3.76/167 + 178

Not sure where your numbers will get you? Dying to know where you stand? Come have your palms read by your fellow posters!
CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: 3.76/167 + 178

Postby CanadianWolf » Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:56 pm

Believe whatever you like. Unfortunately, the practice of law requires citations to actual authorities, not what one imagines to be reality.

Curious1
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:54 pm

Re: 3.76/167 + 178

Postby Curious1 » Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:57 pm

CanadianWolf wrote:Believe whatever you like. Unfortunately, the practice of law requires citations to actual authorities, not what one imagines to be reality.


Statistics are imagined now?

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: 3.76/167 + 178

Postby CanadianWolf » Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:58 pm

What statistics ? You haven't referenced any.

Curious1
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:54 pm

Re: 3.76/167 + 178

Postby Curious1 » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:05 pm

CanadianWolf wrote:What statistics ? You haven't referenced any.


I would post law school admissions stats from my undergrad but that's for our ubermensch eyes only. Sorry. But to summarize, on average at T14, our average LSAT is about 2 points less than the actual median of the school, and average GPA of our alumni matriculating at H is 3.80, Y is 3.83, and S is 3.72.

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: 3.76/167 + 178

Postby soj » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:07 pm

:lol: @ you lecturing me on what the practice of law entails.
CanadianWolf wrote:Believe whatever you like. Unfortunately, the practice of law requires citations to actual authorities, not what one imagines to be reality.

soj wrote:
soj wrote:LOL @ you thinking this is supposed to make Curious1 and my argument worse, even though it's based on the real experiences of many applicants rather than authors with ulterior motives.

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: 3.76/167 + 178

Postby CanadianWolf » Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:02 pm

Yeah, everyone understands your giant conspiracy theory. Very impressive.

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: 3.76/167 + 178

Postby soj » Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:05 pm

CanadianWolf wrote:Yeah, everyone understands your giant conspiracy theory. Very impressive.

What, that I believe admissions officers and admissions book authors aren't always honest? Yep, that's some 9/11 truther stuff right there.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: 3.76/167 + 178

Postby DoubleChecks » Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:15 pm

soj wrote:
CanadianWolf wrote:Yeah, everyone understands your giant conspiracy theory. Very impressive.

What, that I believe admissions officers and admissions book authors aren't always honest? Yep, that's some 9/11 truther stuff right there.


Curious1 wrote:
CanadianWolf wrote:Anna Ivey's book The Ivey guide To Law School Admissions devotes attention to this point, as do other books. Page 34 of Anna Ivey's book notes that: "All the Ivy League schools, as well as Stanford & Yeshiva, are notorious among law school admissions officers for their grade inflation....Schools that are known ...for their tough grading curves are Reed, Harvey Mudd, Swartmore, Chicago, Johns Hopkins, Caltech, Georgia Tech, and the military academies.(To give you some idea, not a single person in Chicago's class graduated with a 4.0 average.)"


Clearly she's 100% right about every single adcomm in the country and not just trying to sell books/services.


Generally speaking Curious1, from your posts in various threads on TLS, I've come to like you as I tend to agree with your logic/arguments in plenty of topics. That being said, you have to realize that this is a weak argument right? And to include soj in this (or else why quote you? haha), it seems a lot more far fetched (at least from my point of view) to discount the comments of multiple authors who were past adcomms in favor of other weaker anecdotal evidence just because of a possibly shared ulterior motive (shared in the sense that they all have the same goal). If their books hinged on this one comment...possibly more likely, but as it is simply one tidbit hidden away in hundreds of pages...less likely. Not saying impossible, but I'd stop pressing this point as if it were a winning argument (at least if I were you guys haha). Sorry, just jumping in when I have no real horse in this race -- I could be completely wrong, but felt an urge to put my thoughts out here lol.

Curious1
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:54 pm

Re: 3.76/167 + 178

Postby Curious1 » Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:21 pm

Generally speaking Curious1, from your posts in various threads on TLS, I've come to like you as I tend to agree with your logic/arguments in plenty of topics. That being said, you have to realize that this is a weak argument right? And to include soj in this (or else why quote you? haha), it seems a lot more far fetched (at least from my point of view) to discount the comments of multiple authors who were past adcomms in favor of other weaker anecdotal evidence just because of a possibly shared ulterior motive (shared in the sense that they all have the same goal). If their books hinged on this one comment...possibly more likely, but as it is simply one tidbit hidden away in hundreds of pages...less likely. Not saying impossible, but I'd stop pressing this point as if it were a winning argument (at least if I were you guys haha). Sorry, just jumping in when I have no real horse in this race -- I could be completely wrong, but felt an urge to put my thoughts out here lol.


Fair point. I didn't mean to say she was lying, and I'm sure a 3.9 at JHU or UChi will be looked at as better than a 3.9 from Yeshiva or something, but it was really his attitude I was taking issue with (Oh everyone knows about Harvard and their awful grade inflation, they'll be judged harshly). Adcomms are human, and lay prestige matters. Harvard is Harvard is Harvard even if everyone has a 4.0.

But you can't deny that she IS trying to sell a service (not only a book, remember Ivey runs a consulting service for LS applicants) by convincing you that numbers aren't absolute and that, to quote, "as long as you're in the middle 70%, whether you get in or not is entirely up to you." The number of truly on-the-bubble applicants is probably lower than that.
Last edited by Curious1 on Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Re: 3.76/167 + 178

Postby soj » Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:25 pm

All CanadianWolf's evidence does is show that adcoms are aware of grade inflation, which I have no intention of disputing. The only credible evidence I have of admissions decisions, though, is from LSN and anecdotal evidence from UG offices.

If we're discussing whether admissions committees are aware of grade inflation, I would certainly take the former admissions officers' words for it. But the text CW cited doesn't convince me that admissions officers actually "discount" inflated GPAs in any significant way, at least not in a way that even comes close to outweighing the advantages of having attended a prestigious undergrad.

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: 3.76/167 + 178

Postby DoubleChecks » Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:05 pm

soj wrote:All CanadianWolf's evidence does is show that adcoms are aware of grade inflation, which I have no intention of disputing. The only credible evidence I have of admissions decisions, though, is from LSN and anecdotal evidence from UG offices.

If we're discussing whether admissions committees are aware of grade inflation, I would certainly take the former admissions officers' words for it. But the text CW cited doesn't convince me that admissions officers actually "discount" inflated GPAs in any significant way, at least not in a way that even comes close to outweighing the advantages of having attended a prestigious undergrad.


Your first statement I do completely agree with, and your argument did start off that way. I just thought it was moving onto something different -- sorry if I misread that. I also agree that I don't think adcomms discount inflated GPAs in any significant way. In fact, I don't think I disagree with the crux/main point of your argument at all haha, just that one particular method of support for the argument.

User avatar
paratactical
Posts: 5961
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:06 pm

Re: 3.76/167 + 178

Postby paratactical » Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:14 pm

OP - you also might not want to bank on being able to defer for a year. Some schools seem to be leninent about it, others aren't. Also, do you already have a job lined up and are they aware of your anticipated short tenure there?

User avatar
DoubleChecks
Posts: 2333
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 4:35 pm

Re: 3.76/167 + 178

Postby DoubleChecks » Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:45 pm

Curious1 wrote:
Generally speaking Curious1, from your posts in various threads on TLS, I've come to like you as I tend to agree with your logic/arguments in plenty of topics. That being said, you have to realize that this is a weak argument right? And to include soj in this (or else why quote you? haha), it seems a lot more far fetched (at least from my point of view) to discount the comments of multiple authors who were past adcomms in favor of other weaker anecdotal evidence just because of a possibly shared ulterior motive (shared in the sense that they all have the same goal). If their books hinged on this one comment...possibly more likely, but as it is simply one tidbit hidden away in hundreds of pages...less likely. Not saying impossible, but I'd stop pressing this point as if it were a winning argument (at least if I were you guys haha). Sorry, just jumping in when I have no real horse in this race -- I could be completely wrong, but felt an urge to put my thoughts out here lol.


Fair point. I didn't mean to say she was lying, and I'm sure a 3.9 at JHU or UChi will be looked at as better than a 3.9 from Yeshiva or something, but it was really his attitude I was taking issue with (Oh everyone knows about Harvard and their awful grade inflation, they'll be judged harshly). Adcomms are human, and lay prestige matters. Harvard is Harvard is Harvard even if everyone has a 4.0.

But you can't deny that she IS trying to sell a service (not only a book, remember Ivey runs a consulting service for LS applicants) by convincing you that numbers aren't absolute and that, to quote, "as long as you're in the middle 70%, whether you get in or not is entirely up to you." The number of truly on-the-bubble applicants is probably lower than that.


Oh yeah I don't disagree with the notion that adcomms probably don't hard discount Harvard GPAs in light of grade inflation per se. Just somehow felt the urge to point out that a group of authors that have significant experience on a matter probably aren't all over-embellishing. Embellishing some, quite possibly. Just the rather unimportant nature of that one statement (in the grand scheme of even the book itself) makes it more credible than not haha. Once again, just a random comment! lol

Curious1
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:54 pm

Re: 3.76/167 + 178

Postby Curious1 » Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:54 pm

Oh yeah I don't disagree with the notion that adcomms probably don't hard discount Harvard GPAs in light of grade inflation per se. Just somehow felt the urge to point out that a group of authors that have significant experience on a matter probably aren't all over-embellishing. Embellishing some, quite possibly. Just the rather unimportant nature of that one statement (in the grand scheme of even the book itself) makes it more credible than not haha. Once again, just a random comment! lol


Ahh all right but I take your comments quite seriously. Sensible and very accomplished posters seem to be in the minority here.




Return to “What are my chances?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests