If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Not sure where your numbers will get you? Dying to know where you stand? Come have your palms read by your fellow posters!
jblev2
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:53 pm

If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby jblev2 » Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:48 pm

other 2, do you think I could transfer to a Top 20 program after 1L if I had a 2.5 UG gpa?

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby northwood » Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:50 pm

after your 1L only your grades and class ranking matter. You also need exceptional letters of recommendation from your professors. Your best lsat may be a soft. That being said, its very unpredictable to transfer. UG means nothing- schools care about law grades not undergrad.

User avatar
bergg007
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:21 am

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby bergg007 » Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:52 pm

where are you at school now and what is class rank? and URM?

User avatar
dextermorgan
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:37 am

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby dextermorgan » Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:07 pm

Don't take the LSAT again. That's just silly.

jblev2
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:53 pm

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby jblev2 » Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:49 pm

no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school

User avatar
PinkCow
Posts: 786
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:03 am

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby PinkCow » Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:40 pm

jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school



:shock:

I sense trouble on your horizons.

User avatar
megaTTTron
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:26 pm

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby megaTTTron » Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:47 pm

in before the storm.

UCLAtransfer
Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:36 pm

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby UCLAtransfer » Mon Dec 13, 2010 11:58 pm

megaTTTron wrote:in before the storm.


+1

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby James Bond » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:00 am

jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school


please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.

User avatar
BrownBears09
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:48 pm

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby BrownBears09 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:04 am

James Bond wrote:
jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school


please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.


To be fair, how would you know?

No no, and not in an anecdotal sense. I'm talking in a "Yea, at my..." fashion.

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby James Bond » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:05 am

BrownBears09 wrote:
James Bond wrote:
jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school


please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.


To be fair, how would you know?

No no, and not in an anecdotal sense. I'm talking in a "Yea, at my..." fashion.


what are you talking about?

User avatar
Kohinoor
Posts: 2756
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby Kohinoor » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:06 am

BrownBears09 wrote:
James Bond wrote:
jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school


please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.


To be fair, how would you know?

No no, and not in an anecdotal sense. I'm talking in a "Yea, at my..." fashion.

Because gunning for 2 months is a B and 8 hours of sleep deprived cramming is an A.

User avatar
megaTTTron
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:26 pm

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby megaTTTron » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:07 am

BrownBears09 wrote:
James Bond wrote:
jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school


please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.


To be fair, how would you know?

No no, and not in an anecdotal sense. I'm talking in a "Yea, at my..." fashion.


and again, in before the storm.

EDIT: DAMN, missed it by two!

User avatar
jcunni5
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby jcunni5 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:08 am

ED to GULC part time ???

jblev2
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:53 pm

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby jblev2 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:08 am

i am actually jewish and a tad native american...and irish...do those things count as underrepresented?

User avatar
BrownBears09
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:48 pm

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby BrownBears09 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:11 am

James Bond wrote:
BrownBears09 wrote:
James Bond wrote:
jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school


please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.


To be fair, how would you know?

No no, and not in an anecdotal sense. I'm talking in a "Yea, at my..." fashion.


what are you talking about?


A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?

User avatar
megaTTTron
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:26 pm

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby megaTTTron » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:15 am

BrownBears09 wrote:
A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?


really? I mean, really?

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby James Bond » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:18 am

BrownBears09 wrote:A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?


Apparently one can go to an Ivy league school and still make silly mistakes. Don't worry, I won't hold them against you. Let this be a learning experience.

In no way does one have to experience something in order to have knowledge on the subject. This is one of the silliest arguments that comes up from time to time, and goes against the entire idea of higher education, let alone common sense. It is quite easy, and commonplace, to study a subject (such as law school or law school admissions) without actually going through the process.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby sundance95 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:18 am

BrownBears09 wrote:A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?


BrownBears09's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:

A) Mistakes something that is necessary to bring about a situation with something that in itself is enough to bring about that situation.
B) Trades on an inherent ambiguity in its use of the term 'school'.
C) States that one event caused another even though the second event preceded the first.
D) Infers that since two things are similar in one respect, they must be similar in another respect.
E) Dismisses an argument's proposals because of their source rather than because of their substance.
Last edited by sundance95 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby James Bond » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:20 am

sundance95 wrote:
BrownBears09 wrote:A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?


BrownBears09's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:

A) Mistakes something that is necessary to bring about a situation with something that in itself is enough to bring about that situation.
B) Trades on an inherent ambiguity in its use of the term 'school'.
C) States that an action caused another although the second action preceded the first.
D) Infers that since two things are similar in one respect, they must be similar in another respect.
E) Dismisses an argument's proposals because of their source rather than because of their substance.


:lol:

User avatar
DukeCornell
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 3:19 am

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby DukeCornell » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:22 am

sundance95 wrote:
BrownBears09 wrote:A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?


BrownBears09's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:

A) Mistakes something that is necessary to bring about a situation with something that in itself is enough to bring about that situation.
B) Trades on an inherent ambiguity in its use of the term 'school'.
C) States that one event caused another even though the second event preceded the first.
D) Infers that since two things are similar in one respect, they must be similar in another respect.
E) Dismisses an argument's proposals because of their source rather than because of their substance.



Hahahaha! I just had a flashback to Saturday.

User avatar
BrownBears09
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:48 pm

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby BrownBears09 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:12 am

James Bond wrote:
BrownBears09 wrote:A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?

In no way does one have to experience something in order to have knowledge on the subject. This is one of the silliest arguments that comes up from time to time, and goes against the entire idea of higher education, let alone common sense. It is quite easy, and commonplace, to study a subject (such as law school or law school admissions) without actually going through the process.


True story. Instead of law, did you pursue into politics?

Btw, I choose F. Question author is fellow 0L and capable of bias :wink:
Last edited by BrownBears09 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby James Bond » Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:13 am

BrownBears09 wrote:
James Bond wrote:
BrownBears09 wrote:A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.

9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?

In no way does one have to experience something in order to have knowledge on the subject. This is one of the silliest arguments that comes up from time to time, and goes against the entire idea of higher education, let alone common sense. It is quite easy, and commonplace, to study a subject (such as law school or law school admissions) without actually going through the process.


True story. Instead of law, did you pursue into politics?


Yes. I'm currently a Senator

jblev2
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:53 pm

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby jblev2 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:14 am

jcunni5 wrote:ED to GULC part time ???


can you do that?

User avatar
gobuffs10
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:20 am

Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the

Postby gobuffs10 » Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:04 pm

jblev2 wrote:
jcunni5 wrote:ED to GULC part time ???


can you do that?


After looking around their website, I haven't come across anything that says you can't. There is also potential to go FT after your first year. Call to be sure I suppose.




Return to “What are my chances?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests