Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
bjsesq
TLS Poet Laureate
Posts: 13383
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:02 am

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby bjsesq » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:23 pm

die Zauberflote wrote:
bjsesq wrote:
die Zauberflote wrote:I wouldn’t read exam-taking advice from someone who ranked outside of the top 10%


That's your bad. I've said it a million times: you read whatever you can on what other people did, then throw it out the window and responsibly figure out what works for you.


You're right. Sloppy writing. You can see that I don't genuinely advocate that tactic by the rest of my comment.


Fair enough.

User avatar
Kilpatrick
Posts: 1073
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:06 am

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby Kilpatrick » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:28 pm

die Zauberflote wrote:
Kilpatrick wrote:
die Zauberflote wrote:
Kilpatrick wrote:You are right, perhaps I was mistaken. I was under the impression that "The Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions: Straight Advice on Essays, Resumes, Interviews, and More" contained information about insignificant parts of the law school application such as essays and resumes, and therefore didn't need to read it.

You're pretty sure of yourself. Which law school has the privilege of hosting your wisdom?


I'm not going to get into a pissing match over what law schools we go to. I go to Illinois, its clear in my posting history. Let's just agree to disagree


But you’ve made it into a pissing match. I wouldn’t read exam-taking advice from someone who ranked outside of the top 10%, so why should a t-14 hopeful listen to your advice re: admissions? Who are you to claim that parts of the application are insignificant? Perhaps you could have learned something from those books; perhaps those books could help other people; perhaps TLS doesn’t have all the answers; but you’ll never know because you’re so damn sure that those books are shit. Why? What on earth makes you believe that you are capable of such an uniformed prophesy?

I think that hopefuls can benefit tremendously from TLS. They can benefit by identifying good strategies and testing them out for themselves. Hopefuls can also learn by the foolish mistakes and loosing strategies of others, which are shamelessly touted by you, bport hopeful, and a few others in this thread.

Claiming that (a) better decisions result from less information and resources and (b) less significance equals no significance shows incomprehensible stupidity….not ignorance, but stupidity.


It's not like I somehow tried and failed to get into the school I wanted to. I got into exactly the range of schools that my numbers would predict. I guess I could sit around wondering, if only I had the Ann Ivey book, maybe I could have been the special snowflake that got into Harvard with a 171 and a crappy GPA. But I really don't think that's the case. Obviously you think differently, which is why I said we can agree to disagree.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby robotclubmember » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:34 pm

die Zauberflote wrote:
bport hopeful wrote:This is plain moronic.

Certainly no more so than your insightful comment.

Wow, I'm grouchy. Maybe I need to go eat.


dude... go eat.

die Zauberflote
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby die Zauberflote » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:37 pm

robotclubmember wrote:
die Zauberflote wrote:
bport hopeful wrote:This is plain moronic.

Certainly no more so than your insightful comment.

Wow, I'm grouchy. Maybe I need to go eat.


dude... go eat.

Fine. :oops:

acrossthelake
Posts: 4431
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby acrossthelake » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:38 pm

Kilpatrick wrote:
It's not like I somehow tried and failed to get into the school I wanted to. I got into exactly the range of schools that my numbers would predict. I guess I could sit around wondering, if only I had the Ann Ivey book, maybe I could have been the special snowflake that got into Harvard with a 171 and a crappy GPA. But I really don't think that's the case. Obviously you think differently, which is why I said we can agree to disagree.


I think standard wisdom would agree that a 171/"crappy" GPA (as you put it) won't get into Harvard, no matter how you polish your application. But maybe it helps someone with more borderline numbers, which the book could help with.

User avatar
robotclubmember
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 7:53 am

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby robotclubmember » Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:59 pm

i actually did read anna ivey's book and would recommend it. you can find almost all of it for free in google books.

WestOfTheRest
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:10 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby WestOfTheRest » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:00 pm

robotclubmember wrote:i actually did read anna ivey's book and would recommend it. you can find almost all of it for free in google books.

Lol, seems ironic that you would suggest something to help someone go to law scholl. :wink:

Real Madrid
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:21 am

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby Real Madrid » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:29 pm

crazi4law wrote:I read an excerpt of the very well-reviewed "How to get into the top law schools" book by Richard Montauk and I noticed that he emphasized the importance of a challenging courseload, and of avoiding vocational majors such as business, while everyone on TLS keeps stressing the overwhelming importance of solely the GPA and LSAT.

So who is right?


I seriously don't get this misconception about business majors being easy. Are there easy business majors? Yes. But useless majors like History or Political Science are not even in the same stratosphere of difficulty as, say, a Finance or Economics major, and to think otherwise is laughable.

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby TaipeiMort » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:33 pm

Major will not change anything if your numbers aren't close to where they need to be. However, unique (not rigorous) majors will get you admitted and out of the marginal group (eg. 171, 3.75 at CCN). I'm pretty sure that admissins officers get excited when they see "marine biology" sitting there in between 30 similar poli sci and history majors.

WestOfTheRest
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:10 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby WestOfTheRest » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:37 pm

Real Madrid wrote:
crazi4law wrote:I read an excerpt of the very well-reviewed "How to get into the top law schools" book by Richard Montauk and I noticed that he emphasized the importance of a challenging courseload, and of avoiding vocational majors such as business, while everyone on TLS keeps stressing the overwhelming importance of solely the GPA and LSAT.

So who is right?


I seriously don't get this misconception about business majors being easy. Are there easy business majors? Yes. But useless majors like History or Political Science are not even in the same stratosphere of difficulty as, say, a Finance or Economics major, and to think otherwise is laughable.

Economics is NOT a business major. Most business majors are rooted in economic theory.

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby TaipeiMort » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:41 pm

Real Madrid wrote:
crazi4law wrote:I read an excerpt of the very well-reviewed "How to get into the top law schools" book by Richard Montauk and I noticed that he emphasized the importance of a challenging courseload, and of avoiding vocational majors such as business, while everyone on TLS keeps stressing the overwhelming importance of solely the GPA and LSAT.

So who is right?


I seriously don't get this misconception about business majors being easy. Are there easy business majors? Yes. But useless majors like History or Political Science are not even in the same stratosphere of difficulty as, say, a Finance or Economics major, and to think otherwise is laughable.


Top UG B schools are hard. My top ten UG B-school (BYU) was as hard as the University of Chicago.

die Zauberflote
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby die Zauberflote » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:42 pm

Real Madrid wrote:I seriously don't get this misconception about business majors being easy. Are there easy business majors? Yes. But useless majors like History or Political Science are not even in the same stratosphere of difficulty as, say, a Finance or Economics major, and to think otherwise is laughable.


At my undergraduate school, earning a high GPA while majoring in "business," or "communications," was significantly easier than earning a high GPA in any other department. For that reason, most of the people whose attitudes were "I don't care...I just want to get a degree and get out," flocked to either business or communications. I think that this is why these majors get picked on. I don't think that people would generally ridicule finance or economics in the same way.

Even so, majors vary so much between school that praising Finance or Economics and condemning History or Political Science is pretty useless. Not everyone goes to school with the learn-a-trade mentality, which many in Finance or Economics and students of the hard sciences possess. You don't need a finance degree to work in finance, or an economics degree....etc.

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:46 pm

acrossthelake wrote:I think standard wisdom would agree that a 171/"crappy" GPA (as you put it) won't get into Harvard, no matter how you polish your application. But maybe it helps someone with more borderline numbers, which the book could help with.
This reminds me of a girl who applied to undergrad with awesome numbers, but she wrote her PS about her pet parrot that she would shower with. She was still admitted, but she lost a ton of scholly.
Last edited by SchopenhauerFTW on Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby TaipeiMort » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:47 pm

CastleRock wrote:
Real Madrid wrote:
crazi4law wrote:I read an excerpt of the very well-reviewed "How to get into the top law schools" book by Richard Montauk and I noticed that he emphasized the importance of a challenging courseload, and of avoiding vocational majors such as business, while everyone on TLS keeps stressing the overwhelming importance of solely the GPA and LSAT.

So who is right?


I seriously don't get this misconception about business majors being easy. Are there easy business majors? Yes. But useless majors like History or Political Science are not even in the same stratosphere of difficulty as, say, a Finance or Economics major, and to think otherwise is laughable.

Economics is NOT a business major. Most business majors are rooted in economic theory.


Unless you do a ManEc emphasis, then you can have a management economics business degree. But all business majors in my program had to take at least 3 econ, and a strategy course, as well as get an A- average in stats, calculus, intro to econ, and accounting.

User avatar
bport hopeful
Posts: 4913
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:09 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby bport hopeful » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:49 pm

Proof that numbers and URM status are what matter: [url]lawschoolpredictor.com[/url]

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby 09042014 » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:51 pm

When people say business majors they mean business admin. And it is fairly easy. But almost every liberal arts degree is even easier.

die Zauberflote
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby die Zauberflote » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:54 pm

bport hopeful wrote:Proof that numbers and URM status are what matter: [url]lawschoolpredictor.com[/url]


Other things matter too. Just not as much. If you don't think so, write your GPA on one ass cheek and your LSAT score on the other. Photocopy your ass and send it in. I'm sure everything will work out because numbers and URM are all that matter.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby 09042014 » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:55 pm

die Zauberflote wrote:
bport hopeful wrote:Proof that numbers and URM status are what matter: [url]lawschoolpredictor.com[/url]


Other things matter too. Just not as much. If you don't think so, write your GPA on one ass cheek and your LSAT score on the other. Photocopy your ass and send it in. I'm sure everything will work out because numbers and URM are all that matter.


If your GPA was 3.7 and LSAT 170, you'd get into every T2-T4 with a full ride.

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:55 pm

Desert Fox wrote:When people say business majors they mean business admin. And it is fairly easy. But almost every liberal arts degree is even easier.

Liberal arts is easy when you're taking crap like film studies and experimental music.

die Zauberflote
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby die Zauberflote » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:56 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
die Zauberflote wrote:
bport hopeful wrote:Proof that numbers and URM status are what matter: [url]lawschoolpredictor.com[/url]


Other things matter too. Just not as much. If you don't think so, write your GPA on one ass cheek and your LSAT score on the other. Photocopy your ass and send it in. I'm sure everything will work out because numbers and URM are all that matter.


If your GPA was 3.7 and LSAT 170, you'd get into every T2-T4 with a full ride.


Somebody needs to try this.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby 09042014 » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:58 pm

die Zauberflote wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
die Zauberflote wrote:
bport hopeful wrote:Proof that numbers and URM status are what matter: [url]lawschoolpredictor.com[/url]


Other things matter too. Just not as much. If you don't think so, write your GPA on one ass cheek and your LSAT score on the other. Photocopy your ass and send it in. I'm sure everything will work out because numbers and URM are all that matter.


If your GPA was 3.7 and LSAT 170, you'd get into every T2-T4 with a full ride.


Somebody needs to try this.


I turned in an app with multiple typos, a PS that clearly copypasta'd to every school, and a 2.8 GPA. And I still got into Iowa, IUB and Minn with money.

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:58 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
die Zauberflote wrote:
bport hopeful wrote:Proof that numbers and URM status are what matter: [url]lawschoolpredictor.com[/url]


Other things matter too. Just not as much. If you don't think so, write your GPA on one ass cheek and your LSAT score on the other. Photocopy your ass and send it in. I'm sure everything will work out because numbers and URM are all that matter.


If your GPA was 3.7 and LSAT 170, you'd get into every T2-T4 with a full ride.

True. But what happens once you start applying higher in the rankings, and all you are is some numbers on a piece of paper? I think that's when the PS and those softs start to matter.

/redundant comment

WestOfTheRest
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:10 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby WestOfTheRest » Thu Jul 21, 2011 3:58 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
die Zauberflote wrote:
bport hopeful wrote:Proof that numbers and URM status are what matter: [url]lawschoolpredictor.com[/url]


Other things matter too. Just not as much. If you don't think so, write your GPA on one ass cheek and your LSAT score on the other. Photocopy your ass and send it in. I'm sure everything will work out because numbers and URM are all that matter.


If your GPA was 3.7 and LSAT 170, you'd get into every T2-T4 with a full ride.

You may not, just for yield protection sake.

die Zauberflote
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:12 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby die Zauberflote » Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:07 pm

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:When people say business majors they mean business admin. And it is fairly easy. But almost every liberal arts degree is even easier.

Liberal arts is easy when you're taking crap like film studies and experimental music.


People mean two different things by liberal a liberal arts education: a degree from a "liberal arts college" or a "classical" liberal arts education. Very few schools offer a program that approachs a "classical" liberal arts education: St. John's--Annapolis; Kenyon; U. Chicago; (I think) Yale. A classical liberal arts education includes: grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. So basically you learn to read, write, argue, philosophize. But you also learn mathematics, science, and a fine art. The original purpose of a liberal arts education wasn't to make you an expert in any one things or to teach you a trade, but to put you in a position where, upon graduation, you could do anything you wanted. You would know enough to be able to teach yourself whatever trade you decide to pursue (financial work, writer, professor, business, lawyer, doctor, philosopher, research scientist, trash man, whatever).

Sometimes people say "liberal arts" when they mean "humanities," this further adds to the conclusion. Liberal arts college has basically come to mean "not a research university."
Last edited by die Zauberflote on Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Richard Montauk's advice inconsistent with TLS's...?

Postby 09042014 » Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:08 pm

CastleRock wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
die Zauberflote wrote:
bport hopeful wrote:Proof that numbers and URM status are what matter: [url]lawschoolpredictor.com[/url]


Other things matter too. Just not as much. If you don't think so, write your GPA on one ass cheek and your LSAT score on the other. Photocopy your ass and send it in. I'm sure everything will work out because numbers and URM are all that matter.


If your GPA was 3.7 and LSAT 170, you'd get into every T2-T4 with a full ride.

You may not, just for yield protection sake.


You just stumbled into a great idea. Avoid Yield protect by turning in a shitty app.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bleakchimera2 and 5 guests