Logic Made Easy by Bennett | Interview

I recently interviewed Dr. Deborah Bennett, author of Logic Made Easy, via email. Our discussion follows.

1. How did you first become interested in logic, and why do many people find it difficult?

I first became interested in logic as a child, when my father used to bring logic puzzles to the dinner table. The whole family discussed them and tried to solve them. To this day, my brother, sister and I still love puzzles.

I believe that many people find logic difficult for several reasons. First, untangling a puzzle or argument like those found on the LSAT requires tenacity. Indeed, most people give up. Whereas some of us think it is fun, most people stop listening or reading the details, throwing up their hands in frustration. Secondly, being logical requires understanding a vocabulary in a certain way, and by certain rules. Yet, those rules do not necessarily follow the ordinary rules of language that we grew up learning and hear and use every day.


2. In your book, you clearly lay out several laws of logic and common fallacies that the LSAT tests. Did you write Logic Made Easy with LSAT preparation in mind?

I did not write Logic Made Easy with the LSAT in mind, but I did have the law in mind as one of those professions in which an understanding of logic was crucial. Attorneys need to be logical in reading and interpreting legal issues, but they may also have to educate a jury in logic when arguing a point.


3. Do we really need to be logical all the time? Can't machines do that for us?

In the same way that we don’t need to use standard English all of the time, we need not be logical all of the time. Our friends and family know us in ways that others don’t, and we communicate with them in ways that are comfortable for us. However, with the wider world it is important to think logically and speak logically. Machines can’t be logical for us. In fact, we need logic to program and run the machines.


4. Why are people so imprecise with language in ordinary conversation? How can we improve our logic in everyday life?

Many people are imprecise in their use of ordinary language. The rules of conversation allow for the listener to supply information. In fact, it is a compliment to the listener for the speaker to assume that not all information is necessary. If we are conversing, the more information I assume you know the more flattered you will be. At the other extreme, if I explain every detail necessary to be perfectly unambiguous you might be insulted that I am patronizing or pedantic—even talking down to you.

I believe that we can improve our logic in everyday life. We can improve our language and logic by thinking critically about everything we hear, read, write, and say. We should ask ourselves what language means and try not to read our own meaning into it. We should ask not only what a sentence says but also what the sentence does not say. By thinking about the logic of the language of others, our own language should become more precise.


Deborah Bennett is the author of Logic Made Easy: How to Know When Language Deceives You (W. W. Norton 2004) and Randomness (Harvard University Press 1998). She is a Professor of Mathematics at New Jersey City University and loves bridge, crossword puzzles, and Su Doku, as well as logic puzzles of all types. Dr. Bennett is happily married to actor/composer, Michael Hirsch.

Michigan Law School Admissions Dean | Interview

This is the 3rd post in the "Better Know a Law School" series. Sarah Zearfoss is Assistant Dean and Director of Admissions at the University of Michigan Law School. A member of the Michigan bar, she stays active in the practice of law as a volunteer attorney for the ACLU. Michigan ranked 9th among law schools in US News and World Report this year.

1. To what degree do you use the LSAT's Writing Sample?

A lot of applicants appear to make an assumption that the LSAT writing sample never gets looked at–and that’s not a safe assumption!

We use it in a lot of different ways. At the most basic level, we always at least glance at it, and that means someone who uses only three-quarters of a page out of the available two pages will stand out, as will the folks who draw pictures, or write repeatedly, "I know you’re not reading this." And I don’t mean that they stand out in the way that one hopes to in the admissions process.

For some applications, we routinely take a much closer look, particularly when we have reason to be concerned about writing abilities (based on a major or something else in the background suggesting a lack of writing experience, or based on a comment in a recommendation letter, or based on writing quality elsewhere in the application). The standard in those cases isn’t a highly rigorous one, to be sure, but we’re looking for a lack of mimicry between the question and the answer, a facility with basic grammar and spelling, and a reasonably coherent argument. It’s surprising how frequently people don’t meet that minimal standard.

And apart from how Admissions Office staff views the sample, there are always the faculty, an unpredictable lot. At Michigan, faculty don’t have a heavy involvement in reviewing files, but I would say at least 50% of those who do look at files consider the LSAT writing sample as the single most interesting element of the application materials. No, I’m not kidding. My colleagues at some other schools have confirmed this idiosyncrasy.

Bottom-line, applicants would be well-served to approach the writing sample with seriousness. You have to sit there for the duration anyway, so you might as well put a little effort into it, right? Treating it cavalierly could leave a big negative impression on a reviewer.


2. What are some changes that students at Michigan would like to see, and what is Michigan doing to implement these changes?

I hear a pretty steady drumbeat of requests for a more tropical climate, but we resist this–I have the power, absolutely, but I choose not to use it because I think it would cut down on study time and ultimately result in less-prepared graduates. I have only the best interests of our students at heart.

In all seriousness, I don’t think there are any Major Issues that we see student concerns coalescing around at the moment. If there were, I have no doubt that they’d get a lot of swift attention from the administration, which in my experience is remarkably responsive. But that said, there are certainly often small coalitions around certain topics, and when they come up, sustained attention gets devoted to figuring out the right answer, a process that can take some time.

One recently solved example: we have heard from students in recent years that they would like a clinic with an international law focus. The challenge was how to put that into effect while being committed to Michigan’s vision of clinical work, which involves considerable hands-on involvement by the student attorneys–as opposed to assigning students one small paragraph in a giant brief being actually written by a faculty member for filing with an international court, an experience we didn’t think would provide much pedagogical benefit. The answer has turned out to be, one, an international transactional clinic focusing on microfinance, which just took off this year, and two, a human-trafficking clinic, which will get started next year. Both will involve considerable client involvement, a core value, while having a central international-law component. Those new clinics didn’t come about quickly; it took us a couple of years between starting to get the requests and figuring out the best way to effect the project. But the end result is terrific, and much better for not having been knee-jerk.

Another issue that has been the subject of sustained dialogue between students and administration in recent years involve public-interest funding, and how to come up with more institutional support. That’s an area where we’ve already seen some wonderful changes, such as a commitment to 2L summer funding for public interest jobs--but we’re also in the midst of trying to think of other new, creative solutions.

And a third issue that has been consuming some energy and attention recently is the question of grading and curves. There have been changes at other schools, so some students have naturally questioned whether we should reexamine our own approach–in fact, our faculty and administration raised the question themselves, independently. But that’s a puzzle we’re at the beginning of solving, and it’s not an easy one; we have concerns that moving to, for example, no grades or no curve could result in risk-aversion by legal employers about hiring our students–employers tell us that they worry a lack of grades means a lack of engagement by students, with the result being a poorly educated lawyer. No one wants to do anything that makes it harder for students to get the jobs they want, obviously. So we’re continuing to grapple with these issues; while we may not have come up with a solution yet, it’s not for lack of approaching the question seriously. That, ultimately, is what students should ask of their institution–not that they get a "yes" answer on every request, but that the requests be given attention and consideration.


3. What are some of the most common / funniest mistakes you've seen in students' applications?

Certainly the most common mistake is sending in an impassioned essay about why an applicant desperately wants to attend.... some other law school, not Michigan. Meanwhile, someone in Charlottesville is scratching his head about why the same student is writing at length as to Ann Arbor’s merits as the ideal student community. We try not to hold that against anyone, though, and only rarely do we actually weep at our sense of rejection.

The funniest kind of mistake I see is beginning an essay with a quote that is misattributed. Given that one of the most fundamental skills of a lawyer is research, this usually strikes me as dispositive. I first started as an admissions dean at just this time of year, when a lot of deny letters had already gone out. One denied applicant, very aggrieved, insisted on meeting with me. I now know how completely unproductive these meetings invariably are, but I was very idealistic at the time and agreed to the meeting, thinking I could give some helpful guidance (even though I hadn’t actually been the admissions dean who had made a decision on her application). The first thing I pointed out to her was that her essay misattributed a famous poem to the wrong author, and that the mistake made a really bad first impression. Her reaction was outrage; she said it showed beyond doubt that she had written her own essay, and hadn’t paid a professional to do it, and that was to her credit. Certainly, the quick thinking was to her credit, but doing her own work was a basic expectation, and her argument didn’t result in a different outcome.

Law School Personal Statement Advice | Interview

I recently interviewed Linda Abraham, a law school admission consultant, via email. Our discussion follows.

1. What are some examples of successful "diversity statement" topics you've seen from applicants who are not traditionally classified as being racially diverse?

Diversity is not defined solely in ethnic terms in admissions. I have seen a background in the arts, sciences, or sports used as an effective diversity topic as well as unusual volunteer or international experiences. I have also seen disability used as a diversity topic. For non-URM’s the lessons and insights drawn from these experiences usually determine the effectiveness of these essays more than the actual experience.


2. Is it possible for an applicant to write a successful personal statement about a traveling experience or time abroad? If so, how?

Yes, definitely. In discussing a travel experience in a law school personal statement, the experience has to be meaningful and influential to the applicant. If it didn’t change the applicant in some way, forget it. The persuasive personal statement using a travel experience could start with a stellar moment on the trip, discuss how that scene is representative and seminal, and finally reveal its impact on the applicant. If the travel experience motivated the applicant to get involved and have impact or demonstrate leadership, all the better. Travelogues should be avoided at all costs.


3. Is it possible for an applicant to write a successful personal statement about why he or she wants to be a lawyer? If so, how?

Yes, but … the theme is neutral (and common). Execution counts. The admissions committee does want to “meet” the applicant through the personal statement, and if possible understand the applicant’s motivation and passion for law. So while not a required topic, it can work. If the applicant wants to use this theme, she must write in specific terms about the experiences that convinced her she wants to become a lawyer, the times she tested that interest, the particular aspects of legal practice she finds attractive, or the qualities and experiences that show she will be an excellent lawyer.


Linda Abraham, Accepted.com's founder and president, has helped many law school applicants gain acceptance to top law schools including Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, Boalt, and Chicago, and has written and lectured extensively on admissions. The Wall St. Journal, The New York Times, The Sunday Times of London, and BusinessWeek are among the publications that have sought Linda's expertise. You can find Linda at http://blog.accepted.com and http://www.twitter.com/Accepted

Photo by bobaubuchon

Berkeley / Boalt Hall Law School Admissions Dean | Interview

This is the 2nd post in the "Better Know a Law School" series. Edward G. Tom is the Assistant Dean for Admissions at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Boalt Hall). In his spare time, Mr. Tom builds, plays, and collects guitars. Boalt Hall ranked 6th among law schools in US News and World Report this year.

1. Boalt Hall received media coverage in recent months for its "Law School Admission Project: Looking Beyond the LSAT." Would you please comment on your office's involvement, if any? If your office is not involved, what is its opinion regarding the LSAT in light of this project?

The admissions office has been involved to the extent that it provided demographic and statistical information to the research committee and the dean of admissions is a member of the committee. The Admissions Office concurs with the Committee that the LSAT remains a valid tool in determining admission decisions but should be only one of many factors taken into consideration. If there are other valid measurements of success in the profession - something the LSAT does not predict at all - then these tools should be considered for the future.


2. How has the student body changed in recent years?

The student body has evolved in step with society over the years. Perhaps the biggest change has been the level of interest in our interdisciplinary options. Many students are interested in taking advantage of how Berkeley Law can train them to be great lawyers who have a comprehensive understanding of policy issues.


3. In a typical year, what percentage of spots are still open on the day that applications are due?

About 25 percent.


4. In your opinion, what's the best rock band of all time?

That is too hard a question! Too many choices to narrow it to one! Candidates are Grateful Dead, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Steely Dan, Cream, and Led Zeppelin.

Virginia Law School Admissions Dean | Interview

This post begins "Better Know a Law School" -- a new series of interviews with law school admissions deans. First up is Jason Wu Trujillo, the Senior Assistant Dean for Admissions and Financial Aid at the University of Virginia School of Law. Virginia Law ranked 9th among law schools in US News and World Report this year.

1. What percentage of seats are reserved for in-state residents?

While the University of Virginia School of Law does not receive any state funding, we still reserve 40% of our seats for residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia.


2. What can wait-listed / deferred applicants do to improve their chances, and where is the line between an applicant's enthusiasm and obsession?

Wait-listed students can do many things to improve their chances of being made an offer. First, many wait-listed students will choose to retake the LSAT in February or even June. We have made offers from the waiting list due to the results of the June LSAT. If an applicant is still in school, the very best thing they can show is a strong final semester. They should update LSAC with their final grades as soon as they become available. Wait-listed applicants for whom Virginia is their absolute first choice should let us know. I will often receive a letter or email which states that, should an offer become available, the applicant will accept it unhesitatingly. That is a powerful statement and valuable information for me to have. If I have spots available, I will look to those applicants first.

There is a fine line between enthusiasm and obsession. A single letter of interest is sufficient. Even a letter or email once a month is fine. Beyond that, I think you run the risk of being too repetitive.


3. What makes Virginia Law unique? Would you please talk a bit about the student newspaper?

Virginia Law has a unique culture of collegiality. When I was choosing among law schools, I chose Virginia because the students seemed genuinely happy. Unfortunately there is no satisfaction quotient that one can use to measure this. I think the closest measure is the rate at which a school's alumni give back. In our most recent annual giving year, 52% of our alumni gave back to the Law School in the form of a financial contribution. That is #1 in the country and a statistic that truly demonstrates the satisfaction our alums have with their legal education. Moreover, more recent classes have been giving at rates in excess of 90%. If you can get 90% of newly minted lawyers to agree on anything, you are doing something right.

Our student newspaper, the Virginia Law Weekly, has won numerous awards for excellence. It has earned the American Bar Association's Best Law School Newspaper Award three years in a row.


4. Anything else?

I encourage interested students to visit Virginia. You are welcome anytime!

Law School Admission Council | Senior Test Specialist

Who exactly are the people who make the LSAT, and how do they think? What's going through their minds as they write it?

To answer these questions, I found a survey completed by Stephen W. Luebke, a Senior Test Specialist (formerly Director of Test Development), at the Law School Admission Council.

These excerpts will tell you about his responsibilities and background:

Job Title and Principal Duties:

Director of Test Development. Develop test questions and test forms for the Law School Admission Test, a major standardized admissions test required for applicants to most U.S. and Canadian law schools. Acquire test questions. Review, revise, rewrite, edit, and process test questions. Assemble and review test forms. Review and reply to challenges to test questions. Monitor statistical performance of test questions. Hire and oversee staff doing similar work. Participate in test-related research and in test planning and development with psychometricians.


Non-philosophical Background Pertinent to Your Job:

Some knowledge of statistics or educational measurement is useful in this job, but not necessary -- the necessary knowledge can be acquired on the job. I did some graduate course work in psychometrics while working.


How You Obtained Your Job:

I conducted a search for "education-related" jobs for which my graduate study and teaching experience provided an appropriate background. I had held several such positions since leaving teaching. I found an ad for a position at LSAC in the Chronicle for Higher Education. The initial position involved reviewing reading passages and handling copyright issues, but I was quickly moved into a management position and then became director of Test Development. After some reorganization my position became Senior Test Specialist.


Personal Characteristics and Philosophical Skills You Use in Your Present Position:

Reviewing, revising, and editing test questions draw heavily on the analytical skills taught in analytic philosophy -- close reading and analysis of texts, careful drawing of implications, identifying ambiguities and category mistakes. Since much of the LSAT consists of reasoning questions, my specific training in logic and informal logic was directly applicable, along with the general philosophical skill of argument analysis. Working with reading comprehension questions calls upon philosophical skill in understanding and analyzing texts. Other skills used include the ability to see multiple readings and multiple sides of an argument and a sensitivity to issues of fairness and the concerns of various population groups. Writing and editing skills and experience writing questions for classroom tests -- particularly multiple-choice questions -- are directly applicable to writing and revising questions, although for high-stakes admissions tests the standards are much higher than those usually applied in classroom tests. The job draws so heavily and directly on philosophical skills and training that one of my colleagues likes to call what we do "applied philosophy."


Comments:

Training in analytic philosophy, informal logic, and philosophy of language seem most directly applicable to reasoning testing. The major tasks in reviewing test questions are to make sure that they are clear and unambiguous, test for the appropriate skill, and have one and only one best answer. The job is intellectually challenging and many interesting philosophical questions arise in reviewing test questions.