Splitters in law school

(Please Ask Questions and Answer Questions)
User avatar
Nom Sawyer
Posts: 933
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:28 am

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby Nom Sawyer » Sat Dec 04, 2010 3:24 am

Bildungsroman wrote:
HeavenWood wrote:
Bildungsroman wrote:
sundance95 wrote:Are you quoting ACT splits? Man when I was in HS the ACT was the red headed step child of the standardized tests...


Hey man, as someone who went to high school in the western US I can tell you that the ACT is very much alive and well and being foisted upon students.


I went to HS in suburban Philly, and the ACT was quite hip for being a "more holistic" measure of aptitude. Close to 1/3 of my classmates elected to take it. I took both tests, but scored in the exact same percentiles on each.


Everyone at my high school had to take the ACT their junior year. I think it's be a statewide requirement (CO).


I think theres a huge difference between how the ACT and SAT are viewed in different parts of the nation... Here (East Coast/ South) it seems as if you only go take the ACT if you aren't satisfied with ur SAT score and think u have a better shot with another test.

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby whymeohgodno » Sat Dec 04, 2010 4:04 am

I think theres a huge difference between how the ACT and SAT are viewed in different parts of the nation... Here (East Coast/ South) it seems as if you only go take the ACT if you aren't satisfied with ur SAT score and think u have a better shot with another test.


This was definitely the prevailing view at my highschool when I applied.

People who took the ACT in addition to the SAT (I didn't know anyone who took only the ACTs) usually did so because they weren't satisfied by their SAT score.

czelede
Posts: 689
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby czelede » Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:55 pm

whymeohgodno wrote:
I think theres a huge difference between how the ACT and SAT are viewed in different parts of the nation... Here (East Coast/ South) it seems as if you only go take the ACT if you aren't satisfied with ur SAT score and think u have a better shot with another test.


This was definitely the prevailing view at my highschool when I applied.

People who took the ACT in addition to the SAT (I didn't know anyone who took only the ACTs) usually did so because they weren't satisfied by their SAT score.


Yeah it's mandatory in the midwest. I personally found the SAT easier.

User avatar
crumpetsandtea
Posts: 7156
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby crumpetsandtea » Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:11 am

Do you mind if I ask what school(s) you're referencing here? (: Gives me hope though!! My most paralyzing fear is that I'll get to law school and be a total flunk-out. I'm so paranoid that when I was reading the beginning of this thread I legit bought into the fake horror stories people were tossing out. :oops:

005618502
Posts: 2577
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:56 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby 005618502 » Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:55 pm

crumpetsandtea wrote:Do you mind if I ask what school(s) you're referencing here? (: Gives me hope though!! My most paralyzing fear is that I'll get to law school and be a total flunk-out. I'm so paranoid that when I was reading the beginning of this thread I legit bought into the fake horror stories people were tossing out. :oops:


168 doesnt really qualify for what this thread i referring to.

HeavenWood
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby HeavenWood » Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:57 pm

AssumptionRequired wrote:
crumpetsandtea wrote:Do you mind if I ask what school(s) you're referencing here? (: Gives me hope though!! My most paralyzing fear is that I'll get to law school and be a total flunk-out. I'm so paranoid that when I was reading the beginning of this thread I legit bought into the fake horror stories people were tossing out. :oops:


168 doesnt really qualify for what this thread i referring to.


168s can be splitters--hell, even a 160 is technically a splitter with a 2.5 GPA. There's just a fine line between splitters and super-splitters.

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby whymeohgodno » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:09 pm

I think most people are assuming 170+ LSAT score here since it's hard to get into a "top law school" as a splitter without 170+ LSAT.

005618502
Posts: 2577
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:56 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby 005618502 » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:11 pm

whymeohgodno wrote:I think most people are assuming 170+ LSAT score here since it's hard to get into a "top law school" as a splitter without 170+ LSAT.


This. Plus people with a 168 dont have an advantage over a 165 or even much against a 160 i would imagine

005618502
Posts: 2577
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:56 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby 005618502 » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:12 pm

One question i have is this: Does what you score on the LSAT matter as much as what your cold diagnostic was? I mean would comparing 2 peoples cold diag likely correlate more then their score after what could be months of studying?

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby whymeohgodno » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:17 pm

AssumptionRequired wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:I think most people are assuming 170+ LSAT score here since it's hard to get into a "top law school" as a splitter without 170+ LSAT.


This. Plus people with a 168 dont have an advantage over a 165 or even much against a 160 i would imagine


As a splitter? They actually do depending on how big the split is.

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby whymeohgodno » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:18 pm

AssumptionRequired wrote:One question i have is this: Does what you score on the LSAT matter as much as what your cold diagnostic was? I mean would comparing 2 peoples cold diag likely correlate more then their score after what could be months of studying?


I think diagnostic matters more for RC more than any other section. If you scored a -10 RC and -8 LR but -0 LG, I'd say that's a pretty horrible diagnostic compared to a -0 RC, -8 LR, -10 LG.

HeavenWood
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby HeavenWood » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:18 pm

whymeohgodno wrote:
AssumptionRequired wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:I think most people are assuming 170+ LSAT score here since it's hard to get into a "top law school" as a splitter without 170+ LSAT.


This. Plus people with a 168 dont have an advantage over a 165 or even much against a 160 i would imagine


As a splitter? They actually do depending on how big the split is.


A 168 splitter would have trouble breaking into the T14. The best school they could probably snag would be WUSTL.

User avatar
beachbum
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby beachbum » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:19 pm

AssumptionRequired wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:I think most people are assuming 170+ LSAT score here since it's hard to get into a "top law school" as a splitter without 170+ LSAT.


This. Plus people with a 168 dont have an advantage over a 165 or even much against a 160 i would imagine


dude what.

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby whymeohgodno » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:21 pm

HeavenWood wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:
AssumptionRequired wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:I think most people are assuming 170+ LSAT score here since it's hard to get into a "top law school" as a splitter without 170+ LSAT.


This. Plus people with a 168 dont have an advantage over a 165 or even much against a 160 i would imagine


As a splitter? They actually do depending on how big the split is.


A 168 splitter would have trouble breaking into the T14. The best school they could probably snag would be WUSTL.


Yeah a 168 splitter would have no chance of breaking the t14 unless they were URM.

005618502
Posts: 2577
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:56 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby 005618502 » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:24 pm

whymeohgodno wrote:
AssumptionRequired wrote:One question i have is this: Does what you score on the LSAT matter as much as what your cold diagnostic was? I mean would comparing 2 peoples cold diag likely correlate more then their score after what could be months of studying?


I think diagnostic matters more for RC more than any other section. If you scored a -10 RC and -8 LR but -0 LG, I'd say that's a pretty horrible diagnostic compared to a -0 RC, -8 LR, -10 LG.


This just sounds dumb. I know RC is the hardest to improve but it is not the best showing of how one will perform in LS

HeavenWood
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:42 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby HeavenWood » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:26 pm

AssumptionRequired wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:
AssumptionRequired wrote:One question i have is this: Does what you score on the LSAT matter as much as what your cold diagnostic was? I mean would comparing 2 peoples cold diag likely correlate more then their score after what could be months of studying?


I think diagnostic matters more for RC more than any other section. If you scored a -10 RC and -8 LR but -0 LG, I'd say that's a pretty horrible diagnostic compared to a -0 RC, -8 LR, -10 LG.


This just sounds dumb. I know RC is the hardest to improve but it is not the best showing of how one will perform in LS


I would venture reading comprehension is extremely important in law school (whether the LSAT RC section is a decent measure of reading comprehension is another issue).

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby whymeohgodno » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:28 pm

AssumptionRequired wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:
AssumptionRequired wrote:One question i have is this: Does what you score on the LSAT matter as much as what your cold diagnostic was? I mean would comparing 2 peoples cold diag likely correlate more then their score after what could be months of studying?


I think diagnostic matters more for RC more than any other section. If you scored a -10 RC and -8 LR but -0 LG, I'd say that's a pretty horrible diagnostic compared to a -0 RC, -8 LR, -10 LG.


This just sounds dumb. I know RC is the hardest to improve but it is not the best showing of how one will perform in LS


When did I ever say RC is the best showing of how one will perform in LS?

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby 09042014 » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:38 pm

IIRC both RC and LR were tied for most predictive, and LG was lower, by a fairly significant margin, but still higher than GPA.

Cold diagnostics are useless. People's talents and prior experiences may make them much more suited to the formatting of the test. On my first PT I tried to do LG in my head and got >15 wrong. Ten minutes of the LG bible and I was down to <5. Same went for RC and knowing how fast I was supposed to be reading.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby vamedic03 » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:39 pm

RC fail?

User avatar
Chupavida
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:37 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby Chupavida » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:48 am

.
Last edited by Chupavida on Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
homestyle28
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:48 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby homestyle28 » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:59 am

arism87 wrote:Is this for real..? Esp the last post- how in the world would you know who was a splitter?

I'm not even a splitter, just curious, sheesh!


I'm assuming all the drool and barely being able to function gives it away.

User avatar
gman
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:32 pm

Re: Splitters in law school

Postby gman » Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:43 pm

Hate to bump an old thread (especially for my first post... sheesh, starting out strong), but this first page was hilarious. Though the trolling was obvious, I couldn't help but feel all my worst fears about my future as a 1L splitter were being confirmed. I am the future Desert Fox, apparently - which is to say an EE undergrad who could never get into or want to get into a decent EE PhD program.




Return to “Law School FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests