Top Law Schools

gz5hc9 wrote:it is absurd to think that a 169 keeps you out and a 170 would get you in - you must be brainwashed by all the nerds on this website.

my buddy got into UVA, Texas, and Berkeley with a 166 last year because he had good softs. not a phd, mba or anything crazy - just good WE and good LOR's.

If you see anyone on this website with a 169+ and a 3.7+ say they got rejected from a school ranked lower than 10th, it means they have a terrible resume, their UG sucks, and/or their LOR's left something to be desired.

One guy who got admitted to two T14 schools with a 166 (Berkeley happens to be very reverse splitter friendly, FYI) does not mean that everyone with a 169/3.7 shut out of the T10 is a terrible applicant. Logic fail.

There was a 4.0/166 that got into Harvard off the waitlist last cycle, as well as a 3.4/179 (also off the waitlist). Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen to more than 2% of applicants with those numbers? Not at all.

..

czelede wrote:

gz5hc9 wrote:it is absurd to think that a 169 keeps you out and a 170 would get you in - you must be brainwashed by all the nerds on this website.

my buddy got into UVA, Texas, and Berkeley with a 166 last year because he had good softs. not a phd, mba or anything crazy - just good WE and good LOR's.

If you see anyone on this website with a 169+ and a 3.7+ say they got rejected from a school ranked lower than 10th, it means they have a terrible resume, their UG sucks, and/or their LOR's left something to be desired.

One guy who got admitted to two T14 schools with a 166 (Berkeley happens to be very reverse splitter friendly, FYI) does not mean that everyone with a 169/3.7 shut out of the T10 is a terrible applicant. Logic fail.

There was a 4.0/166 that got into Harvard off the waitlist last cycle, as well as a 3.4/179 (also off the waitlist). Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen to more than 2% of applicants with those numbers? Not at all.

I said ranked 10th and LOWER in the rankings, not higher. - Reading Comp fail
169 and 3.7 should give you a good shot at schools ranked 5-10, if you have good softs.

gz5hc9 wrote:

czelede wrote:

gz5hc9 wrote:it is absurd to think that a 169 keeps you out and a 170 would get you in - you must be brainwashed by all the nerds on this website.

my buddy got into UVA, Texas, and Berkeley with a 166 last year because he had good softs. not a phd, mba or anything crazy - just good WE and good LOR's.

If you see anyone on this website with a 169+ and a 3.7+ say they got rejected from a school ranked lower than 10th, it means they have a terrible resume, their UG sucks, and/or their LOR's left something to be desired.

One guy who got admitted to two T14 schools with a 166 (Berkeley happens to be very reverse splitter friendly, FYI) does not mean that everyone with a 169/3.7 shut out of the T10 is a terrible applicant. Logic fail.

There was a 4.0/166 that got into Harvard off the waitlist last cycle, as well as a 3.4/179 (also off the waitlist). Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen to more than 2% of applicants with those numbers? Not at all.

I said ranked 10th and LOWER in the rankings, not higher. - Reading Comp fail
169 and 3.7 should give you a good shot at schools ranked 5-10, if you have good softs.

lol

gz5hc9 wrote: 169 and 3.7 should give you a good shot at schools ranked 5-10, if you have good softs.

3.7/169 is pretty much auto-ding at UVA.

edit: And CCN. And probably P and B, too, I think.

gz5hc9 wrote:

czelede wrote:

gz5hc9 wrote:it is absurd to think that a 169 keeps you out and a 170 would get you in - you must be brainwashed by all the nerds on this website.

my buddy got into UVA, Texas, and Berkeley with a 166 last year because he had good softs. not a phd, mba or anything crazy - just good WE and good LOR's.

If you see anyone on this website with a 169+ and a 3.7+ say they got rejected from a school ranked lower than 10th, it means they have a terrible resume, their UG sucks, and/or their LOR's left something to be desired.

One guy who got admitted to two T14 schools with a 166 (Berkeley happens to be very reverse splitter friendly, FYI) does not mean that everyone with a 169/3.7 shut out of the T10 is a terrible applicant. Logic fail.

There was a 4.0/166 that got into Harvard off the waitlist last cycle, as well as a 3.4/179 (also off the waitlist). Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen to more than 2% of applicants with those numbers? Not at all.

I said ranked 10th and LOWER in the rankings, not higher. - Reading Comp fail
169 and 3.7 should give you a good shot at schools ranked 5-10, if you have good softs.

>< Too much overzealous antagonism on internet forums for me today.

Er, on my part that is.

gz5hc9 wrote: 169 and 3.7 should give you a good shot at schools ranked 5-10, if you have good softs.

If my good softs you mean cured cancer.

gz5hc9 wrote:it is absurd to think that a 169 keeps you out and a 170 would get you in - you must be brainwashed by all the nerds on this website.

my buddy got into UVA, Texas, and Berkeley with a 166 last year because he had good softs. not a phd, mba or anything crazy - just good WE and good LOR's.

If you see anyone on this website with a 169+ and a 3.7+ say they got rejected from a school ranked lower than 10th, it means they have a terrible resume, their UG sucks, and/or their LOR's left something to be desired.

The point of these forums, though, is to give advice. So probabilities are naturally going to dominate these discussions. There's not much utility in instructing people to hope to be among the clusterf*ck of applicants being selected for soft factors; there's just too many variables at play.

Someone telling another poster to "be more interesting" isn't going to be of any practical use. Fact is, a few extra LSAT points can mean the difference between needing incredible soft factors to bolster an applications or just needing sot factors that don't hurt one's cause. Disseminating that info is of far more use.

RVP11 wrote:

gz5hc9 wrote: 169 and 3.7 should give you a good shot at schools ranked 5-10, if you have good softs.

3.7/169 is pretty much auto-ding at UVA.

yea, if your softs suck. 3.7 169 is right about at UVA's medians. it should be a lock if you are a normal human being.

gz5hc9 wrote:

RVP11 wrote:

gz5hc9 wrote: 169 and 3.7 should give you a good shot at schools ranked 5-10, if you have good softs.

3.7/169 is pretty much auto-ding at UVA.

yea, if your softs suck. 3.7 169 is right about at UVA's medians. it should be a lock if you are a normal human being.

UVA's medians are 3.85/170, so a 3.7/169 is about as helpful to their numbers (see: USNWR rankings) as 2.0/120.

Are you missing a piece of your brain?

gz5hc9 wrote:

RVP11 wrote:

gz5hc9 wrote: 169 and 3.7 should give you a good shot at schools ranked 5-10, if you have good softs.

3.7/169 is pretty much auto-ding at UVA.

yea, if your softs suck. 3.7 169 is right about at UVA's medians. it should be a lock if you are a normal human being.

UVA 3.85 / 170

Is being .15 below GPA median and 1 point below LSAT median called "right about at"?

I think it's better described as well below.

gz5hc9 wrote:

RVP11 wrote:

gz5hc9 wrote: 169 and 3.7 should give you a good shot at schools ranked 5-10, if you have good softs.

3.7/169 is pretty much auto-ding at UVA.

yea, if your softs suck. 3.7 169 is right about at UVA's medians. it should be a lock if you are a normal human being.

UVA's medians are 3.85 / 170. I think that .15 / 1 makes a pretty big difference.

gz5hc9 wrote:yea, if your softs suck. 3.7 169 is right about at UVA's medians. it should be a lock if you are a normal human being.

lol @ "right about."

Let's not focus so much on HOW MUCH lower 3.7/169 is than 3.85/170 - focus more on the fact that below/below is wayyyyyyyyy worse than above/below, below/above, or above/above. Adcomms like to get at least one number that they like if you're not bringing URM or cancer-curing softs to the table.

as I commented previously in this forum, .15 gpa and 1 point lsat are negligible when assessing the preparedness and quality of candidates - which is what admissions committees care about (ESPECIALLY schools that have already solidified their spots at the top of the rankings, e.g. T14).

if you think .15 gpa and 1 point lsat below the medians is considered "well below" the medians, wow, good luck on the logical reasoning sections of your next retake.

gz5hc9 wrote:as I commented previously in this forum, .15 gpa and 1 point lsat are negligible when assessing the preparedness and quality of candidates - which is what admissions committees care about (ESPECIALLY schools that have already solidified their spots at the top of the rankings, e.g. T14).

if you think .15 gpa and 1 point lsat below the medians is considered "well below" the medians, wow, good luck on the logical reasoning sections of your next retake.

You're the guy that thought being below both medians was equal to being at medians. Please learn to read before you give any advice next time.

gz5hc9 wrote:as I commented previously in this forum, .15 gpa and 1 point lsat are negligible when assessing the preparedness and quality of candidates - which is what admissions committees care about (ESPECIALLY schools that have already solidified their spots at the top of the rankings, e.g. T14).

if you think .15 gpa and 1 point lsat below the medians is considered "well below" the medians, wow, good luck on the logical reasoning sections of your next retake.

Time to play the old game of "Dumb or troll?"

..

bk187 wrote:

gz5hc9 wrote:as I commented previously in this forum, .15 gpa and 1 point lsat are negligible when assessing the preparedness and quality of candidates - which is what admissions committees care about (ESPECIALLY schools that have already solidified their spots at the top of the rankings, e.g. T14).

if you think .15 gpa and 1 point lsat below the medians is considered "well below" the medians, wow, good luck on the logical reasoning sections of your next retake.

Time to play the old game of "Dumb or troll?"

What about dumb troll? Or would that just be a troll first and dumb second?

whymeohgodno wrote:What about dumb troll? Or would that just be a troll first and dumb second?

One can be a dumb troll. However, in the context of the game, a "troll" is defined as someone who does not believe what they are saying and a "dumb" is defined as someone who does believe what they are saying.

whymeohgodno wrote:

gz5hc9 wrote:as I commented previously in this forum, .15 gpa and 1 point lsat are negligible when assessing the preparedness and quality of candidates - which is what admissions committees care about (ESPECIALLY schools that have already solidified their spots at the top of the rankings, e.g. T14).

if you think .15 gpa and 1 point lsat below the medians is considered "well below" the medians, wow, good luck on the logical reasoning sections of your next retake.

You're the guy that thought being below both medians was equal to being at medians. Please learn to read before you give any advice next time.

"right about at the medians" does not mean "equal to being at medians".

when you are near the medians, it implies that you have similar numbers to most of the other applicants accepted to that school (half below, half above, most right around the middle), which means your scores are the types of scores that school frequently accepts.

back to the forum's topic - 2-3 points on the LSAT does not really matter. if you think otherwise, you fit in well with the other losers on this website.

..

gz5hc9 wrote:"right about at the medians" does not mean "equal to being at medians".

when you are near the medians, it implies that you have similar numbers to most of the other applicants accepted to that school (half below, half above, most right around the middle), which means your scores are the types of scores that school frequently accepts.

back to the forum's topic - 2-3 points on the LSAT does not really matter. if you think otherwise, you fit in well with the other losers on this website.

I was banking on dumb but I might have to switch my vote to troll. This is a toughie.

gz5hc9 wrote:

whymeohgodno wrote:

gz5hc9 wrote:as I commented previously in this forum, .15 gpa and 1 point lsat are negligible when assessing the preparedness and quality of candidates - which is what admissions committees care about (ESPECIALLY schools that have already solidified their spots at the top of the rankings, e.g. T14).

if you think .15 gpa and 1 point lsat below the medians is considered "well below" the medians, wow, good luck on the logical reasoning sections of your next retake.

You're the guy that thought being below both medians was equal to being at medians. Please learn to read before you give any advice next time.

"right about at the medians" does not mean "equal to being at medians".

when you are near the medians, it implies that you have similar numbers to most of the other applicants accepted to that school (half below, half above, most right around the middle), which means your scores are the types of scores that school frequently accepts.

back to the forum's topic - 2-3 points on the LSAT does not really matter. if you think otherwise, you fit in well with the other losers on this website.

I don't think you completely understand how medians work...

And when it comes down the medians, even 1 point on the LSAT can matter.

acrossthelake wrote:I wish Waterman were here.

Didn't he get a time out?