Top Law Schools

ResolutePear wrote:

ahduth wrote:

ResolutePear wrote:Guys, I have to say...

This is just horrible.

This whole thread.

Everybody.

Just,

stop.

Apparently Madame Ivey tells people with low LSAT scores to write addenda... explaining how they also did poorly on the SAT.

An additional addendum saying, "I did poorly on the ACT too, so there's another reason you should admit me," might help further reinforce the point, no?

Yes, because chronic failure in standardized tests is really going to help the school's numbers with bar passage.

So. Much. Win.

So far, I've had two applications ask for my ACT score. It was not optional and not framed in a way to show a history of poor standardized test taking (though it could be used for that purpose, I suppose).

reporting your SAT or ACT can hurt your chance for admission if you did very well on the test and then your undergrad GPA did not live up to the promise.
It means admissions decision makers can (or possibly should) discount your stellar LSAT.

shastaca wrote:reporting your SAT or ACT can hurt your chance for admission if you did very well on the test and then your undergrad GPA did not live up to the promise.
It means admissions decision makers can (or possibly should) discount your stellar LSAT.

Should.

Law schools need to use a handicapped UGPA: "Candidate A scored 2360 on the SAT and a 34 on the ACT, but their UGPA was only 3.7. We will use an LSAT score that is 3 points lower than their actual score, based on the fact that they are obviously a good test-taker, and we do not view that as a positive criteria for admission to our law school."

Am I doing it right?

ahduth wrote:

shastaca wrote:reporting your SAT or ACT can hurt your chance for admission if you did very well on the test and then your undergrad GPA did not live up to the promise.
It means admissions decision makers can (or possibly should) discount your stellar LSAT.

Should.

Law schools need to use a handicapped UGPA: "Candidate A scored 2360 on the SAT and a 34 on the ACT, but their UGPA was only 3.7. We will use an LSAT score that is 3 points lower than their actual score, based on the fact that they are obviously a good test-taker, and we do not view that as a positive criteria for admission to our law school."

Am I doing it right?

Ya, because test taking is not an important skill for law school.

So let me get this straight.

You did bad on the sats/acts/----- went to ug---- then did bad on the lsat

how do you think the admissions people are giong to predict your performance on the bar exam???

and if you did great on the standardized tests, but not so hot in college, how will the admissions people predict your academic performance in law school even though you did great on the lsat?

maybe thats the reason for the test grades?

northwood wrote:So let me get this straight.

You did bad on the sats/acts/----- went to ug---- then did bad on the lsat

how do you think the admissions people are giong to predict your performance on the bar exam???

and if you did great on the standardized tests, but not so hot in college, how will the admissions people predict your academic performance in law school even though you did great on the lsat?

maybe thats the reason for the test grades?

All we're saying here is that the ACT is far and away the most accurate predictor of both your potential for academic success in law school, and your chances of passing the bar. No more, no less. Let's not make it out to be more than it is.

ahduth wrote:

northwood wrote:So let me get this straight.

You did bad on the sats/acts/----- went to ug---- then did bad on the lsat

how do you think the admissions people are giong to predict your performance on the bar exam???

and if you did great on the standardized tests, but not so hot in college, how will the admissions people predict your academic performance in law school even though you did great on the lsat?

maybe thats the reason for the test grades?

All we're saying here is that the ACT is far and away the most accurate predictor of both your potential for academic success in law school, and your chances of passing the bar. No more, no less. Let's not make it out to be more than it is.

Yep. It also correlates with your chance of contracting an STD before getting to law school, too.

a curable std, or one that stays forever??

northwood wrote:a curable std, or one that stays forever??

That's not relevant, but it is correlative to the ratio of lawyers to stay as lawyers for life versus those who do not.

OP's still a FLAME