eddietx12 wrote:GAIAtheCHEERLEADER wrote:eddietx12 wrote:USNWR matters for employment. I am very concerned with having to compete on the SAME ROULETTE table with one set of gamblers who are playing different odds, and making my odds worse.
This is like putting hard earned money (time) into a casino (the labor market), where the payoffs are skewed in favor of one group of people, AT THE EXPENSE of hard working suckers like me.
This is how I get punished? For what?! Why should she be permitted to smile and take her mug at "Harvard Law," where some of the greatest minds have passed? What has she done to belong there other than "be" of a certain category, what skill does that take?
A 172 LSAT and 3.91 GPA requires no hard work, huh?
My name is Gaia. I only got into Harvard because I'm black. My stats that are evidently higher than quite a few non-URMs on LSN mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!
How do I sleep at night? Oh yeah...with my HLS admit binder by my bedside.
I'm usually not this arrogant, but I can't help but be a scathing bitch when someone tries to devalue all the hard work I put in. I missed summer vacations to take classes and studied for the LSAT for over a year. GET THE FUCK OUT WITH THIS RACIST BULLSHIT.
Don't misrepresent your LSAT, for HLS you got a 168 (avg of your multiple attempts). This is like the Patriots asking for another Superbowl against the Giants to go for the perfect season, doesn't happen in real life, doesn't happen at HLS admissions. You did NOT get a 172 for HLS, you were a 168, lets "keep it real."
You got a 166, then you tried again, got another 166. Do you not realize that this is not how "aptitude tests" are designed to work? In some countries, kids can repeat classes until they get an A. Under that system, you would probably stay in school till you graduated with a 4.0
That's not a real "aptitude test," the LSAT when taken a bajillion times is no longer a test of 'aptitude' for legal reasoning, it is a test of "LSAT ABILITY," based on question-pattern-recognition for this particular examination. They "averaged" your LSAT, and they used a 168.
I'm with Eddie on this one. There is something terribly disturbing about someone who retakes the LSAT and receives a higher score. We should bastardize any fool who does this. The same goes for people who take practice tests. Some people might call this "preparation" or "hard work". I call it a scam. These people are stealing seats from those of us who took the test based on our God-given talents. There is no use for the skills and discipline required to prepare yourself for the LSAT. By allowing retakes and practices tests, we are fostering the lame idea that you can work hard and succeed at something you otherwise may have failed at. LSAC should stop selling old tests and companies like the Princeton Review and Kaplan should be refrain from "teaching" the LSAT. Seriously, anyone who took any practice tests or re-took the LSAT should be banned from attending law school. These people aren't smart. Law school should be filled with pure unadulterated intelligence. Screw preparation and hard work.