edit
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:02 pm
Edit: Pulled at request of LSAC
Top Law Schools
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
edit Forum
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=169196
Page 1 of 1
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:02 pm
wait really??
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:02 pm
Scam?
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:03 pm
IBTL
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:03 pm
...
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:03 pm
You work for a company? Congrats.
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:04 pm
IBTL
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:05 pm
Ibtl
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:05 pm
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/s ... 0&sr=posts
No other misleading posts. I'll take as fact with grain of salt. Need something to get me through this day
No other misleading posts. I'll take as fact with grain of salt. Need something to get me through this day
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:06 pm
would read again.
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:06 pm
This is true.dietcoke0 wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/s ... 0&sr=posts
No other misleading posts. I'll take as fact with grain of salt. Need something to get me through this day
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:07 pm
I've been looking at curve prediction threads. The curve has always been 1 above the score most voted for.
Oct's most vote for was -12. I'd say -13 sounds about right (but then again, it might just be mere coincidence)
Oct's most vote for was -12. I'd say -13 sounds about right (but then again, it might just be mere coincidence)
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:07 pm
What do you see? I see him working for Griffon Prep., saying that for a year now.941law wrote:would read again.
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:08 pm
Yes, really. This is not spam. I work for a company called Griffon Prep http://www.griffonprep.com
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:08 pm
Um, Barnum has a serious professional reputation. He's not going to get on here and spam just to stress you all out. So calm down, he's doing you a favor.
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:13 pm
Man, I so want to believe.
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:15 pm
I have trouble believing LSAC would license and release an unreleased LSAT without requiring that the person not talk about its contents publicly.Bernie wrote:Um, Barnum has a serious professional reputation. He's not going to get on here and spam just to stress you all out. So calm down, he's doing you a favor.
Re: -13 for 170
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:17 pm
Scam or not, I'm going to hope that this is true...however, I noticed that the predicted curve was -11 for the past 3 weeks, and only changed to -12 a couple of days ago (as we're nearing our anticipated score release and hoping for the best). Either way, good luck everyone! 
Re: edit
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:22 pm
I was almost going to believe it, but his bullshit edit gave him away.
He tried to make it more legit. Failed miserably. I don't think I did that well but I could tell the test was nowhere [edit: what he said it was.]
He tried to make it more legit. Failed miserably. I don't think I did that well but I could tell the test was nowhere [edit: what he said it was.]
Re: edit
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:25 pm
Clever troll is clever. Very clever.