an ethical aspect to it. There are real information asymmetries - would-be students know a lot less about the market than law schools and regulators ("I want to be an international human rights lawyer").