Impact of a perfect score Forum

[vblhe]

Whoosh.

Nobody's picking a fight with you, nobody (except you, now) is being a jackass. Nobody 'gave' you anything worth getting sniffy about.

Quit seeing mean people persecuting you everywhere. It'll save you a lot of time and energy.

In his defense, I was being intentionally mean when I said he sounded like a douche. But that's mostly because he sounds like an insufferable douche. Before that, though - I think I was straddling the line between helpful and snarky in classic TLS fashion.

My use of the word furthermore makes me sound like an insufferable douche?

[smaug_]

I think you'd need to talk to the URM board to get a better idea, but if you hit in the 175+ range you'll be very very competitive.

ONLY BECAUSE YOU ASKED ABOUT IT: without that status you'd still have a pretty good shot at NYU, but Chicago or Columbia would be harder. PBVM seem generally harder to predict.

[rcthebigred1]

.

[vblhe]

If you think that was inappropriately snarky, you have not been here very long.


TLS is a huge source of incredibly valuable information, but you have to have at least averagely thick internet skin, or you'll be too busy getting your fee-fees hurt to glean any good tips.

My internet skin is just fine, I've been on many forums and won many fights with many jackasses, if you'll look at my previous post you'll see me giving as good as I got. Thanks for the useless advice though. I'm gleaning alot of good advice and gettin' a good fight to boot.

Whoosh.

Nobody's picking a fight with you, nobody (except you, now) is being a jackass. Nobody 'gave' you anything worth getting sniffy about.

Quit seeing mean people persecuting you everywhere. It'll save you a lot of time and energy.

I don't see mean people persecuting me everywhere (though thanks for the free psychoanalysis). I do, however, find it interesting that when I respond to snark with snark certain persons would rather discuss that (I must be good) than the matter at hand. This is an online forum, I frankly don't take these interactions all that seriously. I just enjoy repaying snark with snark.

[005618502]

Made me lol when OP said a 3.3 is a middle of the road gpa

[vblhe]

Whoosh.

Nobody's picking a fight with you, nobody (except you, now) is being a jackass. Nobody 'gave' you anything worth getting sniffy about.

Quit seeing mean people persecuting you everywhere. It'll save you a lot of time and energy.

In his defense, I was being intentionally mean when I said he sounded like a douche. But that's mostly because he sounds like an insufferable douche. Before that, though - I think I was straddling the line between helpful and snarky in classic TLS fashion.

To your credit, I have been known to go all-in at the slightest provocation, not out of sensitivity, but bellicosity. Good thing everyone here is so remarkably thick-skinned.

[crooked]

If you think that was inappropriately snarky, you have not been here very long.


TLS is a huge source of incredibly valuable information, but you have to have at least averagely thick internet skin, or you'll be too busy getting your fee-fees hurt to glean any good tips.

My internet skin is just fine, I've been on many forums and won many fights with many jackasses, if you'll look at my previous post you'll see me giving as good as I got. Thanks for the useless advice though. I'm gleaning alot of good advice and gettin' a good fight to boot.

Whoosh.

Nobody's picking a fight with you, nobody (except you, now) is being a jackass. Nobody 'gave' you anything worth getting sniffy about.

Quit seeing mean people persecuting you everywhere. It'll save you a lot of time and energy.

I don't see mean people persecuting me everywhere (though thanks for the free psychoanalysis). I do, however, find it interesting that when I respond to snark with snark certain persons would rather discuss that (I must be good) than the matter at hand. This is an online forum, I frankly don't take these interactions all that seriously. I just enjoy repaying snark with snark.

You should probably write your personal statement about how much you enjoy a good argument, then. I hear ad comms love that.

[Mal Reynolds]

Whoosh.

Nobody's picking a fight with you, nobody (except you, now) is being a jackass. Nobody 'gave' you anything worth getting sniffy about.

Quit seeing mean people persecuting you everywhere. It'll save you a lot of time and energy.

In his defense, I was being intentionally mean when I said he sounded like a douche. But that's mostly because he sounds like an insufferable douche. Before that, though - I think I was straddling the line between helpful and snarky in classic TLS fashion.

To your credit, I have been known to go all-in at the slightest provocation, not out of sensitivity, but bellicosity. Good thing everyone here is so remarkably thick-skinned.

This is rich.

[TommyK]

My use of the word furthermore makes me sound like an insufferable douche?

It was a contributing factor. You also questioned my mental faculties because I "mischaracterized" what you said... Though, I still see no mischaracterization. You said it was hard for you to believe they don't care about college ECs. I suggested you look at the numbers and see that data do not suggest that ECs impact it. You seem intentionally obtuse and appear surprisingly incredulous toward advice and information echoed by many. It was easier to just call you a douche.

[vblhe]

My use of the word furthermore makes me sound like an insufferable douche?

It was a contributing factor. You also questioned my mental faculties because I "mischaracterized" what you said... Though, I still see no mischaracterization. You said it was hard for you to believe they don't care about college ECs. I suggested you look at the numbers and see that data do not suggest that ECs impact it. You seem intentionally obtuse and appear surprisingly incredulous toward advice and information echoed by many. It was easier to just call you a douche.

In the first instance I was responding to the perceived douchiness of your post. If you will look I have since come around to agreeing with that position. In any event, the only unimpeachable data (meaning not self-reported) I have found concerning law school admissions were on LSAC and these did not show the impact of extra-curriculars meaning that all I have are self-reported data; this led me to seek elaboration of the statements being made, the elaborations made sense, so I am now of the same mind. It should come as no surprise that someone who intends to enter the legal profession would have an analytical and probing bent (sometimes excessively so I admit). I have learned that the truth of a statement is not always proportional to how frequently it is uttered. see: "surprisingly incredulous...." Therefore, before I accept anything (especially un-sourced statements from people I don't know but whom I only suspect know what they're talking about) I make sure that the logic behind it is sound. I came here to get perceptions from fellow applicants and to discuss said perceptions, not to sit like a potted plant and just absorb what's thrown at me. Several people have apparently not found this approach especially douchy and have responded to it with reasoned explanations. These are due my unequivocal thanks. Long-winded I admit, but thorough.

[vblhe]

You should probably write your personal statement about how much you enjoy a good argument, then. I hear ad comms love that.

Funny, I've heard the exact opposite, I suspect that was your point. LOL

[ocajavati]

Wasn't implying that anyone was racist, just figured that after mentioning the NAACP people would take that as a hint to my race. I deliberately left that out initially because while I understand, support, and defend affirmative action in legal admissions, I wanted to get an opinion that did not take into account my URM status, while I know it would be a benefit I would like to walk/run in the door not be drug in limping.

Wow. Okay.

URM gives ridiculous boost. In at all T14 with decent LSAT score.

Like it or not, URM are given a near unreasonable advantage over all other applicants. Seriously, it's working in your favor. Stop making it sound like a bad thing.

[Mal Reynolds]

My use of the word furthermore makes me sound like an insufferable douche?

It was a contributing factor. You also questioned my mental faculties because I "mischaracterized" what you said... Though, I still see no mischaracterization. You said it was hard for you to believe they don't care about college ECs. I suggested you look at the numbers and see that data do not suggest that ECs impact it. You seem intentionally obtuse and appear surprisingly incredulous toward advice and information echoed by many. It was easier to just call you a douche.

In the first instance I was responding to the perceived douchiness of your post. If you will look I have since come around to agreeing with that position. In any event, the only unimpeachable data (meaning not self-reported) I have found concerning law school admissions were on LSAC and these did not show the impact of extra-curriculars meaning that all I have are self-reported data; this led me to seek elaboration of the statements being made, the elaborations made sense, so I am now of the same mind. It should come as no surprise that someone who intends to enter the legal profession would have an analytical and probing bent (sometimes excessively so I admit). I have learned that the truth of a statement is not always proportional to how frequently it is uttered. see: "surprisingly incredulous...." Therefore, before I accept anything (especially un-sourced statements from people I don't know but whom I only suspect know what they're talking about) I make sure that the logic behind it is sound. I came here to get perceptions from fellow applicants and to discuss said perceptions, not to sit like a potted plant and just absorb what's thrown at me. Several people have apparently not found this approach especially douchy and have responded to it with reasoned explanations. These are due my unequivocal thanks. Long-winded I admit, but thorough.

You're insufferable.

[vblhe]

My use of the word furthermore makes me sound like an insufferable douche?

It was a contributing factor. You also questioned my mental faculties because I "mischaracterized" what you said... Though, I still see no mischaracterization. You said it was hard for you to believe they don't care about college ECs. I suggested you look at the numbers and see that data do not suggest that ECs impact it. You seem intentionally obtuse and appear surprisingly incredulous toward advice and information echoed by many. It was easier to just call you a douche.

In the first instance I was responding to the perceived douchiness of your post. If you will look I have since come around to agreeing with that position. In any event, the only unimpeachable data (meaning not self-reported) I have found concerning law school admissions were on LSAC and these did not show the impact of extra-curriculars meaning that all I have are self-reported data; this led me to seek elaboration of the statements being made, the elaborations made sense, so I am now of the same mind. It should come as no surprise that someone who intends to enter the legal profession would have an analytical and probing bent (sometimes excessively so I admit). I have learned that the truth of a statement is not always proportional to how frequently it is uttered. see: "surprisingly incredulous...." Therefore, before I accept anything (especially un-sourced statements from people I don't know but whom I only suspect know what they're talking about) I make sure that the logic behind it is sound. I came here to get perceptions from fellow applicants and to discuss said perceptions, not to sit like a potted plant and just absorb what's thrown at me. Several people have apparently not found this approach especially douchy and have responded to it with reasoned explanations. These are due my unequivocal thanks. Long-winded I admit, but thorough.

You're insufferable.

Thanks, you too.

[vblhe]

Wasn't implying that anyone was racist, just figured that after mentioning the NAACP people would take that as a hint to my race. I deliberately left that out initially because while I understand, support, and defend affirmative action in legal admissions, I wanted to get an opinion that did not take into account my URM status, while I know it would be a benefit I would like to walk/run in the door not be drug in limping.

Wow. Okay.

URM gives ridiculous boost. In at all T14 with decent LSAT score.

Like it or not, URM are given a near unreasonable advantage over all other applicants. Seriously, it's working in your favor. Stop making it sound like a bad thing.

I understand that it works in my favor, and I said that I support and understand affirmative action. But, for my own pride, I would prefer to be a good candidate who is boosted by his URM status as opposed to a mediocre candidate who benefits from admissions politics to get into an elite school.

[VasaVasori]

.

[TheColonel]

Wasn't implying that anyone was racist, just figured that after mentioning the NAACP people would take that as a hint to my race. I deliberately left that out initially because while I understand, support, and defend affirmative action in legal admissions, I wanted to get an opinion that did not take into account my URM status, while I know it would be a benefit I would like to walk/run in the door not be drug in limping.

Wow. Okay.

URM gives ridiculous boost. In at all T14 with decent LSAT score.

Like it or not, URM are given a near unreasonable advantage over all other applicants. Seriously, it's working in your favor. Stop making it sound like a bad thing.

I understand that it works in my favor, and I said that I support and understand affirmative action. But, for my own pride, I would prefer to be a good candidate who is boosted by his URM status as opposed to a mediocre candidate who benefits from admissions politics to get into an elite school.

What does this matter? Are you not going to go to Yale if you couldn't have gotten in if you weren't a URM? Being a URM can open doors that would be shut with a 3.3. No use acting as if it isn't there, especially if we're harping over the relative merits of undergrad ECs. In importance I'd say it goes LSAT>>GPA>URM>>>Work Experience>>>>>>>>>Personal Statement>>>>>>>>>>>>Undergrad EC.

[vblhe]

Wasn't implying that anyone was racist, just figured that after mentioning the NAACP people would take that as a hint to my race. I deliberately left that out initially because while I understand, support, and defend affirmative action in legal admissions, I wanted to get an opinion that did not take into account my URM status, while I know it would be a benefit I would like to walk/run in the door not be drug in limping.

Wow. Okay.

URM gives ridiculous boost. In at all T14 with decent LSAT score.

Like it or not, URM are given a near unreasonable advantage over all other applicants. Seriously, it's working in your favor. Stop making it sound like a bad thing.

I understand that it works in my favor, and I said that I support and understand affirmative action. But, for my own pride, I would prefer to be a good candidate who is boosted by his URM status as opposed to a mediocre candidate who benefits from admissions politics to get into an elite school.

What does this matter? Are you not going to go to Yale if you couldn't have gotten in if you weren't a URM? Being a URM can open doors that would be shut with a 3.3. No use acting as if it isn't there, especially if we're harping over the relative merits of undergrad ECs. In importance I'd say it goes LSAT>>GPA>URM>>>Work Experience>>>>>>>>>Personal Statement>>>>>>>>>>>>Undergrad EC.

I would probably go and spend the entire time working my ass off to prove to myself that I belong there. (though I'd probably do that anyway out of a love of competition) Still, as I said before, I would rather walk or run through the door than limp. Pragmatism v. Pride

[TommyK]

gosh, I just love hating this guy. He's like the Yankees, Lebron James, and France all rolled into one for me.

[mattviphky]

being black will help you way more than nearly any EC. I think EC is still important, but it will not compensate for bad numbers.
here are some profiles of URM's near your numbers
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/dazzlingblue

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/growlithe

[Helicio]

I would probably go and spend the entire time working my ass off to prove to myself that I belong there. (though I'd probably do that anyway out of a love of competition) Still, as I said before, I would rather walk or run through the door than limp. Pragmatism v. Pride

The fact remains that you will recieve a huge boost because of URM status, and you will get in over white/Middle Eastern/Indian/Asian people who have the same or slightly higher stats than you, even if those people have family incomes that are much lower than what your family income is, even if those people have had less opportunities than you have.

URM is imperfect, but it exists. People on TLS spend way too much time arguing about it or defending it or attacking it. You might as well include URM status instead of hiding it; our main purpose is to give you a good idea of where you can get in at, not to judge you based on whether or not you are a URM.

[vblhe]

gosh, I just love hating this guy. He's like the Yankees, Lebron James, and France all rolled into one for me.

Wow, sounds like someone needs a life of meaning from which an inherent sense of self-worth can arise obviating whatever motivates the strange amount of passion which you seem to be putting into a relationship with someone you never have and, assuming God is kind (at least to me), never will meet. I'm sure you'll find it somewhere on this forum.

[vblhe]

I would probably go and spend the entire time working my ass off to prove to myself that I belong there. (though I'd probably do that anyway out of a love of competition) Still, as I said before, I would rather walk or run through the door than limp. Pragmatism v. Pride

The fact remains that you will recieve a huge boost because of URM status, and you will get in over white/Middle Eastern/Indian/Asian people who have the same or slightly higher stats than you, even if those people have family incomes that are much lower than what your family income is, even if those people have had less opportunities than you have.

URM is imperfect, but it exists. People on TLS spend way too much time arguing about it or defending it or attacking it. You might as well include URM status instead of hiding it; our main purpose is to give you a good idea of where you can get in at, not to judge you based on whether or not you are a URM.

I wouldn't dare be stupid enough to hide my URM status on my application. As I've said I support AA, even is if it is merely a bandaid. I've caught enough hell for being Black, its time for it to be of benefit. Plus, if I can because of my racial heritage fulfill the very real need elite universities have to expose the next generation of elite lawyers to a variety of perspectives, and ensure that this next generation contains a respectable number of persons who hold those perspectives, by attending an elite law school, I think it would be disingenous to conceal this fact in my application. (the foregoing was intended to be slightly humorous) However, since I have always taken pride in my intellect, and have always been resistant of outright charity, I would prefer to go to a school where I could count myself among at least the middling elite. That's why, even though law school predictors indicate I have a 50/50 chance of getting into HYS based on my stats, I'll gladly "settle" for "lesser" T10's like UPENN and Chicago if they would be a better fit. Though I may have done just fine at HYS.

[Br3v]

Haven't and won't read this entire thread, but noticed its drifted entirely from its purpose.

I did however read the last post, and fair warning that mods are known to ban for AA debates.

[vblhe]

The fact remains that you will recieve a huge boost because of URM status, and you will get in over white/Middle Eastern/Indian/Asian people who have the same or slightly higher stats than you, even if those people have family incomes that are much lower than what your family income is, even if those people have had less opportunities than you have.

BTW, where does your data on this point come from? It is one thing to say that there is a boost for URM status. But people here and on other forums speak as if admissions are more transparent than they actually are.