Skip to first unread message
Vince Koloski
Aug 21, 2015, 12:00:59 AM8/21/15
to Ipse Dixit
I read an article on Bloomberg entitled "Are Lawyers Getting Dumber?" It is an interesting article which seems believe they are based of the percentage of failure of students taking the bar exam. Much arguing ensues as might be expected from lawyers and law school deans and professors. The fun part it the short test giving 10 example bar exam questions you can take to see how you stack up. While I took the test, I refuse to reveal my results lest I be accused of a: smug neener-neener behaviour resulting from a high score said smugness to which I refuse to admit; or b: the conclusion that I am a moron when it comes to the law as supported by my low score to which I also refuse to admit. The questions are interesting in that they reinforce the notion that the legal system has little to do with what might be considered "right" or "just" but rather who is best at knowing the rules and playing the game.
Matt Fish
Aug 22, 2015, 11:30:00 PM8/22/15
to Vince Koloski, Ipse Dixit
I enjoyed taking that short test. Like Vince, I will not reveal my final score. It will be interesting to read about how the July 2015 batch of students do on the bar exam. My guess is that a downward trend is more likely than not.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:01 PM Vince Koloski <vkst...@gmail.com> wrote:
I read an article on Bloomberg entitled "Are Lawyers Getting Dumber?" It is an interesting article which seems believe they are based of the percentage of failure of students taking the bar exam. Much arguing ensues as might be expected from lawyers and law school deans and professors. The fun part it the short test giving 10 example bar exam questions you can take to see how you stack up. While I took the test, I refuse to reveal my results lest I be accused of a: smug neener-neener behaviour resulting from a high score said smugness to which I refuse to admit; or b: the conclusion that I am a moron when it comes to the law as supported by my low score to which I also refuse to admit. The questions are interesting in that they reinforce the notion that the legal system has little to do with what might be considered "right" or "just" but rather who is best at knowing the rules and playing the game.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/d22c4c42-c7bd-4291-94ad-3a3a7ea5231c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Scott Hotes
Aug 23, 2015, 4:02:24 AM8/23/15
to Vince Koloski, Ipse Dixit
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Vince Koloski <vkst...@gmail.com> wrote:
I read an article on Bloomberg entitled "Are Lawyers Getting Dumber?" It is an interesting article which seems believe they are based of the percentage of failure of students taking the bar exam.
Many fear that the problem is a lot more broad than just law students. No doubt measuring "general intelligence" and thus detecting trends, is fraught with potential pitfalls. But at least one metric worth looking at is working vocabulary.
According to this article (I tried to find better data, but this is the best I could find with a 5 min. Google search), the working vocabulary of the average American teen is roughly half of what it was in the 50's. One factor people commonly point to is that kids are reading less. TV and video games are part of the problem (yes, I'm more than OK referring to this pejoratively, perhaps there is an argument in there worth having...)
But does it really matter? Is it possible that displacing reading, and more broadly the act and ability to concentrate for extended periods on abstract ideas, with something more "interactive" is more correctly described as an "evolution" in the way we think, and not simply an obvious "decline" in thinking? Or does mastery of the language truly translate into a better ability to think? Orwell thought so:
"The English Language becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell
Or consider the content of TV talk shows. The following is mostly anecdotal, but I think it's relevant. Probably the most "erudite" show with relatively broad appeal is 60 minutes (even that's a relic with a shrinking audience.) Forget for a minute the actual material (although that is also worth considering), but instead focus on the level of discourse. The material is packaged at what one would have to consider a middle school audience. As an example, I looked around for something recent, the following does get into some interesting questions about personal privacy and the role of government, but again, consider the level of discourse:
Now, take a look at this 1959 Mike Wallace interview with Ayn Rand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k
Or this 1959 interview with Rod Serling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpKkHCVbSyw
Would they put this kind of thing on the air today? No doubt there are people who try. For example, Amy Goodman with the "War and Peace Report", but I can only imagine what viewership that kind of show has, and how narrow the audience.
Scott
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages