Top Law Schools

Stylnator wrote:

bwaldorf wrote:

Monday wrote:

ashrice13 wrote:

Dodocogon wrote:Got a new amex card today and they gave me a $10k limit - my current card is only $2k and my income definitely doesn't warrant that high of one.. I mean my credit is good but

You all keep me responsible okay - this is just for me to get cash back on groceries lol

This is why I don't have a CC. One day I'd be using it just for gas and next thing I know I'd be traveling across Europe. It's a slippery slope.

I get the worry but you really should open credit lines to improve your credit score and lengthen your credit history. Only set your monthly expenses (Netflix, Spotify) on your credit cards (and set them aside with automatic payment set up) if you are that worried about compulsive shopping.

Ignore if you sleep and will continue to sleep on piles of Benjamins even after LS.

Seriously, this. My credit score is good (around 730) but what holds me back is the length of history (1 year) because I was too scared to get a CC in college. This has also hindered me from applying for a second credit card.

Currently working on burning through my sixth credit card for the bonus. My score usually fluctuates mid to high 700s. The number of credit cards you have has very little to do with your credit score. Your debt utilization ratio (how much money you spend versus your total overall credit limit across all cards) is what matters as well as the age of your accounts. No one cares if you have 20 credit cards but have been paying your bills on time (and in full) every month for a decade.

Oh, I know. I travel a lot and just want to get a second credit card for the airline rewards, honestly. But the length of my credit history is so short that I haven't been able to get accepted even though I have a great score! Super annoying.

New Spivey Data:

http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... f-3-24-17/

jjcorvino wrote:New Spivey Data:

http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... f-3-24-17/

I cannot believe we haven't seemed to see this reflected in responses.

Maybe schools are just waiting until the absolute bitter end?

Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash wrote:

jjcorvino wrote:New Spivey Data:

http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... f-3-24-17/

I cannot believe we haven't seemed to see this reflected in responses.

Maybe schools are just waiting until the absolute bitter end?

Its nuts. Maybe all schools are just resigned to dropping medians this year so they aren't even trying

I think we are going to see a heavy waitlist movement summer.

Are 170 people over performing with $$$$, I wonder.

MikeSpivey wrote:I think we are going to see a heavy waitlist movement summer.

Works for me.

I wonder why this cycle is pretty down. Must be the general economy doing well and employed people not seeing a reason to flee the marketplace and new graduates doing better with jobs.

Rigo wrote:

MikeSpivey wrote:I think we are going to see a heavy waitlist movement summer.

Works for me.

ugh. so then most of us will be faced with no scholarship off the waitlist and have to decide whether to accept within a very limited time frame?

jjcorvino wrote:New Spivey Data:

http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/2016-2 ... f-3-24-17/

So... the overall drop in 170+ LSAT scores, in my LSAT score, remains in effect. And I still can't get in anywhere no matter how much I practically beg. Is it okay to cry now? It finally hit me... hard. I can't anymore.... no more waitlists, please.

Rigo wrote:Are 170 people over performing with $$$$, I wonder.

you mean people at 170? I'm over 170 and I'm getting p much exactly what LSN reports for previous cycles

Rigo wrote:Are 170 people over performing with $$$$, I wonder.

I'm over-performing in terms of raw waitlist counts, not $$$. Several other people on here are in a similar boat, I know.

edit: an over 170 person

gargleblaster wrote:

Rigo wrote:Are 170 people over performing with $$$$, I wonder.

you mean people at 170? I'm over 170 and I'm getting p much exactly what LSN reports for previous cycles

Yeah I guess I'm interested in the 168,169,170 score dynamic even though I'm not in that range.
It's a pretty big hotspot for T13 medians. I'm wondering if 168's are being held whereas 169's and 170's are getting red carpet treatment.

Rigo wrote:

gargleblaster wrote:

Rigo wrote:Are 170 people over performing with $$$$, I wonder.

you mean people at 170? I'm over 170 and I'm getting p much exactly what LSN reports for previous cycles

Yeah I guess I'm interested in the 168,169,170 score dynamic even though I'm not in that range.
It's a pretty big hotspot for T13 medians. I'm wondering if 168's are being held whereas 169's and 170's are getting red carpet treatment.

Can confirm am not getting red carpet treatment

Nightwing wrote:

Rigo wrote:Are 170 people over performing with $$$$, I wonder.

I'm over-performing in terms of raw waitlist counts, not $$$. Several other people on here are in a similar boat, I know.

Your cycle is so confusing that I suppress it since it doesn't conform to my numbers-based view of law school admissions.

myrik wrote:

Rigo wrote:

gargleblaster wrote:

Rigo wrote:Are 170 people over performing with $$$$, I wonder.

you mean people at 170? I'm over 170 and I'm getting p much exactly what LSN reports for previous cycles

Yeah I guess I'm interested in the 168,169,170 score dynamic even though I'm not in that range.
It's a pretty big hotspot for T13 medians. I'm wondering if 168's are being held whereas 169's and 170's are getting red carpet treatment.

Can confirm am not getting red carpet treatment

I wonder if the some top schools have conceded LSAT defeat and are going after GPA's moreso.
Seeing medians in the fall will be super interesting.

Rigo wrote:

myrik wrote:

Rigo wrote:

gargleblaster wrote:

Rigo wrote:Are 170 people over performing with $$$$, I wonder.

you mean people at 170? I'm over 170 and I'm getting p much exactly what LSN reports for previous cycles

Yeah I guess I'm interested in the 168,169,170 score dynamic even though I'm not in that range.
It's a pretty big hotspot for T13 medians. I'm wondering if 168's are being held whereas 169's and 170's are getting red carpet treatment.

Can confirm am not getting red carpet treatment

I wonder if the some top schools have conceded LSAT defeat and are going after GPA's moreso.
Seeing medians in the fall will be super interesting.

Anecdotally, my GPA is on the stronger side for most of the schools I'm not getting into, whereas I consider my LSAT weaker

I have a feeling they're still gunning for the high LSAT medians right now, which just isn't happening - once they realize that, waitlist movement like Spivey predicted hopefully

Rigo wrote:Are 170 people over performing with $$$$, I wonder.

I'm at 171 and definitely underperforming ny numbers.

My performance is pretty school specific. Underperforming money-wise with some school yet being pleasantly surprised/shocked at scholarships from peer schools. It's weird for sure.

Ah well April/May should be interesting.

Rigo wrote:

Nightwing wrote:

Rigo wrote:Are 170 people over performing with $$$$, I wonder.

I'm over-performing in terms of raw waitlist counts, not $$$. Several other people on here are in a similar boat, I know.

Your cycle is so confusing that I suppress it since it doesn't conform to my numbers-based view of law school admissions.

I found this on reddit a few weeks ago. Read at your own discretion:

https://www.reddit.com/r/lawschooladmis ... _disaster/


And I know I saw another thread with similar numbers/outcomes on there too, just don't remember the name. Then you've got dasq5511 here underperforming his numbers and a few other splitter-y type people with 170+ who I also know had a rough time with waitlists this cycle, though I won't name them on the chance that they don't wish for me to identify them.

dasq5511 wrote:

Rigo wrote:Are 170 people over performing with $$$$, I wonder.

I'm at 171 and definitely underperforming ny numbers.

171 as well and slightly overperforming, I think.

I feel like splitters with a particularly high LSAT would benefit from this cycle

But who knows - gonna be interesting to see medians when they come out

myrik wrote:I feel like splitters with a particularly high LSAT would benefit from this cycle

But who knows - gonna be interesting to see medians when they come out

Didn't help me enough to get me into Harvard

Rigo wrote:

myrik wrote:

Rigo wrote:

gargleblaster wrote:

Rigo wrote:Are 170 people over performing with $$$$, I wonder.

you mean people at 170? I'm over 170 and I'm getting p much exactly what LSN reports for previous cycles

Yeah I guess I'm interested in the 168,169,170 score dynamic even though I'm not in that range.
It's a pretty big hotspot for T13 medians. I'm wondering if 168's are being held whereas 169's and 170's are getting red carpet treatment.

Can confirm am not getting red carpet treatment

I wonder if the some top schools have conceded LSAT defeat and are going after GPA's moreso.
Seeing medians in the fall will be super interesting.

They definitely have. See Harvard going to GRE.

The LSAT is designed to make a normal distribution of law students. GPA's are just willy nilly assigned randomly all across the country. If you're a school trying to game the rankings you definitely go harder after the bigger resource that is weighted just the same in rankings calculations. (GPA)

With LSAT's down across the board schools can either fight tooth and nail to maintain those medians, or just go for GPA. Seems like an easy choice to me. ( also, see stanford and chicago previously reaching that conclusion to not compete with H & Y for high lsat students in the last 10years or so)

---