This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Good by what metric? I certainly wouldn't want to try to go into law with a score like that, like it sounds like his new plan was. You're not competing with most of the population, what their scores would have been doesn't matter at all.
In Sweden such a score means you can barely squeeze into one of the less popular engineering programs. It isn't bad but it certainly isn't good either.
A formula that I've seen says LSAT = (0.048 * SAT) + 100, which would suggest a 1400 SAT corresponds to roughly a 167 LSAT. Probably not enough AFAIK to get you into a top 20 program, but I think you could find a law school willing to take you.
Though I'd guess you're likely to end up on the unfortunate end of the bimodal distribution.
Counterpoint: my 1380 SAT score translated to a 177 LSAT and admission to multiple T-14 law schools. I still ended up on the unfortunate end of the bimodal distribution, but that's because I did too well on the LSAT, if anything. Punching above my weight on the standardized test meant I may have been just as smart as my classmates, but I was a much worse student with much less developed soft skills. It wasn't the not quite smart enough students who struggled. Outside of a couple courses like fed courts, nothing you're learning is that complex compared to other academic disciplines. It was the students like me who lacked good study habits, institutional knowledge, amd networking skills who had a rough time.
I would say that a mid-160s LSAT is perfectly acceptable for admission at any number of regionally well respected law schools from which one can get a decently high paying job at a mid-size law firm or local biglaw branch (assuming you can stay in the top half/third of the class, which is definitely doable with a 1400-SAT-level IQ). You're not going to be a professor, clerk for a Supreme Court Justice, or get a cushy $200k gig right out of law school, but most of the profession is still open to you. Unless you live in a major metropolis, more than half of your local DAs probably scored under 1400 on their SATs (and that's not even counting the DEI hires)
Ah, the gifted kid paradox. Everything in the early years is easy, so you don't develop study skills and grit, and then when you face something actually tough it crushes you.
(Also, AMD networking skills are extremely important -- how are you going to succeed if you can't connect your Ryzen gaming beast to the internet for studying? :P)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Exactly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link