Legitimately poor standardized test performance

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
Wingtip88
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:00 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby Wingtip88 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 8:59 pm

OP - are you getting all of this?

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15510
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:14 pm

pancakes3 wrote:Well color me convinced.

Underrated post

User avatar
nothingtosee
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 12:08 am

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby nothingtosee » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:18 pm

Not sure why everyone's ripping on you sparty. Maybe cuz it's fun to pile on someone. Also, addendum can't really hurt if you are in the categorical no pile, and constitutional law doesn't have jobs. But maybe the original post was just a troll to rile up the LSAT hyped people.

speckledsparrow
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:19 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby speckledsparrow » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:25 pm

. :shock:
Last edited by speckledsparrow on Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15510
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:27 pm

The nice thing is that the number of people applying to law school keeps declining, so there's no rush. Give it a couple years and you might be above both GULC's medians.

User avatar
Elston Gunn
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby Elston Gunn » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:29 pm

Btw, back when I was applying at least, it was common wisdom that soft factors mattered a lot more for URMs (esp. AAs), with the explanation that the potential admits were often below the schools' 25th % LSAT anyway, so the schools might as well take the people they actually liked.

OP, don't go to law school. Sorry. The civil liberties law you're talking about is exceedingly difficult to get from Yale, much less whatever school you'd get into with a 159. You seem like a very intelligent and already pretty accomplished dude. Going to a mid-tier law school would probably *reduce* your employability from where it currently is.

Don't worry: even if you got a 170, you'd probably end up regretting law school.

speckledsparrow
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:19 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby speckledsparrow » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:30 pm

.
Last edited by speckledsparrow on Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheSpanishMain
Posts: 4138
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 2:26 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby TheSpanishMain » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:33 pm

nothingtosee wrote:Not sure why everyone's ripping on you sparty. Maybe cuz it's fun to pile on someone. Also, addendum can't really hurt if you are in the categorical no pile, and constitutional law doesn't have jobs. But maybe the original post was just a troll to rile up the LSAT hyped people.


Oh, I agree it can't hurt, I just don't think it's going to help in any meaningful way.

As to why people are piling on, probably because he keeps lurching into ALL CAPS and talking about how he's FUCKING DONE WITH THIS like his pizza was topped with PCP or something.

User avatar
hopefulsplitter93
Posts: 867
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:55 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby hopefulsplitter93 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:34 pm

speckledsparrow wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:The nice thing is that the number of people applying to law school keeps declining, so there's no rush. Give it a couple years and you might be above both GULC's medians.


What do you mean by both? They have 2 medians? What?

Elston, thanks.



GPA/LSAT

User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby twenty » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:39 pm

No offense to you, OP, since you seem like you're honestly curious and just kind of feeling out your options - but your goals are the goals of someone who should never in a billion years go to law school. If you don't believe me, look up some of the attorney bios at the ACLU. They're almost all HYSCCN.

sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:43 pm

speckledsparrow wrote:
Wingtip88 wrote:OP - are you getting all of this?


Yes. I'm very sorry for not replying so promptly, and I thank everyone for the advice.

I am not URM but I was a foster child. However, I acknowledge that I am not a good test taker, and never was. If I were to write an addendum, I wouldn't even dare write about my background being an excuse, because I shouldn't be "rewarded" or "coddled" for it. I was thinking about referring to past test scores. Sparty's reasoning is a bit questionable. I would like to attend a T20 if not a T14, but I know that's not going to happen, so I will wait and retake a 4th time. Work experience never hurts. Also, I think if I were to get into a good school with my current score, I would probably feel more awful than anything because the spot could have gone to someone who is more...qualified.

To be more specific, my overall SAT score was 300 points lower than what was needed for me to gain admission to a supplemental program that entailed free tuition. I didn't write an addendum, but the admissions committee for that program went beyond their standard policies, interviewed me and asked for 3 writing samples (they did not do this with other people, from what I was told by my peers), and admitted me. The first 2 softs I listed were done in undergrad. Also, I did not write about my being a foster child in that undergrad-related instance.

As for constitutional law, I specifically am aiming along the lines of civil liberties. ACLU stuff, if that makes sense. But I will do more research and see what else is out there. I'm also interested in environmental law and health care law.


Ugh...I said write an addendum if you have a history of low test scores. I never said use this addendum to make the admissions committee feel that you should be "rewarded" or "coddled" for some factor outside of your low test scores. I don't see what is "questionable" about that. Again, if you have a low test scores you supply your ACT/SAT scores and write how you have out performed your peers despite of this history. Not once did I advocate that you talk about anything else.

Nonetheless, you shouldn't go to law school. You don't have the self esteem. You feel if you were accepted you would be taking a spot from someone more "qualified." Okay. Whatever. I mean, you know at the ACLU, you will be writing briefs that support AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. And you know that people who don't support such policies argue that it goes to less qualified people. I mean, you know that right?

Wingtip88
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:00 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby Wingtip88 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:45 pm

speckled sparrow wrote: I would like to attend a T20 if not a T14, but I know that's not going to happen, so I will wait and retake a 4th time.


Good.

speckled sparrow wrote: lso, I think if I were to get into a good school with my current score, I would probably feel more awful than anything because the spot could have gone to someone who is more...qualified.


Let other people worry about themselves.

User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby twenty » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:47 pm

sparty99 wrote:You feel if you were accepted you would be taking a spot from someone more "qualified." Okay. Whatever. I mean, you know at the ACLU, you will be writing briefs that support AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. And you know that people who don't support such policies argue that it goes to less qualified people. I mean, you know that right?


:D

Image

speckledsparrow
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:19 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby speckledsparrow » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:50 pm

.
Last edited by speckledsparrow on Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Elston Gunn
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby Elston Gunn » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:54 pm

speckledsparrow wrote:
twenty wrote:No offense to you, OP, since you seem like you're honestly curious and just kind of feeling out your options - but your goals are the goals of someone who should never in a billion years go to law school. If you don't believe me, look up some of the attorney bios at the ACLU. They're almost all HYSCCN.


Don't worry about offending me. I actually appreciate this.

I don't want a PhD because of certain reasons I don't feel like discussing.

I am going to keep assessing my options. Maybe I will just keep doing what I'm currently doing.

Sparty, conversely, I'm sure the ACLU touches upon reverse discrimination cases as well. Just because an institution touches upon one aspect of employment/admissions criteria does not mean that is the only side of the coin. I do not have low self esteem. I am about merit, and with a 159, I do not possess the merit commensurate to reputable schools. I think if I had low self esteem I would not have had confidence in my writing skills to go through the process of producing the works I've produced.

Eh, the LSAT is a useful sorting mechanism for law schools, and it's not bad with large populations, but it's not nearly meaningful enough to equate it with "merit" in some kind of moral sense.

sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 9:59 pm

speckledsparrow wrote:
twenty wrote:No offense to you, OP, since you seem like you're honestly curious and just kind of feeling out your options - but your goals are the goals of someone who should never in a billion years go to law school. If you don't believe me, look up some of the attorney bios at the ACLU. They're almost all HYSCCN.


Don't worry about offending me. I actually appreciate this.

I don't want a PhD because of certain reasons I don't feel like discussing.

I am going to keep assessing my options. Maybe I will just keep doing what I'm currently doing.

Sparty, conversely, I'm sure the ACLU touches upon reverse discrimination cases as well. Just because an institution touches upon one aspect of employment/admissions criteria does not mean that is the only side of the coin. I do not have low self esteem. I am about merit, and with a 159, I do not possess the merit commensurate to reputable schools. I think if I had low self esteem I would not have had confidence in my writing skills to go through the process of producing the works I've produced.


The point of writing an effective addendum coupled with essays and an overall application that would merit acceptance with your GPA, LSAT, and background, is to write in a way that persuades the admissions committee that you are worthy of acceptance. If you can't convince yourself that you should be accepted then how the hell will you convince the admissions committee?

speckledsparrow
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:19 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby speckledsparrow » Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:02 pm

.
Last edited by speckledsparrow on Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
heythatslife
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:18 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby heythatslife » Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:18 pm

Strength of your conviction/sense of entitlement has nothing to do with the admissions game. Don't listen to sparty.

OP, you seem to be heading towards the right conclusion. Wait, retake, and in the meantime think hard about whether you really have to or want to go to law school.

BigZuck
Posts: 10873
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby BigZuck » Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:22 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:The nice thing is that the number of people applying to law school keeps declining, so there's no rush. Give it a couple years and you might be above both GULC's medians.


Another underrated post

sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby sparty99 » Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:23 pm

heythatslife wrote:Strength of your conviction/sense of entitlement has nothing to do with the admissions game. Don't listen to sparty.

OP, you seem to be heading towards the right conclusion. Wait, retake, and in the meantime think hard about whether you really have to or want to go to law school.


You are right. Knowing your strengths and how your background would contribute to a law school play no part in the admissions process. Writing letters of continued interest on how you will contribute or your background is a match to the law school has no sway on the admissions people for waitlisted students. My bad. I made that up.

User avatar
earthabides
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 7:48 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby earthabides » Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:28 pm

sparty99 wrote:
heythatslife wrote:Strength of your conviction/sense of entitlement has nothing to do with the admissions game. Don't listen to sparty.

OP, you seem to be heading towards the right conclusion. Wait, retake, and in the meantime think hard about whether you really have to or want to go to law school.


You are right. Knowing your strengths and how your background would contribute to a law school play no part in the admissions process. Writing letters of continued interest on how you will contribute or your background is a match to the law school has no sway on the admissions people for waitlisted students. My bad. I made that up.


Why do you insist on being such a bad poster? For the Horde?

speckledsparrow
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:19 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby speckledsparrow » Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:31 pm

.
Last edited by speckledsparrow on Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22859
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:32 pm

sparty99 wrote:
heythatslife wrote:Strength of your conviction/sense of entitlement has nothing to do with the admissions game. Don't listen to sparty.

OP, you seem to be heading towards the right conclusion. Wait, retake, and in the meantime think hard about whether you really have to or want to go to law school.


You are right. Knowing your strengths and how your background would contribute to a law school play no part in the admissions process. Writing letters of continued interest on how you will contribute or your background is a match to the law school has no sway on the admissions people for waitlisted students. My bad. I made that up.

No one said anything like this.

User avatar
PeanutsNJam
Posts: 3699
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby PeanutsNJam » Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:33 pm

twenty wrote:the INSPIRATIONAL story of ~&sparty99&~

story



Jesus fuck I couldn't read that in one sitting because I'm at work and my co-workers will think I'm insane.

speckledsparrow
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 10:19 pm

Re: Legitimately poor standardized test performance

Postby speckledsparrow » Sun Nov 16, 2014 10:40 pm

.
Last edited by speckledsparrow on Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: azaleafire, Bing [Bot], hip to be Square, SolRs and 10 guests