Top Law Schools

Desert Fox wrote: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.

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

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

ahduth wrote:

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

I laughed out loud. Sorry. U of C just... they definitely take themselves seriously. It's good that other people take them seriously too.

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:I smell an alt.

NewYorTTTcity wrote:

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:I smell an alt.

The only alt is the alternate universe I'm blasting this thread to with my reality cannons.

NewYorTTTcity wrote:

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:I smell an alt.

The only alt is the alternate universe I'm blasting this thread to with my reality cannons.

NewYorTTTcity wrote:My issue with those saying it's only numbers is that people above the 75% GPA and LSAT at HYS are still being WLed. Unless those people are all LSAT retakers, something else is at play.

While some schools may only care about numbers, not all of us are applying to non-HYS TTT14 schools.

Transfer987123 wrote:

NewYorTTTcity wrote:My issue with those saying it's only numbers is that people above the 75% GPA and LSAT at HYS are still being WLed. Unless those people are all LSAT retakers, something else is at play.

While some schools may only care about numbers, not all of us are applying to non-HYS TTT14 schools.

You are probably just joking, but the only schools that seem to legitimately be black boxes are Y and S (and Berkeley). H is probably the most number conscious school in the T14.

die Zauberflote wrote:May I ask if you are still in college and, if so, what year?

I just finished with my cycle and I am pleased with the results. In many instances I heeded TLS, but sometimes I strayed from the so-called conventional wisdom.

I read all of TLS, Montauk’s book, and many other books on law school preparation and admissions.

As far as admissions go, I don’t like the articles on TLS, nor do I like 99% of the books that are available. I found only two that invariably gave me solid, insightful advice:

Anna Ivey’s book: http://www.amazon.com/Ivey-Guide-School ... 785&sr=8-5

and

Susan Estrich’s book: http://www.amazon.com/How-Get-Into-Scho ... 885&sr=1-1

Also, I believe large sections are outdated and inaccurate, but I would read Law School Confidential and One L, as they do get you excited about law school.

I would strongly advise against taking the time to read any of the following:

The Law School Admission Game: Play Like an Expert by Ann K. Levine

How to Get Into the Top Law Schools by Richard Montauk

Planet Law School II by Atticus Falcon

The Best Law Schools' Admissions Secrets by Joyce Curll

55 Successful Harvard Law School Application Essays by The Staff of the Harvard Crimson

Learn from my mistakes. Do not buy or read these books. Everything you could do to help yourself and more are in the Ivey and Estrich books.

Also, I would advise against much of the advice on TLS. If it ever conflicts with Ivey or Estrich, the women trump. When someone is admitted to law school, they don’t know what admissions liked about their application and what admissions didn’t…they just know that they are in. Perhaps someone just got a full ride to Harvard: their numbers are probably phenomenal, but what did admissions think about their essay? How were their recommendations? How was their resume? People may assume that their application was similarly phenomenal and treat that person’s advice like scripture. But maybe their application sucked and it was just the numbers. Who knows? TLS advice on LS admissions is necessarily the blind leading the blind.

While it is generally true that GPA outweighs you major, if I could rewind time I would have declared a double major. A hard science and a “traditional” area of the humanities that requires a lot of writing (e.g., English, Philosophy, History). I would also have structured my classes in a way that mirrored the classical liberal arts model. I would have earned a B.A. & B.S., tried to graduate Phi Beta Kappa, AND kept my GPA stellar. I would also have sought out a leadership role and a long-term volunteer position. Not only would these things help your application, but they would (I think) help prepare you for law school, lawyering, and life. Even so, I really enjoy school and being challenged. Some people would rather get an easy 4.0 in fashion or business. But that’s not my attitude and I don’t think that that’s an attitude that admissions officers look for.

NewYorTTTcity wrote:

Transfer987123 wrote:

NewYorTTTcity wrote:My issue with those saying it's only numbers is that people above the 75% GPA and LSAT at HYS are still being WLed. Unless those people are all LSAT retakers, something else is at play.

While some schools may only care about numbers, not all of us are applying to non-HYS TTT14 schools.

You are probably just joking, but the only schools that seem to legitimately be black boxes are Y and S (and Berkeley). H is probably the most number conscious school in the T14.

Despite my tone, I actually wasn't joking. Basically, judging by LSN, I have a 90% shot at HLS. I'm wondering what was fatal to the applications of the other 10% on LSN. Obviously, it could be a number of things. I just wonder what it takes to get denied.

My concern (and critique of the "it's only numbers" crowd) stems from this: with a few exceptions the kind of candidate who has a 4.0/179 is also the kind who will wrestle good recs out of professors and slave over a personal statement. In short, I'm guessing it's the type of person who says, "I've already come this far, don't screw this up now" - as well as the type of person who probably has solid softs. Obviously, that's not true for everyone with good numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was the vast majority. I think there's a bit of a selection effect that's not really going to show up just looking at LSN data, which is, I'm guessing, a big source of the "numbers only" logic.

So, I'm wondering if I can just phone it in the next three months or if I really need to buckle down and turn in a polished app. If I felt compelled to go the latter route, I'm guessing that's where Montauk and Ivey would come in.

thecilent wrote:QF you are an idiot.

KingMenes wrote:Apparently, History majors are USEFUL for something that matters to TLSers, like the logical reasoning skills that lead to LSAT success:

--ImageRemoved--

Yet, an Economics/History or Economics/Philosophy combo could really help :mrgreen

Oh yeah, someone posted a really good article about America's failing business schools.
In summary, business schools/majors aren't learning shit....

KingMenes wrote:
Oh yeah, someone posted a really good article about America's failing business schools.
In summary, business schools/majors aren't learning shit....

die Zauberflote wrote:

thecilent wrote:QF you are an idiot.

Sick, bro. Way to add.

NewYorTTTcity wrote:

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:I smell an alt.

The only alt is the alternate universe I'm blasting this thread to with my reality cannons.

vanwinkle wrote:

NewYorTTTcity wrote:

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:I smell an alt.

The only alt is the alternate universe I'm blasting this thread to with my reality cannons.

Whaddaya know. He was an alt.

Note the past tense there.

Kilpatrick wrote:I wish alts could be outed just like anonymous abuse

Kilpatrick wrote:If she published the truth no one would buy it because it would just be one page with this graph:

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:

Kilpatrick wrote:I wish alts could be outed just like anonymous abuse

I've seen it in the past. betasteve (I believe) was kind enough to unmask a user who tried to troll the December LSAT takers.

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 6&t=142968