Top Law Schools

BenJ wrote:

rookhawk wrote:Regarding the previous post: I'd think with his stats that he didn't take his personal statements and essays seriously. Or more to the point, his soft-skills and personality were sorely absent from his applications.

I definitely didn't fully understand the importance of the PS at the time: not in terms of writing a good one, but in terms of presenting a story. I'm awful at writing about myself. I've improved enough to have written a decent PS for law school, but I used to simply stare at the page and have no idea of anything to say. I think part of my problem was a lack of focus at the time, too, since I had a fair degree of diversity in softs but nothing remotely resembling any sort of theme and no leadership positions. I mean, it's not like I don't know that I made those sorts of mistakes on my apps, it just seems in retrospect surprising that the numbers didn't mitigate it somewhat at some of the schools listed (I did get into others of similar caliber to some, so the list is not fully representative). I certainly didn't do anything douchey on the applications--not even close.

I did screw up the Yale alumni interview, though, in rather spectacular fashion. It's one of the things that still really embarrasses me, actually. So that rejection was understandable if a bit stinging anyway. I have a bad habit of saying things ranging from the stupid to the downright moronic without thinking about it.

Anyway, I think I ended up being a good fit for the school I ended up at, so any ill-will is merely nerves brought back up by the stress of law school apps.


On an aside, there was a girl from my HS who was rejected from NYU but accepted at Princeton. She was an amazing singer, so Princeton may have been looking for singing talent. I don't know her numbers to say if she was otherwise Princeton caliber or at a level at which it was reasonable for NYU to reject her, so it could be either a surprising rejection or a surprising acceptance.

rad law wrote:Yeah, UG is much less straight numbers than law school is. It seems elite caliber schools get tons of valedictorian/4.0 GPA/near-perfect SAT scores, so softs play a much larger factor. These schools all seem to want some sort of struggle against adversity story, and they want everyone to be a leader/tops at some activity/extremely accomplished in some field. I knew plenty of people in your situation, with scores approaching yours who ended up at places like University of Florida because they were just smart and didn't have a ton else to offer (I'm not saying that you don't, these were just the kids I knew).

BearDownChicago wrote:I want to be you. Is that so hard?

rookhawk wrote:You have to be someone that represents something in society that they:

A. fear spreading ideas (or life by example) within academia poisoning the minds of classmates.

B. fear that if denied in poor form could cause bad press to come back upon them in the future.

Ideas, illustrations and role models can cause people to question assumptions. The most benign things about people in every day life can be viewed as hostile to ivory tower dwellers within academia.

vanwinkle wrote:

rookhawk wrote:You have to be someone that represents something in society that they:

A. fear spreading ideas (or life by example) within academia poisoning the minds of classmates.

B. fear that if denied in poor form could cause bad press to come back upon them in the future.

Ideas, illustrations and role models can cause people to question assumptions. The most benign things about people in every day life can be viewed as hostile to ivory tower dwellers within academia.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/rookhawk

Is that you? Because if so, it's not that they're afraid of your ideas or bad press, it's that your GPA and LSAT suck.

Desert Fox wrote:
I knew a guy in college who had a hispanic last name, but was ethnically Russian. His parents came from Russia but lived in Cuba and adopted the name. So the kid was white as hell but got a URM boost into college.

mpasi wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:
I knew a guy in college who had a hispanic last name, but was ethnically Russian. His parents came from Russia but lived in Cuba and adopted the name. So the kid was white as hell but got a URM boost into college.

How did he swing that? Did he say he's Hispanic? Your name isn't what determines your URM status, checking the box and claiming what you are does.

mpasi wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:
I knew a guy in college who had a hispanic last name, but was ethnically Russian. His parents came from Russia but lived in Cuba and adopted the name. So the kid was white as hell but got a URM boost into college.

How did he swing that? Did he say he's Hispanic? Your name isn't what determines your URM status, checking the box and claiming what you are does.

Desert Fox wrote:Are you involved in the birther movement or something?

of Benito Cereno wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Are you involved in the birther movement or something?

I'm really curious about this too. What's this guys story?

rookhawk wrote:No, not a birther. I do think Obama is hiding something on that original birth certificate he would not provide (mere speculation) but I don't think its his eligibility as a president. (more speculation)

To narrow down the potential list, why don't you contemplate the following questions:

1. If universities are an oligarchy, what is it that they must protect?
2. What sentiments within a campus or society would nullify the job/power security of faculty?
3. What are the consequences of adding a non-comformist (by background) to a peer group of standard issue students?
4. If universities only let in the best people by an amalgamation of their abilities and achievments, what would that do to the current admissions process and student's life emphasis?

The universities that elect to admit me will believe the following:

1. The purpose of school is to amplify excellence, not to be the arbiter of who may attempt it
2. Results that demonstrate measurable success are the most important thing. (bridled only by need for ethics)
3. The greatest threat to the legitimacy of higher education is supporting mediocrity to be safe, or denying the exceptional to avert risk.

Answer the former questions in your own mind and then ask yourself how many schools, regardless of their rank, believe the latter.

rookhawk wrote:The universities that elect to admit me will believe the following: The purpose of school is to amplify excellence

rookhawk wrote:No, not a birther. I do think Obama is hiding something on that original birth certificate he would not provide (mere speculation) but I don't think its his eligibility as a president. (more speculation)

rookhawk wrote:No, not a birther. I do think Obama is hiding something on that original birth certificate he would not provide (mere speculation) but I don't think its his eligibility as a president. (more speculation)

To narrow down the potential list, why don't you contemplate the following questions:

1. If universities are an oligarchy, what is it that they must protect?
2. What sentiments within a campus or society would nullify the job/power security of faculty?
3. What are the consequences of adding a non-comformist (by background) to a peer group of standard issue students?
4. If universities only let in the best people by an amalgamation of their abilities and achievments, what would that do to the current admissions process and student's life emphasis?

The universities that elect to admit me will believe the following:

1. The purpose of school is to amplify excellence, not to be the arbiter of who may attempt it
2. Results that demonstrate measurable success are the most important thing. (bridled only by need for ethics)
3. The greatest threat to the legitimacy of higher education is supporting mediocrity to be safe, or denying the exceptional to avert risk.

Answer the former questions in your own mind and then ask yourself how many schools, regardless of their rank, believe the latter.

of Benito Cereno wrote:...grandiose paranoiac delusions...

rookhawk wrote:Villager, you pose reasonable questions based on your premise to view the situation as a libertarian.

The flaw in premise may be that one may not know enough to like/dislike a school before they apply. That is, that you may not know the motivations and agendas of the schools until/if you receive some indication of their bias. A simple rejection is insufficient to demonstrate a bias because low scores may be a reasonable cause. You'd need them to tip their hands and actually demonstrate a bias to you verbally or in writing. I can speak to this on my own experience, I was denied at a Tier4 school in the past (not YP or any such nonsense) and matriculated at a Tier1. Since my application/credentials/scores were the same there is an indication that what traits are considered laudable and which are considered threatening to the educational scheme varies by the Dean in charge. Some schools will want me to rub off on other students, others will want to make sure I never infect or illustrate to others something that counters an academic agenda. (for some its all about molding minds, not educating with facts)