Debunking the auto-reject theory

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
geoduck
Posts: 890
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:29 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby geoduck » Fri May 06, 2011 3:32 pm

TheOcho wrote:
geoduck wrote:
TheOcho wrote:
Ginj wrote:
Now just guess all D's.

*eagerly waits*


126. We're getting closer.


TCR is all Cs.


127. There has to be a better system.


Maybe try all A's? Psychologically it has to be right!

A better system would probably to actually go through the test and just immediately cross out the 2-3 answers that are definitely wrong and then guess from what's left using a cascading system like you did before.

Edit: But hey, if we can find an algorithm that guarantees a good enough score to get into Cooley, we should totally hand it over to LSAC so they can make the LSAT even harder for future takers.
Last edited by geoduck on Fri May 06, 2011 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Leira7905
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby Leira7905 » Fri May 06, 2011 3:33 pm

whymeohgodno wrote:
mrwarre85 wrote:
almightypush wrote:
ProfitsProphets wrote:Actually what contributed to my amazing LSAT score was my lack of experience with standardized test. I'm a non-traditional applicant. Plus, I suppose having been unemployed for nearly a year at the time I took the test didn't help. I'm also a father (15 y/o daughter) and live in SF, so financial worries and family responsibilities trumped LSAT focus. I went blank, and I actually guessed a lot of answers. Sucks for me.

But I will retake, fret not.


OP, please, PLEASE devote as much time as humanly possible between now and October to studying! as has been (somewhat) alluded to in this thread, the LSAT is not a test one should take blind. go buy the Power Score Bibles (or whatever LSAT prep books you prefer) and as many PTs as you can afford, and get to work. given your GPA and URM status, getting up to even the upper 150's would dramatically change your school prospects. break 160, and we're talking T14.


150 cold can go to 175, but can 136 go to 160?


I still don't see how anyone can even get a 136 unless they attempt to bomb the test.


This. If OP isn't a troll, then he must have incorrectly bubbled an entire section, or fallen asleep.

User avatar
geoduck
Posts: 890
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:29 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby geoduck » Fri May 06, 2011 3:34 pm

Leira7905 wrote:This. If OP isn't a troll, then he must have incorrectly bubbled an entire section, or fallen asleep.


He didn't complete the written section.

User avatar
JamMasterJ
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby JamMasterJ » Fri May 06, 2011 3:34 pm

Sorry if providing any useful info to OP is not TCR but
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=154380
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=41657

Guy
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby Guy » Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm

chimp wrote:Sorry if I'm missing something, but how does this "debunk" anything if you haven't received a decision yet?


Isnt it obvious? Theyve waited months to get back to him, hence the rejection, even if it comes (which honestly, I think we can all agree it probably wont considering OP is not stupid) wouldnt be an auto-reject.

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby 071816 » Fri May 06, 2011 3:38 pm

Guy wrote:
chimp wrote:Sorry if I'm missing something, but how does this "debunk" anything if you haven't received a decision yet?


Isnt it obvious? Theyve waited months to get back to him, hence the rejection, even if it comes (which honestly, I think we can all agree it probably wont considering OP is not stupid) wouldnt be an auto-reject.


Huh?

User avatar
geoduck
Posts: 890
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:29 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby geoduck » Fri May 06, 2011 3:44 pm

chimp wrote:
Guy wrote:
chimp wrote:Sorry if I'm missing something, but how does this "debunk" anything if you haven't received a decision yet?


Isnt it obvious? Theyve waited months to get back to him, hence the rejection, even if it comes (which honestly, I think we can all agree it probably wont considering OP is not stupid) wouldnt be an auto-reject.


Huh?


Yeah you're missing the point. He already guaranteed that he wouldn't be auto-rejected...

He applied for Hastings LEOP (LinkRemoved)

Hastings wrote:What Is LEOP?
Hastings created the Legal Education Opportunity Program (LEOP) more than thirty years ago to help equalize opportunities in the law, recognizing that the traditional academic criteria used to determine admissions might not be the best indicators of academic potential for students from nontraditional backgrounds.

LEOP serves two purposes: It is an alternative means of evaluating an applicant's potential for the study of law, and it is an academic support program committed to the success of LEOP students in law school and in the legal profession.


He can't be auto-rejected cause he applied for the program for people who already know they would be.

Guy
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby Guy » Fri May 06, 2011 3:45 pm

?

OP defines auto reject as both rejection AND fast response.

possibility of rejection aside, second condition didnt come, so it cant be auto rejection

dont worry about the logical flaws here, there is no point. additionally, they are what make this so fun.

User avatar
Leira7905
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby Leira7905 » Fri May 06, 2011 3:47 pm

geoduck wrote:
chimp wrote:
Guy wrote:
chimp wrote:Sorry if I'm missing something, but how does this "debunk" anything if you haven't received a decision yet?


Isnt it obvious? Theyve waited months to get back to him, hence the rejection, even if it comes (which honestly, I think we can all agree it probably wont considering OP is not stupid) wouldnt be an auto-reject.


Huh?


Yeah you're missing the point. He already guaranteed that he wouldn't be auto-rejected...

He applied for Hastings LEOP (LinkRemoved)

Hastings wrote:What Is LEOP?
Hastings created the Legal Education Opportunity Program (LEOP) more than thirty years ago to help equalize opportunities in the law, recognizing that the traditional academic criteria used to determine admissions might not be the best indicators of academic potential for students from nontraditional backgrounds.

LEOP serves two purposes: It is an alternative means of evaluating an applicant's potential for the study of law, and it is an academic support program committed to the success of LEOP students in law school and in the legal profession.


He can't be auto-rejected cause he applied for the program for people who already know they would be.


I agree with this assessment.

071816
Posts: 5511
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:06 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby 071816 » Fri May 06, 2011 3:48 pm

geoduck wrote:
chimp wrote:
Guy wrote:
chimp wrote:Sorry if I'm missing something, but how does this "debunk" anything if you haven't received a decision yet?


Isnt it obvious? Theyve waited months to get back to him, hence the rejection, even if it comes (which honestly, I think we can all agree it probably wont considering OP is not stupid) wouldnt be an auto-reject.


Huh?


Yeah you're missing the point. He already guaranteed that he wouldn't be auto-rejected...

He applied for Hastings LEOP (LinkRemoved)

Hastings wrote:What Is LEOP?
Hastings created the Legal Education Opportunity Program (LEOP) more than thirty years ago to help equalize opportunities in the law, recognizing that the traditional academic criteria used to determine admissions might not be the best indicators of academic potential for students from nontraditional backgrounds.

LEOP serves two purposes: It is an alternative means of evaluating an applicant's potential for the study of law, and it is an academic support program committed to the success of LEOP students in law school and in the legal profession.


He can't be auto-rejected cause he applied for the program for people who already know they would be.


I am familiar with LEOP as I applied to Hastings (although not through LEOP) and I still don't see the value of OP's post considering that the difference between "reject" and "auto-reject" is completely irrelevant.

User avatar
geoduck
Posts: 890
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:29 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby geoduck » Fri May 06, 2011 3:51 pm

Guy wrote:?

OP defines auto reject as both rejection AND fast response.

possibility of rejection aside, second condition didnt come, so it cant be auto rejection

dont worry about the logical flaws here, there is no point. additionally, they are what make this so fun.


1) He guaranteed a slow response when he applied for the loser track.

2) It's false to correlate a normal slow response with the lack of Auto-Reject. It would only be fast if they checked it right away and instantly typed up the paper. There is no guarantee that the file will even be read the same month it is received. That said...

3) He didn't apply to any normal law programs and thus has nothing to compare the speed to. I guarantee that if he applied to a program that didn't have to read each application package searching for special rainbowness, he would have already received a rejection.

User avatar
geoduck
Posts: 890
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:29 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby geoduck » Fri May 06, 2011 3:52 pm

chimp wrote:I am familiar with LEOP as I applied to Hastings (although not through LEOP) and I still don't see the value of OP's post considering that the difference between "reject" and "auto-reject" is completely irrelevant.


I think he was trying to use his personal failure to debunk the TLS idea that poor numbers = reject with little more than a skim of the package. He should've applied to some real programs if he wanted to prove that.

TheOcho
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby TheOcho » Fri May 06, 2011 3:55 pm

Guy wrote:?

OP defines auto reject as both rejection AND fast response.

possibility of rejection aside, second condition didnt come, so it cant be auto rejection

dont worry about the logical flaws here, there is no point. additionally, they are what make this so fun.


In the spirit of OP's LSAT score, I think using logical flaws in every post is TCR.

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1914
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby Stringer Bell » Fri May 06, 2011 3:57 pm

OP really has to be a flame.

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby whymeohgodno » Fri May 06, 2011 4:26 pm

Guy wrote:?

OP defines auto reject as both rejection AND fast response.

possibility of rejection aside, second condition didnt come, so it cant be auto rejection

dont worry about the logical flaws here, there is no point. additionally, they are what make this so fun.


Lol.

Have OP apply to Cornell. He will wait a good 6 months even with a 120/2.0

auroojgulzar
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:24 am

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby auroojgulzar » Fri May 06, 2011 5:07 pm

you guys sound like big mean bullies... the only difference is some of you claim to be "smart". from what I read he acknowledges that his score is not at par with the average and is studying to do to well. Why dont you guys show some encouragement.

PS- its easy to be a bully behind a computer screen.

User avatar
ProfitsProphets
Posts: 235
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:02 am

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby ProfitsProphets » Fri May 06, 2011 5:10 pm

geoduck wrote:
Guy wrote:?

OP defines auto reject as both rejection AND fast response.

possibility of rejection aside, second condition didnt come, so it cant be auto rejection

dont worry about the logical flaws here, there is no point. additionally, they are what make this so fun.


1) He guaranteed a slow response when he applied for the loser track.

2) It's false to correlate a normal slow response with the lack of Auto-Reject. It would only be fast if they checked it right away and instantly typed up the paper. There is no guarantee that the file will even be read the same month it is received. That said...

3) He didn't apply to any normal law programs and thus has nothing to compare the speed to. I guarantee that if he applied to a program that didn't have to read each application package searching for special rainbowness, he would have already received a rejection.


So you think people who have applied LEOP, even those who applied later in the cycle, haven't received responses because we're all on the loser track? That's comical. Plenty of people have already been notified that applied LEOP, which includes rejections, WL and acceptances.

User avatar
ProfitsProphets
Posts: 235
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:02 am

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby ProfitsProphets » Fri May 06, 2011 5:14 pm

ProfitsProphets wrote:Applied on the very last day applications were open, I have a 136 LSAT, and I have been in review 10 weeks now (and counting).

Now before the "retake the test" comments come flooding in, I'm retaking the test on 10/1, barring the unexpected.

3.65/136
URM
Strong app
5 years paralegal exp.

Applied to 1 school - Hastings LEOP.

No one thinks I'll get in, but what's so wrong with me feeling excited about the possibility? Trust me, my app isn't simply, "Let me in because I'm a minority." I get attacked because the idea of URM and Low LSAT score seems to bring out the worst in some people.

I'm just pointing out that contrary to popular belief a 136 did not get auto-rejected. And I would like to "share my experience" without the backlash.


I think I've proven at least this much.

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby whymeohgodno » Fri May 06, 2011 5:15 pm

ProfitsProphets wrote:
ProfitsProphets wrote:Applied on the very last day applications were open, I have a 136 LSAT, and I have been in review 10 weeks now (and counting).

Now before the "retake the test" comments come flooding in, I'm retaking the test on 10/1, barring the unexpected.

3.65/136
URM
Strong app
5 years paralegal exp.

Applied to 1 school - Hastings LEOP.

No one thinks I'll get in, but what's so wrong with me feeling excited about the possibility? Trust me, my app isn't simply, "Let me in because I'm a minority." I get attacked because the idea of URM and Low LSAT score seems to bring out the worst in some people.

I'm just pointing out that contrary to popular belief a 136 did not get auto-rejected. And I would like to "share my experience" without the backlash.


I think I've proven at least this much.


No. The only thing about being a URM in this context is that it makes you that much dumber if you don't retake/reapply. But you will be retaking and reapplying. I don't think anyone has given you extra flack for being a URM.

User avatar
geoduck
Posts: 890
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:29 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby geoduck » Fri May 06, 2011 5:18 pm

auroojgulzar wrote:you guys sound like big mean bullies... the only difference is some of you claim to be "smart". from what I read he acknowledges that his score is not at par with the average and is studying to do to well. Why dont you guys show some encouragement.

PS- its easy to be a bully behind a computer screen.


I don't doubt that he could be intelligent, but he certainly hasn't developed his logical thinking. It's hard to properly emphasize how terrible of a score that is... and "not being good at testing" isn't a good reason. If he had presented this score in a different way he might have gotten more encouragement. The title and his tone have caused this to go into "bully" territory.

But 136 really is a horrible score. Really, if you would have to petition to even get into Cooley, you know you blew it.

And just to knock this off of there... URM has nothing to do with getting a 136. There are plenty of URMs that score above the 160s and plenty of non-URM that score below 145. The biggest URM boost I've ever even heard suggested is 10 points for AA. So if OP is AA and got that full boost, that's still only high enough to get into a lower tier 4.

User avatar
ProfitsProphets
Posts: 235
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:02 am

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby ProfitsProphets » Fri May 06, 2011 5:21 pm

While many of you "bright, articulate future lawyers of America," who parade around with your lofty goals and stellar grades, I don't think you realize how childish and immature your responses are to me. Apparently, having a strong GPA and amazing LSAT does nothing for your character flaws and lack of real life experience. I imagine most of you are barely older than my daughter, yet still function in society closely resembling a toddler's reaction.

Keep laughing while I continue to patiently await my decision.

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby whymeohgodno » Fri May 06, 2011 5:22 pm

ProfitsProphets wrote:While many of you "bright, articulate future lawyers of America," who parade around with your lofty goals and stellar grades, I don't think you realize how childish and immature your responses are to me. Apparently, having a strong GPA and amazing LSAT does nothing for your character flaws and lack of real life experience. I imagine most of you are barely older than my daughter, yet still function in society closely resembling a toddler's reaction.

Keep laughing while I continue to patiently await my decision.


At least we can score better than a chimpanzee with a pencil.

User avatar
Leira7905
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby Leira7905 » Fri May 06, 2011 5:22 pm

auroojgulzar wrote:you guys sound like big mean bullies... the only difference is some of you claim to be "smart". from what I read he acknowledges that his score is not at par with the average and is studying to do to well. Why dont you guys show some encouragement.

PS- its easy to be a bully behind a computer screen.


I think part of the thing that's bugging me about OP is the GPA/LSAT combo. While I'm fully aware that good grades don't equal a good LSAT score (or vice-versa), OP's LSAT is EXTREMELY low when taking in to consideration that he managed to pull a 3.65 GPA.

OP, (assuming you're for real) I'm glad you're retaking because you can definitely do better with a little effort.

User avatar
beachbum
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby beachbum » Fri May 06, 2011 5:32 pm

ProfitsProphets wrote:While many of you "bright, articulate future lawyers of America," who parade around with your lofty goals and stellar grades, I don't think you realize how childish and immature your responses are to me. Apparently, having a strong GPA and amazing LSAT does nothing for your character flaws and lack of real life experience. I imagine most of you are barely older than my daughter, yet still function in society closely resembling a toddler's reaction.

Keep laughing while I continue to patiently await my decision.


Quit your bitching, and come back when you have a decision that can actually justify this conversation.

User avatar
JordynAsh
Posts: 370
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:20 pm

Re: Debunking the auto-reject theory

Postby JordynAsh » Fri May 06, 2011 5:35 pm

ProfitsProphets wrote:
law4vus wrote:I feel bad for the OP, and this thread is headed to a bad place. I can tell already. lol


Please, don't feel bad. What negative nellies say behind computer screens hardly affects me personally. People can laugh all they want, say I don't belong, or simply dismiss me all together. But I've met a lot of JDs with ivy league educations, big numbers who last less than two years in biglaw, and end up as LSAT instructors or head hunters for staffing agencies - now that some funny stuff!!!


What's funny is that you want to enter a profession in which even graduates from top schools are having a hard time, when (barring significant improvement in your LSAT score) you will not be a graduate of a top school.




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests