Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby MysticalWheel » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:21 pm

JazzOne wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:Well, I applied to Chicago, but I think I'll go to Harvard or Stanford instead. Columbia is the consolation prize. Also, it seems quite odd to call someone who is relevantly responding with rational argument a flame, especially when you are not part of said argument. Why are you going to law school again?

MW

You are uniformly despised on this forum. Do you not get that? Wait, flame.

Douchebags usually unite into a giant turd, in hopes of smiting those that present intellectual obstacles for them. You and your cronies stink from a mile away, and it's time someone washed you out. Enter yours truly.

MW

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby Dany » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:21 pm

JazzOne wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:As so many have said before, splitters (reverse or not) are notoriously difficult to predict, despite general trends, so I think it is a bit extreme to say schools are "almost always more forgiving" towards splitters. Berkeley is one school that comes to mind that surely favors GPA over LSAT.

MW

You're either an elaborate flame or else perfect for Chicago.

Ohhhhhh screw you.

;)

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby JazzOne » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:21 pm

MysticalWheel wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:Well, I applied to Chicago, but I think I'll go to Harvard or Stanford instead. Columbia is the consolation prize. Also, it seems quite odd to call someone who is relevantly responding with rational argument a flame, especially when you are not part of said argument. Why are you going to law school again?

MW

You are uniformly despised on this forum. Do you not get that? Wait, flame.

Douchebags usually unite into a giant turd, in hopes of smiting those that present intellectual obstacles for them. You and your cronies stink from a mile away, and it's time someone washed you out. Enter yours truly.

MW

You can start washing me out by licking my asshole.

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby JazzOne » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:22 pm

eskimo wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:As so many have said before, splitters (reverse or not) are notoriously difficult to predict, despite general trends, so I think it is a bit extreme to say schools are "almost always more forgiving" towards splitters. Berkeley is one school that comes to mind that surely favors GPA over LSAT.

MW

You're either an elaborate flame or else perfect for Chicago.

Ohhhhhh screw you.

;)

lol

User avatar
Sentry
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:38 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby Sentry » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:23 pm

MysticalWheel wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:Well, I applied to Chicago, but I think I'll go to Harvard or Stanford instead. Columbia is the consolation prize. Also, it seems quite odd to call someone who is relevantly responding with rational argument a flame, especially when you are not part of said argument. Why are you going to law school again?

MW

You are uniformly despised on this forum. Do you not get that? Wait, flame.

Douchebags usually unite into a giant turd, in hopes of smiting those that present intellectual obstacles for them. You and your cronies stink from a mile away, and it's time someone washed you out. Enter yours truly.

MW

Image

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby MysticalWheel » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:25 pm

firemedicprelaw wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:
Hannibal wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:No, it's not appropriate. It is extreme language that oversimplifies the complexity of splitters. And the underline was to emphasize the extremity.

MW


Wow, I wouldn't say splitters' results are OVERcomplex. It's not THAT bad.

Either way, I find saying "almost always" extreme.

MW


"Almost always" is held up over and over again by things like LSN. The majority of splitters don't have any complex issues going on. Let's face it, it is almost always about the numbers. Unless you have a published novel or a nobel peace prize you are just a set of numbers to admissions. Maybe a set of numbers they like after reading your PS or resume... but they aren't making the decision off that liking. They are going to make the decision off the numbers 9.9/10 times. And 13/14 times they will favor the "regular" splitter.

You are arguing a point you are wrong on for no apparent reason.

No, it is not held up. It is certainly true that most situations result in favor for splitters over non-splitters, but to state that this is true "almost always" is extreme language that is misleading. I was never arguing whether or not it is always "about the numbers"; I was arguing about the language used to describe a precarious situation. Once again: "almost always" is extreme in characterizing the admissions process for splitters. Thanks for playing.

MW

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby MysticalWheel » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:26 pm

JazzOne wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:Well, I applied to Chicago, but I think I'll go to Harvard or Stanford instead. Columbia is the consolation prize. Also, it seems quite odd to call someone who is relevantly responding with rational argument a flame, especially when you are not part of said argument. Why are you going to law school again?

MW

You are uniformly despised on this forum. Do you not get that? Wait, flame.

Douchebags usually unite into a giant turd, in hopes of smiting those that present intellectual obstacles for them. You and your cronies stink from a mile away, and it's time someone washed you out. Enter yours truly.

MW

You can start washing me out by licking my asshole.

Lol...no need for obscenities. Looks like you have significant rage issues- better take care of them sooner than later sweety.

MW

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby firemed » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:26 pm

MysticalWheel wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:Well, I applied to Chicago, but I think I'll go to Harvard or Stanford instead. Columbia is the consolation prize. Also, it seems quite odd to call someone who is relevantly responding with rational argument a flame, especially when you are not part of said argument. Why are you going to law school again?

MW

You are uniformly despised on this forum. Do you not get that? Wait, flame.

Douchebags usually unite into a giant turd, in hopes of smiting those that present intellectual obstacles for them. You and your cronies stink from a mile away, and it's time someone washed you out. Enter yours truly.

MW


So... have you noticed that pretty much everywhere you go there are a shitload of douchebags? Have you ever wondered why there were sooooo many? Like, statistically there shouldn't be that many douchebags, right? Could the common factor be you? Could it be that the way you choose to argue and the way you interact make people hostile to you?

Even more importantly... have you ever considered the possibility you are wrong?

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby JazzOne » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:26 pm

MysticalWheel wrote:Lol...no need for obscenities. Looks like you have significant rage issues- better take care of them sooner than later sweety.

MW

Come on, you can lick deeper than that. I'm looking for a good rim job here.
Last edited by JazzOne on Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Deuce
Posts: 1048
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:12 am

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby Deuce » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:27 pm

MysticalWheel wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:Well, I applied to Chicago, but I think I'll go to Harvard or Stanford instead. Columbia is the consolation prize. Also, it seems quite odd to call someone who is relevantly responding with rational argument a flame, especially when you are not part of said argument. Why are you going to law school again?

MW

You are uniformly despised on this forum. Do you not get that? Wait, flame.

Douchebags usually unite into a giant turd, in hopes of smiting those that present intellectual obstacles for them. You and your cronies stink from a mile away, and it's time someone washed you out. Enter yours truly.

MW


Alright, now it's just obvious you're a fake/flame/alt/whatever

D-Rizzle

minuit
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:39 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby minuit » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:28 pm

MysticalWheel wrote: You and your cronies stink from a mile away, and it's time someone washed you out. Enter yours truly.

MW


lol thank god you came along to wash away the smell.

Image

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby firemed » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:28 pm

MysticalWheel wrote: It is certainly true that most situations result in favor for splitters over non-splitters = true "almost always"
MW


FTFY

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby MysticalWheel » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:29 pm

firemedicprelaw wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:Well, I applied to Chicago, but I think I'll go to Harvard or Stanford instead. Columbia is the consolation prize. Also, it seems quite odd to call someone who is relevantly responding with rational argument a flame, especially when you are not part of said argument. Why are you going to law school again?

MW

You are uniformly despised on this forum. Do you not get that? Wait, flame.

Douchebags usually unite into a giant turd, in hopes of smiting those that present intellectual obstacles for them. You and your cronies stink from a mile away, and it's time someone washed you out. Enter yours truly.

MW


So... have you noticed that pretty much everywhere you go there are a shitload of douchebags? Have you ever wondered why there were sooooo many? Like, statistically there shouldn't be that many douchebags, right? Could the common factor be you? Could it be that the way you choose to argue and the way you interact make people hostile to you?

Even more importantly... have you ever considered the possibility you are wrong?

Actually, the douchebags are right here. Where did you get "everywhere I go?" LOL.

MW

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby MysticalWheel » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:30 pm

firemedicprelaw wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote: It is certainly true that most situations result in favor for splitters over non-splitters = true "almost always"
MW


FTFY


Uh...no. I'm not sure, but you may be in need of help from my good friend, Mr. Dictionary. If something is true MOST of the time, that does not necessarily mean that it is ALMOST ALWAYS true. BASIC LSAT FAIL.

MW

P.S. Wow...uber-"owned" lol.

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby MysticalWheel » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:31 pm

Deuce wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:Well, I applied to Chicago, but I think I'll go to Harvard or Stanford instead. Columbia is the consolation prize. Also, it seems quite odd to call someone who is relevantly responding with rational argument a flame, especially when you are not part of said argument. Why are you going to law school again?

MW

You are uniformly despised on this forum. Do you not get that? Wait, flame.

Douchebags usually unite into a giant turd, in hopes of smiting those that present intellectual obstacles for them. You and your cronies stink from a mile away, and it's time someone washed you out. Enter yours truly.

MW


Alright, now it's just obvious you're a fake/flame/alt/whatever

D-Rizzle

I think that comment was directed towards yourself, no?

MW

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby MysticalWheel » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:32 pm

JazzOne wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:Lol...no need for obscenities. Looks like you have significant rage issues- better take care of them sooner than later sweety.

MW

Come on, you can lick deeper than that. I'm looking for a good rim job here.


Don't you usually have to pay for those, on account that no self-respecting female will approach you willingly?

MW

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby firemed » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:33 pm

MysticalWheel wrote:
firemedicprelaw wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote: It is certainly true that most situations result in favor for splitters over non-splitters = true "almost always"
MW


FTFY


Uh...no. I'm not sure, but you may be in need of help from my good friend, Mr. Dictionary. If something is true MOST of the time, that does not necessarily mean that it is ALMOST ALWAYS true. BASIC LSAT FAIL.

MW

P.S. Wow...uber-"owned" lol.


English

Etymology
From Old English mǣst, from Proto-Germanic. Cognate with Dutch meest, German meist, Swedish mest.

Pronunciation
(UK) enPR: mōst, IPA: /məʊst/, SAMPA: /m@Ust/
(US) enPR: mōst, IPA: /moʊst/, SAMPA: /moUst/
Audio (US)

(file)
Rhymes: -əʊst
Determiner
most
Superlative form of much.

Most people like chocolate.
Most simply choose to ignore it.
Most want the best for their children.

Synonyms
almost all

:twisted:

So much for pwnage. I am laughing at you, BTW. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Last edited by firemed on Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Deuce
Posts: 1048
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 11:12 am

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby Deuce » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:34 pm

MysticalWheel wrote:
Deuce wrote:
Alright, now it's just obvious you're a fake/flame/alt/whatever

D-Rizzle

I think that comment was directed towards yourself, no?

MW


wut?

User avatar
Sentry
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:38 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby Sentry » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:34 pm

MysticalWheel wrote:
Deuce wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:
JazzOne wrote:You are uniformly despised on this forum. Do you not get that? Wait, flame.

Douchebags usually unite into a giant turd, in hopes of smiting those that present intellectual obstacles for them. You and your cronies stink from a mile away, and it's time someone washed you out. Enter yours truly.

MW


Alright, now it's just obvious you're a fake/flame/alt/whatever

D-Rizzle

I think that comment was directed towards yourself, no?

MW

The old I know you are but what am I argument. Classic.

User avatar
JazzOne
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby JazzOne » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:35 pm

MysticalWheel wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:Lol...no need for obscenities. Looks like you have significant rage issues- better take care of them sooner than later sweety.

MW

Come on, you can lick deeper than that. I'm looking for a good rim job here.


Don't you usually have to pay for those, on account that no self-respecting female will approach you willingly?

MW

But, you're not a self-respecting female, so we're all good. Now quit talking into my ass please.

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby MysticalWheel » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:36 pm

firemedicprelaw wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:
firemedicprelaw wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote: It is certainly true that most situations result in favor for splitters over non-splitters = true "almost always"
MW


FTFY


Uh...no. I'm not sure, but you may be in need of help from my good friend, Mr. Dictionary. If something is true MOST of the time, that does not necessarily mean that it is ALMOST ALWAYS true. BASIC LSAT FAIL.

MW

P.S. Wow...uber-"owned" lol.


English

[edit]Etymology
From Old English mǣst, from Proto-Germanic. Cognate with Dutch meest, German meist, Swedish mest.
[edit]Pronunciation
(UK) enPR: mōst, IPA: /məʊst/, SAMPA: /m@Ust/
(US) enPR: mōst, IPA: /moʊst/, SAMPA: /moUst/
Audio (US)

(file)
Rhymes: -əʊst
[edit]Determiner
most
Superlative form of much.
Most people like chocolate.
Most simply choose to ignore it.
Most want the best for their children.
[edit]Synonyms
almost all

:twisted:


true
   /tru/ Show Spelled [troo] Show IPA adjective, tru·er, tru·est, noun, adverb, verb, trued, tru·ing or true·ing.
–adjective
1.
being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story.
2.
real; genuine; authentic: true gold; true feelings.
3.
sincere; not deceitful: a true interest in someone's welfare.
4.
firm in allegiance; loyal; faithful; steadfast: a true friend.
5.
being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something: the true meaning of his statement.
6.
conforming to or consistent with a standard, pattern, or the like: a true copy.
7.
exact; precise; accurate; correct: a true balance.
8.
of the right kind; such as it should be; proper: to arrange things in their true order.
9.
properly so called; rightly answering to a description: true statesmanship.
10.
legitimate or rightful: the true heir.
11.
reliable, unfailing, or sure: a true sign.
12.
exactly or accurately shaped, formed, fitted, or placed, as a surface, instrument, or part of a mechanism.
13.
honest; honorable; upright.
14.
Biology . conforming to the type, norm, or standard of structure of a particular group; typical: The lion is a true cat.
15.
Animal Husbandry . purebred.
16.
Navigation . (of a bearing, course, etc.) determined in relation to true north.
17.
Archaic . truthful.
–noun
18.
exact or accurate formation, position, or adjustment: to be out of true.
19.
the true, something that is true; truth.
–adverb
20.
in a true manner; truly; truthfully.
21.
exactly or accurately.
22.
in conformity with the ancestral type: to breed true.
–verb (used with object)
23.
to make true; shape, adjust, place, etc., exactly or accurately: to true the wheels of a bicycle after striking a pothole.
24.
(esp. in carpentry) to make even, symmetrical, level, etc. (often fol. by up ): to true up the sides of a door.
—Idiom
25.
come true, to have the expected or hoped-for result; become a reality: She couldn't believe that her dream would ever come true.


much
   /mʌtʃ/ Show Spelled [muhch] Show IPA adjective, more, most, noun, adverb, more, most.
–adjective
1.
great in quantity, measure, or degree: too much cake.
–noun
2.
a great quantity, measure, or degree: Much of his research was unreliable.
3.
a great, important, or notable thing or matter: The house is not much to look at.
–adverb
4.
to a great extent or degree; greatly; far: to talk too much; much heavier.
5.
nearly, approximately, or about: This is much like the others.
—Idioms
6.
make much of,
a.
to treat, represent, or consider as of great importance: to make much of trivial matters.
b.
to treat with great consideration; show fondness for; flatter.
7.
much as,
a.
almost the same as: We need exercise, much as we need nourishment.
b.
however much: Much as she wanted to stay at the party, she had to leave.


al·most
   /ˈɔlmoʊst, ɔlˈmoʊst/ Show Spelled[awl-mohst, awl-mohst] Show IPA
–adverb
very nearly; all but: almost every house; almost the entire symphony; to pay almost nothing for a car; almost twice as many books.



You can thank me later :) 8) :lol:

MW

User avatar
beachbum
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby beachbum » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:37 pm

Image

User avatar
Sentry
Posts: 1235
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:38 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby Sentry » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:37 pm

The real question is will Ben Wallace be a splitter?

User avatar
MysticalWheel
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby MysticalWheel » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:37 pm

JazzOne wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:
JazzOne wrote:
MysticalWheel wrote:Lol...no need for obscenities. Looks like you have significant rage issues- better take care of them sooner than later sweety.

MW

Come on, you can lick deeper than that. I'm looking for a good rim job here.


Don't you usually have to pay for those, on account that no self-respecting female will approach you willingly?

MW

But, you're not a self-respecting female, so we're all good. Now quit talking into my ass please.

Lol...that's just sad. Go take care of yourself- maybe it'll help your rage issues.

MW

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: Who first- Splitters or Reverse-Splitters?

Postby Dany » Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:38 pm

MysticalWheel wrote:Actually, the douchebags are right here.

MW

--ImageRemoved--




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests