Education is a valued and it comes in a tiered system.  Simply put some schools are better, others are worse.  Some schools will offer you an open door to a certain element of society, others will find those doors closed.

These schools are adherents to examinations which fail to actually assess the abilities of students.  I’ve taken the PSAT, SAT, GRE, LSAT and god knows what else.  None of the tests are really about what I’ll be doing, it’s a test you’re expected to study for and frankly I’ve grown tired of the bullshit.  I would like to go to law school, I do not want to slave in your fucking law school if the way to prove myself is by wasting time studying for a test that serves no greater purpose in these institutions.  I could spend $1000 on a prep course, and given my past record, I’d score around 175.  I don’t want.  I have nothing to prove to you by slaving for a test that fails to test aptitude.

How do I know it fails to test these abilities?  Simple, you can STUDY for them.  That immediately removes whatever traits it was examining, a good test should be dynamic, no rules in stone, no logic games, no reading, nothing is known, rooms are entered as blank slates, everyone examines the questions and has to answer, any attempts to study would be in vain as questions could be any one of thousands of type.

It could be something like the diner question of how many triangles are drawn into the bigger triangle.  That would be best as an open-ended question, the answers could then be analyzed, to determine popular numbers and develop a real profile.

Another question that would be, to quote the inspirational Bill Cunningham, “marvelous” is as follows.

What year did the French Revolution start?
A – 1776
B – 1789
C – 1812
D – 1912

Immediately, you could draw an understanding of the profile of a person.  1776 should be engraved in the minds of Americans.  We had a war in 1812.  The Titanic sank in 1912.  People who fail to answer this either never learned the fact or cannot deduce things that should be rudimentary knowledge.

These Ivy Tower institutions prefer to support the status quo, which is prohibitively expensive.  Has anyone seen the services LSAC offers?  It’s a giant rip-off.  No test should be so expensive to administrate.  No website that charges so much, should be so difficult to maintain.  It’s 2011 and they haven’t figured out a way to do digital recommendations right.  The site looks like something from Web 1.0 and the schools all subscribe to the monopoly it holds.  Feels like the college board all over again.

Frankly grade inflation could be compensated by LSAT.  It has enough information to be able to deduce reasonable averages from the transcripts and assign a more accurate score.
Let’s say 20 people in School A have taken Political Science 101, 8 of them got an A, 8 of them got A- and 4 of them got a B+
But in School B, Political Science 101 has also had 20 students, 1 got an A, 2 got an A-, 3 got a B+, 4 got a B, 2 got B-, 2 got C+, 2 got C and 4 got an F
What does LSAC do?  Factors them equally in determining your GPA.  Schools don’t look or care for transcript grades because they’re mostly meaningless, in the age of Rate My Professors, few students actually challenged themselves.  I’m sorry I don’t have a 4.0 GPA.  I tried to learn.

That’s why we go to college.  It’s not a prep for law school, it’s an opportunity to learn.  I took daring classes like Chinese & Calculus, to learn.  They hurt my GPA but so what.  I got my departmental honors.  I tried, at least I can say that proudly to any admissions officer who actually looks at my record.

So point of the story is, I probably won’t get into a top three law school, that will stop me from being a Supreme Clerk for anyone but Clarence Thomas, which is probably why the law academia hates him, he doesn’t prescribe to the righteous attitude created by the system, which is inherently flawed.

I’ve tried emailing a few professors about a simple question, I’ve wondered about law.  Since I didn’t get into a school, I figured one could answer them.  Unfortunately, nobody has time for me, since at the present, I’m a nobody.  I might be somebody tomorrow, then maybe the rules would be my own.  In that time, don’t come to me, I’d help someone in real need.

I saw on blogs that President Obama would still prefer a trial in NY for Kalid Sheik Mohammad and such individuals, but as someone from New York, I have to wonder how it would be possible with safeguards of our Constitution.  The issue I haven’t seen raised in readings I have done is the lack of partial judges and courtrooms in New York.  Since the proposed courthouse is in NY, I cannot see how any judge would be able to handle the case, given that the courthouse itself was closed in the aftermath of the collapse of the World Trade Center.  The area was closed to non-emergency workers in the immediate aftermath, in a period lasting several days.  Employees, many of whom likely still work at the court, were evacuated in the aftermath.  I fail to see how this courthouse could provide any semblance of neutral ground.  The entire hoopla of holding such a trial in NY could in all fairness to the defendant, only last until the judges step aside.  A courthouse cannot as I see it hold a trial if it was part of the crime scene, this would be highly improper.

Additionally, three court officers (for county Family Court) died on that day, and many judges and employees paid some form of tribute.  Those who partook in such activities, would have to step aside for the duration of the case, to prevent any bias.
Is there any possible way for the defense to get a fair trial in NY?
Thank you,
Johannes Dark

PS – Sorry if this was a bother, I hope to one day go to Law School but in the meantime, I decided to email you after seeing you discuss the issue with what seemed like a reasonable opinion in a MAGAZINE.  If this has been discussed, it’s not in a place where I have been able to find, given my lack of access to the resources of a law school library, so I do apologize for that.
That’s my two cents.