Lost Harvard Undergrad Forum

[Veritaffle]

Go ahead and explain how you're "about finish" (sic) since Commencement was on May 27.

Gee, it couldn't possibly mean he has a semester or two left.

You'd really use that language to convey something that was going to happen six or twelve months from now? Really? Would you announce that it's "almost [your] birthday!" two months beforehand?

Gee, it seems that the kid is a fraud. And dodged my House question. Pfoho is broho.

[romothesavior]

And where did we land on retaking the LSAT and scoring lower? It sounds like you guys think I'm on the bubble as it is. I wouldn't want to risk it if the downside is losing Manhattan completely.

Only you can answer this question for yourself, young grasshoppa.

[Tanicius]

Go ahead and explain how you're "about finish" (sic) since Commencement was on May 27.

Gee, it couldn't possibly mean he has a semester or two left.

You'd really use that language to convey something that was going to happen six or twelve months from now? Really? Would you announce that it's "almost [your] birthday!" two months beforehand?

(Sidenote regarding the birthday question: Yes, absolutely. I did that leading up to my 21st birthday all the damn time [I don't literally mean all the in which I existed, believe it or not, and neither do I mean to say the said time was literally crused].)

Think about what you're saying. You're arguing that a ridiculously subjective colloquialism is proof that someone you don't know is fabricating the entire purpose of the thread. Unheard of? No. Impossible? No, of course not. Likely or certainly? No one knows, you included. Let's assume you're right, and this person has randomly decided to fabricate a background. I wouldn't even call it a flame. At worst it's just some non-Harvard student asking a question out of curiosity to see what people think. In other words, it doesn't really matter, so why care? Just answer the dude's question or don't.

[CambridgeKid]

I think you guys are just going to have to take my word for it on this one. I haven't yet graduated, but it's coming up fast and I need to have a plan with law school. If this is a problem of typos, I assure you there's a lot more where that came from.

So did I describe the Fordham strategy accurately? Is that what you were getting at? Something along those lines?

[thecilent]

Maybe a flame, but I'm still interested in this:

As long as OP thinks he can improve (even slightly), there is no reason not to take it.

But what if the OP thinks he can also decline in score (even slightly)? Then there is def reason not to retake

They only count the highest test, so retaking seems wise with a significant chance for improvement, but is it a black spot on your app if you shoot for a higher score and fail? If so, how bad is it?

What do you mean "they only count the highest test?" We're not even talking about a specific school. Most schools do not just look at the highest test; rather, they either average, or take a holistic look at all scores. So retaking and declining can def hurt at some schools.

Also: If your not flame, then why not just explain to us what you mean by "finishing up undergrad?"

[Bildungsroman]

Maybe a flame, but I'm still interested in this:

As long as OP thinks he can improve (even slightly), there is no reason not to take it.

But what if the OP thinks he can also decline in score (even slightly)? Then there is def reason not to retake

They only count the highest test, so retaking seems wise with a significant chance for improvement, but is it a black spot on your app if you shoot for a higher score and fail? If so, how bad is it?

What do you mean "they only count the highest test?" We're not even talking about a specific school. Most schools do not just look at the highest test; rather, they either average, or take a holistic look at all scores. So retaking and declining can def hurt at some schools.

Also: If commencement was on 27th, this is def flame.

Actually, most schools look at the highest score. Only a few schools average anymore, and "taking a holistic view of multiple scores" is just what law schools say when they want to pretend they aren't number whores (but still are).

[thecilent]

Actually, most schools look at the highest score. Only a few schools average anymore, and "taking a holistic view of multiple scores" is just what law schools say when they want to pretend they aren't number whores (but still are).

Ehh I disagree. I think a one-time taker with a 170 is no doubt better then a two-time taker with a 170 and 167 -- and I think adcoms really do look at this.

Although I do agree there are a number of situations where retaking to get you over the hump at some schools is clearly the right move to make, I wouldn't recommend it to the OP here unless he was consistently scoring much higher

[romothesavior]

Maybe a flame, but I'm still interested in this:

As long as OP thinks he can improve (even slightly), there is no reason not to take it.

But what if the OP thinks he can also decline in score (even slightly)? Then there is def reason not to retake

They only count the highest test, so retaking seems wise with a significant chance for improvement, but is it a black spot on your app if you shoot for a higher score and fail? If so, how bad is it?

What do you mean "they only count the highest test?" We're not even talking about a specific school. Most schools do not just look at the highest test; rather, they either average, or take a holistic look at all scores. So retaking and declining can def hurt at some schools.

Also: If your not flame, then why not just explain to us what you mean by "finishing up undergrad?"

Outed as dumb.

[Na_Swatch]

Actually, most schools look at the highest score. Only a few schools average anymore, and "taking a holistic view of multiple scores" is just what law schools say when they want to pretend they aren't number whores (but still are).

Ehh I disagree. I think a one-time taker with a 170 is no doubt better then a two-time taker with a 170 and 167 -- and I think adcoms really do look at this.

Although I do agree there are a number of situations where retaking to get you over the hump at some schools is clearly the right move to make, I wouldn't recommend it to the OP here unless he was consistently scoring much higher

If by most schools you mean: HYS only

then yes, "most" schools still seriously factor in your lower scores....

[upwardtrend]

1. This kid isnt a flame, it makes perfect sense for him to say "hes about to finish up his undergrad" if it is the summer after his junior year. He probably said so to show that he doesnt have to much time to raise the GPA and will be applying during his senior year.

2. I think he has a good shot at Penn. Going to Harvard undergrad DOES matter, just not as much as GPA/LSAT obviously. Penn tends to favor kids from elite schools too. Its obvious that he can handle law school with a 170/Harvard degree, just put forth a good application and hope for the best.

[Veritaffle]

If this kid were at Harvard he wouldn't be coming to TLS for advice because he'd have his HOUSE PRE-LAW TUTORS as well as THE GRIDS AT OCS whose job it is to give him the scoop on everything. But we don't know who his tutors are because we don't know what House he's in because...he doesn't go to Harvard.

[Tanicius]

If this kid were at Harvard he wouldn't be coming to TLS for advice because he'd have his HOUSE PRE-LAW TUTORS as well as THE GRIDS AT OCS whose job it is to give him the scoop on everything. But we don't know who his tutors are because we don't know what House he's in because...he doesn't go to Harvard.

TITCR. No one from Harvard UG has ever asked for advice on this forum.

[Kochel]

If this kid were at Harvard he wouldn't be coming to TLS for advice because he'd have his HOUSE PRE-LAW TUTORS as well as THE GRIDS AT OCS whose job it is to give him the scoop on everything. But we don't know who his tutors are because we don't know what House he's in because...he doesn't go to Harvard.

When I was at HLS, a few of my good friends were pre-law tutors. If I'd been an undergrad then, I certainly would not have gone to them for advice.

[094320]

..

[pilawpcv]

My prelaw tutors were very nice, but our conversations went like this:

Him: You want to go to law school?
Me: Yes.
Him: So here's the best schools for biglaw * talks a lot *
Me: Well, actually I want to do public interest. Maybe a joint degree?
Him: Hm. I think I may have a paper on that somewhere...


(Fear the tree!)

[IAFG]

My prelaw tutors were very nice, but our conversations went like this:

Him: You want to go to law school?
Me: Yes.
Him: So here's the best schools for biglaw * talks a lot *
Me: Well, actually I want to do public interest. Maybe a joint degree?
Him: Hm. I think I may have a paper on that somewhere...


(Fear the tree!)

the best schools for corporate law or almost always the best schools for PI too, so...

[dbt]

Retake that 170. Get 173+, and you've got a shot at NYU.

Even coming from Harvard, I think this is incorrect. A 3.3/176+ would have a shot. A 173 (75th percentile) is very likely not going to cut it, even ED.