ESSAY: Law School

So, this is a little personal, but I wanted to have this on the web for my future viewing and posterity.

I am trying to get into law school. I have attended several colleges and up until last year, I fucked up my education really badly. I was given opportunities that I was too young and too arrogant to appreciate and now, I really regret the person I was and how I stupid I was for not taking advantage of them in the first place.

It's trite, but those mistakes brought me to where I am today and as painful as it is to look back on them, they were an unfortunate necessity to make my current quest have any meaning. I wish I could be one of those people who were driven by an unseen, constant force. I wish I could just be one of those people who work hard without need of constant validation for themselves as people or for the goals they're seeking. Anyway, I'm not one of those people. I do need constant validation.

I think if I make my quest to get into law school public, it might help motivate me to avoid the public embarrassment of going back against it.

Why the hell would I torture myself with law school?

So, some of you might ask, why law school?

Mort importantly, What do you want to do?

The answer is, I'm not exactly sure but I'd most like to be in public policy, and law school helps with that. Law school, as far as I can tell doesn't close any doors. If I want to be a professor, a law degree helps that. If I want to get involved in the background of politics (I do NOT want to be an actual politician), it helps with that. If I decide I want to get involved in the corporate world, it helps that. Maybe, while I'm in law school, I may decide that I actually do want to become a lawyer. Right now, though, I'm not so sure.

Let's just say it this way: for some time, I've loved the idea of becoming a history or civics professors and I can't imagine being laughed at when I apply for a job as a history teacher with a law degree. On the flip side, if I study history and try to apply for a job as a lawyer, the same could not be said. They'd definitely laugh at me.

Law school only opens doors. Yes, I know its hard. Yes I know its unbelievably expensive especially if I'm not sure that I ultimately even want to become a lawyer. Whatever. It's a good investment in the long run no matter what path I follow career-wise.

There are other factors why I want to as well:

1) Going back to school has been an enormous boon to my self-esteem. The last 18 months in school have been the only time in my adult life where I can see with absolute certainty I have been a success. I have grown to love, if not going to school itself, then the feeling of knowing what is expected of me, with constant evaluation to show if I'm doing a good job.

2) I have been a near constant disappointment to my family and I want them to be proud of me. They will be proud of me if I go to law school

3) It seems hard and I like the challenge of it but unlike the challenge of say, my band, it's an inherently winnable one. If I try my best, I WILL succeed at law school. Trying my best at my band provides no such certainties. That's not to say I don't like the challenge of my band, but it will certainly be nice to take on something that as not open-ended and near impossible to quantify victory.

4) The period of my life after I was thrown out of Loyola was the first time in my life where I felt I had no options. Until I went back to school and allowed myself to start dreaming for bigger things again, I didn't realize how downtrodden I'd become: looking forward to a life of drudgery where I don't have enough money and I can never make up for my past mistakes. Having possibilities again has given me new optimism. Suddenly I'm that same kid I was in high school: not perfect but not a total fuck up anymore, either.

I have accrued 42 credits over the past 18 months (nearly as many as whole time at Loyola) at a 4.0 GPA. For the first time in 8 years, my name has value again, I can use it to attain a better life. Anything that opens up new doors is good for my well-being, and law school opens more doors than anything I can imagine.

5) Most importantly, I owe Cole my very best attempt at a great life for her. I can't think of anything that would allow for that more than law school. If nothing else, I will go to law school because I love my fiancée.

Grades - the sad truth about my past.

"Alright, great Matt, then go to law school!"

Yeah, I wish it were that simple. I'm still not positive I can.

So here's the thing: I have 57 credits from Loyola University (nee Loyola College in MD)

From there: I have a 1.9 GPA.

Yikes, right? Yeah, I really screwed up.

Anyway, I returned to school in 2009 at Suffolk: I took 18 credits there for a 4.0 GPA.

I have since taken 24 more credits at NYIT, again for a 4.0.

"Great, Matt!" I can hear you all saying. "Surely the admissions officers will see you've done so much better since returning to school and forgive your horrid 1.9 from Loyola!"

You think so? Yeah, a lot of people have told me that same thing, and while I hope it's true, I am not planning on it. So I'm just assuming that the schools will calculate my cumulative GPA amongst all schools right now and just say that's my GPA.

So what does that mean? It means, basically, I've got a big, big hole to climb out of.

Even with 42 credits of 4.0 schooling, I've still only got about a 2.8 cumulative GPA. Applying to law school with a 2.8 will not be a fun experience, but luckily, I've got about 36 more credits to go. Assuming I get a 4.0 I will have somewhere between a 3.1 and a 3.2 when I apply to law school, which is about a B/B+ average and while that's not nearly as bad as a 1.9, it's also not very good for my law school prospects, overall.

The LSATs - my only possible saving grace

The LSATS are like the SATs for law school. They test logical reasoning, analytical ability and reading comprehension. They're scored on roughly a bell-curve, scaled from 120 - 180, with about 152 being average.

According to these slightly outdated numbers mathematically oriented majors like Physics and Economics tend to the best with a 160 average score while Criminology and Pre-law majors, ironically, tend to do the worst with a below-average 145. For what its worth, Political Science students, of which I am one, score almost exactly average with a 151.8.

In my estimation, to have any shot at getting into law school given my poor performance record, I have to get at least a 160, which would put me in the 81st percentile. And even then, I'm relying on some measure of charity from the university to which I am applying.

If I am able to get a 165 (92nd percentile), things start to get more interesting. I have to get, on average, 7 more questions right of the 101 question test if I'm to get a 165 vs. a 160.

If I get a 170 (97.5th percentile), that would mean getting 7 MORE questions right, I have some small shot at getting into some of the best schools in the country.

If by some miracle I get a 175, which would put me in the 99th percentile and I have way, WAY more options.

Don't think that much can hinge on 7-14 questions on one test? Unfortunately, (and at the same time I guess, fortunately) it does.

This website and this one aggregate admissions data from law schools and estimate your probability of getting into them based on your cumulative GPA and your LSAT scores. There is no way to measure things like your essay or interview with admissions the only other modifier is whether you are an under-represented minority (as a white, male, middle class, heterosexual New York State resident I am literally the walking, breathing embodiment of the anti-under-represented-minority)

But I digress, 3.12 GPA is just about the best I can realistically hope for without any weight being given to my later work by admissions officials given my vastly improved performance.

According to US News and World Reports rankings, the top 10 law schools in this country are:

Yale

Harvard

Stanford

Columbia

University of Chicago

New York University

UC - Berkley and the University of Pennsylvania tied for 7th

University of Michigan

University of Virginia

For those of you kids counting at home, that's 4 Ivy League schools and some of the best public schools in the history of mankind with dozens of the best known professors and alumni including hundreds of famous politicians, litigators as well as many noble laureates to their collective credit.

In other words, I won't be getting into them under any circumstance, so we'll exclude them.

Law school and LSATs, what I need to do

So, to start with, here is the bleak picture I'm faced with of the number 10 - 30 law schools if I get a 160 on my LSATs:

Yeah, so... not ideal. And just so you can see how high the stakes are here. This is the lower quintile of the US News and World Report's top 100 list:

I am not much better than a 30% shot at any school if I get a 160 on my LSATs. However, I think I can do better than that. And if I do, all of sudden the world of my future at law school looks brighter.

Here's what it looks like if I get a 165, or 7 questions better:

But look at how much better I do with those schools a little lower on the list. Remember this is just 5 points better:

Look at all that green! Damn son, I might even get some money. See, this is where I start to feel really good because the first 3 practice tests I've taken I scored a 164, 166 and a 166. So basically, unless I really let my nerves take over it looks like I've got a realistic shot at schools like Syracuse, DePaul, NorthEastern, UNLV and the one most exciting to me in that group, Oregon! Hell yeah, son, I would be a duck! Anyway, I would be ecstatic to go to any of these schools.

So basically, now comes the challenging part. My REAL goal, is to get higher than a 175 on the LSATs and I will study everyday to make that a reality. LSAT scores follow you for 5 years and when they transmit your score to schools, they transmit ALL your scores. So I have to make the first time count.

Anyway, just for a "dream a little dream" moment here, this is what happens if I get a 170 with those top 30 schools:

All of sudden, I'm not an outright rejection almost anywhere. Mort importantly, I'm getting strong consideration at places I would LOVE to go to: Indiana, Wisconsin, Davis? These are places I would LOVE to live

The last level I dare to look at, is if a miracle happens, and I get a 175:

There's a couple real dreams schools in here: first is UNC which is near my Uncle Pat and just somewhere I've had in my head for some time that I'd like to go.

The second is the University of Illinois near my sister Jessica. Third is Notre Dame, which all Catholic school kids would love to go to.

But last, and the one that almost makes me get a little emotional is that little "admit" next to Cornell. A lot of you don't know that when I was in high school, I always talked about going to college (not unlike they way I'm doing now) and nothing ever topped, in terms of emotion and anticipation for me the weekend I went with my dad to visit Cornell. I knew getting into an Ivy League school would have made my parents happier than anything and I really wanted it too.

Cornell was something I dreamed about and talked about for years and when the time came and I was rejected, I wasn't surprised but I felt like I had given up my family's first great hope at greatness for me.

Anyway, I'm trumping it up, but the opportunity to even once again dream of the possibilty of going to a school like Cornell has got me very, very excited.

So, anyway, that's that. Get 175 and make myself into a new man. It's just that simply. Now, all I have to do is execute it.

Get on my ass, tell me to study. I'm trying to go 45-an hour every night. Hopefully I can get there.

Wish me luck and thank you so much for reading this. I know it's not interesting to anyone but me and if you've read this far, that must mean you really care about me.

ESSAY: Sex and Technology Part 4: Sex and Machines in a World Beyond the Uncanny Valley

There is not a great deal of data regarding whether the uncanny valley reaction is based on social condition to fear robots or some inbred defense mechanism hard-wired into our brain. However, what little data there is seems to indicate the former:

These unsettling emotions [of the uncanny valley] are thought to have an evolutionary origin, but tests of this hypothesis have not been forthcoming. To bridge this gap, we presented monkeys with unrealistic and realistic synthetic monkey faces, as well as real monkey faces, and measured whether they preferred looking at one type versus the others (using looking time as a measure of preference). To our surprise, monkey visual behavior fell into the uncanny valley: They looked longer at real faces and unrealistic synthetic faces than at realistic synthetic faces” (Steckenfinger).

The World Beyond the Uncanny Valley

In the world of Do Androids Dream… concerns about the Uncanny Valley are obviously moot as it requires human beings with an extremely specialized skill-set to even be able to tell the difference between a human being and the ultra-realistic Nexus-6 replicants. That kind of technology simply doesn’t exist in a mass producible form today. It is, as of this moment impossible to create a face and body that have sufficiently human-like actions and reactions that it could fool most humans. “Natural human faces with abnormal visual features produce uncomfortable impressions” (Seyama).

Whether or not our attitudes towards sex with robots is based on an inherent emotional response brought on by something natural (like a built-in, uncanny valley that resides in all of us) there can be no doubt that the feelings of revulsion created by realistic robots that we are, ostensibly, supposed to feel amorously toward is the final frontier between human beings and satisfactory robotic sexual partners.

Robotocists like David Levy, however are supremely confident that crossing the divide of the valley is simply a matter of time. Levy believes that within a matter of years, robots will be able to provide for human beings a sexual experience that is satisfying, not only on a physical level, but on an emotional level as well. Moreso than the uncanny valley Levy sees the Turing test as the final frontier to creating a satisfying sexual partner

[A]s psychology and cognitive science began to consider what relationships might one day develop between man and machine, between human and robot. Suddenly it was important to think about what might happen when a robot communicates with a human on a personal level rather than merely for pragmatic reasons (Levy)

The word “partner” Levy mentions earlier is so very important when discussing these relationships because it implies a necessary reality if humans are to have robots as sexual partners, but also a tremendous ethical quandary. With obvious exception, human beings on balance prefer intimacy with someone whom the feel a connection, or with whom they feel they are on even footing. This is why, for example we have laws against statutory rape, as it is understood that a sexual relationship between a young girl and a full grown man is inherently unequal and manipulative.

Even if it’s not monogamous or a partnership in the traditional sense, many human beings tend to experience feelings of dissatisfaction and sometimes guilt when they have engaged in a sexual liaison that was not mutually satisfactory and enjoyable both physically and psychically. Such a connection with a machine may never be possible without the development of extremely advanced artificial intelligence or at the very least the development of a robot that can perfectly simulate a real sexual relationship.

[Levy] does not shy away from the details of how this could be done. ‘A robot who wants to engender feelings of love from its human,’ Levy speculates, ‘might try all sorts of different strategies in an attempt to achieve this goal, such as suggesting a visit to the ballet, cooking the human's favorite food or making flattering statements about the human's haircut, then measuring the effect of each strategy by conducting an fMRI scan of the human's brain.’ The robot would know it was on the right track when it saw brain activity in the appropriate areas, and continue the successful strategy (Trimarco)

Trimarco finds the scenario he describes above quite distasteful and one would have to assume he wouldn’t be in the minority. Thus, a logical conclusion would be that most human beings would not desire amorous relationships with a robot barring some seismic shift with regard to sexual expectations and social mores.

ESSAY: Sex and Technology Part 3: Overcoming the Uncanny

Part 2 of this series of essays can be viewed here

Sexual Robots: Can we? What’s stopping us?

“The initial forays by robotocists into the world of fully interactive autonomous robots focused on entertainment with creations as simple as robot toys robots pets, and robots that play sports. Simple electronic cats and dogs have been shown to provide psychological enrichment for humans, being both pleasurable and relaxing to play with” (Levy 9). For the time being, at least, it seems that robotics is well concerned with finding a way to provide true, satisfying companionship to human beings.

This is not a purely or even primarily sexual pursuit. In fact, one of the main uses for intelligent robots going forward may be as company for demographics that typically find themselves suffering from loneliness like the elderly, developmentally disabled or those lacking in traditional social graces. Phillip K. Dick presciently gave this scenario a face by way of the character Isidore whose primary company are the various machines which occupy his apartment and Buster Friendly on television: “'But,' Isidore said, 'it's good to have neighbors. Heck, until you came along I didn't have any.' And that was no fun, god knew” (Androids 62).

Robots that are designed for companionship and company are considered by many robotics-developers to be imminent in the relatively near future: “To researchers like Turkle, the widespread deployment of social robots is as risky as it is inevitable. With some analysts estimating a $15 billion market for personal robots by 2015, the demand for expressive machines is expected to be voracious” (Sofge).

However, while company is one question the question of sexual relationships with robots and androids is quite another.

And robots that are able to provide some measure of a satisfying sexual experience are equally imminent according robotocists like David Levy and professional technological prognosticators like Ray Kurzweil. However, providing a “satisfying” sexual experience requires more than just creating a machine that can assume the necessary positions and make the movements required to gratify a human being. “A new generation of AI researcher was investigating more meaningful relationships between humans and what… [is] called 'artificial partners'" (Levy 11). To create a “partner” or a machine that a human being could possibly consider to be on equal sexual and psychological footing, (which despite the focus on the sexual depravity of men is generally a requirement for both genders) is a much more difficult task than simply developing the robotics technology. One has to overcome the Uncanny Valley on one of the basest, most fundamentally human level: the level of sexual desire. This is no easy task.

Photo Sharing - Video Sharing - Photo Printing

“The corresponding recess in the supposed function is called the uncanny valley. The core of this explanation… will be a form of empathy involving a kind of imaginative perception. However, as will be shown, imaginative perception fails in cases of very humanlike objects” (Misselhorn 1). The uncanny valley is derived from an expository psychological essay by Sigmund Freud referred to as simply “the Uncanny” Freud described the phenomenon as being: “undoubtedly related to what is frightening — to what arouses dread and horror; yet we may expect that a special core of feeling is present which justifies the use of a special conceptual term. One is curious to know what this common core is which allows us to distinguish as ‘uncanny’; certain things which lie within the field of what is frightening” (Freud I).

Freud’s “Uncanny” has in recent times become a seminal work cited often, though, usually not in the field of psycho-analysis (Batnaes 1). Robot engineer Masohiro Mori posited the idea that if a robot were sufficiently stylized, that is, had human features but wasn’t actually human, than we would focus on those features that were similar to us and find them empathetic or endearing. However, if a robot crosses a certain threshold of realism we start to look for ways not to think of it as human and any portion of the robot which fails to meet our expectations of what is naturally human causes us to feel revulsion or fright. “It is hypothesized that this uncanny feeling is because the realistic synthetic characters elicit the concept of "human," but fail to live up to it. That is, this failure generates feelings of unease due to character traits falling outside the expected spectrum of everyday social experience (Steckenfinger 1).

ESSAY: A Brief Introduction to Sex, Technology and Science Part 2

You can view part 1 here

This realm that asks “What will become of the world” seems to belong to writers, the literary types, those who are able to conceive of expansive futures where nothing can possibly be certain. This is the realm of Phillip K. Dick

Of the thousands of thorny ethical and psychological questions that will crop up over the coming years and decades as we stand on the precipice of creating automata with truly remarkable abilities and realism perhaps the most complex is: what will our relationships be like to these machines? How will we relate to them? Will we love them? Will we fall in love with them?

Perhaps the toughest question of all is: will we want to invite them into our lives in an intimate capacity? Is there a sexual future for man and machine?

Leaving aside the (mostly) crude machines that already exist to gratify human beings now, most prognosticators of the future of technology believe that we are near the day when we will achieve a new type of sexual relationship with computers. For this essay, we will first explore the obstacles that stand in the way of our first question: “Can we?” For this portion we will examine questions of overcoming the Uncanny Valley, or that portion of automation wherein machines become too human and frighten us.

The second question we will seek to answer will come from some technological ethicists who pose the more agnostic: “Should we?” What are ethical ramifications of a sexual (and by extension for most, emotional) relationship with a machine that is designed to simulate emotions but doesn't actually experience them? When does simulation close the gap so completely with reality that the cannon between the two becomes moot?

Finally, that discussion will dovetail into a deep exploration of the psycho-sexual relationships present in Phillip K. Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? also known as "Blade Runner." While predicting the future is impossible, Dick stands alone in his ability to flesh out a world where the sexual, economic and political meld together in a shockingly believable fashion. Dick’s predictions about the future in Do Androids Dream… presents a ideas which can be reverse-engineered as a metaphoric stand-in for the types of sexual revolution that was going on when the novel for first published and in Dick’s own life, coalescing in the culture wars ongoing today.

In other words, Do Androids Dream... shows a future that isn't necessarily different from the present in terms of its cultural make-up and prejudice, but it does show a future where the specific social mores and prejudice have simply shifted. In that regard, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep may be our best and only window into a world that answers the questions “What will the world look like if we do?”

Part 3 can be viewed here

ESSAY: A Brief Introduction to Sex, Technology and Science

If there’s a lesson to be learned from an examination of the technical writings within the scope of Strange Creations it would be that scientists, philosophers, technologists and those of the literary world do not remotely speak with one voice when it comes to expectations and/or worry regarding the future of technology. The scientific mind seems to necessitate a predisposition towards answering the question “Can we?” The question “Can we?” tends to be the first consideration before embarking down the road of creative, industrious and innovative thought but doesn't, however, always lead to the most ethical of outcomes.

Logically then, the next inquiry, and the one that scientists are less concerned with than philosophers and ethicists, is the question of “Should we?” The creatively minded (like scientists) are by their very nature supposed to be less apt to stop and question the ethical ramifications of their various endeavors as economics, Capitalism, the thirst for knowledge and their own curiosity all tend to propel the scientific mind ever-forward. Ethical questions, though raised occasionally, tend to take the backburner for minds that seek progress. And what does a scientific mind seek, if not progress? However, we will give voice to those that would seek to ask the "Should we?" question in the face of technology's ever-upward march.

The third question and the one that is most difficult, if not impossible, to answer is “What will the world look like if we do?”This is the realm the truly imaginative mind, where one must weigh one hundred thousand previously un-thought of variables and concoct a vision based on estimated guesses stacked upon one another. This realm that asks “What will become of the world” seems to belong to writers, the literary types, those who are able to conceive of expansive futures where nothing can possibly be certain.

Part 2 here