What age are most of you??? Forum

[Miznitic]

NonTrad :: 34. Previously part of the Dot-Bomb economy.

[umichgrad]

23-24

[bgdddymtty]

32.

On a semi-related note, the one-size-fits-all nature of LSDAS and law school admissions sucks royally. That the grades that I got 15 years ago (when most of you were in elementary school) count toward my GPA number, but ones that I got during the last two years in a top 20 MBA program don't, is ridiculous. That any school that recognizes this obvious discrepancy and admits me does so at the peril of its GPA percentile numbers (and therefore its precious ranking) is perverse.

What?? In 15 years, I'd "probably" score 180 and have a 4.0.

First of all, I did score a 180. There are about 30 of us each year who do so, out of >140,000 people who take the test. Methinks you know not of what you speak.

There has to be a measure to actually compare us.

To amend your sentence slightly, there has to be a measure to actually compare who we are and what our chances of success in law school are right now. What kind of a student I was from age 16 to 18 could not be much less relevant to that determination.

[r6_philly]

To amend your sentence slightly, there has to be a measure to actually compare who we are and what our chances of success in law school are right now. What kind of a student I was from age 16 to 18 could not be much less relevant to that determination.

If you did score a 180, you should have no problem agreeing with me on this: there has to be a way to recognize someone who DIDN'T score any B's and C's when he/she was 16 to 18, and went on to finish the last 6 semesters with a 4.0 GPA, went on to earn a top level MBA with a 4.0, and then scored a 180.

No it probably says NOTHING about your abilities, but it is just unfair to not distinguish someone who DIDN'T make any mistakes at all.

All that's stopping me from having a 4.0 is a spanish class that I took to meet a girl, a English 101 class that I forgot to hand in a paper, and a intro math class that I didn't bother to show up much not knowing that I can't just test a A without making arrangements to do so (and attendence count toward the grade). That's 3 B's that I didn't have to earn 12 years ago. But I am not complaining because I made the choice to EARN those B's. No it reflects nothing about my abilities but it did reflect that I didn't always have a good work ethic when I was younger. It would be a travesty to give me a 4.0 because there are kids that worked hard when they were 17.

[MD/JD2B]

Has anyone mentioned that dumb luck and serendipity (or lack thereof) will sooner or later play into your life..no matter how intelligent or talented or old or young....Student of the Obvious

[bgdddymtty]

If you did score a 180, you should have no problem agreeing with me on this: there has to be a way to recognize someone who DIDN'T score any B's and C's when he/she was 16 to 18, and went on to finish the last 6 semesters with a 4.0 GPA, went on to earn a top level MBA with a 4.0, and then scored a 180.

No it probably says NOTHING about your abilities, but it is just unfair to not distinguish someone who DIDN'T make any mistakes at all.

[...]

No it reflects nothing about my abilities but it did reflect that I didn't always have a good work ethic when I was younger. It would be a travesty to give me a 4.0 because there are kids that worked hard when they were 17.

I do have a problem agreeing with you, and I suspect that our disagreement stems from a disagreement about the purpose of using UGPA to determine law school admissions. Like the LSAT, UGPA is used for its value in determining who is and is not likely to succeed in law school. It's not about giving people credit or recognition.

[Nom Sawyer]

Has anyone mentioned that dumb luck and serendipity (or lack thereof) will sooner or later play into your life..no matter how intelligent or talented or old or young....Student of the Obvious

This kind of serendipity?

--ImageRemoved--

[maks25]

23

[r6_philly]

I do have a problem agreeing with you, and I suspect that our disagreement stems from a disagreement about the purpose of using UGPA to determine law school admissions. Like the LSAT, UGPA is used for its value in determining who is and is not likely to succeed in law school. It's not about giving people credit or recognition.

Geez, "who is and is not likely to succeed in law school" - you can't see the difference between someone who has NEVER made a mistake in his/her academic career and someone who HAS made a mistake in his/her academic career? You erred, it happened, you are a higher risk than someone who has not. Maybe it is a 0.1% higher risk than someone with a straight 4.0. Maybe it is not much, but you do have a (however slightly) potential to flunder again.

[r6_philly]

First of all, I did score a 180. There are about 30 of us each year who do so, out of >140,000 people who take the test. Methinks you know not of what you speak.

BTW, it looks like I am trying to argue with you and it sounds a little personal, but trust me it is not intended to be that. I actually read your profile and highly respect what you were able to achieve. You have what it takes to get a 180, it is amazing. Your GPA is going to be used for another reason against you. 180 is going to prove your are smart and capable enough to do well at school. But you have a low GPA. School is going to ask why a 180 student has a 3.5 degree GPA. You should have a 4.0 because you scored better than 99% on an aptitude test, you should have better grades than 99% of students. I think your recent grades are going to hurt you more than your older grades IMHO. Before you say circumstances and hardships are the reasons... there are others who have similar or even worse circumstances who can maintain a 4.0. And not all of them score anywhere near 180... You see why those grades should count? It differentiate people who can succeed and excel no matter what from people who merely have the potential to excel. The LSAT is a potentials test, the GPA proves what you have done with your potential.

[bgdddymtty]

Geez, "who is and is not likely to succeed in law school" - you can't see the difference between someone who has NEVER made a mistake in his/her academic career and someone who HAS made a mistake in his/her academic career? You erred, it happened, you are a higher risk than someone who has not. Maybe it is a 0.1% higher risk than someone with a straight 4.0. Maybe it is not much, but you do have a (however slightly) potential to flunder again.

But the impact is nowhere near 0.1%. And you're talking about a situation where someone else had the exact same GPA for their entire UG as I had once I came back to school. Let's use a different example, and I hope you'll see my point.

My GPA for that first two years (94-96) was 1.75. My GPA from 2001-07 was 3.53. (I also kept up the 3.5 during my MBA.) That averages out to 2.95. Compare that with a traditional student who averaged 3.2 throughout his four years of UG. All other things being equal, which of us is likely to do better in law school? Now, which of us is likely to get into a given law school first? If the answers to the previous two questions are different, there is a problem with the measuring stick.

[r6_philly]

Who would be a lower risk. Someone who consistently score B+ or someone who get many A's but with 3 or 4 C and D thrown in. I think the safer bet is the 3.2 average if he/she is consistent with it. That means not tip top talent but great work ethic who is dependable. The brilliant student with a few failures could be troublesome.

[chango]

[Rocketman11]

Great graph I can almost read the words on it.

[chango]

Great graph I can almost read the words on it.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... titut.html

[r6_philly]

that graph (and the info contained within) is misleading. Why use a regression line to approximate trends? Oh wait, because appro. 1/3 of the school in the sample help tilt the regression line upwards. How about finding a graph containing decade data for ALL schools and try to spot trends WITHIN schools then find the trend of all schools.

There is also the possiblity that high schools are better than preparing all graduates for college level work in the recent decades. What about the possiblity that some of the colleges have better quality that before, in term of faculty and incoming students? How about a cross reference chart with freshment scores?

Anyone can make a self-serving graph. If I take out the right 1/3 (>20 years) of your graph and make bar graphs I can show that by year there has been only a slight increase in grades in the last 2 decades and the trend is stable. Then my explanation on top would make more sense than "grade inflation".

[chango]

Can't (i.e. won't) get the full article, but the abstract is intriguing.

--LinkRemoved--

[r6_philly]

The nature of academic research leads to exploration of both sides of any issue. You can usually find supporting evidence for both sides as no issue is ever black and white and bipolared. Sometimes a seemingly easy topic can be effectively argued and defended on both sides ... wait, isn't that what a laywer supposed to do?

Yes, it is intriguing and thought provoking. Of course it is, the topic made me think and reply. However there is no "valid" or "correct" view here. The same piece of evidence/set of data can usually be used to argue for both sides (consider the debate on how to intepret the Consititution). I would observe that there has been an increase in grades but what effects and cause that will have on anything is and will always be open to anyone's own intepretation.

The abstract contained in the FINDING's section the following verbage: "suggest the possibility" - that's the academic way of saying "maybe".

[bgdddymtty]

Who would be a lower risk. Someone who consistently score B+ or someone who get many A's but with 3 or 4 C and D thrown in. I think the safer bet is the 3.2 average if he/she is consistent with it. That means not tip top talent but great work ethic who is dependable. The brilliant student with a few failures could be troublesome.

You're shaping your logic to fit a pre-conceived outcome. I don't have "3 or 4 C and D thrown in." I have seven years of consistent results (nine if you count grad school), which were preceded several years earlier by two years of horrible results. Acting as if those marks are important to gauging my success from this point on is like saying that the 3.2 person isn't really a 3.2 because he didn't do well in elementary school.

Let's try one more example, and then I'm gonna drop this. Let's say that someone identical to me graduates from high school in 1994 but decides not to attend college immediately. Maybe he has family obligations, maybe he wants to see the world, maybe he just wants to escape anything approaching adult responsibility. Then, seven years later, he gets it all together and decides to pursue a degree. He earns exactly the same GPA as I did from that point forward. Maybe, because he started with zero credits, he doesn't have a chance to get the MBA.That guy would be counted as a 3.53, considered a much safer risk than I am, and he would have a 50/50 shot at Yale (according to the predictor) even before considering URM status, which would make him a shoo-in. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The point is, LSAC's UGPA system is too rigid for its own good. I understand that, just as with the LSAT, there is value in having a system by which to quantifiably separate the wheat from the chaff. However, there are so many ways in which UGPA numbers can be skewed (we haven't even talked about things like giving the same value to Underwater Basketweaving at Podunk State University vs. Physics at MIT) that its reliability as a predictor of law school performance is severely limited.

[r6_philly]

Let's try one more example, and then I'm gonna drop this. Let's say that someone identical to me graduates from high school in 1994 but decides not to attend college immediately. Maybe he has family obligations, maybe he wants to see the world, maybe he just wants to escape anything approaching adult responsibility. Then, seven years later, he gets it all together and decides to pursue a degree. He earns exactly the same GPA as I did from that point forward. Maybe, because he started with zero credits, he doesn't have a chance to get the MBA.That guy would be counted as a 3.53, considered a much safer risk than I am, and he would have a 50/50 shot at Yale (according to the predictor) even before considering URM status, which would make him a shoo-in. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I will give a different example. actually not an example, this is me. I dropped out of highschool in 1994. I got a GED, worked 40-50 hour days 7 days a week and took some classes and got a 3.7+. Our circumstances sound similar. Guess what I am a safer risk. When I came back to UG 10 years later, I earned 80+ credits in 3 semesters while working full-time with a 4.0. Apparently the 3.7 is a good indicator of my future sucess. And standarized tests would not have predicted that - I got sub 900 on the SAT.

You also missed when I said that your 180 should predict a better GPA (in recent semesters). I will not score a 180. But I can earn a 4.0 GPA at twice the course load while working full-time with a newborn. I don't sleep much but it is possible. GPA is a good indicator, it really does show people who are willing to work extra hard and excel. Quality that law schools are looking for.

[bgdddymtty]

R6, best of luck to you. I'm sure you'll do well.

As for me, I just got off the phone with Cordel Faulk, Director of Admissions at UVa. "Welcome to UVA Law, Class of 2013!" Charlottesville, here I come!

[r6_philly]

R6, best of luck to you. I'm sure you'll do well.

As for me, I just got off the phone with Cordel Faulk, Director of Admissions at UVa. "Welcome to UVA Law, Class of 2013!" Charlottesville, here I come!

Congrats! see nothing to complain about after all

[chango]

32.

On a semi-related note, the one-size-fits-all nature of LSDAS and law school admissions sucks royally. That the grades that I got 15 years ago (when most of you were in elementary school) count toward my GPA number, but ones that I got during the last two years in a top 20 MBA program don't, is ridiculous. That any school that recognizes this obvious discrepancy and admits me does so at the peril of its GPA percentile numbers (and therefore its precious ranking) is perverse.

What?? In 15 years, I'd "probably" score 180 and have a 4.0.

First of all, I did score a 180. There are about 30 of us each year who do so, out of >140,000 people who take the test. Methinks you know not of what you speak.

There has to be a measure to actually compare us.

To amend your sentence slightly, there has to be a measure to actually compare who we are and what our chances of success in law school are right now. What kind of a student I was from age 16 to 18 could not be much less relevant to that determination.

Did you just do a search for "180," find this thread, seize upon a minor point someone made about a 180, and use that as a segue to brag about your own score? And then, once here, decide to tussle with r6 (and maybe me) because you wanted to flex a bit?

[Rocketman11]

Did you just do a search for "180," find this thread, seize upon a minor point someone made about a 180, and use that as a segue to brag about your own score? And then, once here, decide to tussle with r6 (and maybe me) because you wanted to flex a bit?

if you actually believe he got a 180 you need to be conditioned a bit more to the average TLS troll.

[r6_philly]

if you actually believe he got a 180 you need to be conditioned a bit more to the average TLS troll.

It's an internet forum, you almost come here for entertainment as much as information. I will debate argue anything based on the premise given without question. It is more fun that way.