2010 Splitters Application Thread Forum

[Sandro]

idk, if a school isnt having any spliterness it doesnt matter whether you applied in Jan or Oct. I feel like taking the Dec test didnt hurt me at any of the schools I applied to, really. Possibly Wake Forest, but who knows.

[crit_racer]

Do you guys think there is much of an advantage for splitters to retake? If I'm already above the 75% for every school I applied to, will it help to be further above that mark or no?

I know getting like 172+ would put me in the running for NU, UVA, etc, but I'm not interested in any of those schools. Trying to figure out if a 170s score would make a difference w/ USC, Hastings, UW, Texas, Davis, Colorado

[bdubs]

Do you guys think there is much of an advantage for splitters to retake? If I'm already above the 75% for every school I applied to, will it help to be further above that mark or no?

I know getting like 172+ would put me in the running for NU, UVA, etc, but I'm not interested in any of those schools. Trying to figure out if a 170s score would make a difference w/ USC, Hastings, UW, Texas, Davis, Colorado

For UW no, it almost certainly won't (see adjudicator).

USC is also hard for sub 3.4 GPAs seems to be a bit of a floor.

[Stonewall]

if the fabled 170 is what you need to be a contender -- DO IT.

[athenian]

Do you guys think there is much of an advantage for splitters to retake? If I'm already above the 75% for every school I applied to, will it help to be further above that mark or no?

I know getting like 172+ would put me in the running for NU, UVA, etc, but I'm not interested in any of those schools. Trying to figure out if a 170s score would make a difference w/ USC, Hastings, UW, Texas, Davis, Colorado

I'm totally in the same boat as you. Although your GPA is a good deal better than mine (2.95).

I'm in at Minnesota with 54k, but really want to work in California. I think I might retake and spend the year further padding my already solid softs, to get into Davis (WL'd this year) and try for UCLA/USC/Michigan/Cornell.

[LttleBlakDress]

Do you guys think there is much of an advantage for splitters to retake? If I'm already above the 75% for every school I applied to, will it help to be further above that mark or no?

I know getting like 172+ would put me in the running for NU, UVA, etc, but I'm not interested in any of those schools. Trying to figure out if a 170s score would make a difference w/ USC, Hastings, UW, Texas, Davis, Colorado

I had a talk with the GW dean who encouraged me to retake and said that she thought several of the CA schools would look kindly on my splitter-ness if I hit 172+.

[chrisbru]

171/2.94

All applications submitted between 11/1 and 11/15, except Denver which I submitted 12/19.
Cycle over, I'm going to Iowa. HAWKEYES FTW!

Accepted
Iowa - full tuition, in state
WUSTL - $18k/year
Denver - $20k/year
St. Thomas (MN) - full tuition
Drake - $18k/year, negotiated to $23k/year
DePaul - $18k/year
William Mitchell - 40% (like $13k ish a year)
Nebraska - $14k/year
Kansas - Scholarship waitlist (WTF?)


Waitlist
Illinois
Minnesota
Colorado

[eecs]

Do you guys think there is much of an advantage for splitters to retake? If I'm already above the 75% for every school I applied to, will it help to be further above that mark or no?

I know getting like 172+ would put me in the running for NU, UVA, etc, but I'm not interested in any of those schools. Trying to figure out if a 170s score would make a difference w/ USC, Hastings, UW, Texas, Davis, Colorado

For UW no, it almost certainly won't (see adjudicator).

USC is also hard for sub 3.4 GPAs seems to be a bit of a floor.

If you are looking for a positive sub 3.4, 170+ example, I just got into usc with 3.2, 177. If you are fairly confident your score will not drop, I think a retake is worth it.

[splitmuch]

*

[crit_racer]

I'm gonna buy some PTs and the LG Bible and see where I stand. I missed 7 on ONE GAME in December 2010 and still got 169, so I think I could do better. Besides, the pressure is essentially off the 2nd time around w/ offers on the table. If I really kill it in June, I'll reapply. If I do just 1-3 points better, I'll hope it gets me off a WL.

There's no way a lower score could hurt me for this admissions cycle, is there?

[LttleBlakDress]

I'm gonna buy some PTs and the LG Bible and see where I stand. I missed 7 on ONE GAME in December 2010 and still got 169, so I think I could do better. Besides, the pressure is essentially off the 2nd time around w/ offers on the table. If I really kill it in June, I'll reapply. If I do just 1-3 points better, I'll hope it gets me off a WL.

There's no way a lower score could hurt me for this admissions cycle, is there?

Only at one of the small number of schools that averages. (USF springs to mind, but you'd get in there anyway unless you got a 120 or something.)

[eecs]

I'm gonna buy some PTs and the LG Bible and see where I stand. I missed 7 on ONE GAME in December 2010 and still got 169, so I think I could do better. Besides, the pressure is essentially off the 2nd time around w/ offers on the table. If I really kill it in June, I'll reapply. If I do just 1-3 points better, I'll hope it gets me off a WL.

There's no way a lower score could hurt me for this admissions cycle, is there?

damn, must've misread the premise? Same thing happened to me, ended up missing three on one game (180!). Sounds like you're good to go. Just don't get arrested.

[DreamsInDigital]

I figured I'd post in here and give everyone an update. I'm not sure how I feel about my cycle. If this had been when I first started thinking of applying, I would have been pretty happy. But after reading this site for a few months, I had gotten my hopes up that things would turn out better. I am thinking my late-ish applications (all sent between first week of december and second week of january) had a pretty big effect.

Oh well, a good school at a cheap price is a great options...except that its nowhere near California where I want to end up.

170, 2.7 HYP, URM, 4+ years of great work experience.

In
Illinois w/ 120k
Minnesota w/ 75k
Maryland (leadership scholar finalist)
Hastings w/ 0

WL
Davis
William and Mary
Georgetown
Northwestern (held)

Dinged
Stanford
Berkeley
UVA
UChicago

Pending
USC
UCLA
Columbia (yea, i know, doesn't make any sense. They just like torturing me by making me wait for the rejection).

[Siamsa414]

Here's my update. 3.2X/179, non-URM. Four schools to go and wondering if I will end up on a total of 10 waitlists this cycle. Fortunately for me, NU and GULC were always among my top choices; if I weren't in there, I'd be taking these waitlists a lot more personally.

Accepted:
Northwestern
Georgetown
Loyola LA
Santa Clara
McGeorge

Dings:
Stanford
Harvard

Waitlists:
BU
USC
UCLA
Davis
Hastings
UVA

Pending:
Columbia
NYU
Michigan
Cornell

[eliekedourie]

.

[FuManChusco]

Do you guys think there is much of an advantage for splitters to retake? If I'm already above the 75% for every school I applied to, will it help to be further above that mark or no?

I know getting like 172+ would put me in the running for NU, UVA, etc, but I'm not interested in any of those schools. Trying to figure out if a 170s score would make a difference w/ USC, Hastings, UW, Texas, Davis, Colorado

I'm totally in the same boat as you. Although your GPA is a good deal better than mine (2.95).

I'm in at Minnesota with 54k, but really want to work in California. I think I might retake and spend the year further padding my already solid softs, to get into Davis (WL'd this year) and try for UCLA/USC/Michigan/Cornell.

not one of those schools is taking a sub-3. I seriously don't see it happening even with a 175+. Davis might if you can really up the lsat, but waiting a year for Davis at sticker seems wasteful.

[Kabuo]

Do you guys think there is much of an advantage for splitters to retake? If I'm already above the 75% for every school I applied to, will it help to be further above that mark or no?

I know getting like 172+ would put me in the running for NU, UVA, etc, but I'm not interested in any of those schools. Trying to figure out if a 170s score would make a difference w/ USC, Hastings, UW, Texas, Davis, Colorado

I'm totally in the same boat as you. Although your GPA is a good deal better than mine (2.95).

I'm in at Minnesota with 54k, but really want to work in California. I think I might retake and spend the year further padding my already solid softs, to get into Davis (WL'd this year) and try for UCLA/USC/Michigan/Cornell.

not one of those schools is taking a sub-3. I seriously don't see it happening even with a 175+. Davis might if you can really up the lsat, but waiting a year for Davis at sticker seems wasteful.

Big +1. I think we splitters value inconsequential increases in our already 170+ LSATs a lot more than adcomms do.

[DreamsInDigital]

Just figured I'd bump up this thread and give an update on my cycle. I think this shows how weird the cycle for a urm super-splitter can be. I ended up with a great offer, but some things threw me for a loop.

In
UIUC - 40k/yr
Minnesota - 25k/yr
U Maryland - offered scholarship interview, couldn't make it out there
Hastings - just loans

Limbo
GULC - non-preferred waitlist
Northwestern - held
Davis - waitlisted
William and Mary - waitlist
USC - no word in a long time
Columbia - one of the forgotten

Out
Stanford
Berkeley
UCLA
UVA
Chicago

I think most of those make sense. The bold ones weren't quite what I expected.

- I never thought I would get such a good financial offer from any T30 with my gpa. I think the moral of the story is learn to love the midwest, I know I'm getting there.
- With the TLS common belief that high lsat + great work experience means you're a lock at Northwestern, I was a little disappointed. I think my late application that was not at all tailored to the school hurt me.
- I thought Davis and W&M would love my lsat. Not sure what happened with W&M but Davis taught me that California schools really like that GPA.
- UCLA hurt. Again, it was the non-specific, late application coupled with that sub-3.0.

*short version*
non-traditional URM splitters should apply early, personalize each application, and cast a really wide net because you never know what can happen.

I know it seems like a pretty obvious conclusion, but it's always weird to actually experience it.

[ProfitsProphets]

As much as the numbers are important in the application process, I'm a firm believer that the other elements of one's app are equally important. While some schools favor higher GPA's, others prefer a higher LSAT score. But one constant remains: the remainder of your app has to be on point.

Take my experience, for example. I'm still in contention (week 7 in review) at a top-40 program, yet I have a 136 LSAT score. Granted, I'm URM and non-traditional applicant, but my app is solid. Honestly, who knows what will ultimately happen with my app, but it's nice to feel like I have a fighting chance, even with my yucky score.

So, retaking the LSAT to change a 169 to 171 (with marginal grades) is less important than assuring your application captures your audience.

[lsatextreme]

As much as the numbers are important in the application process, I'm a firm believer that the other elements of one's app are equally important. While some schools favor higher GPA's, others prefer a higher LSAT score. But one constant remains: the remainder of your app has to be on point.

Take my experience, for example. I'm still in contention (week 7 in review) at a top-40 program, yet I have a 136 LSAT score. Granted, I'm URM and non-traditional applicant, but my app is solid. Honestly, who knows what will ultimately happen with my app, but it's nice to feel like I have a fighting chance, even with my yucky score.

So, retaking the LSAT to change a 169 to 171 (with marginal grades) is less important than assuring your application captures your audience.

i'm really really not trying to put you down or anything but since I am in the boat of students where I don't think I stand a chance at Hastings, I was sitting at 11 weeks since complete so I called them about 2 weeks ago and they told me they still have about a 1000 applications to go through, since apparently they got at least 6000 applications this cycle and they're trying to catch up. So being the pessimist that I am, I just think they haven't given my application proper consideration since they're not auto admit numbers or anywhere close and basically saving it until the end to make sure I'm not some nobel laureate or the founder of a fortune 500 company before they ding my ass along with all the dings they've been saving up. That's what I suspect Hastings is doing in all honesty, because the UCs are about the last system of schools I would bet my money on to give any sort of significant consideration to applications beyond the 2 numbers.

I've waited 13 weeks now and I guess technically I'm a splitter (a shitty one) and I'm definitely not as optimistic right now so I'm just assuming I didn't get in at this point. Sad I know but it's hard to be optimistic with 30 rejections thus far so I think it's just healthier to be realistic right now.

[ProfitsProphets]

Lsatextreme:

I'm not sure how drawing from your experience is "putting me down," although I get the inference (that I don't have a shot and should fully expect a rejection), but every one has a different experience. Last year, my rejections were almost immediate, with the exception of one school, so I recognize the odds are stacked against me. However, last year Hastings accepted a 142. Theoretically, that applicant should have been rejected, right?

I understand how important the numbers are, but 169, 3.68 applicants are rejected too. Why? Because of the remainder of one's application did not pass the test. So, as much as I should feel like my app is sitting at the bottom of a rejection pile, I look at my status as: In Contention.

[wiseguy33]

Honestly, URMs, non-traditional applicants, international applicants, and applicants with hard science backgrounds, etc., are all weighed differently than the usual "traditional" applicants. Especially this late in the cycle, demographic factors are extremely important, as admissions officers try to round out their classes. Everyone has a shot, especially if you're different from the norm.

That said, still being under review could mean that you're actually still in the applicant pool under consideration. Or, it could simply mean that the school is taking a long time to get through apps and they haven't had the time to reject you yet. YMMV

[FuManChusco]

As much as the numbers are important in the application process, I'm a firm believer that the other elements of one's app are equally important. While some schools favor higher GPA's, others prefer a higher LSAT score. But one constant remains: the remainder of your app has to be on point.

Take my experience, for example. I'm still in contention (week 7 in review) at a top-40 program, yet I have a 136 LSAT score. Granted, I'm URM and non-traditional applicant, but my app is solid. Honestly, who knows what will ultimately happen with my app, but it's nice to feel like I have a fighting chance, even with my yucky score.

So, retaking the LSAT to change a 169 to 171 (with marginal grades) is less important than assuring your application captures your audience.

lulz

[ProfitsProphets]

Wiseguy has the right perspective. None of us truly know the adcomms methodology on admissions, so any speculation is merely for our entertainment. That said, my application contains much more than a low LSAT score, and I was heavily recruited by Hastings (if you call several emails inviting me to the info session and to apply over the course of this cycle heavy). But more importantly, I would be a great addition to the law school, and maybe Hastings feels the same way. So, I'm not going to draw from last year's experience (0-8), or some other student's experience who received a lot of rejections.

We'll all learn our fate soon enough. My point is simply don't rule me out just because of my LSAT score.

[Flips88]

As much as the numbers are important in the application process, I'm a firm believer that the other elements of one's app are equally important. While some schools favor higher GPA's, others prefer a higher LSAT score. But one constant remains: the remainder of your app has to be on point.

Take my experience, for example. I'm still in contention (week 7 in review) at a top-40 program, yet I have a 136 LSAT score. Granted, I'm URM and non-traditional applicant, but my app is solid. Honestly, who knows what will ultimately happen with my app, but it's nice to feel like I have a fighting chance, even with my yucky score.

So, retaking the LSAT to change a 169 to 171 (with marginal grades) is less important than assuring your application captures your audience.

Jesus Christ. Retake. And study. You barely got above what you'd probably get if you just blind guessed or took the LSAT hammered. While you think you're "still in contention" at a t-40, it really means they are waiting to ding you. For the love of god, retake. or don't go to law school.