December 19, 2011
-
Math Fail
I’ve seen this image floating around:
Okay, supposedly about 55% of applicants make it into a law school. Of those, some fraction manage to graduate (which varies widely by school.) Of those, this person “graduated in the top 15% of [her] class” at law school.
Let’s make a quick and dirty estimate that 2/3 of the class she was in successfully graduated. .15*.66*.55= 0.05445
So congratulations, miss. You’re already above about 95% of the population, well on your way to being in the top 1%. (Technically you’re in the top 5% of people who aspire to be lawyers, who as a group are already smarter than average and more ambitious than average.) Perhaps you should realize that the reason your perspective doesn’t align with the supposed “99%” is that you are sociologically not one of them to begin with. See, your self-righteous condemnation of protesters assumes that to begin with, you are like them, and thus you have a basis for saying they should adopt your methods for success. It’s pretty clear that was never true, so this entire exercise is a sham on your part. At the top 15% of law school graduates, you’re also definitely smart enough and educated enough to realize this, making it a deliberate exercise in invoking guilt instead of compassion when dealing with the economically less fortunate.
I can only assume that your choice of such a transparent ruse is the result of deep-seated denial about your own privileges or advantages, because there’s no way in hell you got to the top tier of law school by making self-defeating arguments like that.
Comments (6)
I had some advantages in life, but my family started in a trailer park. Now I have a MA and am a homeowner- bought my house when I was about 23. I worked hard and sacrificed and worked three jobs in college. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who don’t stand up and work hard for what they want when it’s time to do that…
BUT – I also know well that the system is biased against upward social and economic mobility. There IS a tax on being poor. It’s very difficult to get a return on an investment in college education and even being a former college instructor, I don’t generally recommend that people go to college at this point because the price is too high and the quality of education too low. Change is absolutely necessary even if it is still possible to climb out of the mudhole. It could be and should be more attainable.
boom!
You said it!
BAM!
It’s funny how things end up, though. It’s precisely people like her who get into law school, and voices of reason like yours that get buried.
First, let’s start at the bottom of “salvo” against OWS protesters- she claims she is not part of the 99%, which is clearly wrong and shows her ignorance if this were actually written by an individual. Being part of the 99% isn’t a matter of ethics or beliefs, but rather income – and she would need to earn over $374K/yr to not be included in the group.
Next she claims she has savings and working odd jobs is enough to tide her over for now. The holes in that argument are as follows – if you subtract the payments she has to make on her student loan, and then add the expenses of rent, utilities, food, etc.., she would either have to have a huge amount of savings, which means she didn’t need to take a loan out in the first place, or be living at home under the good graces of mummy and daddy, which cancels her argument of being self reliant.
The letter is clearly a ruse to point out the less desirable elements of OWS to plant negative images in the minds of other 99%’ers in a classic divide and conquer strategy.
All that said, OWS does need to step it up and start developing a clearer list of grievances that can be used for political pressure. With a sense of vague/scattered discontent, they make it easier for others to try to define them as a negative brand, such as lazy whiners.
Well said.