Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
finalaspects
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:21 am

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby finalaspects » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:21 pm

shadowfrost000 wrote:
Ah west coast, how you elude me. Are you in danger of not getting into UCH or UCD? I think they're both pretty good for their markets.


yes California where the avg temp is 60-70F YEAR ROUND! how can you beat that? we have the silicon valley and hollywood (although this may be a negative).

I'm not sure if i should be worried about UCH or UCD with my stats... (168/3.1) this cycle is different from the years past... and splitters are always the uncertain group...

02082010
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby 02082010 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:33 pm

The things I would do for a GPA above 3.0

::sigh::

User avatar
NayBoer
Posts: 1013
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby NayBoer » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:34 pm

In at NU ED.
172 / 2.73 / ~5yrs WE

finalaspects
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:21 am

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby finalaspects » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:35 pm

hopefulundergrad wrote:The things I would do for a GPA above 3.0

::sigh::


i think people will do more for an LSAT like yours though... GPA means we were lazy... LSAT means you have what it takes instead of doing mind numbing work for 4 years or an easy major

02082010
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby 02082010 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:36 pm

NayBoer wrote:In at NU ED.
172 / 2.73 / ~5yrs WE


Nice man!

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby Helmholtz » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:39 pm

I would like to say that I intentionally lowered my GPA this semester, just so I can fit in ITT a little better.

User avatar
beef wellington
Posts: 882
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:05 am

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby beef wellington » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:43 pm

NayBoer wrote:In at NU ED.
172 / 2.73 / ~5yrs WE


Congratulations!

(This might be the least celebratory announcement of admission to one's top choice I've seen yet...but I imagine it feels pretty good anyway).

finalaspects
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:21 am

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby finalaspects » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:44 pm

beef wellington wrote:
NayBoer wrote:In at NU ED.
172 / 2.73 / ~5yrs WE


Congratulations!

(This might be the least celebratory announcement of admission to one's top choice I've seen yet...but I imagine it feels pretty good anyway).


he was more happy in the northwestern thread so all is good

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby 09042014 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:44 pm

I think the lessons of this cycle so far are:

1) ED at UVA is great if you are at or above 3.

2) ED at NU if you are at or above 172

finalaspects
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:21 am

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby finalaspects » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:46 pm

Desert Fox wrote:I think the lessons of this cycle so far are:

1) ED at UVA is great if you are at or above 3.

2) ED at NU if you are at or above 172


too bad those lessons don't apply to me =I

what was the lower end of the LSAT for ED at UVA?

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby 09042014 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:48 pm

finalaspects wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:I think the lessons of this cycle so far are:

1) ED at UVA is great if you are at or above 3.

2) ED at NU if you are at or above 172


too bad those lessons don't apply to me =I

what was the lower end of the LSAT for ED at UVA?


Hard to tell because of lack of data, but 171 for below their 25%GPA looks good.

User avatar
NayBoer
Posts: 1013
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby NayBoer » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:49 pm

beef wellington wrote:
NayBoer wrote:In at NU ED.
172 / 2.73 / ~5yrs WE


Congratulations!

(This might be the least celebratory announcement of admission to one's top choice I've seen yet...but I imagine it feels pretty good anyway).
hah, I guess it is. I'm really shaky and it's hard to focus. Easier to write facts. How's this for take 2:

FUCKING IN. Take THAT UVA!

: P

finalaspects
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:21 am

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby finalaspects » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:53 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
Hard to tell because of lack of data, but 171 for below their 25%GPA looks good.


man i had to get 3 more answers correct... sigh...

the June 2009 exam seemed so different compared to past exams though. i think they learned all the testing strategies and changed it up...

02082010
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby 02082010 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:53 pm

Helmholtz wrote:I would like to say that I intentionally lowered my GPA this semester, just so I can fit in ITT a little better.


:lol:

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby 09042014 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:55 pm

finalaspects wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Hard to tell because of lack of data, but 171 for below their 25%GPA looks good.


man i had to get 3 more answers correct... sigh...

the June 2009 exam seemed so different compared to past exams though. i think they learned all the testing strategies and changed it up...



Sept 09 had a weird question about replacing rules on the games section. I had LG experimental and it was filled with questions about replacing rules.

User avatar
NayBoer
Posts: 1013
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby NayBoer » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:58 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
finalaspects wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Hard to tell because of lack of data, but 171 for below their 25%GPA looks good.


man i had to get 3 more answers correct... sigh...

the June 2009 exam seemed so different compared to past exams though. i think they learned all the testing strategies and changed it up...



Sept 09 had a weird question about replacing rules on the games section. I had LG experimental and it was filled with questions about replacing rules.
Yeah, I had those in both my LG sections. In retrospect, the Sept LSAT was basically several hundreds dollars blown on a 1-night trip to Santa Cruz, since I bombed it. Obviously I got in off my June 172.

Really psyched I don't have to retake in Feb... or ever. I'll sell my books, maybe give them to my little brother and convince him to apply to LS.

02082010
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby 02082010 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:58 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
finalaspects wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Hard to tell because of lack of data, but 171 for below their 25%GPA looks good.


man i had to get 3 more answers correct... sigh...

the June 2009 exam seemed so different compared to past exams though. i think they learned all the testing strategies and changed it up...



Sept 09 had a weird question about replacing rules on the games section. I had LG experimental and it was filled with questions about replacing rules.


From the classes game? I knew they were going to hide TCR in the middle so I quickly glanced at A, then stated from the bottom doing process of elimination. Time was called and I had eliminated E, D, and C and so I guess B. Got it right (take that LSAC!). It was more annoying because it was the very last question of the very last game. Definitely tried to screw people over.

finalaspects
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:21 am

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby finalaspects » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:01 pm

NayBoer wrote:Yeah, I had those in both my LG sections. In retrospect, the Sept LSAT was basically several hundreds dollars blown on a 1-night trip to Santa Cruz, since I bombed it. Obviously I got in off my June 172.

Really psyched I don't have to retake in Feb... or ever. I'll sell my books, maybe give them to my little brother and convince him to apply to LS.


out of curiosity what was your sept 09 score? and you re-took the test after getting a 172?!?!?
Last edited by finalaspects on Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
nyyankees
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:50 am

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby nyyankees » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:02 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
finalaspects wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Hard to tell because of lack of data, but 171 for below their 25%GPA looks good.


man i had to get 3 more answers correct... sigh...

the June 2009 exam seemed so different compared to past exams though. i think they learned all the testing strategies and changed it up...



Sept 09 had a weird question about replacing rules on the games section. I had LG experimental and it was filled with questions about replacing rules.


I had that too, im pretty sure i got it wrong in the experimental section in an otherwise cakewalk (pun intended) of a section.

In other news, congrats Nay!

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby 09042014 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:02 pm

hopefulundergrad wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
finalaspects wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Hard to tell because of lack of data, but 171 for below their 25%GPA looks good.


man i had to get 3 more answers correct... sigh...

the June 2009 exam seemed so different compared to past exams though. i think they learned all the testing strategies and changed it up...



Sept 09 had a weird question about replacing rules on the games section. I had LG experimental and it was filled with questions about replacing rules.


From the classes game? I knew they were going to hide TCR in the middle so I quickly glanced at A, then stated from the bottom doing process of elimination. Time was called and I had eliminated E, D, and C and so I guess B. Got it right (take that LSAC!). It was more annoying because it was the very last question of the very last game. Definitely tried to screw people over.


I had almost the same thought pattern as you did. I eliminated C,D and E, and chose A. I spent way too long on that last game. 15 minutes on the classes game.

Are replace the rule brute force, or is there an easier way?

Anyone who is taking in the future, study that question on Sept 09. Because my LG experimental had a replace the rule on 3/4 games.

02082010
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby 02082010 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:07 pm

Retook my 168 from Oct '08. 172 was -3 from my PT average. I may retake in February to try to get half-tuition @ MVP (still haven't heard from Mich or Penn yet though). I'm thinking 176+ will do the trick. Another AA male who is 172 ~3.2 got the full Dean's scholly @ UVA. Again, what I would do for >3.0 GPA. :twisted:
Last edited by 02082010 on Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
nyyankees
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:50 am

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby nyyankees » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:09 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
I had almost the same thought pattern as you did. I eliminated C,D and E, and chose A. I spent way too long on that last game. 15 minutes on the classes game.

Are replace the rule brute force, or is there an easier way?

Anyone who is taking in the future, study that question on Sept 09. Because my LG experimental had a replace the rule on 3/4 games.


I deduced it in the non-experimental section. There was just a logically equivalent rule (i assume based on your comments, choice B).

But i remember playing around with a strategy to figure it out in the experimental section. What I came up with was if one rule replaces the other, then everything that was possible under the original set of conditions should still be possible, and everything that isnt should still not be possible. So then i tested each one. this took far too long. when i got to the question at the end of the real section, the answer just sort of made sense by completely replacing the other rule.

02082010
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby 02082010 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:12 pm

nyyankees wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
I had almost the same thought pattern as you did. I eliminated C,D and E, and chose A. I spent way too long on that last game. 15 minutes on the classes game.

Are replace the rule brute force, or is there an easier way?

Anyone who is taking in the future, study that question on Sept 09. Because my LG experimental had a replace the rule on 3/4 games.


I deduced it in the non-experimental section. There was just a logically equivalent rule (i assume based on your comments, choice B).

But i remember playing around with a strategy to figure it out in the experimental section. What I came up with was if one rule replaces the other, then everything that was possible under the original set of conditions should still be possible, and everything that isnt should still not be possible. So then i tested each one. this took far too long. when i got to the question at the end of the real section, the answer just sort of made sense by completely replacing the other rule.


I don't think there is a way other than process of elimination. You couldn't put more than 1 or 2 of those questions in a games section an expect people to do well.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby 09042014 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:13 pm

hopefulundergrad wrote:
nyyankees wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
I had almost the same thought pattern as you did. I eliminated C,D and E, and chose A. I spent way too long on that last game. 15 minutes on the classes game.

Are replace the rule brute force, or is there an easier way?

Anyone who is taking in the future, study that question on Sept 09. Because my LG experimental had a replace the rule on 3/4 games.


I deduced it in the non-experimental section. There was just a logically equivalent rule (i assume based on your comments, choice B).

But i remember playing around with a strategy to figure it out in the experimental section. What I came up with was if one rule replaces the other, then everything that was possible under the original set of conditions should still be possible, and everything that isnt should still not be possible. So then i tested each one. this took far too long. when i got to the question at the end of the real section, the answer just sort of made sense by completely replacing the other rule.


I don't think there is a way other than process of elimination. You couldn't put more than 1 or 2 of those questions in a games section an expect people to do well.


My experimental had three, but two were fairly easy. I just brute forced them.

Woozy
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:29 pm

Re: Splitters Unite! - Official 2010 Splitter Thread

Postby Woozy » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:22 pm

Desert Fox wrote:I had almost the same thought pattern as you did. I eliminated C,D and E, and chose A. I spent way too long on that last game. 15 minutes on the classes game.

Are replace the rule brute force, or is there an easier way?

Anyone who is taking in the future, study that question on Sept 09. Because my LG experimental had a replace the rule on 3/4 games.


Here's a quick writeup I did on another thread about that question. The bolded part is the key and I think all replace the rules question will take this form - the CR is just a different way of stating the same rule. I believe there was a question like that on the June 2009 as well.

The key is to realize the correct answer is just a sneaky restatement of the same rule. You have the variables: HLMPSTW

When you remove the 2nd rule, the only rule left involving M is that it can't be taken with H:

H <--l--> M

That leaves 5 variables that can interact with M: LPSTW

The rule removed says M can't be with P or T

Choice B states M can only be taken with L, S, or W


You can see these are just two ways of stating the same thing.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blackpi, call-me-bubbles, finaciardi, Google Adsense [Bot], hip to be Square and 9 guests