Top Law Schools

Double post faaaaaail

barrinmb wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:Yes, I've just been making it up for the past several months. I rented an apartment in C-ville, met with UVA 1Ls, attended orientation, and currently roam the halls of the law school, passing by other UVA TLSers, just in order to reinforce a fantasy online that I am a UVA Law student.

Oh God van winkle is this guy and now he's doing it at UVA, but with a vengeance! http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ ... background

I have to say I love this thread. It's been more amusing than most, especially from a psychological perspective. Good job, vanwinkle.

Uh, just to provide vanwinkle with a vote of confidence, I've seen him in classes at UVA AND he was not wearing a confederate flag.

Kohinoor wrote:Uh, just to provide vanwinkle with a vote of confidence, I've seen him in classes at UVA AND he was not wearing a confederate flag.

Well, to be fair, you haven't seen what I drive:

^^ looks shooped.

vanwinkle wrote:

Kohinoor wrote:Uh, just to provide vanwinkle with a vote of confidence, I've seen him in classes at UVA AND he was not wearing a confederate flag.

Well, to be fair, you haven't seen what I drive:

LOL.

Borhas wrote:I think it shows commitment, but I don't really care about people getting on or off wait lists. If a school says wait lists are for qualified candidates then they should mean it. I'm not a fan of bullshit.

Thank you!! That's all I am saying. Why string people along? If I weren't qualified, they would not waitlist me, at least in theory. So what gives? By the third time, they should either reject me or let me through. But it really is a way of gaming the rankings at students' expense, regardless of background. It's stockpiling.

PDaddy wrote:Thank you!! That's all I am saying. Why string people along? If I weren't qualified, they would not waitlist me, at least in theory. So what gives? By the third time, they should either reject me or let me through. But it really is a way of gaming the rankings at students' expense, regardless of background. It's stockpiling.

It's a fairly simple explanation that you're missing. You're good enough that they'd take you if enough of the students they've admitted decline. However, not enough of their first choices do decline, so they don't take you. The fact that you keep getting WL'd indicates that your numbers and application are good enough to serve as a backup but not good enough to get outright admitted, and since you're not doing anything to improve your numbers, I don't understand why you think this should change from one year to the next.

Of course it's stockpiling. They're keeping a supply of students ready to attend around in case an opening comes up. The thing is, the system is transparent. Calling it dishonest makes you look stupid, especially when you yourself admit you can clearly see their intent. They've told you they'll WL you and that indicates they'll keep WLing you. It's not their fault you keep applying and getting WL'd instead of going to a school that actually accepts you.

vanwinkle wrote:

PDaddy wrote:Thank you!! That's all I am saying. Why string people along? If I weren't qualified, they would not waitlist me, at least in theory. So what gives? By the third time, they should either reject me or let me through. But it really is a way of gaming the rankings at students' expense, regardless of background. It's stockpiling.

It's a fairly simple explanation that you're missing. You're good enough that they'd take you if enough of the students they've admitted decline. However, not enough of their first choices do decline, so they don't take you. The fact that you keep getting WL'd indicates that your numbers and application are good enough to serve as a backup but not good enough to get outright admitted, and since you're not doing anything to improve your numbers, I don't understand why you think this should change from one year to the next.

Of course it's stockpiling. They're keeping a supply of students ready to attend around in case an opening comes up. The thing is, the system is transparent. Calling it dishonest makes you look stupid, especially when you yourself admit you can clearly see their intent. They've told you they'll WL you and that indicates they'll keep WLing you. It's not their fault you keep applying and getting WL'd instead of going to a school that actually accepts you.

Everyone is good enough to take if enough people declined to be admitted. Some schools use wait lists as a stockpile, others use it as a "soft" reject. I view "soft" rejects as bullshit.

Look at William & Mary. Clearly they WL more people than they would reasonably need.

imisscollege wrote:They WL you because your numbers blow (relative to their medians) and they are trying to have their URMs have the best numbers possible and hurt their numbers/rankings the least amount possible as a result. They know they will be taking a hit when admitting URMs and their goal is to take the smallest hit possible. They are never sure whether you will make up one of the last URM spots or if another URM with slightly better numbers will come along and scoop up that last spot which would be better for them. Each of these cycles you were probably borderline WL/reject and it's not really any skin off their backs to keep you around, so they do...just in case their more qualified URM candidates don't shape up the way they were hoping.

Your entitled attitude with ridiculously sup-par (again relatively) numbers demonstrates everything that is wrong with AA.

Entitled? You saw my stats. A 162 LSAT is far from shabby, for anyone! It's better than like 90%) possibly more) of all test takers. And as far as URM's. If the LSAT is 60% of the weight (and it typically is) then the argument about URM's doesn't jive because I have even more of them beat...about 98% to be exact.

And, since when is there much of a difference between a 3.62 GPA and a 3.75, especially when you don't even know what classes I took or what my GPA was in the last two years of UG (3.8 btw)? You don't know what school I went to or how the teachers graded. And apparently, the adcoms are being lazy because they clearly aren't taking this stuff into account. If anyone is entitled, it's the whites on this board who are probably jealous that I even keep getting that close. And the law schools feel "entitled" to stockpile students for their own purposes. And, like I said, i don't tell them where I am applying, that may have something to do with it. They are probably WL my ass to see what I will do. It's BS.

BTW, 3x waitlist is more like "Borderline WL-Admit". If it were "Borderline WL Deny", it wouldn't happen repeatedly, especially as applications have gotten more competitive. I keep saying it, I just don't want the schools using me to game the system or wasting my time.

Borhas wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:

PDaddy wrote:Thank you!! That's all I am saying. Why string people along? If I weren't qualified, they would not waitlist me, at least in theory. So what gives? By the third time, they should either reject me or let me through. But it really is a way of gaming the rankings at students' expense, regardless of background. It's stockpiling.

It's a fairly simple explanation that you're missing. You're good enough that they'd take you if enough of the students they've admitted decline. However, not enough of their first choices do decline, so they don't take you. The fact that you keep getting WL'd indicates that your numbers and application are good enough to serve as a backup but not good enough to get outright admitted, and since you're not doing anything to improve your numbers, I don't understand why you think this should change from one year to the next.

Of course it's stockpiling. They're keeping a supply of students ready to attend around in case an opening comes up. The thing is, the system is transparent. Calling it dishonest makes you look stupid, especially when you yourself admit you can clearly see their intent. They've told you they'll WL you and that indicates they'll keep WLing you. It's not their fault you keep applying and getting WL'd instead of going to a school that actually accepts you.

Everyone is good enough to take if enough people declined to be admitted. Some schools use wait lists as a stockpile, others use it as a "soft" reject. I view "soft" rejects as bullshit.

Look at William & Mary. Clearly they WL more people than they would reasonably need.

And, while my numbers aren't going up, my essays and resume ARE improving, and I keep providing new letters. So...THERE IS IMPROVEMENT GOING ON FROM YEAR TO YEAR.

Borhas wrote:Everyone is good enough to take if enough people declined to be admitted. Some schools use wait lists as a stockpile, others use it as a "soft" reject. I view "soft" rejects as bullshit.

Look at William & Mary. Clearly they WL more people than they would reasonably need.

From the school's POV, though, they don't know how many people will remain on a WL only to say if offered acceptance, "Too late, I've deposited somewhere else and I've decided I'll just go there." Having a large WL helps them ensure they'll be able to find applicants at least close to the stats and background they need to fill holes in their class.

Also, one major cause of this problem is applicant behavior. One reason there are so many people being WL'd these days is that people are applying to 10+ schools when a decade ago they'd only apply to two or three. Then they ride a whole bunch of WLs and obviously they can only go to one school in the fall. This has made the admissions process far more difficult for every school except Yale, because they can't be that sure even after receiving deposits that a number of students won't go "move up" given the chance, and they'll have to pull from below to make up for it.

If you were an adcomm, you'd want to WL a lot more people under that scenario. I'm sure a lot of people going to W&M end up waiting on the WLs at UVA and GULC and a bunch of other schools; W&M doesn't know until classes start how many people might jump ship, so it makes sense to keep a large WL.

vanwinkle wrote:

Borhas wrote:Everyone is good enough to take if enough people declined to be admitted. Some schools use wait lists as a stockpile, others use it as a "soft" reject. I view "soft" rejects as bullshit.

Look at William & Mary. Clearly they WL more people than they would reasonably need.

From the school's POV, though, they don't know how many people will remain on a WL only to say if offered acceptance, "Too late, I've deposited somewhere else and I've decided I'll just go there." Having a large WL helps them ensure they'll be able to find applicants at least close to the stats and background they need to fill holes in their class.

Also, one major cause of this problem is applicant behavior. One reason there are so many people being WL'd these days is that people are applying to 10+ schools when a decade ago they'd only apply to two or three. Then they ride a whole bunch of WLs and obviously they can only go to one school in the fall. This has made the admissions process far more difficult for every school except Yale, because they can't be that sure even after receiving deposits that a number of students won't go "move up" given the chance, and they'll have to pull from below to make up for it.

If you were an adcomm, you'd want to WL a lot more people under that scenario. I'm sure a lot of people going to W&M end up waiting on the WLs at UVA and GULC and a bunch of other schools; W&M doesn't know until classes start how many people might jump ship, so it makes sense to keep a large WL.

Oh I get why it's useful to them, they wouldn't do it if it wasn't. But, on the other hand putting people that you know also have basically no shot in hell of getting off the wait list on the WL does suck for those people actually waiting. The LS gains are losses for applicants in this case.

Of course, I'm an applicant so that's the position I'll take.

PDaddy wrote:Entitled? You saw my stats. A 162 LSAT is far from shabby, for anyone! It's better than like 90%) possibly more) of all test takers. And as far as URM's. If the LSAT is 60% of the weight (and it typically is) then the argument about URM's doesn't jive because I have even more of them beat...about 98% to be exact.

I love how you keep objecting to being called entitled and then immediately act entitled again.

A 162 is probably around 90th percentile, sure, but you're talking about T14 schools, and their median is in the range of 170+ (98-99th percentile). You can clearly get into schools that take students at above your 90th-percentile score, as evidenced by your lower-T1 acceptances, but you continue to behave like you're entitled to admittance at better schools.

Also, URM boosts don't work that simply. I've had to explain this to people who bash URM, it's sad that I have to explain this to one now.

PDaddy wrote:And, since when is there much of a difference between a 3.62 GPA and a 3.75, especially when you don't even know what classes I took or what my GPA was in the last two years of UG (3.8 btw)? You don't know what school I went to or how the teachers graded. And apparently, the adcoms are being lazy because they clearly aren't taking this stuff into account. If anyone is entitled, it's the whites on this board who are probably jealous that I even keep getting that close. And the law schools feel "entitled" to stockpile students for their own purposes. And, like I said, i don't tell them where I am applying, that may have something to do with it. They are probably WL my ass to see what I will do. It's BS.

There are about eighteen different things wrong with this paragraph, but it definitely highlights just how entitled your attitude really is.

PDaddy wrote:BTW, 3x waitlist is more like "Borderline WL-Admit". If it were "Borderline WL Deny", it wouldn't happen repeatedly, especially as applications have gotten more competitive. I keep saying it, I just don't want the schools using me to game the system or wasting my time.

Then stop applying to them if you know they will WL you. You're making the choice to apply again and again knowing what their behavior is, and then crying because they continue to do the same thing you knew they were going to do before you applied again.

PDaddy wrote:And, while my numbers aren't going up, my essays and resume ARE improving, and I keep providing new letters. So...THERE IS IMPROVEMENT GOING ON FROM YEAR TO YEAR.

There is improvement in the number of qualified applicants, too. This year the number of LSAT takers jumped 20%. There are now, for the first time, enough LSAT takers from this year alone that the entire T14 would be able to fill their classes with nothing but 170+ applicants if all they cared about was LSAT. The number of people applying to law school is increasing, and it's increasing across the board, which means people with high numbers who wouldn't have applied before are applying now.

Your improvement just isn't growing faster than their improvement, it seems.

Borhas wrote:Oh I get why it's useful to them, they wouldn't do it if it wasn't. But, on the other hand putting people that you know also have basically no shot in hell of getting off the wait list on the WL does suck for those people actually waiting. The LS gains are losses for applicants in this case.

Of course, I'm an applicant so that's the position I'll take.

Oh, I know it sucks from the applicant POV. I was an applicant last cycle and I was pissed at some of the WLs I got. Some of them were just stupid.

You're at least more rational about it than the OP is.

The internet tells me that it was Einstein who said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” I doubt it was Einstein who said it, but OP might want to think it over.

vanwinkle wrote:

Borhas wrote:Oh I get why it's useful to them, they wouldn't do it if it wasn't. But, on the other hand putting people that you know also have basically no shot in hell of getting off the wait list on the WL does suck for those people actually waiting. The LS gains are losses for applicants in this case.

Of course, I'm an applicant so that's the position I'll take.

Oh, I know it sucks from the applicant POV. I was an applicant last cycle and I was pissed at some of the WLs I got. Some of them were just stupid.

You're at least more rational about it than the OP is.

Vanwinkle, I notice that no one on this board ever called me a moron (or any disparaging name) until you found out I was URM. If I were a white guy saying this, it would have just been an overreaching thought. Once I was URM, then I was acting "entitled", and I was a "moron".

You lied in an earlier post and said that I had sounded entitled in other posts. I challenge you to pull them up. I have done nothing but support the other posters or "disagree respectfully".

The problem here is that the people who disagree with me think this thread is really about just me; it isn't. I have nothing to cry over. Most applicants would give up their grandmothers to be admitted to the top-30 schools I have been admitted to. I will always have the opportunity to attend a top school no matter what. I just wanted to see what you huys would say about all of the WLing going on. The problem with my apps is that I have applied late in every cycle.

I am busy in the fall and want to turn in my best work. If I apply in October, my problems with elite schools are solved. I am working on a case right now, and it takes up all of my time. But I wanted to broach the topic anyways because I think the WL ARE being misused/overused. That isn't a URM/AA topic - which you managed to turn it into - that's an "ethics" topic. But I also think that if schools weren't overusing WL, it would be ok for me to apply in January and still get into elite schools, with $$$.

Anyways, it's been fun. Closing my account. Good luck people!

PDaddy wrote:Vanwinkle, I notice that no one on this board ever called me a moron (or any disparaging name) until you found out I was URM. If I were a white guy saying this, it would have just been an overreaching thought. Once I was URM, then I was acting "entitled", and I was a "moron".

You lied in an earlier post and said that I had sounded entitled in other posts. I challenge you to pull them up. I have done nothing but support the other posters or "disagree respectfully".

I see you're going to continue to play the race card instead of participate in meaningful dialogue. The only reason I discussed URM status at all was that part of your entitlement was acting like you were entitled to be admitted to top law schools just because other URMs have been also.

Also, everything you have said in this thread has indicated your sense of entitlement. You feel entitled to demand that universities change the way they do law school admissions to suit your personal opinions of them; you feel entitled to blanketly declare waitlists "dishonest" and "misleading" when you admit yourself that the system is transparent; you feel entitled to declare me as anti-AA as the reason I must be disagreeing with you, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

If you want to see where you sounded entitled, go back and read everything you've said in this thread. It's all there, plain as day, and will continue to be until the end of time (unless either TLS shuts down or you edit your posts to remove your sense of entitlement, but I don't expect either to happen). I most certainly did not lie.

PDaddy wrote:Anyways, it's been fun. Closing my account. Good luck people!

Ah yes, the inevitable "declaring victory and running away" part. I guess you're tired of having your rather self-centered and short-sighted arguments picked apart. All for the better, anyway; not having to pick you apart anymore will free me up for other things.

ONE LAST THING. WHO IN HELL CARES IF SCHOOLS COULD FILL THEIR CLASSES WITH 170 TEST TAKERS. EVERYONE KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW THAT THE LSAT DOESN'T MEASURE THE SKILLS TO PERFORM AS A LAWYER. IF A LAW SCHOOL'S MANTRA IS TO PRODUCE GOOD LAWYERS, HOW MUCH SENSE DOES IT MAKE TO USE A TEST THAT DOESN'T SERVE THAT END?

Also, lets remember something, there are people with lower numbers than mine getting into T14's. My GPA is more than solid and so is my LSAT, and everyone knows it. If schools filled their classes with nothing but 170 test takers they'd wind up with nothing but a bunch of stupid, spoiled white boys who only did exceptionally well because they took an exam that was tailor made by and for them.

UC Berkeley knows it, Yale knows it and so does Harvard. Using the LSAT in its present form to test students into law school is like sorting applicants for "music school" by testing their ability to write rap lyrics. What kind of sense would that make when you have different styles of music and different skills within music performance? There are many kinds of law, and they all require different types of skills. The LSAT is a highly flawed test, albeit one I happened to do well on.

But this thread isn't about the LSAT. I wrote this thread because a top-10 had the nerve to WL me for a 3rd time, which is idiotic on their part, not mine. I actually laughed about it. They're the ones that will miss out on getting me. I'm going to get my legal education and degree regardless. I thought the topic would generate some intelligent conversation; instead, you predictably sunk it into an URM/AA thread. Congrats on missing an opportunity to intelligently discuss the ethics law schools employ.

PDaddy wrote:

vanwinkle wrote:

Borhas wrote:Oh I get why it's useful to them, they wouldn't do it if it wasn't. But, on the other hand putting people that you know also have basically no shot in hell of getting off the wait list on the WL does suck for those people actually waiting. The LS gains are losses for applicants in this case.

Of course, I'm an applicant so that's the position I'll take.

Oh, I know it sucks from the applicant POV. I was an applicant last cycle and I was pissed at some of the WLs I got. Some of them were just stupid.

You're at least more rational about it than the OP is.

Vanwinkle, I notice that no one on this board ever called me a moron (or any disparaging name) until you found out I was URM. If I were a white guy saying this, it would have just been an overreaching thought. Once I was URM, then I was acting "entitled", and I was a "moron".

You lied in an earlier post and said that I had sounded entitled in other posts. I challenge you to pull them up. I have done nothing but support the other posters or "disagree respectfully".

The problem here is that the people who disagree with me think this thread is really about just me; it isn't. I have nothing to cry over. Most applicants would give up their grandmothers to be admitted to the top-30 schools I have been admitted to. I will always have the opportunity to attend a top school no matter what. I just wanted to see what you huys would say about all of the WLing going on. The problem with my apps is that I have applied late in every cycle.

I am busy in the fall and want to turn in my best work. If I apply in October, my problems with elite schools are solved. I am working on a case right now, and it takes up all of my time. But I wanted to broach the topic anyways because I think the WL ARE being misused/overused. That isn't a URM/AA topic - which you managed to turn it into - that's an "ethics" topic. But I also think that if schools weren't overusing WL, it would be ok for me to apply in January and still get into elite schools, with $$$.

Anyways, it's been fun. Closing my account. Good luck people!

This whole thread is stupid.

vanwinkle wrote:

PDaddy wrote:Vanwinkle, I notice that no one on this board ever called me a moron (or any disparaging name) until you found out I was URM. If I were a white guy saying this, it would have just been an overreaching thought. Once I was URM, then I was acting "entitled", and I was a "moron".

You lied in an earlier post and said that I had sounded entitled in other posts. I challenge you to pull them up. I have done nothing but support the other posters or "disagree respectfully".

I see you're going to continue to play the race card instead of participate in meaningful dialogue. The only reason I discussed URM status at all was that part of your entitlement was acting like you were entitled to be admitted to top law schools just because other URMs have been also.

Also, everything you have said in this thread has indicated your sense of entitlement. You feel entitled to demand that universities change the way they do law school admissions to suit your personal opinions of them; you feel entitled to blanketly declare waitlists "dishonest" and "misleading" when you admit yourself that the system is transparent; you feel entitled to declare me as anti-AA as the reason I must be disagreeing with you, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

If you want to see where you sounded entitled, go back and read everything you've said in this thread. It's all there, plain as day, and will continue to be until the end of time (unless either TLS shuts down or you edit your posts to remove your sense of entitlement, but I don't expect either to happen). I most certainly did not lie.

PDaddy wrote:Anyways, it's been fun. Closing my account. Good luck people!

Ah yes, the inevitable "declaring victory and running away" part. I guess you're tired of having your rather self-centered and short-sighted arguments picked apart. All for the better, anyway; not having to pick you apart anymore will free me up for other things.

I have to make court appearances and sit in on depositions. The account was getting closed anyways. I can't spend the time anymore. Maybe I can return in the late spring or early summer.

PDaddy wrote:ONE LAST THING. WHO IN HELL CARES IF SCHOOLS COULD FILL THEIR CLASSES WITH 170 TEST TAKERS. EVERYONE KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW THAT THE LSAT DOESN'T MEASURE THE SKILLS TO PERFORM AS A LAWYER. IF A LAW SCHOOL'S MANTRA IS TO PRODUCE GOOD LAWYERS, HOW MUCH SENSE DOES IT MAKE TO USE A TEST THAT DOESN'T SERVE THAT END?

Also, lets remember something, there are people with lower numbers than mine getting into T14's. My GPA is more than solid and so is my LSAT, and everyone knows it. If schools filled their classes with nothing but 170 test takers they'd wind up with nothing but a bunch of stupid, spoiled white boys who only did exceptionally well because they took an exam that was tailor made by and for them.

UC Berkeley knows it, Yale knows it and so does Harvard. Using the LSAT in its present form to test students into law school is like sorting applicants for "music school" by testing their ability to write rap lyrics. What kind of sense would that make when you have different styles of music and different skills within music performance? There are many kinds of law, and they all require different types of skills. The LSAT is a highly flawed test, albeit one I happened to do well on.

But this thread isn't about the LSAT. I wrote this thread because a top-10 had the nerve to WL me for a 3rd time, which is idiotic on their part, not mine. I actually laughed about it. They're the ones that will miss out on getting me. I'm going to get my legal education and degree regardless. I thought the topic would generate some intelligent conversation; instead, you predictably sunk it into an URM/AA thread. Congrats on missing an opportunity to intelligently discuss the ethics law schools employ.

You demanded proof of where you were acting entitled; here, you have provided more proof. Congratulations. God, this is 10 times as entitled as your previous posts; a top-10 had the nerve to WL you? Seriously? They'll miss out on getting you?! You write like you're the second coming of Christ.

A thread geared around how entitled you are to be admitted to top-10 law schools was never going to foster intelligent debate here.

ccs224 wrote: This whole thread is stupid.

Baffling is a much better word for it.

Kohinoor wrote:

ccs224 wrote: This whole thread is stupid.

Baffling is a much better word for it.

I'm snowed in, I've got nothing better to do.