4.0/LSAT 176

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
jroland
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:01 pm

4.0/LSAT 176

Postby jroland » Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:31 am

Hey guys. I'm a junior with a 4.0 GPA and 176 LSAT. Philosophy/English major. Decent softs-fraternity treasurer, orientation leader, that sort of thing. Harvard a possibility?

Thanks in advance.

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby Kohinoor » Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:32 am

You'll get in. Grats.

SandyC877
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:27 am

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby SandyC877 » Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:32 am

it is a possibility. have a good night and sweet dreams.

Credit
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:16 pm

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby Credit » Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:32 am

Without a doubt.

APimpNamedSlickback
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:33 am

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby APimpNamedSlickback » Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:34 am

jroland wrote:Hey guys. I'm a junior with a 4.0 GPA and 176 LSAT. Philosophy/English major. Decent softs-fraternity treasurer, orientation leader, that sort of thing. Harvard a possibility?

Thanks in advance.


if you don't get into harvard, everyone else should just withdraw their apps and call it a day because clearly they won't be admitting anyone
Last edited by APimpNamedSlickback on Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:34 am

Apply to HYS and you will likely get into 2 of them, if not all 3.

jroland
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby jroland » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:11 am

Thanks a lot. I'm a little less nervous.

User avatar
atlantalaw
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:37 am

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby atlantalaw » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:13 am

congrats on rocking at life.

knola002
Posts: 176
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 1:36 am

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby knola002 » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:14 am

Numbers twin. I've applied, I can let you know how it goes. I hope for both our sakes the other posts are right.

lawoftheland
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby lawoftheland » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:17 am

jroland wrote:Thanks a lot. I'm a little less nervous.


Potential flame participation:

Umm, hypothetically speaking and assuming one has a 4.0/176, wouldn't they also be able to handle researching the probability of entrance into H-Law based on these figures? Wouldn't they have created a TLS account with more than 2 posts prior to the original inquiry as well? Interesting.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby Ragged » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:19 am

jroland wrote:Thanks a lot. I'm a little less nervous.



:? right.... hard to take you seriously with comments like that.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:19 am

lawoftheland wrote:
jroland wrote:Thanks a lot. I'm a little less nervous.


Potential flame participation:

Umm, hypothetically speaking and assuming one has a 4.0/176, wouldn't they also be able to handle researching the probability of entrance into H-Law based on these figures? Wouldn't they have created a TLS account with more than 2 posts prior to the original inquiry as well? Interesting.


I got a 170 LSAT and was still applying to and focusing on TTT schools because of my low GPA when I joined TLS. I seriously thought I was reaching by trying to go to schools like Cardozo or Brooklyn. Everyone can be insecure and clueless at times, even the highly successful.

lawoftheland
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby lawoftheland » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:23 am

vanwinkle wrote:
lawoftheland wrote:
jroland wrote:Thanks a lot. I'm a little less nervous.


Potential flame participation:

Umm, hypothetically speaking and assuming one has a 4.0/176, wouldn't they also be able to handle researching the probability of entrance into H-Law based on these figures? Wouldn't they have created a TLS account with more than 2 posts prior to the original inquiry as well? Interesting.


I got a 170 LSAT and was still applying to and focusing on TTT schools because of my low GPA when I joined TLS. I seriously thought I was reaching by trying to go to schools like Cardozo or Brooklyn. Everyone can be insecure and clueless at times, even the highly successful.


Vanwinkle.... you're suspect. You're part of the flame-creation cartel, aren't you? Tell me this, where were you on January 5th, 2010, 12:11am eastern time? ;) Jajajaja... I joke. Anything's possible.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby DoubleChecks » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:24 am

vanwinkle wrote:
lawoftheland wrote:
jroland wrote:Thanks a lot. I'm a little less nervous.


Potential flame participation:

Umm, hypothetically speaking and assuming one has a 4.0/176, wouldn't they also be able to handle researching the probability of entrance into H-Law based on these figures? Wouldn't they have created a TLS account with more than 2 posts prior to the original inquiry as well? Interesting.


I got a 170 LSAT and was still applying to and focusing on TTT schools because of my low GPA when I joined TLS. I seriously thought I was reaching by trying to go to schools like Cardozo or Brooklyn. Everyone can be insecure and clueless at times, even the highly successful.


your situation is a lot more complex and forgivable than a guy w/ a PERFECT GPA and NEAR perfect LSAT score lol

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:26 am

DoubleChecks wrote:your situation is a lot more complex and forgivable than a guy w/ a PERFECT GPA and NEAR perfect LSAT score lol


Yeah, but that guy also probably didn't know that law school is such a raw numbers game as it is. Or maybe he thought there were a shit-ton of other people out there with 4.0s and 176s he was competing with. People don't know what to expect in the beginning, even the things we consider obvious now.

I'm good at sympathizing with ignorance, understanding it very well myself.

User avatar
Ragged
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby Ragged » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:32 am

vanwinkle wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:your situation is a lot more complex and forgivable than a guy w/ a PERFECT GPA and NEAR perfect LSAT score lol


Yeah, but that guy also probably didn't know that law school is such a raw numbers game as it is. Or maybe he thought there were a shit-ton of other people out there with 4.0s and 176s he was competing with. People don't know what to expect in the beginning, even the things we consider obvious now.

I'm good at sympathizing with ignorance, understanding it very well myself.



Maybe.

I knew that 175+ was a kickass score for any school long before I took the LSAT. Its hard to beleive that someone who worked so hard to get stats of OP's caliber would not know it and is "nervous" on account of having 4.0/176.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby DoubleChecks » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:32 am

vanwinkle wrote:
DoubleChecks wrote:your situation is a lot more complex and forgivable than a guy w/ a PERFECT GPA and NEAR perfect LSAT score lol


Yeah, but that guy also probably didn't know that law school is such a raw numbers game as it is. Or maybe he thought there were a shit-ton of other people out there with 4.0s and 176s he was competing with. People don't know what to expect in the beginning, even the things we consider obvious now.

I'm good at sympathizing with ignorance, understanding it very well myself.


iunno just all the things that would have had to have happened up to his post are so suspect...i call flame 3:1 odds

he would have to be studious enough to get a 4.0...smart (and/or determined) enough to get a 176...knowledgeable enough to know HLS is a reasonable/top goal (instead of say Princeton Law)...resourceful enough to find this site...yet dumb enough/lazy enough/not resourceful enough to even browse this site or any other source for basic info that'd answer his question (hundreds of threads, HLS website, lawschoolpredictor.com, etc.)...

and his question ends up being...is harvard a possibility w/ near perfect numbers? lol <that bit just needs common sense>

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:35 am

DoubleChecks wrote:and his question ends up being...is harvard a possibility w/ near perfect numbers? lol <that bit just needs common sense>


Maybe he got rejected from Harvard as an undergrad and is really suspicious of his chances there now. *shrugs*

If it were a troll I'd like to think it'd be a lot more creative/interesting than that. It just smacks too much of ordinary human insecurity to me.

lawoftheland
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby lawoftheland » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:38 am

i call flame 3:1 odds


It's nice to see some reasonable scepticism here... I'd seriously start questioning the bs-meters (isn't that essential for law?) of the average TLS'er if everyone's default was to believe this type of nonsense with 100% confidence. With that said, I'm pegging the flame odds at 20:1.

User avatar
atlantalaw
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:37 am

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby atlantalaw » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:53 am

this is what is silly about tls. posters will spend pages debating whether an op is a flame instead of just answering a basic question and moving on.
1. if op is a flame, he isn't a good one. he didn't even say he was a urm or something to make the post controversial.
2. what large numbers of people are bored enough to come onto a law school website and make up an account just to post a few threads? if i weren't applying to law school, i guarantee i never would stumble across this site on the interwebz. i'd be searching for something cool, like skydiving. law school admissions isn't exactly exciting to the average american.
3. if op isn't a flame, then all these people calling flame are just discouraging valid people from posting questions, which is what this site is for.
4. even if op is a flame, wouldn't it just be better to answer the question in case someone else was wondering something similar?
calling flame every 3 threads is just not productive. if you really think op is a flame, wouldn't it just be better to ignore the post altogether and not waste your time responding? every time you respond, you are bumping what you think is a troll's thread.

lawoftheland
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby lawoftheland » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:57 am

atlantalaw wrote:this is what is silly about tls. posters will spend pages debating whether an op is a flame instead of just answering a basic question and moving on.
1. if op is a flame, he isn't a good one. he didn't even say he was a urm or something to make the post controversial.
2. what large numbers of people are bored enough to come onto a law school website and make up an account just to post a few threads? if i weren't applying to law school, i guarantee i never would stumble across this site on the interwebz. i'd be searching for something cool, like skydiving. law school admissions isn't exactly exciting to the average american.
3. if op isn't a flame, then all these people calling flame are just discouraging valid people from posting questions, which is what this site is for.
4. even if op is a flame, wouldn't it just be better to answer the question in case someone else was wondering something similar?
calling flame every 3 threads is just not productive. if you really think op is a flame, wouldn't it just be better to ignore the post altogether and not waste your time responding? every time you respond, you are bumping what you think is a troll's thread.


Flame. ;)

A bulleted list is more believable than a numbered one; that was a dead giveaway. Haha... joking, good point(s).

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:58 am

atlantalaw wrote:3. if op isn't a flame, then all these people calling flame are just discouraging valid people from posting questions, which is what this site is for.


This is why I start defending people who get accused of being flames in threads like these. That way at least the person posting sees that someone believes they're real, if they are.

Also, there is very low economic cost in making a post on the Internet.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby DoubleChecks » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:59 am

atlantalaw wrote:this is what is silly about tls. posters will spend pages debating whether an op is a flame instead of just answering a basic question and moving on.
1. if op is a flame, he isn't a good one. he didn't even say he was a urm or something to make the post controversial.
2. what large numbers of people are bored enough to come onto a law school website and make up an account just to post a few threads? if i weren't applying to law school, i guarantee i never would stumble across this site on the interwebz. i'd be searching for something cool, like skydiving. law school admissions isn't exactly exciting to the average american.
3. if op isn't a flame, then all these people calling flame are just discouraging valid people from posting questions, which is what this site is for.
4. even if op is a flame, wouldn't it just be better to answer the question in case someone else was wondering something similar?
calling flame every 3 threads is just not productive. if you really think op is a flame, wouldn't it just be better to ignore the post altogether and not waste your time responding? every time you respond, you are bumping what you think is a troll's thread.


1. OP saying he were URM wouldnt make it more controversial...i think it'd just give a lot of ammo to the "he's a flame" team lol

2. ? you think most flames are ppl who never want to attend law school, one day decide to make an account and post something somewhat knowledgeable yet absurd at the same time? no...i imagine its ppl who have accounts on this site...are semi-regulars, got bored during the late hours (or got fed up reading certain threads) and created another quick account w/ no posts to do a flame thread

3. i thought TLS was all about discouraging ppl from asking DUMB questions. we all know TLS has a personality, and ive always thought it was on the money...id imagine someone w/ half a brain would do some research first...like quick glancing around the forum or available resources plastered all over the side of the home page or using the search function...asking these types of questions 100% will get TLSers coming out of the woodwork to 'comment'

4. lolwut? his question was answered right off the bat...multiple times, what are you smoking?

edit: and whats fun sometimes is killing late hours answering these kinds of threads and what they evolve into lol
Last edited by DoubleChecks on Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

jroland
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 6:01 pm

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby jroland » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:59 am

Actually, I was set on PhD programs in medieval lit or German philology until fairly recently. Most of my energy has been spent in that department. I wouldn't waste my time or the time of anyone else writing untrue and, more importantly, not very interesting posts on a law school forum. Of course I suspected my chances were above average, but one ought not be blindly confident, right? You guys are the experts here. So yes, it was a genuine post.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: 4.0/LSAT 176

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:01 am

DoubleChecks wrote:3. i thought TLS was all about discouraging ppl from asking DUMB questions. we all know TLS has a personality, and ive always thought it was on the money...id imagine someone w/ half a brain would do some research first...like quick glancing around the forum or available resources plastered all over the side of the home page or using the search function...asking these types of questions 100% will get TLSers coming out of the woodwork to 'comment'


There is very low economic cost in making a post on the Internet. Given a choice between doing a lot of research, and posting a short question on a forum full of people who know the answer, I'd do the latter too.

It's not a dumb question, it's just an easy to answer one. There's a difference between the two.

DoubleChecks wrote:edit: and whats fun sometimes is killing late hours answering these kinds of threads and what they evolve into lol

Agreed.
Last edited by vanwinkle on Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:02 am, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bleakchimera2, Lexaholik, qiranger, Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests