Do accommodated LSAT scores count towards law school ranks? Forum

[North]

No, not really, because everyone else in your class thinks the same thing, and 95-97% of them will be wrong. It's not that you shouldn't want to be there; everyone wants to be there. It's not even that you can't be there. It's the assuming you will that sounds bad. (I have no opinion on whether you will get there or not; you've got as good/bad a chance as anyone.)

Do you even KNOW what his IQ score is?

[A. Nony Mouse]

No, not really, because everyone else in your class thinks the same thing, and 95-97% of them will be wrong. It's not that you shouldn't want to be there; everyone wants to be there. It's not even that you can't be there. It's the assuming you will that sounds bad. (I have no opinion on whether you will get there or not; you've got as good/bad a chance as anyone.)

Do you even KNOW what his IQ score is?

Oh, well, in THAT case...

[North]

Oh, well, in THAT case...

I'm just sad to see this thread go. OP needs more modesty beat into him. Pretty sure he'd get laughed out of UVA if he brought that douchebag attitude with him to Cville. In my experience, the smartest people know to shut the fuck up about how smart they are.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Oh, well, in THAT case...

I'm just sad to see this thread go. OP needs more modesty beat into him. Pretty sure he'd get laughed out of UVA if he brought that douchebag attitude with him to Cville. IMO, the smartest people know to shut the fuck up about how smart they are.

Co-signed.

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

... the smartest people know to shut the fuck up about how smart they are.

So, is he fucking retarded or something? Fucking retarded will be in the DSM-V in May.

[Crowing]

Oh, well, in THAT case...

I'm just sad to see this thread go. OP needs more modesty beat into him. Pretty sure he'd get laughed out of UVA if he brought that douchebag attitude with him to Cville. IMO, the smartest people know to shut the fuck up about how smart they are.

To be fair there have been people who were so smart that people had no choice but to overlook their douchiness (Richard Feynman comes to mind). Whether the OP qualifies as such is a whole different matter entirely.

[star fox]

Does the quote you cited by me SOUND like I'm taking being in the top 2-5% for granted? Far from it. Intelligence, particularly verbal reasoning, gives you a HUGE advantage towards kicking some major ass in law school by giving you an intuitive sense of the level of detailed analysis required of 1Ls, but you still have to work hard and (more importantly) work smart. I have every intention of hitting the ground sprinting from day one. If you do the same, I'm sure you'll be in the top 5% of the class as well as long as you learn the VERY specific way to write a successful law school examination. It's an art that is, indeed, tangentially related to IQ, but only tangentially (as Jeremy Paul and Richard Michael Fischl put it)

Aspberger's Syndrome has been removed from the DSM, guys. Just because I don't take kindly to random a-holes over the internet and feel less restrained to talk about the true extent of my abilities in a forum like this does NOT mean I have a social disorder.

If you're so smart why isn't your UG GPA higher? If it's because you're in a hard major (hard science, engineering) why are you going to Law School in the first place instead of just working in that field?

[fatduck]

Does the quote you cited by me SOUND like I'm taking being in the top 2-5% for granted?

Actually, you know, it kinda does.

Fine. As long as I hit the ground running from day one, I'll be in the top 2-5% (at least). Happy now?

hit the ground running? shouldn't you accommodate your wheelchair-bound classmates?

[ms9]

Oh, well, in THAT case...

I'm just sad to see this thread go. OP needs more modesty beat into him. Pretty sure he'd get laughed out of UVA if he brought that douchebag attitude with him to Cville. IMO, the smartest people know to shut the fuck up about how smart they are.

To be fair there have been people who were so smart that people had no choice but to overlook their douchiness (Richard Feynman comes to mind). Whether the OP qualifies as such is a whole different matter entirely.

I think Feyman was just really, really, really eccentric.

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

Does the quote you cited by me SOUND like I'm taking being in the top 2-5% for granted?

Actually, you know, it kinda does.

Fine. As long as I hit the ground running from day one, I'll be in the top 2-5% (at least). Happy now?

hit the ground running? shouldn't you accommodate your wheelchair-bound classmates?

a rather ableist post indeed

[Crowing]

Oh, well, in THAT case...

I'm just sad to see this thread go. OP needs more modesty beat into him. Pretty sure he'd get laughed out of UVA if he brought that douchebag attitude with him to Cville. IMO, the smartest people know to shut the fuck up about how smart they are.

To be fair there have been people who were so smart that people had no choice but to overlook their douchiness (Richard Feynman comes to mind). Whether the OP qualifies as such is a whole different matter entirely.

I think Feyman was just really, really, really eccentric.

That's probably the case with most people like that though - not deliberately malicious but eccentric enough to be off-putting to others. I'm thinking of the famous story about the grad students and the napkin problem.

[runplaystudy]

Hey OP!

I didn't have accommodated testing but I was "outed" as disabled by one of my recommendations. UVa didn't seem to mind at all, and I think it counted as a soft factor.

Your score will probably be weighted a little differently but if you write a really strong "why UVa" you will probably be just fine.

Rant;
Just in case anyone was wondering, it's ridiculously difficult to get time accommodations on the LSAT. Not that anyone was being disparaging, but assume that if someone has accommodated testing that they really, truly needed it.

LSAC is flirting with danger by flagging test scores and eventually they'll probably not be allowed to anymore. I know the major difficult on the LSAT is timing, but disability accommodations are confidential and sharing them against someone's wishes is pretty awful. Sure, you could simply not take the LSAT or not use your accommodations... but if you want to go to law school you should have the right to not be outed as disabled.

What's worse is that they don't differentiate between someone who had a separate room because they're diabetic and someone who got extended time. At this point, anyone with a non-time accommodation may be looked down upon because adcoms assume they had extended time and should've done better. Just my two cents....

[somewhatwayward]

LSAC is flirting with danger by flagging test scores and eventually they'll probably not be allowed to anymore. I know the major difficult on the LSAT is timing, but disability accommodations are confidential and sharing them against someone's wishes is pretty awful. Sure, you could simply not take the LSAT or not use your accommodations... but if you want to go to law school you should have the right to not be outed as disabled.

What's worse is that they don't differentiate between someone who had a separate room because they're diabetic and someone who got extended time. At this point, anyone with a non-time accommodation may be looked down upon because adcoms assume they had extended time and should've done better. Just my two cents....

I could get on board with not flagging people for needing a separate room (although why would you need that for being diabetic?), needing the text of the test printed bigger bc of vision problems, needing it put into braile, etc. But the time thing really bothers me....one thing that bothers me about it is that they don't seem to try to customize the amount of extra time given to each person. It seems like the majority of people just get time and a half. For some, that might be the right amount, but I doubt it is right for everyone. Somewhere in this thread OP claimed to need only a few extra minutes to finish a legal task than a regular person (and he claimed it would be of superior quality which would make up for the extra time he took). If he only needs a few extra minutes, why does he get time and a half?

I think flagging the scores where people get extra time is a fair compromise to this problem of, OTOH, accommodating people who have true disabilities and, OTOH, recognizing that time pressure is a huge part of the LSAT and a score achieve in time-and-a-half is not necessarily equivalent to a score achieved in the typical amount of time given. JMHO.

Also, OP has his panties in a wad that his phantom score might not count toward calculating schools' medians, so he will be disadvantaged in the application process. Well, there is a solution to that: be above their median or 75th percentile GPA and count toward that instead....someone of OP"s unusual intellect should be capable of earning a 3.9. His GPA will count toward their medians. Normally I wouldn't say something like that but OP has really acted like an ass in this thread. If he's going to put himself out there and say he is superior to 97% of his future law school class, he opens himself up to challenges like how did your superior intellect receive a 3.5 in undergrad?

[Ohiobumpkin]

Your LSAT score will not be calculated into a school's profile. Sorry. Your GPA and potential to add to the diversity of the student body are going to be the only thing that will meaningfully influence your admissions decisions. Also, any college classes you take after receiving your BA/S degree will not increase your LSDAS GPA.

[tino1317]

Can't believe I just read through this whole thread. In light of the time wasted in this thread I am going to respond even though it's been over a week. Honestly, the amount of sheer negativity and incivility in this thread makes me sad. If OP believes he has a chance at HYS with a 175+ accommodated score and 3.5 who the hell are any of you to tell him otherwise. Has anyone seen a full list of HYS admits with their GPA/LSAT scores? The answer to every question in the thread regarding accommodated scores and how they are weighed is a simple "I don't know". Most people on TLS think that USNWR is the sole thing that governs admissions decisions and clearly we have a former adcomm posting in this thread saying otherwise. Given how hard it is to get approved for accommodated test taking with LSAC, schools may be very impressed with a high accommodated score, who knows. OP started out with a legitimate question and before the first page was filled the topic had been completely derailed and while OP did add fuel to the fire by getting argumentative, it was only after people began to criticize him. OP the best advice I can give you is what I would do if I was in your position. I would study for a solid 3 months or more and see how my PT's are at the end of that period. If you are satisfied with your PT's then consider taking it without accommodations, if you feel that you are truly at a disadvantage compared to other people because of your disability, and it only applies to standardized tests, then take the test with accommodations.

I have seen a lot of people in here saying how the LSAT gives you a good idea of how well you will do in law school and as a lawyer. That is untrue. The LSAT may be a good indicator of future success for people scoring in the 99th percentile, but only because they are brilliant to begin with. We live in a society where standardized tests are prevalent because we want a quick and easy way to distinguish students.

All I ask of you OP is that if you do indeed take the test with accommodations, update TLS or LSN with your cycle results so people in the same situation as you can have some idea of what to expect. It does seem like you came here to get people to agree with you and when you have views that differ from the norm regarding admissions, TLS is not the right place to look for support. I wish you the best of luck and I hope you don't let the negativity in this thread sway you from following your goals.

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

Can't believe I just read through this whole thread. In light of the time wasted in this thread I am going to respond even though it's been over a week. Honestly, the amount of sheer negativity and incivility in this thread makes me sad. If OP believes he has a chance at HYS with a 175+ accommodated score and 3.5 who the hell are any of you to tell him otherwise. Has anyone seen a full list of HYS admits with their GPA/LSAT scores? The answer to every question in the thread regarding accommodated scores and how they are weighed is a simple "I don't know". Most people on TLS think that USNWR is the sole thing that governs admissions decisions and clearly we have a former adcomm posting in this thread saying otherwise. Given how hard it is to get approved for accommodated test taking with LSAC, schools may be very impressed with a high accommodated score, who knows. OP started out with a legitimate question and before the first page was filled the topic had been completely derailed and while OP did add fuel to the fire by getting argumentative, it was only after people began to criticize him. OP the best advice I can give you is what I would do if I was in your position. I would study for a solid 3 months or more and see how my PT's are at the end of that period. If you are satisfied with your PT's then consider taking it without accommodations, if you feel that you are truly at a disadvantage compared to other people because of your disability, and it only applies to standardized tests, then take the test with accommodations.

I have seen a lot of people in here saying how the LSAT gives you a good idea of how well you will do in law school and as a lawyer. That is untrue. The LSAT may be a good indicator of future success for people scoring in the 99th percentile, but only because they are brilliant to begin with. We live in a society where standardized tests are prevalent because we want a quick and easy way to distinguish students.

All I ask of you OP is that if you do indeed take the test with accommodations, update TLS or LSN with your cycle results so people in the same situation as you can have some idea of what to expect. It does seem like you came here to get people to agree with you and when you have views that differ from the norm regarding admissions, TLS is not the right place to look for support. I wish you the best of luck and I hope you don't let the negativity in this thread sway you from following your goals.

This is a stupid post to necro a thread.

[jreeve12]

What exactly was so unreasonable about tino's reply? I believe he/she was right on the money in describing what happened on this forum.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

THE PAST IS PROLOGUE.

[jreeve12]

THE PAST IS PROLOGUE.

Always a pleasure to encounter a fellow lover of Shakespeare

[20141023]

.

[Clearly]

I'm not going to comment on the main topic of this, I'd just like to point out one thing on sources.

Under NO circumstances should you assume information given to you by adcomms that leads to an application is given in your best interests. Law schools need applicants. Acceptance/Denial rate (selectivity) is a major factor to them. A law school as has never said "No you shouldn't apply because of this, you should wait and fix it, then apply." The very best you will hear from an adcomm is "Apply this cycle, and if it doesn't work out, fix it and reapply next cycle." If an adcomm KNOWS they will ding you over something, they will still solicit an application so they can improve the selectivity rate. Now I'm not saying adcomms never help, often they provide good advice and are full of goodwill; I'm just saying you can't assume things they tell you to do aren't said to protect THEIR interests, and unfortunately the selectivity factor creates a serious incentive for them to work against your interests in trying to solicit an app.

OP: A school would never say "Yeah sorry, your score won't count, and your GPA alone isn't good enough" It will never happen. What they will say is "X understands and values the disabled community and we encourage you to apply, here's a fee waiver!" There is a decent chance the intention here is to ding you to protect their acceptance rate. My point is use data to predict outcomes, not adcomms pitches. Unfortunately the data on 3.5 *Lsat students is too small to predict much of anything.

Conventional wisdom also suggests its foolish to count on being anywhere in your class rank but median. I'm not saying you cant do it, only that its foolish to suggest you will. Many of the students you are competing with at UVA were capable enough to 175+ the lsat under normal conditions, and keep their GPA consistently higher too, many were accepted to Harvard and were baited to UVA with significant scholarship money. Your IQ score is insufficient to predict you will score higher than them. IQ does NOT correlate to law school grades anywhere near as closely as LSAT scores do, that's a statistically studied fact.

I wish you the best, it's very tough to predict whats going to happen with your applications, you belong to such a small sample group that predictive data are hard to come by. Just thought I'd shed light on my mentality regarding predicting class rank, and share the common wisdom and incentives as to why Adcomms may have self interest at heart when advising you on your journey. Good luck!

[06102016]

..

[snapdragon25]

THE PAST IS PROLOGUE.

Hahahaha @ this guy

[John_rizzy_rawls]

THE PAST IS PROLOGUE.

Hahahaha @ this guy

Seriously, how could I resist?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=205028

[A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A]

THE PAST IS PROLOGUE.

Hahahaha @ this guy

Seriously, how could I resist?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=205028

lol. tyft
Are we not NOBLE SCHOLARS of PHILOSOPHY, DICTION, and RHETORIC?

Harsh. Though reading through my post again, I probably could have done with a shorter, more concise sentence here and there. One of my favorite writing models is Anthony Kennedy. He has a writing style that you either love or hate...

How NOBLE in REASON, how INFINITE in FACULTY!