. Forum

[Taffybear2]

3.72 and 155 lsat. Retaking in December because I'm at the borderline for most of the regional schools in California I want to get into: Loyola, San Diego, USF etc. I was pting in the low 160's but I would be happy with just 2-3 more points. That would make a huge difference in my cycle.

[eve2490]

.

[Gotti]

170/4.04 GPA. Any chance for Columbia, NYU, or Stanford?

why is this in the reverse splitters thread. yes. you have a shot at NYU & CLS. now go away from this thread &stop making us feel bad.

[Gotti]

Go to a U.S. law school that takes 164 LSAT's, and you're likely to be cleaning toilets for the rest of your life.

Gee...thanks.


and fyi: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... &start=325

164/3.98 got into michigan, 164/3.9 got into mich and penn. i doubt they'll be cleaning toilets. but thanks for the optimism!

[Gotti]

& 164/3.95 reverse splitter love right here...

I don't think I came to terms with my LSAT score because the only lower-ranked schools i'm applying to are UIUC, BU, Hastings, UMN lol

Not holding my breath for T14.

[renaissanceman83]

3.85 (That's my estimate... it's complicated... 3.68 my first year at ND, then 4.1ish for some non-accredited humanities work in the seminary, then 9.8/10 from my degree-granting institution, a pontifical university) and 165 LSAT.

URM, but still worried. Applied Harvard, Columbia, GULC, UVA, ND, W&M, GMU

[eve2490]

.

[eve2490]

.

[Gotti]

& 164/3.95 reverse splitter love right here...

I don't think I came to terms with my LSAT score because the only lower-ranked schools i'm applying to are UIUC, BU, Hastings, UMN lol

Not holding my breath for T14.

I give up trying to get actual support from TLSers when it comes to the lsat. It's just the same douchebag response and I see them give it to everybody. I think you will be okay for many schools and should apply widely, esp. if you get fee waivers. Apply to schools that are friendler to GPA, including those in the top 14. Then, sit back and relax- if you don't get into any, you wouldn't have applied to them anyway so no big loss. If you do, well that will be the loveliest thing. You should apply to schools ranked higher than those you listed though, you never know.

Thanks =)

No I did apply to other schools…those were just the lower ranked ones I applied to. But like I said, not really holding my breath for anything above USC. It sucks because one test you study for for 3 months is worth more than 4 years of busting your ass to maintain a highass GPA. I don’t want to be in CA anymore (I’ve lived here for forever, went to UCI undergrad, wanna gtfo of here), don’t wanna live in VA, don’t wanna live in Urbana, IL, don’t wanna be overshadowed by better schools in the same area (GW/GULC) and don’t want to go to a lower-ranked school. So that wipes a lot of my schools out lol. I applied cuz I thought I wouldn’t get in anywhere

UCLA
Stanford
Boalt
USC
GULC
UIUC
GW
UVA
Penn
Cornell
NYU
BU
UMN
Michigan
Hastings
Fordham
Northwestern
& I will apply to ND in the next couple of days

[Ragged]

170/4.04 GPA. Any chance for Columbia, NYU, or Stanford?

RD Columbia and NYU will be tough, but you might get in depending on other factors, plus this cycle is promising to be less competative so that might help. As for Stanford, you got the numbers, so it all comes down no softs at this point.

[2807]

I gain comfort from looking at the school data on APPLICANTS for schools (2009 data).

Do you all know that info is available on the LSAC website ?

Go to the school you want (or is already on your "list"), and open the PDF on "Law School Description", scroll to the bottom. For many schools you will see a chart of ALL the applicants and the breakdowns. Many LOW LSAT people getting in. There is hope. This may be where softs count the most.?

Not all schools supply it.

[niederbomb]

Go to a U.S. law school that takes 164 LSAT's, and you're likely to be cleaning toilets for the rest of your life.

Gee...thanks.


and fyi: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... &start=325

164/3.98 got into michigan, 164/3.9 got into mich and penn. i doubt they'll be cleaning toilets. but thanks for the optimism!

Yes, I'm very optimistic about my job prospects at the University of Toronto. Michigan?....not so much.

Also, I bet lots of money that 164 who got into Penn was URM. I am not. Thanks for asking, though.

[Gotti]

Go to a U.S. law school that takes 164 LSAT's, and you're likely to be cleaning toilets for the rest of your life.

Gee...thanks.


and fyi: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... &start=325

164/3.98 got into michigan, 164/3.9 got into mich and penn. i doubt they'll be cleaning toilets. but thanks for the optimism!

Yes, I'm very optimistic about my job prospects at the University of Toronto. Michigan?....not so much.

Also, I bet lots of money that 164 who got into Penn was URM. I am not. Thanks for asking, though.

Wasn't asking, and no that person was not a URM. We had the same stats.

[niederbomb]

So, someone on the internet who says he or she is not a URM says he or she got into Penn AND Michigan with a 164 and didn't say he or she has some sort of impressive/exceptional background (like curing cancer)?

A quick review of lawschoolnumbers.com would lay that story to rest.

If you're a reverse-splitter, either you screwed up and should retake or you went to a shitty undergraduate school that didn't prepare you adequately for the rigors of real academic coursework.

I qualify as a reverse-splitter, albeit one who is retaking, so talking shit and "telling it like it is" is my right.

[tng11]

...

[Gotti]

So, someone on the internet who says he or she is not a URM says he or she got into Penn AND Michigan with a 164 and didn't say he or she has some sort of impressive/exceptional background (like curing cancer)?

A quick review of lawschoolnumbers.com would lay that story to rest.

If you're a reverse-splitter, either you screwed up and should retake or you went to a shitty undergraduate school that didn't prepare you adequately for the rigors of real academic coursework.

I qualify as a reverse-splitter, albeit one who is retaking, so talking shit and "telling it like it is" is my right.

You underestimate the holistic approaches that adcomms sometimes take. Do you really think that LSN, a self-selecting sample of people who apply to law school, is representative of who gets in where to law school? Some people don’t care enough to put their stats online, and a lot of people’s numbers are fudged. There are no indications of how people wrote their personal statements or if they wrote any additional essays, etc. So no, I wouldn’t rely on LSN data to determine who will or will not get into certain law schools.

And for the record, 164 was my retake. It was under what I was averaging, but it was my score. It didn’t make sense for me to retake in December if I have a 163 and a 164 because I expect to get around a 167. It’s only a few points of a jump and not only would it put me at a disadvantage to apply so late, but schools would see those scores and presume that I got lucky to get a few extra points on the last test. And I went to a top public school in CA and graduated with 2 majors with an almost perfect GPA, so I’m pretty sure I didn’t go to a shitty UG that left me unprepared. Speak for yourself. You wanna retake? GREAT, go ahead, more power to you. And I think that people who got sub 160 should retake, but don’t assume you know everything about everyone and just generalize. Because at the end of the day, you are just another reverse splitter 0L just like everyone else.

[eve2490]

.

[Gotti]

I do not understand why people feel the need to explain themselves and their LSAT scores nor do I understand why other people feel the need to undermine people in this thread because they did well in UG and not on the LSAT. There are people on here that have 2.0s and 170s and I know they weren't all majoring along the lines of chemical engineering.

There's really no need to undermine people that probably worked their ass off for 4 years to get near perfect GPAs for w/e school they went to and w/e major they had while half the people around them were drinking partying and not giving a fuck about their education. We know how to consistently excel in school and the real world. Pathetic how people feel the need to talk down to others because they probably missed 2 to to 5 points, which makes a hell of a difference in their apps, on the LSAT for whatever stupid reason it may have been. We all know how much the LSAT is weighed, however, and we are trying to make the best of our personal situations. I will never understand why people post when they have nothing to contribute; or at least I see no wisdom coming from niederbomb's thoughts.

+10000000000000000000000000

[niederbomb]

I do not understand why people feel the need to explain themselves and their LSAT scores nor do I understand why other people feel the need to undermine people in this thread because they did well in UG and not on the LSAT. There are people on here that have 2.0s and 170s and I know they weren't all majoring along the lines of chemical engineering.

There's really no need to undermine people that probably worked their ass off for 4 years to get near perfect GPAs for w/e school they went to and w/e major they had while half the people around them were drinking partying and not giving a fuck about their education. We know how to consistently excel in school and the real world. Pathetic how people feel the need to talk down to others because they probably missed 2 to to 5 points, which makes a hell of a difference in their apps, on the LSAT for whatever stupid reason it may have been. We all know how much the LSAT is weighed, however, and we are trying to make the best of our personal situations. I will never understand why people post when they have nothing to contribute; or at least I see no wisdom coming from niederbomb's thoughts.

Some of these straight-talking people to which you are referring are, in fact, reverse splitters who worked their asses off in UG for 3.9+ and then bombed the LSAT. But not everyone believes in the virtues of self-pity.

The fact is, a lot of majors and schools are more challenging than others. Also, a lot of people are born with higher IQ's than others.

The fact is, many American universities are more businesses than academic institutions, so they dole out high grades liberally to please their paying customers (except for science and math where the evaluation is inherently more objective).

In the U.S, a high GPA in the arts of social sciences often signifies a person who paid on time, kissed professors asses, and excels at busy work. High grades mean next to nothing when half the Political Science class graduates summa cum laude.

Would you rather top law schools only admitted Ivy League UG's instead of basing most of their evaluation on the LSAT? If the LSAT, as an equalizer, is taken out, that's the logical alternative.

Anyone disagree? None of this is an excuse for a pity party.

Why is this thread even on the LSAT forum? I'd understand if it was over in one of the school admissions forum; it's nice to see where others with similar numbers get in, but the purpose of this forum is to discuss the LSAT, not to discuss how sorry we are for ourselves that the LSAT kicked our butt.

[niederbomb]

So, someone on the internet who says he or she is not a URM says he or she got into Penn AND Michigan with a 164 and didn't say he or she has some sort of impressive/exceptional background (like curing cancer)?

A quick review of lawschoolnumbers.com would lay that story to rest.

If you're a reverse-splitter, either you screwed up and should retake or you went to a shitty undergraduate school that didn't prepare you adequately for the rigors of real academic coursework.

I qualify as a reverse-splitter, albeit one who is retaking, so talking shit and "telling it like it is" is my right.

You underestimate the holistic approaches that adcomms sometimes take. Do you really think that LSN, a self-selecting sample of people who apply to law school, is representative of who gets in where to law school? Some people don’t care enough to put their stats online, and a lot of people’s numbers are fudged. There are no indications of how people wrote their personal statements or if they wrote any additional essays, etc. So no, I wouldn’t rely on LSN data to determine who will or will not get into certain law schools.

And for the record, 164 was my retake. It was under what I was averaging, but it was my score. It didn’t make sense for me to retake in December if I have a 163 and a 164 because I expect to get around a 167. It’s only a few points of a jump and not only would it put me at a disadvantage to apply so late, but schools would see those scores and presume that I got lucky to get a few extra points on the last test. And I went to a top public school in CA and graduated with 2 majors with an almost perfect GPA, so I’m pretty sure I didn’t go to a shitty UG that left me unprepared. Speak for yourself. You wanna retake? GREAT, go ahead, more power to you. And I think that people who got sub 160 should retake, but don’t assume you know everything about everyone and just generalize. Because at the end of the day, you are just another reverse splitter 0L just like everyone else.

As you may recall, the two state schools most famous for holistic admissions (Boalt and Michigan), developed holistic admissions as a way of circumventing state laws prohibiting affirmative action. Whether or not you agree with their decision, this policy is rarely helpful to non-URM's.

While this may not explain Stanford, Yale or Penn, all three have an LSAT median of 170+, so it's pretty hard to claim that they really practice holistic admissions, except perhaps to deny applicants with high scores and shitty softs.

I'm really burned out from doing 60 logic games, 2 RC sections, 5 review sections, and a full PT in a span of three days on top of working full time. I need a place to be a truth-talking asshole because work is certainly not the place.

[eve2490]

.

[yas03001]

PS- TO ANYONE WHO HAS A >166 LSAT, I REGRET TO INFORM YOU THAT YOU ARE NOT WELCOME TO SEEK SUPPORT FROM THIS BOARD FOR YOUR POOR LSAT SCORE AND YOUR ONSET OF DEPRESSION BECAUSE YOU ARE WORRIED THAT YOU MIGHT NOT GET INTO COLUMBIA.

totally agree!! ridic.

[yas03001]

I am def screwed:

undergrad GPA 3.7 (UCONN)
grad GPA approx 3.8 (Ivy)

LSAT score 152 (my stomach still flips in pain and there is just no way I am retaking - no time, I have a thesis to finish before March).

So my possibilities are pretty bleak... I am applying to 1 T14 and all the others are in a range between 0 and a hundred. I really need to get to something that is under the 50 bench mark because I plan to work in NYC and it is so hyper competitive.... needless to say I don't think it will happen I am already waitlisted at W&L. I submitted some applications as early September/October and nothing but silence everywhere else.

I applied to W&M, BU, Brooklyn, Cardozo, St. Johns, UIUC, Tulane, W&L, WUSL, Penn State, American and a couple of 3rd tiers that gave me FWs. I was accepted to Mercer, MSU and Roger Williams - options I would not really consider (short of a full scholly and the decision to give up ever practicing in NYC).

Any suggestions on where else I should throw in an app before the year is out?

Anyone close to me in numbers? any success out there?

[eve2490]

.