167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Not sure where your numbers will get you? Dying to know where you stand? Come have your palms read by your fellow posters!
mathais43
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:07 pm

167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby mathais43 » Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:33 pm

I've applied so far to:

UC Berkeley
Duke
Northwestern
UCLA
USC
U Washington
Emory
UC Hastings

In the coming weeks I'm considering submitting applications to:

U Chicago
Notre Dame
BU or BC
UC Davis
Wake Forest
Pepperdine
Loyola LA
Tulane
Cardozo
Lewis & Clark
Miami

I'd really appreciate as much insight as possible into acceptance chances, scholarship potential, and decision timelines. I have an interesting socioeconomic background, as my parents were unsuccessful small business owners who lost our family home in the wake of the sub-prime lending debacle. I studied economics at a small liberal arts university in the Midwest on academic scholarship. Tried to frame a personal statement in this context as I think it provides the kind of "soft" admissions officers are looking for. Thanks in advance!

User avatar
LawyerBrah
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:02 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby LawyerBrah » Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:36 pm

Why no Cornell or Georgetown?

mathais43
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby mathais43 » Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:40 pm

LawyerBrah wrote:Why no Cornell or Georgetown?


I'm pretty broke at the moment, so I've been picking schools from the list of fee waivers I've received. As my top choice, Berkeley is the only school I've paid to apply to thus far.

User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby twenty » Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:41 pm

Yeah, your list really should include GULC and Cornell.

EDIT> Go solicit fee waivers. If they won't give them to you, apply anyway without.

hunter.d
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:46 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby hunter.d » Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:45 pm

I agree, where is Georgetown or Cornell? I have nearly identical numbers and similiar socioeconomic story -- my dad writes mortgages for a living in one of the worst markets, wrote about it in a diversity statement.

Seems like you are applying to a lot of places too. I would do some introspection and try to narrow that down based on your goals and level of debt aversion.

Disclaimer: accepted Georgetown ED.

mathais43
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby mathais43 » Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:45 pm

twentypercentmore wrote:Yeah, your list really should include GULC and Cornell.

EDIT> Go solicit fee waivers. If they won't give them to you, apply anyway without.


Could you provide a quick and effective road map for that?

mathais43
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby mathais43 » Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:51 pm

hunter.d wrote:I agree, where is Georgetown or Cornell? I have nearly identical numbers and similiar socioeconomic story -- my dad writes mortgages for a living in one of the worst markets, wrote about it in a diversity statement.

Seems like you are applying to a lot of places too. I would do some introspection and try to narrow that down based on your goals and level of debt aversion.

Disclaimer: accepted Georgetown ED.


Thank you for the advice to simplify. I've been torn between following a very strategic plan and just casting out a huge net of application and seeing what kind of scholarships come available.

I hadn't given Georgetown or Cornell careful enough consideration, apparently. Added to the list!

hunter.d
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:46 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby hunter.d » Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:00 pm

mathais43 wrote:
hunter.d wrote:I agree, where is Georgetown or Cornell? I have nearly identical numbers and similiar socioeconomic story -- my dad writes mortgages for a living in one of the worst markets, wrote about it in a diversity statement.

Seems like you are applying to a lot of places too. I would do some introspection and try to narrow that down based on your goals and level of debt aversion.

Disclaimer: accepted Georgetown ED.


Thank you for the advice to simplify. I've been torn between following a very strategic plan and just casting out a huge net of application and seeing what kind of scholarships come available.

I hadn't given Georgetown or Cornell careful enough consideration, apparently. Added to the list!


I mean everybody is different so do what you think is right. Cornell and Georgetown are definitely the best bets for breaking into the T-14 for somebody with a 167. Not impossible to go higher though, especially this year.

User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby twenty » Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:09 pm

mathais43 wrote:
twentypercentmore wrote:Yeah, your list really should include GULC and Cornell.

EDIT> Go solicit fee waivers. If they won't give them to you, apply anyway without.


Could you provide a quick and effective road map for that?


1) find an email that looks like admissions@universityofwherever.edu on their website
2) write something to the effect of, "sup, i'd like to see if i qualify for teh merit fee waivers. here's mah lsac account number and GPA/LSAT"
3) wait a few days
4a) profit!
4b) apply anyway if they say no.

EDIT> Point of interest, I received fee waivers from half of the T14 this way.

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby rad lulz » Tue Nov 20, 2012 11:59 pm

Also those aren't good softs.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby sinfiery » Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:28 am

rad lulz wrote:Also those aren't good softs.

Damn, I got excited for a second.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby IAFG » Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:25 am

sinfiery wrote:
rad lulz wrote:Also those aren't good softs.

Damn, I got excited for a second.

At any rate it has to be a very common story. Parents lost money in the crash/recession? You and everyone else broseph.

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:32 am

rad lulz wrote:Also those aren't good softs.


Thoughts on these softs?

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=198537

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby sinfiery » Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:48 am

IAFG wrote:
sinfiery wrote:
rad lulz wrote:Also those aren't good softs.

Damn, I got excited for a second.

At any rate it has to be a very common story. Parents lost money in the crash/recession? You and everyone else broseph.

I'm assuming being poor in general falls under the "not so good" softs category too.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby IAFG » Wed Nov 21, 2012 2:54 am

sinfiery wrote:
IAFG wrote:
sinfiery wrote:
rad lulz wrote:Also those aren't good softs.

Damn, I got excited for a second.

At any rate it has to be a very common story. Parents lost money in the crash/recession? You and everyone else broseph.

I'm assuming being poor in general falls under the "not so good" softs category too.

It's an interesting question, and honestly, I haven't been able to track enough people with truly disadvantaged backgrounds to get an idea.

mathais43
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby mathais43 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 7:56 am

IAFG wrote:
sinfiery wrote:
rad lulz wrote:Also those aren't good softs.

Damn, I got excited for a second.

At any rate it has to be a very common story. Parents lost money in the crash/recession? You and everyone else broseph.


I guess I'm relying on the way I responded to the situation more than the situation itself. My parents lost their business 4 months before I left for college. I worked 40 hours a week at two jobs all the way through undergrad to pay for what my scholarship didn't cover.

My parents didn't lose money, they damn near lost everything.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby IAFG » Wed Nov 21, 2012 8:21 am

mathais43 wrote:
IAFG wrote:
sinfiery wrote:
rad lulz wrote:Also those aren't good softs.

Damn, I got excited for a second.

At any rate it has to be a very common story. Parents lost money in the crash/recession? You and everyone else broseph.


I guess I'm relying on the way I responded to the situation more than the situation itself. My parents lost their business 4 months before I left for college. I worked 40 hours a week at two jobs all the way through undergrad to pay for what my scholarship didn't cover.

My parents didn't lose money, they damn near lost everything.

I am not trying to be cunty, but first, remember that the average American family has and makes very little, and second, lots of us worked to pay our way through school. Thinking is is unusual or impressive betrays a certain sort of upbringing.

BigZuck
Posts: 10875
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby BigZuck » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:15 am

Agreed on the weak softs. I wouldn't apply anywhere lower than the top 20 unless it's a school for scholarship purposes (meaning negotiations or it's a lower ranked school in a market you have ties in that you would actually attend over higher ranked schools provided the money was right). An application strategy wherein you apply to Chicago, Lewis and Clark, and Miami is strange and shows that you need to do a bit more research on this whole process. TLS is an excellent resource for that, good luck!

User avatar
somewhatwayward
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby somewhatwayward » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:23 am

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
rad lulz wrote:Also those aren't good softs.


Thoughts on these softs?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 9&t=198537


They're pretty good...at least above average I would say...although truly impressive are things like Rhodes Scholar, Olympic medal, major scientific discovery, etc. Being AA is worth more, in 99.9% of situations, than having extraordinary softs. 164/3.5 AA male is a lock for the T14 and probably T6; meanwhile a 164/3.5 white male with extraordinary softs is still probably locked out of the T14. That's why AA is so much more important. Honestly I think you should anticipate enjoying HYS.

User avatar
PickledPanda
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:43 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby PickledPanda » Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:37 pm

IAFG wrote:I am not trying to be cunty, but first, remember that the average American family has and makes very little, and second, lots of us worked to pay our way through school. Thinking is is unusual or impressive betrays a certain sort of upbringing.


Bold: I giggled.
Underlined: Unusual, perhaps it is not. Impressive it can be.

mathais43
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby mathais43 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:07 pm

First of all, no need to worry about anyone being perceived as cunty. I asked for advice, you're dishing it out, and I appreciate it.

I really appreciate you guys helping me rein things in. The schools I've applied to thus far are based on this strategy: T25, mostly in California. Hastings is the exception, but I love the Bay Area and I've given it serious consideration despite its lower ranking. The rest of the schools on the list are obviously ranked much lower, I'm merely considering them based on intriguing locations or potential scholarship money.

I guess I should have been more clear on my intentions in posting here. What I really need to know is whether or not my stats - "softs" notwithstanding, I'll address that misunderstanding in a moment - are good enough to feel confident in my chances at schools to which I've already applied. If they are not, or you feel that there are other choices I should consider (Georgetown, Cornell), please let me know. Ideally, I won't see the need to apply to Lewis & Clark or Miami because I can be confident enough in USC or UW that it won't be necessary.

As far as the issue of my socioeconomic background, I'm not trying to imply that my circumstances are impressive or even all that unique. Thousands of families lost their homes as a result of the subprime lending crisis, and many hardworking students finance school themselves. But it's been made clear to me in my research that if you've experienced financial adversity and overcome it, admissions officers want to know about it. I don't imply on my personal statement that I'm uber-impressive because my family had it rough for a while. I instead focus on how that situation provides context for my academic, professional, and extracurricular accomplishments; and the character development that has taken place as a result of overcoming this challenge and how that has made me suitably prepared for law school.

If that's a bad strategy, I've been terribly misled by several different sources and for all intents and purposes, I'm fucked at those 8 schools.

Feedback, please.

EDIT Berkeley and UCLA both have entire sections of their application dedicated to socioeconomic history, and I've read countless excerpts on TLS about how admissions officers take circumstances like mine into account. These are the "sources" I refer to above.

User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby twenty » Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:17 pm

This should put your mind at ease.

http://myLSN.info/cy4iog

Note the overwhelmingly large number of rejects and waitlists at UCLA and Berkeley.

/thread

User avatar
Gustave
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:41 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby Gustave » Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:46 pm

Not to pimp my own stuff... but I was very curious to test this baby out.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvEWt0RuluA4dEdKbzNheGxodHpiSUM5dFNiNXF4ZGc#gid=0
You're below the 50% for all of the T-14, except for Cornell. Cornell's your best shot.
UW's the first school where you're over the 75%, and they definitely use a holistic admissions process so make sure to apply there.
Using LSN info, Lewis and Clark give out fairly few $$$$, so I'd cross them off.
If you're risk averse, hit up the rest of the T-1's (especially BC and BU, and Alabama.)
If you're looking for best school, make sure you hit your Cornell app out of the ballpark. Berkeley is also a good shot- you're almost EXACTLY at their 50% (.29% off.)
Other than that, NYU, Duke and Georgetown seem to be in play.

mathais43
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: 167/3.78/good socioeconomic "softs"

Postby mathais43 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:48 pm

twentypercentmore wrote:This should put your mind at ease.

http://myLSN.info/cy4iog

Note the overwhelmingly large number of rejects and waitlists at UCLA and Berkeley.

/thread


Wow. Best one of those I've seen. Thanks.




Return to “What are my chances?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest