Top Law Schools

Dr. Dre wrote:true ... but still ... really anyone can form a "passion" for X , Y , Z . Partake in extensive research, volunteer work, etc. with the poor, victims, etc. Study in a diff. country. At least to me this is not very attractive. When I see that someone has a 170+ LSAT, then that's incredibly attractive.

If that 17O+ does not have a sound reason to go to law school, yeah that would be a negative, but I will overlook it. Kind of like a very attractive girl goes on a date with me and she looks like a mess that night and embarrasses me in front of my friends by her weird behavior. Sure, It'd be a negative, but something that can be overlooked because there are few women that look like her. She's a diamond in the rough. Just like the 170+ w/o WE, volunteer werk, reason 2 go to law school.

guano wrote:Excluding Yale and Stanford, most softs work like tie breakers - they won't help if your scores are too low, and you'd already be accepted if they're really high, but if you're in the grey area, it'll boost you above another applicant without such softs.

Y andS and Cal are in a different category, where softs matter, but very few people will be realistically considered

Dr. Dre wrote:my problem with softs: too subjective.

also, not everyone has the luxury of doing some awesome stuff because they prob lack connections, or need to work to get $$$ to pay for tuition.

wert3813 wrote:

Dr. Dre wrote:true ... but still ... really anyone can form a "passion" for X , Y , Z . Partake in extensive research, volunteer work, etc. with the poor, victims, etc. Study in a diff. country. At least to me this is not very attractive. When I see that someone has a 170+ LSAT, then that's incredibly attractive.

If that 17O+ does not have a sound reason to go to law school, yeah that would be a negative, but I will overlook it. Kind of like a very attractive girl goes on a date with me and she looks like a mess that night and embarrasses me in front of my friends by her weird behavior. Sure, It'd be a negative, but something that can be overlooked because there are few women that look like her. She's a diamond in the rough. Just like the 170+ w/o WE, volunteer werk, reason 2 go to law school.

Again softs are all about your margins. I thought I stressed that. Take me. I'm 4.0 171. That gets into Harvard a whopping 56% of the time. Columbia 50% of the time. http://www.mylsn.info/hcu8tx Suddenly, its all about softs. I've done some stuff that's okay, I'd "rank" my softs in the 65th percentile. (Count up not down.) Suddenly it's all about how do your present your softs. And how can they show your desire for law school.

Lest anyone think I'm arguing softs over LSAT I retook a 170. LSAT matters so much more. But softs, if presented correctly can help.

ZVBXRPL wrote:

wert3813 wrote:

Dr. Dre wrote:true ... but still ... really anyone can form a "passion" for X , Y , Z . Partake in extensive research, volunteer work, etc. with the poor, victims, etc. Study in a diff. country. At least to me this is not very attractive. When I see that someone has a 170+ LSAT, then that's incredibly attractive.

If that 17O+ does not have a sound reason to go to law school, yeah that would be a negative, but I will overlook it. Kind of like a very attractive girl goes on a date with me and she looks like a mess that night and embarrasses me in front of my friends by her weird behavior. Sure, It'd be a negative, but something that can be overlooked because there are few women that look like her. She's a diamond in the rough. Just like the 170+ w/o WE, volunteer werk, reason 2 go to law school.

Again softs are all about your margins. I thought I stressed that. Take me. I'm 4.0 171. That gets into Harvard a whopping 56% of the time. Columbia 50% of the time. http://www.mylsn.info/hcu8tx Suddenly, its all about softs. I've done some stuff that's okay, I'd "rank" my softs in the 65th percentile. (Count up not down.) Suddenly it's all about how do your present your softs. And how can they show your desire for law school.

Lest anyone think I'm arguing softs over LSAT I retook a 170. LSAT matters so much more. But softs, if presented correctly can help.

If you feel comfortable doing so, what were your softs?
What percentile would my softs rank in?

wert3813 wrote:
Eh. Come on now. That's called life. Are some people dealt better hands? Absolutely. Did I have way more opportunities that the kids I teach? Yep. That's life. Overcome. Rise to the top. Be great. Do not count the things people have done in life because they had more chances is not possible.

Dr. Dre wrote:

wert3813 wrote:
Eh. Come on now. That's called life. Are some people dealt better hands? Absolutely. Did I have way more opportunities that the kids I teach? Yep. That's life. Overcome. Rise to the top. Be great. Do not count the things people have done in life because they had more chances is not possible.

Exactly. The only way I can overcome this is by beating them on an even playing field, with no biases, no prejudices, everything is fair, black and white: the LSAT.

That's why I love it. It can compare me (an AA from a low income family to someone with more privileged background)

ZVBXRPL wrote:havent taken yet/3.9.

Where I want to go is an unrealistic question. What matters is (I want to go) where I can get in. I want a great education.

Dr. Dre wrote:My point is that they can help you marginally. So little that you best focus on what truly matters: LSAT.

ZVBXRPL wrote:Mid 160's. Studying daily. Taking test in October

ManOfTheMinute wrote:people seem to disregard their PS and LORs as softs sometimes... i actually think they are the most important (unless you are a rhodes scholar)

ZVBXRPL wrote:Wert: Thanks for advice.

P.S. You could of told me to Google you.

Dr. Dre wrote:
Exactly. The only way I can overcome this is by beating them on an even playing field, with no biases, no prejudices, everything is fair, black and white: the LSAT.

That's why I love it. It can compare me (an AA from a low income family to someone with more privileged background)

sinfiery wrote:If most people were offered to go help kids in Africa every summer they went to college at no cost, most would have jumped at it.

BerkeleyBear wrote:

ManOfTheMinute wrote:As is a recurring theme on TLS, everyone who doesn't do better than their numbers claims that softs don't matter. The reality is that those people's softs are just not as good as other people's softs. Lifes a bitch

Meh. Everyone who outperforms their numbers got dat special snowflake syndrome . It goes both ways. Yet, if I were to get into H under both medians I'd have the same outlook as you do.

Dr. Dre wrote:true ... but still ... really anyone can form a "passion" for X , Y , Z . Partake in extensive research, volunteer work, etc. with the poor, victims, etc. Study in a diff. country. At least to me this is not very attractive. When I see that someone has a 170+ LSAT, then that's incredibly attractive.

If that 17O+ does not have a sound reason to go to law school, yeah that would be a negative, but I will overlook it. Kind of like a very attractive girl goes on a date with me and she looks like a mess that night and embarrasses me in front of my friends by her weird behavior. Sure, It'd be a negative, but something that can be overlooked because there are few women that look like her. She's a diamond in the rough. Just like the 170+ w/o WE, volunteer werk, reason 2 go to law school.