Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
Skool
Posts: 1028
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby Skool » Wed Jun 17, 2015 5:45 pm

myspiritanimal wrote:I worked with Ann this past cycle, and I’m so happy I did.
myspiritanimal wrote: previously applied and did relatively poorly. When I applied with Ann, nothing had changed from the prior year's application, and I did really well, across T6. Still nonsense?


Anything to do with the declines in the top scoring bands?

artistar
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2015 1:02 am

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby artistar » Wed Jun 17, 2015 5:53 pm

So how does negotiating work with these consultants? Do they call the schools on your behalf? Or do they walk you through the negotiating process with advice?

Do they let law schools know they are working for you?

If so - AND if they deliver results in the form of admission into schools you might not have otherwise gotten into - isn't this just buying your way into law school? Is that why the $5K is worth it?

User avatar
Skool
Posts: 1028
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby Skool » Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:13 pm

Maybe Spiritanimal can discuss her experience with paying for this service. I suspect they help you pick a strategy and develop tone and content for negotiation communications. I doubt they're your Ari Gold. They probably value their relationship with any given LS more than they value any given applicant and are not going to publicly appear on your behalf.

And yeah, it might make A COUPLE OF HOURS consultancy worth the money. Not some 5k package.

But keep in mind none of these guys were negotiating the way law schools were back in the day when they were deans. So their expertise is far less substantial than knowing which upper middle class application is more likely to get picked from the chorus. I'd bet they're learning on the job.

myspiritanimal
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:29 am

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby myspiritanimal » Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:29 pm

Skool wrote:K. I guess I'm dumb.

Again, if you know who you are, have a point of view, and have good judgment in how you communicate in a professional context, what good reason is there to hire these people? If you're a cohesive and compelling person, why can't you craft a cohesive and compelling application?

So you can pay someone to listen to your stressed out December worry-warting? ("That alone perhaps made the decision to hire her worth it"). Sounds like a bull shit luxury to me.

And admissions is not that fucking "opaque". Those guys are responsive to really clear incentives that have been discussed to death (see Campos, TLS, and the Internet, et al., passim, ad naseum).

EDIT:

I would say, hiring for negotiation purposes is kind of the only reason to hire these guys. Notice how clammy spivey has been on negotiation strategy lately. He says things like oh, you know, the admissions offices have been adapting to our published advice, so I don't want to show too much of my/my clients' hands publicly. I think that even Spivey must know that the negotiation game is really one of the only ways he's really adding value people can't easily access through other sources. I don't think it's just about keeping tricks up his sleeve for his paying clients; I think there's an element of incentivizing people to pay for his services, which is smart and appropriate on his part. I could be reading this wrong, but I doubt it.

I never said you're dumb, though you might be. I said that your comments were baseless and aggressive and thereby moronic. My response to your note above:

Consultants are of course luxuries. No applicant needs one. But if an applicant can afford one, they do indeed provide value. It's that simple. And, yes, people can craft cohesive and compelling applications on their own. Many people do. But, again, the perspective that consultants provide with regard to the admissions process is, I found, valuable. For me, it was well worth the money (many times over).

As to your other points, what is a "bullshit luxury" to you may not be to others. And, when I referred to admissions as "opaque," I was referring mainly to Y and S.

Now, I'm responding to your arguments, but I shouldn't be. It seems fair to assume that you didn't use a consultant. And so you have no basis on which to argue whether others should use one or shouldn't. Perhaps you wouldn't have gained anything from one (is this true? I'd wager it's not), but that's not to say that others wouldn't as well.

On to your other comments..

myspiritanimal
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:29 am

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby myspiritanimal » Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:31 pm

Skool wrote:
myspiritanimal wrote:I worked with Ann this past cycle, and I’m so happy I did.
myspiritanimal wrote: previously applied and did relatively poorly. When I applied with Ann, nothing had changed from the prior year's application, and I did really well, across T6. Still nonsense?


Anything to do with the declines in the top scoring bands?

I'm sure that mattered, yes. But my scores were not ideal (then or now) and I'm sure my application was much, much better this time around. So I highly doubt that the lower top bands made the only - or even the biggest - difference.

myspiritanimal
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:29 am

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby myspiritanimal » Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:34 pm

Skool wrote:Maybe Spiritanimal can discuss her experience with paying for this service. I suspect they help you pick a strategy and develop tone and content for negotiation communications. I doubt they're your Ari Gold. They probably value their relationship with any given LS more than they value any given applicant and are not going to publicly appear on your behalf.

And yeah, it might make A COUPLE OF HOURS consultancy worth the money. Not some 5k package.

But keep in mind none of these guys were negotiating the way law schools were back in the day when they were deans. So their expertise is far less substantial than knowing which upper middle class application is more likely to get picked from the chorus. I'd bet they're learning on the job.

I can't speak to this, sorry. Perhaps someone else can.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12607
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby smaug » Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:44 pm


User avatar
Skool
Posts: 1028
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 3:26 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby Skool » Thu Jun 18, 2015 12:54 pm

^I lol'd, Smaug.
myspiritanimal wrote: Now, I'm responding to your arguments, but I shouldn't be. It seems fair to assume that you didn't use a consultant. And so you have no basis on which to argue whether others should use one or shouldn't. Perhaps you wouldn't have gained anything from one (is this true? I'd wager it's not), but that's not to say that others wouldn't as well.

On to your other comments..
This seems to be implying that unless I used a consultant myself, I have no basis on which to argue whether or not others should use one. That seems a strange position. I would think in such a world, the only people we could listen to are people who paid for these services. And already paying for these services probably brings significant bias.

But yeah. I've never used one of these people and I've had one of the absolute best cycles I could have hoped for.

ETA: also, yeah, I apologize about misunderstanding your opaque comment. Y and S admissions truly are opaque, but that doesn't mean there aren't cheaper ways of cracking the code. There is at least one S admit posting in this very thread. There are others on TLS. They and other past admits on TLS are probably happy to share their knowledge of what sets admits apart from rejects. If you take a look at your College and Professional networks, you can probably find Y/S admits; people love talking about themselves, so you can reach out to those guys and not paying tons of money Levine, Ivey, et al.

Also, probably no reasonable third party thinks paying thousands of dollars so you can have a direct line to someone who will pat you on the back while you're freaking out about LS radio silence is not a bull shit luxury. It's not just some subjective "different strokes for different folks" proposition. It's just a waste of money.

Moneytrees
Posts: 646
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 11:41 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby Moneytrees » Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:23 pm

Consulting gigs are a luxury. If you can afford it, I'm sure it provides a little bit of value, but I find it hard to believe that consulting help will have a big impact on your cycle.

As long as you read through as much helpful material on TLS as you can and enlist a few of your smart friends/family members to look over your personal statement and application, you should be fine.

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

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby PeanutsNJam » Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:24 pm

artistar wrote:So how does negotiating work with these consultants? Do they call the schools on your behalf? Or do they walk you through the negotiating process with advice?

Do they let law schools know they are working for you?

If so - AND if they deliver results in the form of admission into schools you might not have otherwise gotten into - isn't this just buying your way into law school? Is that why the $5K is worth it?


Spivey actually stalks admissions council for blackmail material to get you in.

bob311
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:51 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby bob311 » Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:36 pm

artistar wrote:So how does negotiating work with these consultants? Do they call the schools on your behalf? Or do they walk you through the negotiating process with advice?

Do they let law schools know they are working for you?

If so - AND if they deliver results in the form of admission into schools you might not have otherwise gotten into - isn't this just buying your way into law school? Is that why the $5K is worth it?


I actually want to respond to the comment about buying your way into law school. First I want to point out I have no experience with any of the consultants other than 1 pm to Spivey over a question. Otherwise I also have no opinion on their usage.

What bothers me about your buying your way into law school comment is you can also view that in so many different ways. Did you, artistar, purchase any LSAT prep materials before you took the LSAT? Any at all? Because if you did, then you bought your way into school. There are plenty of students who's only prep-test material are the few things they find on the internet but cannot afford even a book. I know someone very close to me who literally had not enough money to buy a packet of lsat tests to even study. SHE SOLD HER PLASMA TO AFFORD 1 PACKET. The point is, there is a wide range of economic levels and you making that comment is 1-rude, and 2-disrespectful. If you bought any prep test material such as a book, class, anything, you are using your economic advantage for law school success over someone less fortunate- aka buying your way in. Don't cast the first stone there buddy, as we are all in a glass house. (One could even say having internet access for this website is an economic advantage that some student might not have trying to get into law school. An unlikely scenario, but one that is possible.)

myspiritanimal
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:29 am

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby myspiritanimal » Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:40 pm

Skool wrote:^I lol'd, Smaug.
myspiritanimal wrote: Now, I'm responding to your arguments, but I shouldn't be. It seems fair to assume that you didn't use a consultant. And so you have no basis on which to argue whether others should use one or shouldn't. Perhaps you wouldn't have gained anything from one (is this true? I'd wager it's not), but that's not to say that others wouldn't as well.

On to your other comments..
This seems to be implying that unless I used a consultant myself, I have no basis on which to argue whether or not others should use one. That seems a strange position. I would think in such a world, the only people we could listen to are people who paid for these services. And already paying for these services probably brings significant bias.

But yeah. I've never used one of these people and I've had one of the absolute best cycles I could have hoped for.

ETA: also, yeah, I apologize about misunderstanding your opaque comment. Y and S admissions truly are opaque, but that doesn't mean there aren't cheaper ways of cracking the code. There is at least one S admit posting in this very thread. There are others on TLS. They and other past admits on TLS are probably happy to share their knowledge of what sets admits apart from rejects. If you take a look at your College and Professional networks, you can probably find Y/S admits; people love talking about themselves, so you can reach out to those guys and not paying tons of money Levine, Ivey, et al.

Also, probably no reasonable third party thinks paying thousands of dollars so you can have a direct line to someone who will pat you on the back while you're freaking out about LS radio silence is not a bull shit luxury. It's not just some subjective "different strokes for different folks" proposition. It's just a waste of money.


My thoughts:

1. A good point. Yes, there's definitely a bias. But if someone hasn't tried something, there's an equal opposite bias (you did well and didn't pay). And, I feel it's hard for someone to critique something they haven't tried. No?

2. I don't really buy the second argument. Consultants are paid to keep their hand on the admissions pulse. People that were admitted to Y and S and H, etc., aren't and therefore usually don't. Moreover, consultants work with many applicants and, as such, see different examples of what a "good" application is for different types of applicants. People, again, don't. So, while I'm sure it would be helpful to speak with people that were admitted to such schools, I don't at all think that they are a substitute for a consultant.

3. The fact that you and I disagree means that this is indeed subjective. I'm sure some people would agree with you. And I'm also sure some people would agree with me (I know a few already). It's also possible that more people would agree with you. I wouldn't be surprised. But that doesn't mean it's not subjective.

I only commented in this thread because I want future applicants to understand that there is value to be had and whether that value is worth the price is entirely a personal decision. I'm done arguing about this. I'm glad you did well, and that you don't think you could have done any better with help. But others certainly can and, in some cases, should.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12607
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby smaug » Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:42 pm

just because i'd feel bad for making fun of you elsewhere without directly saying it,

i'm calling bullshit on your "SHE HAD TO SELL HER PLASMA FOR ONE PACKET" thing

BS BS BS

myspiritanimal
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 9:29 am

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby myspiritanimal » Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:45 pm

Jason Taverner wrote:just because i'd feel bad for making fun of you elsewhere without directly saying it,

i'm calling bullshit on your "SHE HAD TO SELL HER PLASMA FOR ONE PACKET" thing

BS BS BS

Lol. His/her point still stands. But I also felt this was a reach.

bob311
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:51 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby bob311 » Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:54 pm

Jason Taverner wrote:just because i'd feel bad for making fun of you elsewhere without directly saying it,

i'm calling bullshit on your "SHE HAD TO SELL HER PLASMA FOR ONE PACKET" thing

BS BS BS


Actually it was true. She at the time had no financial support from family and was under a ton of student loan debt while still in college (she had taken a few years off in between schools and worked but once she started school again some of the payments were not deferrable). So anyway she was in school full time and her loan for the period was already used up on tuition and paying old loan debt so she literally had to go sell her plasma to buy her groceries at that point as well as being able to only afford the latest 10 lsats at the time. Not bs it was a really sad story and time in her life. She also continues to this day tell me how privileged I was because I was able to afford the LR and G bibles and the preptest packet books. In her mind, just that was a significant economic advantage I had over her that has a lot of potential impact on where one can go to school, etc.

Any who my point does still stand regardless.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12607
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby smaug » Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:58 pm

yeah i'd see that more as "selling plasma to eat" than "selling plasma for precious prep tests"

i've been poor as shit

$20 can hurt, but in that situation i'd never view someone like that as doing it for the prep tests as opposed to doing it to survive

p. much the story seems dumb and you seem dumb

bob311
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:51 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby bob311 » Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:02 pm

Jason Taverner wrote:yeah i'd see that more as "selling plasma to eat" than "selling plasma for precious prep tests"

i've been poor as shit

$20 can hurt, but in that situation i'd never view someone like that as doing it for the prep tests as opposed to doing it to survive

p. much the story seems dumb and you seem dumb


Well that is just an ignorant position. I understand this is the internet but the girl in question is at YHS. Also fine maybe my first comment was a slight mis-characterization of the situation but at the time it was extremely hard for her to scrape together that $20 and was a huge issue. That is $20 worth of food to literally survive.

Also, I know this is the internet, but fuck off. I seem dumb? You must be a real winner. Plus it wasn't even you I called out in my post. But anyway I'm sure there is some ignorant hole you have climbed out of to get your repressed anger out through a computer screen. Don't let the door hit you on the way back into it.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12607
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby smaug » Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:10 pm

nah you seem like you're willing to parade someone else's struggle without much of an understanding of it and are grandstanding for really minor moral high ground

if you can't differentiate between someone buying $20 worth of tests and someone paying for an admissions consultant, you're kinda dumb

it's way more than a difference in degree

and yeah, i'm going to be incredulous about your YHS attending, plasma selling for preptest scrounging, very intelligent friend

to the internet rage, you chimed in this thread to jump down someone's throat for pointing out the (near objective) foolishness and privilege required to think that an admissions consultant is a good idea

you don't get to take the moral high ground when you go on a tirade against someone pointing out that innocuous point, and again, your willingness to parade someone else's struggles to make that 'point' is telling

i'm not angry at you, bob. i think you're pretty funny. i am going to make fun of you because i think the post was bad and that you're not really thinking about things.

bob311
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:51 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby bob311 » Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:24 pm

Jason Taverner wrote:nah you seem like you're willing to parade someone else's struggle without much of an understanding of it and are grandstanding for really minor moral high ground

if you can't differentiate between someone buying $20 worth of tests and someone paying for an admissions consultant, you're kinda dumb

it's way more than a difference in degree

and yeah, i'm going to be incredulous about your YHS attending, plasma selling for preptest scrounging, very intelligent friend

to the internet rage, you chimed in this thread to jump down someone's throat for pointing out the (near objective) foolishness and privilege required to think that an admissions consultant is a good idea

you don't get to take the moral high ground when you go on a tirade against someone pointing out that innocuous point, and again, your willingness to parade someone else's struggles to make that 'point' is telling

i'm not angry at you, bob. i think you're pretty funny. i am going to make fun of you because i think the post was bad and that you're not really thinking about things.



First, I explicitly stated I had no regard either way as far as consulting. It is not a matter for me, or you to decide. It is a personal decision. Also, when it comes to the moral worth of the point I was making, the differentiation between being dirty poor and affording test materials and being wealthy and affording a consultant is zero. The point rather is that in both these cases, it is a matter of economics, which I would assume you would understand considering your self-described period of being "poor". If you believe my friend is incredulous, then I find it incredulous that you called yourself "poor" and knowing the difference of $20 dollars. Either way, you didn't grasp my point at all.

The matter at hand is that the initial poster made a point at someone holding the ground that buying your way into law school is a seemingly bad thing. My point is that if you take that stance, where a wealthy person can afford a consultant who may help influence your application success is the same stance when you evaluate it on a smaller scale, say as someone who has no access to prep materials being dirt poor to someone who does. In both cases money was used as a distinct advantage. The moral weight is the same. Money helped one party potentially be more successful than another party, all other things equal.

What you don't understand is that it isn't an innocuous point. To some people, it does make a difference if they can afford 1 preptest material and to others money is no object. My distinction is that regardless if it was a rich person buying a library to get their child into a school or someone who affords a prep class, in both cases money is used as an advantage. There is no moral weight to be had in difference to each other.

If you don't understand that, then there is no educating the dumb.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12607
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby smaug » Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:27 pm

The moral weight is the same.

this is the big assumption that you're making, one that pretty much nobody would agree with, I'd suspect

anyway, i was just giving you a heads up because i felt you should have an opportunity to defend yourself if i was going to make fun of you elsewhere

If you don't understand that, then there is no educating the dumb.
this is word salad

ETA: i see you corrected it. yeah, i'm not dumb because of this. i just disagree with your previously unstated dumbass assumption.

and yes, you still seem dumb

it's ok, i'm dumb too

bob311
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:51 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby bob311 » Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:39 pm

Jason Taverner wrote:
The moral weight is the same.

this is the big assumption that you're making, one that pretty much nobody would agree with, I'd suspect

anyway, i was just giving you a heads up because i felt you should have an opportunity to defend yourself if i was going to make fun of you elsewhere

If you don't understand that, then there is no educating the dumb.
this is word salad

ETA: i see you corrected it. yeah, i'm not dumb because of this. i just disagree with your previously unstated dumbass assumption.

and yes, you still seem dumb

it's ok, i'm dumb too


Actually I think most people would agree the moral weight is the same. Go read John Broome's Rationality Through Reasoning. It is the probably the most comprehensive book written on normativity. The upshot is that in an argument with a normative statement such as "I shouldn't do this" or "you ought to do that", the weight of the statements are equal in order for us as humans to make sense of normative weight. What this has to do with my assumption is that in both cases, one party is an advantage over another. Both parties that are on the side of being disadvantaged would both equally say that this is something that is bad because inequality is giving one party an advantage over another. That is a normative statement. So I am saying the assumption is equivalent in both cases because of the normative strength.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12607
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby smaug » Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:42 pm

if you think that there's a clear, consensus view on normativity, you're dumber than i thought

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12607
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby smaug » Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:44 pm

"I shouldn't pick that flower" and "You shouldn't bulldoze that garden" don't have the same normative weight, and they should't. Yeah? (yeah.)

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

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby PeanutsNJam » Thu Jun 18, 2015 2:45 pm

Bob, you really gonna make your stand on the grounds that buying your way into a school is just as much unfair as buying preptest material?

User avatar
Kinky John
Posts: 1106
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 10:52 am

Re: Ann Levine vs Anna Ivey

Postby Kinky John » Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:07 pm

artistar wrote:So how does negotiating work with these consultants? Do they call the schools on your behalf? Or do they walk you through the negotiating process with advice?

Do they let law schools know they are working for you?


Think for half a minute and I'm sure the answers will come to you.

If so - AND if they deliver results in the form of admission into schools you might not have otherwise gotten into - isn't this just buying your way into law school? Is that why the $5K is worth it?


You can't buy your way into law school. You can do things that will strengthen your application. All these people can do is advise you how to go about doing that.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], spqr351 and 5 guests