Sangiovese wrote:chrisokc wrote:That friggin' 157 tells me that you don't study as well as your GPA might suggest.
The LSAT is learnable.
Indeed it is. However, it is not intuitively obvious that it's learnable. When I decided to go to school, I thought about doing LSAT prep and decided against it. "There is no learnable content, it just tests logic" was my *flawed* reasoning.
So, I took it cold and got a 156. Then I found TLS and realized that not only is the test highly learnable, but logic games is the area where the greatest improvement is possible (and is also where I lost 4 out of every 5 points that I missed).
Could I study, retake it, and do much better? Almost certainly. Is it worth it to me (geographically bound to a single school, which accepted me even with my low lsat) to sit out a year and reapply next year with a higher score? Nope. At 40 years old, a year of my time is worth more to me than the potential gain in scholarship money.
The point of my story? It is silly to assume something about someone based on a single number taken out of context. LSAT or GPA... both of them can provide a real indication of someone's aptitude toward a certain skill set. And both of them can be very misleading in certain instances.
As for the general direction this thread has taken...
None of us knows exactly what the admissions committee was looking for or why they favored one candidate over another. We can look at the numbers and say "I should get picked instead of that person" but what we have to realize is that while the numbers are important, they aren't the whole package. And to be honest, even the numbers are not an apples to apples comparison. Does a 165 that was achieved after preparing for 9 months and taking the test twice really indicate a better chance of success in law school than a 160 taken cold? Is a 3.5 earned while working 40 hours per week less impressive than a 4.0 achieved while having no responsibilities other than school? What about someone who got a 4.0 while working 50 hours per week, but had an easier major? We never see the whole package, so it would be silly to think we can evaluate our true standing in relation to another candidate whom we do not know.
I understand that it really, really stinks to get rejected or waitlisted when you feel like you were a strong candidate... but I think it is petty to lash out at someone who was accepted just because "the numbers" indicate that you are a better candidate. Having a higher LSAT score doesn't make you a better person (or necessarily a better candidate) than someone who scored lower. The same goes for a high GPA. It really says a lot about people that this thread turned from a love-fest where everyone was rooting for each other a couple days ago, to a place where people are taking potshots at each other because they have a higher GPA/LSAT, better haircut, or whatever.
Sorry about the rant, but this cranky old guy just felt that something had to be said. Now get off my lawn, and behave yourselves!
The fact that someone would take the test cold says something about his or her dedication. Wouldn't a person who is dedicated to finding a way to succeed determine that taking the LSAT cold is not a wise decision?