2010 Splitters Application Thread Forum

[Guy]

this is hands down the best thread on this website. truly hilarious. but seriously, i think hes got a pretty good chance. stop being so negative guys

[red_alertz]

this is hands down the best thread on this website. truly hilarious. but seriously, i think hes got a pretty good chance. stop being so negative guys

TITCR

[FiveSermon]

this is hands down the best thread on this website. truly hilarious. but seriously, i think hes got a pretty good chance. stop being so negative guys

I smell an alt.

[red_alertz]

what's ALT?

[Stringer Bell]

If you're not first you're last. Ask Ricky Bobby. LSAT scores are all pretty much the same if you don't get a 180.

[beachbum]

Ya'll are gettin trolled hard.

[Guy]

thats true. well said. totally true.

[chrisbru]

Ya'll are gettin trolled hard.

But it's so entertaining... Don't let it stop!

[wiseguy33]

Still doesn't beat the "3 TSL Myths" thread on the Admissions forum.

To get back to the original thread: how are all y'all splitters doing with WL/reserve/hold apps? I'm patiently waiting on CCN, among others.

[ProfitsProphets]

Wow, I leave for a day and this site turns into a gambling website.

Look people, I get it. It's hard to fathom the notion of low scorers realizing their potential and graduating law school (and I've seen the attitude towards URMs on this very site). So, since most of you on this site are AWESOME at the LSAT, consider your argument: If one has median+ LSAT/GPA, then admissions into law school is absolute, based solely on the "numbers." Yet, every year each of you receive at least 1 rejection and 1 WL. I can imagine the counter argument going something like this. "But I got into 3 t-20s, so this proves getting into law school is absolute." But what about the 5 rejections and 3 WLs? (and I'm just grabbing numbers from LSN and looking at typical applicants who applied to at least 10+ schools with great numbers.) Do the 8 non-admits mean anything? What this indicates is that regardless of your impressive "numbers," we don't see you matriculating here. So it's not absolute. Otherwise, every decision would be an admittance, which is hardly the case.

So please, save your bets. Try a little harder to contain your prejudices, although this proves difficult when we remain anonymous, and don't stress so much over the idea of a 136 getting into a t-40 law school. LEOP exist for a reason. The idea behind it is Equality. And if any of you think you can walk a mile in my shoes, coming from my background, and simply sit down and take the LSAT and score the same as you did, yeah, sure buddy . Place a bet on that.

[bk1]

Try a little harder to contain your prejudices, although this proves difficult when we remain anonymous, and don't stress so much over the idea of a 136 getting into a t-40 law school.

You conflate people telling you that you don't have a chance of getting into a school with them caring whether or not you actually get into that school.

[red_alertz]

Wow, I leave for a day and this site turns into a gambling website.

Look people, I get it. It's hard to fathom the notion of low scorers realizing their potential and graduating law school (and I've seen the attitude towards URMs on this very site). So, since most of you on this site are AWESOME at the LSAT, consider your argument: If one has median+ LSAT/GPA, then admissions into law school is absolute, based solely on the "numbers." Yet, every year each of you receive at least 1 rejection and 1 WL. I can imagine the counter argument going something like this. "But I got into 3 t-20s, so this proves getting into law school is absolute." But what about the 5 rejections and 3 WLs? (and I'm just grabbing numbers from LSN and looking at typical applicants who applied to at least 10+ schools with great numbers.) Do the 8 non-admits mean anything? What this indicates is that regardless of your impressive "numbers," we don't see you matriculating here. So it's not absolute. Otherwise, every decision would be an admittance, which is hardly the case.

So please, save your bets. Try a little harder to contain your prejudices, although this proves difficult when we remain anonymous, and don't stress so much over the idea of a 136 getting into a t-40 law school. LEOP exist for a reason. The idea behind it is Equality. And if any of you think you can walk a mile in my shoes, coming from my background, and simply sit down and take the LSAT and score the same as you did, yeah, sure buddy . Place a bet on that.

well said, what's the your story btw?

[ProfitsProphets]

And as far as that comment about my unemployment status. Allow me to enlighten the ignorant. I'm a paralegal, who was working in BigLaw, and around 2008 (maybe this is news to some of you) the economy went into a massive recession. This has eliminated 1000's and 1000's of legal positions, including attorney positions. So while many of you are disillusioned about waltzing into that 150k BigLaw offer right out of law school, maybe you should stop looking at life through a prism.

[ProfitsProphets]

Try a little harder to contain your prejudices, although this proves difficult when we remain anonymous, and don't stress so much over the idea of a 136 getting into a t-40 law school.

You conflate people telling you that you don't have a chance of getting into a school with them caring whether or not you actually get into that school.

There's enough care to start making wagers about my chances. A little childish, don't you think?

[Kabuo]

Wow, I leave for a day and this site turns into a gambling website.

Look people, I get it. It's hard to fathom the notion of low scorers realizing their potential and graduating law school (and I've seen the attitude towards URMs on this very site). So, since most of you on this site are AWESOME at the LSAT, consider your argument: If one has median+ LSAT/GPA, then admissions into law school is absolute, based solely on the "numbers." Yet, every year each of you receive at least 1 rejection and 1 WL. I can imagine the counter argument going something like this. "But I got into 3 t-20s, so this proves getting into law school is absolute." But what about the 5 rejections and 3 WLs? (and I'm just grabbing numbers from LSN and looking at typical applicants who applied to at least 10+ schools with great numbers.) Do the 8 non-admits mean anything? What this indicates is that regardless of your impressive "numbers," we don't see you matriculating here. So it's not absolute. Otherwise, every decision would be an admittance, which is hardly the case.

So please, save your bets. Try a little harder to contain your prejudices, although this proves difficult when we remain anonymous, and don't stress so much over the idea of a 136 getting into a t-40 law school. LEOP exist for a reason. The idea behind it is Equality. And if any of you think you can walk a mile in my shoes, coming from my background, and simply sit down and take the LSAT and score the same as you did, yeah, sure buddy . Place a bet on that.

You know you're in the splitters application thread, right? It's always confused me that you're in here, since I doubt you're a splitter at even the least selective non accredited school, but none of us here have both numbers above median.

[red_alertz]

what are u talking abt? even at least non-accredited school?

[Kabuo]

Also, please stop using the first person plural ITT. As unique a snowflake as you are, I think we're all different enough that neither of us should be speaking for the other.

[bk1]

There's enough care to start making wagers about my chances. A little childish, don't you think?

Let me help you with that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

[Flips88]

Wow, I leave for a day and this site turns into a gambling website.

Look people, I get it. It's hard to fathom the notion of low scorers realizing their potential and graduating law school (and I've seen the attitude towards URMs on this very site). So, since most of you on this site are AWESOME at the LSAT, consider your argument: If one has median+ LSAT/GPA, then admissions into law school is absolute, based solely on the "numbers." Yet, every year each of you receive at least 1 rejection and 1 WL. I can imagine the counter argument going something like this. "But I got into 3 t-20s, so this proves getting into law school is absolute." But what about the 5 rejections and 3 WLs? (and I'm just grabbing numbers from LSN and looking at typical applicants who applied to at least 10+ schools with great numbers.) Do the 8 non-admits mean anything? What this indicates is that regardless of your impressive "numbers," we don't see you matriculating here. So it's not absolute. Otherwise, every decision would be an admittance, which is hardly the case.

So please, save your bets. Try a little harder to contain your prejudices, although this proves difficult when we remain anonymous, and don't stress so much over the idea of a 136 getting into a t-40 law school. LEOP exist for a reason. The idea behind it is Equality. And if any of you think you can walk a mile in my shoes, coming from my background, and simply sit down and take the LSAT and score the same as you did, yeah, sure buddy . Place a bet on that.

--ImageRemoved--

[red_alertz]

why you all gotta keep banging this guy? it is what it is, law school admissions are unpredictable or else LSP would be correct 100% of the time so leave some room for doubts heh?

[Kabuo]

why you all gotta keep banging this guy? it is what it is, law school admissions are unpredictable or else LSP would be correct 100% of the time so leave some room for doubts heh?

I love how the two of you have this notion that something can't be predictable unless it's 100% predictable.

[ProfitsProphets]

Wow, I leave for a day and this site turns into a gambling website.

Look people, I get it. It's hard to fathom the notion of low scorers realizing their potential and graduating law school (and I've seen the attitude towards URMs on this very site). So, since most of you on this site are AWESOME at the LSAT, consider your argument: If one has median+ LSAT/GPA, then admissions into law school is absolute, based solely on the "numbers." Yet, every year each of you receive at least 1 rejection and 1 WL. I can imagine the counter argument going something like this. "But I got into 3 t-20s, so this proves getting into law school is absolute." But what about the 5 rejections and 3 WLs? (and I'm just grabbing numbers from LSN and looking at typical applicants who applied to at least 10+ schools with great numbers.) Do the 8 non-admits mean anything? What this indicates is that regardless of your impressive "numbers," we don't see you matriculating here. So it's not absolute. Otherwise, every decision would be an admittance, which is hardly the case.

So please, save your bets. Try a little harder to contain your prejudices, although this proves difficult when we remain anonymous, and don't stress so much over the idea of a 136 getting into a t-40 law school. LEOP exist for a reason. The idea behind it is Equality. And if any of you think you can walk a mile in my shoes, coming from my background, and simply sit down and take the LSAT and score the same as you did, yeah, sure buddy . Place a bet on that.

You know you're in the splitters application thread, right? It's always confused me that you're in here, since I doubt you're a splitter at even the least selective non accredited school, but none of us here have both numbers above median.

136/3.65 (3.71) Is that suffice? And I was responding to the notion that law school admission is all about the numbers, which many of you ardently supported, yet, by your own admission, you don't even have both numbers. Now I'm confused.

[ProfitsProphets]

Wow, I leave for a day and this site turns into a gambling website.

Look people, I get it. It's hard to fathom the notion of low scorers realizing their potential and graduating law school (and I've seen the attitude towards URMs on this very site). So, since most of you on this site are AWESOME at the LSAT, consider your argument: If one has median+ LSAT/GPA, then admissions into law school is absolute, based solely on the "numbers." Yet, every year each of you receive at least 1 rejection and 1 WL. I can imagine the counter argument going something like this. "But I got into 3 t-20s, so this proves getting into law school is absolute." But what about the 5 rejections and 3 WLs? (and I'm just grabbing numbers from LSN and looking at typical applicants who applied to at least 10+ schools with great numbers.) Do the 8 non-admits mean anything? What this indicates is that regardless of your impressive "numbers," we don't see you matriculating here. So it's not absolute. Otherwise, every decision would be an admittance, which is hardly the case.

So please, save your bets. Try a little harder to contain your prejudices, although this proves difficult when we remain anonymous, and don't stress so much over the idea of a 136 getting into a t-40 law school. LEOP exist for a reason. The idea behind it is Equality. And if any of you think you can walk a mile in my shoes, coming from my background, and simply sit down and take the LSAT and score the same as you did, yeah, sure buddy . Place a bet on that.

--ImageRemoved--

Based on the number of posts you have written, maybe you should take a break (and get a life).

[Flips88]

136/3.65 (3.71) Is that suffice? And I was responding to the notion that law school admission is all about the numbers, which many of you ardently supported, yet, by your own admission, you don't even have both numbers. Now I'm confused.

[Kabuo]

136/3.65 (3.71) Is that suffice? And I was responding to the notion that law school admission is all about the numbers, which many of you ardently supported, yet, by your own admission, you don't even have both numbers. Now I'm confused.

No. That is not suffice. You are a reverse splitter at some places, and below both medians at most T1s. With that GPA, I don't think a school exists where you would be a splitter.