Top Law Schools

LSAT 171 median secure?

Maybe I should look into the GMAT if I fail miserably at the LSAT.....it has math on it so it's probably to my advantage.

motiontodismiss wrote:Maybe I should look into the GMAT if I fail miserably at the LSAT.....it has math on it so it's probably to my advantage.

I'd assume you'd need a 3.8 to get in if you don't have an LSAT. Speculation though.

They have always accepted the GMAT for the AJD program (all two years of it). Do you think they are only putting it on there for those that apply to the AJD?

The Median for this year's AJD was 720.

Also, I'm extremely surprised if it is true they are accepting it for the regular JD. I know that a substantial portion of the senior faculty are very much against the GMAT being accepted for any law program.

Sauer Grapes wrote:They have always accepted the GMAT for the AJD program (all two years of it). Do you think they are only putting it on there for those that apply to the AJD?

The Median for this year's AJD was 720.

Also, I'm extremely surprised if it is true they are accepting it for the regular JD. I know that a substantial portion of the senior faculty are very much against the GMAT being accepted for any law program.

It is true, I'm looking at the application right now. If much of the faculty is indeed opposed to it, then perhaps it is not a good option unless one's LSAT is significantly worse?

fatduck wrote:

Sauer Grapes wrote:They have always accepted the GMAT for the AJD program (all two years of it). Do you think they are only putting it on there for those that apply to the AJD?

The Median for this year's AJD was 720.

Also, I'm extremely surprised if it is true they are accepting it for the regular JD. I know that a substantial portion of the senior faculty are very much against the GMAT being accepted for any law program.

It is true, I'm looking at the application right now. If much of the faculty is indeed opposed to it, then perhaps it is not a good option unless one's LSAT is significantly worse?

The faculty won't know which you took unless you tell them.

Sauer Grapes wrote:

fatduck wrote:

Sauer Grapes wrote:They have always accepted the GMAT for the AJD program (all two years of it). Do you think they are only putting it on there for those that apply to the AJD?

The Median for this year's AJD was 720.

Also, I'm extremely surprised if it is true they are accepting it for the regular JD. I know that a substantial portion of the senior faculty are very much against the GMAT being accepted for any law program.

It is true, I'm looking at the application right now. If much of the faculty is indeed opposed to it, then perhaps it is not a good option unless one's LSAT is significantly worse?

The faculty won't know which you took unless you tell them.

I meant that if the prevailing opinion is that the GMAT is inappropriate for law admissions, then you might be seen less favorably by adcomms (or they may presume that you must be hiding a poor LSAT score).

This may contribute to Northwestern's failure to achieve a higher USNews ranking since NU received the lowest "peer assessment score" of the top 14 law schools.

fatduck wrote:

Sauer Grapes wrote:

fatduck wrote:

Sauer Grapes wrote:They have always accepted the GMAT for the AJD program (all two years of it). Do you think they are only putting it on there for those that apply to the AJD?

The Median for this year's AJD was 720.

Also, I'm extremely surprised if it is true they are accepting it for the regular JD. I know that a substantial portion of the senior faculty are very much against the GMAT being accepted for any law program.

It is true, I'm looking at the application right now. If much of the faculty is indeed opposed to it, then perhaps it is not a good option unless one's LSAT is significantly worse?

The faculty won't know which you took unless you tell them.

I meant that if the prevailing opinion is that the GMAT is inappropriate for law admissions, then you might be seen less favorably by adcomms (or they may presume that you must be hiding a poor LSAT score).

I'd like to think the adcoms would follow the Dean's vision in making their decisions. I don't think it'll matter.

What will be interesting is how the ABA handles this. Don't they require accredited law schools to require the LSAT for 3-year programs?

CanadianWolf wrote:This may contribute to Northwestern's failure to achieve a higher USNews ranking since NU received the lowest "peer assessment score" of the top 14 law schools.

Or it could be because the outgoing dean of NU Law, unlike most law school deans, is outspoken in favor of rankings. Or it could be any number of other reasons. Or it could just be a coincidence.

Lwoods wrote:

CanadianWolf wrote:This may contribute to Northwestern's failure to achieve a higher USNews ranking since NU received the lowest "peer assessment score" of the top 14 law schools.

Or it could be because the outgoing dean of NU Law, unlike most law school deans, is outspoken in favor of rankings. Or it could be any number of other reasons. Or it could just be a coincidence.

I don't think other Dean's respect Dean Van Zandt, who is leaving this December.

Desert Fox wrote:

Lwoods wrote:

CanadianWolf wrote:This may contribute to Northwestern's failure to achieve a higher USNews ranking since NU received the lowest "peer assessment score" of the top 14 law schools.

Or it could be because the outgoing dean of NU Law, unlike most law school deans, is outspoken in favor of rankings. Or it could be any number of other reasons. Or it could just be a coincidence.

I don't think other Deans respect Dean Van Zandt, who is leaving this December.

I could definitely see that, though based on his opinions expressed on the school website, I think he (Dean Van Zandt) seems badass.

Lwoods wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Lwoods wrote:

CanadianWolf wrote:This may contribute to Northwestern's failure to achieve a higher USNews ranking since NU received the lowest "peer assessment score" of the top 14 law schools.

Or it could be because the outgoing dean of NU Law, unlike most law school deans, is outspoken in favor of rankings. Or it could be any number of other reasons. Or it could just be a coincidence.

I don't think other Deans respect Dean Van Zandt, who is leaving this December.

I could definitely see that, though based on his opinions expressed on the school website, I think he (Dean Van Zandt) seems badass.

I've only been here two months, but he is bad ass. And it seems like he is highly respected by everyone at Northwestern. I wouldn't want to go to any other non-T6.

Any speculation as to whom is slated to replace the outgoing law dean ? This is a great opportunity to intiate unfounded rumors. I'll start. Prof. Brian Leiter of Chicago Law School. Or if that's not dramatic enough, the ousted former Gov. of Illinois Blago. Maybe Obama recognizes a great opportunity.

CanadianWolf wrote:Any speculation as to whom is slated to replace the outgoing law dean ? This is a great opportunity to intiate unfounded rumors. I'll start. Prof. Brian Leiter of Chicago Law School. Or if that's not dramatic enough, the ousted former Gov. of Illinois Blago. Maybe Obama recognizes a great opportunity.

Kanye West is on the shortlist, I believe.

DVZ is a somewhat polarizing figure.

On one hand, he's been *great* for students. The poor economy in Chicago is dampening NU's overall placement the last couple of years, but in a normal economy the fact that it owns Chicago has a huge effect on job prospects. DVZ has a *lot* to do with that. He aggressively marketed the school to firms, pushed up our numbers in-line with our peers, and helped establish that pipeline from NU into the big Chicago offices.

On the other hand, the faculty has not reacted well to DVZ. There was an exodus of prominent faculty early in the decade that caused Leiter to speculate that NU was imploding. Obviously that didn't come to pass, and by Leiter's own data NU is in the top 10 regarding the faculty's scholarly impact, but those things did nothing to improve NU's disproportionately low peer reputation score.

What NU needs to do with the new dean is to find someone who will toe the line. Shore up the school's academic reputation without compromising the business-oriented niche that is so good for students. That'll be a tough balance to make.

Which brings us back to Leiter. I am, nevertheless, a fan of the current law dean at NU. And I believe that Northwestern's USNews rank suffers from disgruntled former faculty & other near-sighted law deans who fear change and contribute to the USNews peer assessment scores.

CanadianWolf wrote:Which brings us back to Leiter. I am, nevertheless, a fan of the current law dean at NU. And I believe that Northwestern's USNews rank suffers from disgruntled former faculty & other near-sighted law deans who fear change and contribute to the USNews peer assessment scores.

that said, as a current student, i don't really care what our USNWR ranking is. it's our alum network and historical reputation as a top school that makes grads employable, not our USNWR ranking changes, even over multi-year stretches.

Are you intimating that you actually choose a law school based on job prospects & superior training over a higher ranking ?

CanadianWolf wrote:Are you intimating that you actually choose a law school based on job prospects & superior training over a higher ranking ?

Yes, abso-fucking-lutely. Especially the former. I can only be a "professional student" for so long.

acrossthelake wrote:I don't understand the pre-law=afraid of math thing. I'm pre-law and I don't fear math as long as it doesn't get into 3-D calc.

Can someone make a list for me of the kinds of law where knowing math and/or understanding science is a competitive advantage? Because from what I've seen on TLS, other than ATL as quoted and the occasional engineer like DF, 0Ls are about as math-illiterate as a box of marbles. Dumb marbles.

So far I can think of:

1) Patent law.
2) Become a professor, do empirical research.

Aiming for (2) seems about as worthwhile as aiming to spend my career arguing cases before the supreme court. So forget about that one. (1) is a cliche, but people do seem to go into it. Any others out there? Does transactional work get analytical?

To be clear: I'm not asking this because I want to do math for my career, because if I wanted to do that I wouldn't be leaving a quantitative job for law school. I want to be a lawyer. I'm just asking because damn, people are bad at it.

I'm thinking tax and bankruptcy and anything corporate, maybe even white collar crime (you can't argue for shit if you can't make sense of the evidence). Not calculus level, but a basic understanding of double-entry accounting I think should help.

I'd think it very passive-aggressive and unethical to state on an application that it is the applicant's express choice to select their admissions test and then discriminate based on the choice. I'm sure that an extensive, analytical, psychometric study of the GMAT was performed before it was decided upon as an option for general JD admission. How is it an effective policy to appreciate an applicant's profile but at the last minute turn up one's nose at the GMAT and decline admission?

stugots26 wrote:I'd think it very passive-aggressive and unethical to state on an application that it is the applicant's express choice to select their admissions test and then discriminate based on the choice. I'm sure that an extensive, analytical, psychometric study of the GMAT was performed before it was decided upon as an option for general JD admission. How is it an effective policy to appreciate an applicant's profile but at the last minute turn up one's nose at the GMAT and decline admission?

I don't think they plan to do that. DVZ made it sound like he prefers GMAT, actually. he said that it's as indicative as 1L performance as LSAT. they're looking for 710+ scorers.

I mean the GMAT (I'm guessing) and the GRE are pretty good measures of academic potential. The LSAT attempts to take it a little further and find out about the study of law in particular but it is flawed in some ways. Imagine you had 5 extra min per section -- your score would be way higher. I wonder how people who get 180's would compare against others minus a time crunch. The GRE on the other hand selects questions for you based on the difficultly of the last question so there is a much better chance your "actual" score (the parameter the test is trying to approximate) is found.

Case and point (with bitterness at my 168 Oct score): Should mis-reading one sentence in a time crunch during the logic games be the same as missing 5 septate LR questions? I don't think so even though the person should obviously should score lower than someone who read it correctly.