Top Law Schools

...

So does Dartmouth. It doesn't change the reality that the OP hasn't taken an actual LSAT exam & you are already telling her to consider Stanford. You seem to have a reading comprehension issue. I never suggested limiting to whichever schools you have imagined. I offered suggestions & emphasized that everything is speculation until there is an actual LSAT score.
I notice that you make a lot of incorrect assumptions. That doesn't help anything. My advice is solid; I think that you're dealing in fantasy until there is an actual LSAT score & not what you imagine that the OP will get.

CanadianWolf wrote:So does Dartmouth. It doesn't change the reality that the OP hasn't taken an actual LSAT exam & you are already telling her to consider Stanford. You seem to have a reading comprehension issue. I never suggested limiting to whichever schools you have imagined. I offered suggestions & emphasized that everything is speculation until there is an actual LSAT score.

Dartmouth doesn't have a law school.

Dartmouth has a Native American Studies major. The OP's undergraduate major was Native American Studies.
The main problem with your advice is that it is more about you than about the OP.
P.S. Dartmouth's major is well known to be one of the easiest majors at that college.

I love it when people are wrong yet won't admit it.

For what it's worth, raising your LSAT to 162 and that GPA, LSP has Berkley at "consider".

@kalvano: Wake up! The OP has no actual LSAT score to raise. That's the issue.
Have you even read the original post? Hey, if the OP gets a 180 Harvard will admit!
P.S. Enjoy Lewis & Clark it's a good law school.

...

CanadianWolf wrote:@kalvano: Wake up! The OP has no actual LSAT score to raise. That's the issue.
Have you even read the original post?

It's not exactly a shocker, is it? Someone who hasn't taken the test doesn't have a score! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

While I am sure you were born with your LSAT score in-hand, she has a practice score, which is all the rest of us start out with. I'm not sure how feasible going from a 155 cold to a 175 would be, but 7 points with practice is easily obtainable. Nothing's for sure until you get a score, but it's easier for a lot of people to have some kind of goal in mind.

And I'm not sure someone who sees a post by a URM with such a cracking GPA and immediately suggests moving all the way across the country to attend American should be questioning my reading comprehension abilities.

CanadianWolf wrote:@kalvano: Wake up! The OP has no actual LSAT score to raise. That's the issue.
Have you even read the original post? Hey, if the OP gets a 180 Harvard will admit!
P.S. Enjoy Lewis & Clark it's a good law school.

Nice edit. Again, though, your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired. "Accepted" doesn't mean "attending".

I'd like to point you to a site that might be helpful in the future -

http://www.dictionary.com

Wonderful post, but I haven't a clue what it has to do with this thread. At least one of us is dealing with reality. Continue with your fantasies if you like.
Avoiding the issue with petty insults isn't going to convince many.

CanadianWolf wrote:@kalvano: Wake up! The OP has no actual LSAT score to raise. That's the issue.
Have you even read the original post? Hey, if the OP gets a 180 Harvard will admit!

My friend a diagnostic score is still a SCORE. While it isn't going to be given to a school it is what we are working with. Slow your roll man.

To the OP, while getting into the t-14 seems to be most definitely within your reach I would only advise you, since you have received a lot of advice about the LSAT and little about what school to go to, to reflect upon what your goals are with your JD. As a non-traditional student with children, one with special needs, your post-JD goals are going to be vastly different than a 20-something looking to cash in. Once you have in mind what area of law you are interested in or have some idea of where you want to practice then do extensive research on schools that fit those criteria. If for example you wanted to pursue Native American Law, then you would want to find a school that has strong programs/professors in that area. If you know you want to practice in No Cal or So Cal you can aim for Berkeley or Stanford.

These are the things I think you should be considering. I don't know what your goals are, but they will be the most important piece of the puzzle to finding the best school for you.

CanadianWolf wrote:Wonderful post, but I haven't a clue what it has to do with this thread. At least one of us is dealing with reality. Continue with your fantasies if you like.
Avoiding the issue with petty insults isn't going to convince many.

Yet again, I'm going to have to call your RC skills in to question.

For someone so proud of being "older" and "more experienced" than some TLS members, you sure are acting like a spoiled child. You were wrong, your advice wasn't particularly sound, and now you're throwing a hissy fit about being called out on it.

...

A diagnostic test given under realistic conditions is a score, but a self administered test without more is not a reliable score. Even timed diagnostic tests given in a large classroom setting won't get you into any ABA approved law school.
I will acknowledge that some of you are good at name calling & hurling insults.

mbw wrote:

CanadianWolf wrote:Dartmouth has a Native American Studies major. The OP's undergraduate major was Native American Studies.
The main problem with your advice is that it is more about you than about the OP.

Somehow I don't suspect that adcomms would see much difference between the OPs major and my academic experience focused on North American indigenous anthropology.

But you're right -- I am sharing my own personal experience with law school admissions with the OP -- because it's probably as close to relevant advice as she'll get from anyone here.

CW our advice will all have a lot to do with us because none of us sit on Adcomms. We all just speculate based on what we know, which are the aggregate of our experiences and the knowledge we get from the experiences of others.

CanadianWolf wrote:A diagnostic test given under realistic conditions is a score, but a self administered test without more is not a reliable score. Even timed diagnostic tests given in a large classroom setting won't get you into any ABA approved law school.

Well let's give the OP the benefit of the doubt and say they duplicated test conditions.

Also, did you just take the LSAT without a diagnostic or prepping? This is sort of how we do it. We practice and speculate then practice some more.

I understand that, but it still doesn't justify the insults & namecalling that some of you resort to. when I write that I am older & much more experienced, it doesn't mean that I'm right, it just means that insults, name-calling & avoiding the main issues aren't going to convince me of anything. At least not anything relevant to the OP's concerns.

CanadianWolf wrote:I understand that, but it still doesn't justify the insults & namecalling that some of you resort to.

I've only seen you called "wrong"

CanadianWolf wrote:A diagnostic test given under realistic conditions is a score, but a self administered test without more is not a reliable score. Even timed diagnostic tests given in a large classroom setting won't get you into any ABA approved law school.
I will acknowledge that some of you are good at name calling & hurling insults.

So you're saying that one has to be given a diagnostic test at some sort of testing facility in order for it to be relevant?

Then you need to read more carefully, unless the other insults have been edited out. Regardless, I am confident of my advice that everything is speculation until an actual LSAT score is achieved.

CanadianWolf wrote:Then you need to read more carefully, unless the other insults have been edited out. Regardless, I am confident of my advice that everything is speculation until an actual LSAT score is achieved.

But that is it. You nailed it on the head. Everything... EVERYTHING is speculation. She is asking a question based on the information provided. Assuming the diagnostic is representative of the OP's LSAT proficiency AT THIS TIME then we can say "raise your score by X and you can get in to A,B,C schools." The point of this discussion is to give the OP something to aim for with their practice tests.

...

You're getting too emotional. Posters have suggested Stanford & top 14 law schools. That's not fair to the OP. Success in law does not depend upon graduating from a top 14 law school, although it helps for certain employment goals for those that do well. What if the OP takes the LSAT & gets a 154 or a 158? Of course, you'll advise her to study harder & take it again. What if that occurs & the OP gets a similiar or lower score? Have you helped her? Or have you made her feel like a failure?

CanadianWolf wrote:You're getting too emotional. Posters have suggested Stanford & top 14 law schools. That's not fair to the OP.

but for a URM with a 3.73 GPA everything is possible if the OP can get a high enough LSAT score. While 155 wont do it, the OP made it clear that they will be studying A LOT over the next several months which many people have demonstrated can bump a score significantly.

CanadianWolf wrote:You're getting too emotional. Posters have suggested Stanford & top 14 law schools. That's not fair to the OP. Success in law does not depend upon graduating from a top 14 law school, although it helps for certain employment goals for those that do well.

They've also qualified it with "raise your LSAT" first.

Assuming that happens, there's a better than average chance OP can go to one of those schools.





EDIT - Holy hell, say what you mean to the first time. I've never seen more edits.

If the OP's question was what LSAT score & GPA does an URM need to get into certain law schools, then direct her to lawschoolpredictor or to USNews. But that wasn't her question & her post contained a lot more information to consider.
Being about 40 years old, with at least one dependent disabled child, a difficult life, and no LSAT--other than a self administered 155--suggests that following the path of a 21 year old with an actual & higher LSAT score is not the best answer. Nor is attempting to rely on URM status. Try harder, get your LSAT score up & go to a top 14 law school is not an universally correct answer, and not an apropriate answer in this case.