Boalt's LSAT Median Forum

[Borhas]

Please APNS, don't hold back

+1 lol what happned

I'm guessing either his post was deleted, or it collapsed into a black hole of hate

[APimpNamedSlickback]

xx

[APimpNamedSlickback]

x

[jmaan]

if a then b, and if b then c, would a boalttt student honestly know that if a then c?

i think not.

also, shame on everyone for missing this gem.

nice

[Borhas]

Please APNS, don't hold back

+1 lol what happned

I'm guessing either his post was deleted, or it collapsed into a black hole of hate

lol i meant it to be funny, but realized it could have actually pissed people off. no hard feelings.

I sent you a pm before reading this (it's not vulgar) no hard feelings

[IzziesGal]

Is this just a bunch of people who have a sense of entitlement and are sad that they didn't make the cut at a school known for looking at the "entire package"? If so, I can understand how it would sting a bit more to get rejected for your entire application, and not just for a number - your LSAT score - like at other top law schools.

[Kronk]

I mean, seriously?

Hey Acock, approximately what LSAT score do you think is the equivalent of a 3.2 from a university in the inbred south?

[APimpNamedSlickback]

Is this just a bunch of people who have a sense of entitlement and are sad that they didn't make the cut at a school known for looking at the "entire package"? If so, I can understand how it would sting a bit more to get rejected for your entire application, and not just for a number - your LSAT score - like at other top law schools.

i hope that you're actually a boalttt 0l/student so i can mock you for having made the kind egregiously unwarranted assumption that i presume is consistent with your schools lsat median.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

I mean, seriously?

Hey Acock, approximately what LSAT score do you think is the equivalent of a 3.2 from a university in the inbred south?

180. you're missing the fact that i did just enough to get me into harvard. i actually had way more fun during undergrad than probably any other t14 0l.

htmfh.

[Kronk]

I mean, seriously?

Hey Acock, approximately what LSAT score do you think is the equivalent of a 3.2 from a university in the inbred south?

180. you're missing the fact that i did just enough to get me into harvard. i actually had way more fun during undergrad than probably any other t14 0l.

htmfh.

I was going to say "just enough to get dinged at CLS," but to each his own. How many tries did it take you to get your "just enough" LSAT again?

[APimpNamedSlickback]

I mean, seriously?

Hey Acock, approximately what LSAT score do you think is the equivalent of a 3.2 from a university in the inbred south?

180. you're missing the fact that i did just enough to get me into harvard. i actually had way more fun during undergrad than probably any other t14 0l.

htmfh.

I was going to say "just enough to get dinged at CLS," but to each his own. How many tries did it take you to get your "just enough" LSAT again?

irrelevant. lsac says i am a boy genius, you should fall in line.

also, keep getting on my bad side and i won't write you that third letter of recommendation that you've been begging for.

[09042014]

Hey Acock, approximately what LSAT score do you think is the equivalent of a 3.2 from a university in the inbred south?

180. you're missing the fact that i did just enough to get me into harvard. i actually had way more fun during undergrad than probably any other t14 0l.

htmfh.

I was going to say "just enough to get dinged at CLS," but to each his own. How many tries did it take you to get your "just enough" LSAT again?

irrelevant. lsac says i am a boy genius, you should fall in line.

also, keep getting on my bad side and i won't write you that third letter of recommendation that you've been begging for.

Under the most liberal definition of Genius you will need a 173-175.

[Kronk]

Under the most liberal definition of Genius you will need a 173-175.

Please edit this fast.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

Under the most liberal definition of Genius you will need a 173-175.

Please edit this fast.

tsk tsk.

[09042014]

Under the most liberal definition of Genius you will need a 173-175.

Please edit this fast.

Why?

[Kronk]

You know the kid's LSAT score, right?

[jmaan]

Is this just a bunch of people who have a sense of entitlement and are sad that they didn't make the cut at a school known for looking at the "entire package"? If so, I can understand how it would sting a bit more to get rejected for your entire application, and not just for a number - your LSAT score - like at other top law schools.

haha...i cant talk much cause im a 0L and shes a 1L and I defer wisdom to ppl with experience...i just know that a test score means a lot imo...and i hate the UC system so CAL wasn't exactly a choice for me

[APimpNamedSlickback]

Is this just a bunch of people who have a sense of entitlement and are sad that they didn't make the cut at a school known for looking at the "entire package"? If so, I can understand how it would sting a bit more to get rejected for your entire application, and not just for a number - your LSAT score - like at other top law schools.

haha...i cant talk much cause im a 0L and shes a 1L and I defer wisdom to ppl with experience...i just know that a test score means a lot imo...and i hate the UC system so CAL wasn't exactly a choice for me

tbf, this thread is a total flame. there are obviously brilliant, brilliant kids at berkeley.

but even in jest, there is probably some truth. there are costs and benefits associated with every decision, and them trying to become more holistic in my view is going to mean a class that is on average objectively less capable as far as just raw logical and analytical skills.

but i mean c'mon, take everything with a grain of salt.

[09042014]

You know the kid's LSAT score, right?

I hope its 172.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

You know the kid's LSAT score, right?

I hope its 172.

so brooks lsat = mine? this takes the "all blacks look the same" shtick to another level brosef.

[Kronk]

172 is his average. So you're close there.

[09042014]

You know the kid's LSAT score, right?

I hope its 172.

so brooks lsat = mine? this takes the "all blacks look the same" shtick to another level brosef.

Haha. All blacks get 172's should be a meme on TLS.

[Morrissey'sGhost]

There are three reasons that a given individual may do better than another on the LSAT : (1) he really has better logical/analytical skills (2) he has better nerves and doesn't stress as much on test day and (3) he studies his ass off far more than his competitor

I love how everyone completely neglect (2) and ESPECIALLY (3) in their discussions on these boards. How do you know how long the 172 studied compared to the 169? I have a hunch that there's a good deal of Trolls on here who holed themselves up for 5 months, shunned the daylight, pounded away for hours a day at this one test, hit 172, and now have the arrogance to come on here and pronounce their unquestionable intellectual superiority over those in the 169 camp, many of whom studied for one half or less the time.

I think Berkeley's admission policy takes these factors into account. They realize that there is no real way to distinguish between the true geniouses who ace the LSAT with minimal prep and those who dedicate decades of their life to studying for this one test, who then try to pass of their work ethic as pristine intellect. Berkeley realizes that due to these totally unobservable discrepencies in prep time, the 169 with good grades, a compelling personality( as indicated by their personal statement), and substantive extracurricular/professional activities may very well be, ON AVERAGE, just as, if not more, intelligent than the 173 without those additional factors.

[dudester]

You know the kid's LSAT score, right?

I hope its 172.

so brooks lsat = mine? this takes the "all blacks look the same" shtick to another level brosef.

Haha. All blacks get 172's should be a meme on TLS.

LSAC affirmative action

[r2b2ct]

There are three reasons that a given individual may do better than another on the LSAT : (1) he really has better logical/analytical skills (2) he has better nerves and doesn't stress as much on test day and (3) he studies his ass off far more than his competitor

I love how everyone completely neglect (2) and ESPECIALLY (3) in their discussions on these boards. How do you know how long the 172 studied compared to the 169? I have a hunch that there's a good deal of Trolls on here who holed themselves up for 5 months, shunned the daylight, pounded away for hours a day at this one test, hit 172, and now have the arrogance to come on here and pronounce their unquestionable intellectual superiority over those in the 169 camp, many of whom studied for one half or less the time.

I think Berkeley's admission policy takes these factors into account. They realize that there is no real way to distinguish between the true geniouses who ace the LSAT with minimal prep and those who dedicate decades of their life to studying for this one test, who then try to pass of their work ethic as pristine intellect. Berkeley realizes that due to these totally unobservable discrepencies in prep time, the 169 with good grades, a compelling personality( as indicated by their personal statement), and substantive extracurricular/professional activities may very well be, ON AVERAGE, just as, if not more, intelligent than the 173 without those additional factors.

I feel you bro. I also hate it when people neglect those who choose to study minimally in UG. I mean come on, how do you know how long the 3.9 studied compared to the 3.1?