166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Not sure where your numbers will get you? Dying to know where you stand? Come have your palms read by your fellow posters!
User avatar
chuckbass

Platinum
Posts: 9956
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:29 pm

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby chuckbass » Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:40 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
csprizzle38 wrote:
Flips88 wrote:Yeah, you're gonna be despised by all your law school classmates and probs turn off every single job interviewer with your personality.


I don't think so. One of my goals is to be a well-liked, respected guy on Law Review; thus, to the extent I find people aren't responding well to my "interpersonal style," I'll adapt accordingly.

Why is being on LR relevant to whether you'll be liked by your classmates?

Also why do you think people will respect you for being on LR? If you graded on, a lot of luck went into that.

csprizzle38

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:29 am

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby csprizzle38 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:48 am

Flips88 wrote:
scottidsntknow wrote:Maybe this is DF... A lot of his posts are littered with random spelling mistakes.

Even DF isn't elaborate enough to create a gay, black Scalia loving community college dropout that insists he will be a share partner at a V5.


I never "insisted" anything of the sort. I insisted that I'm obviously smart enough to get mostly A's at the University of Maine, which in combination with my 165+ LSAT and URM status, would probably translate into an acceptance at a T-14. So if I'm motivated to get those A's---which I clearly am---I'll PROBABLY pull it off.

Now to law school. If I get my foot in the door, clearly I'll be capable of outperforming many of my peers (even some who boast 170+ LSATs) in understanding Civ Pro black-letter law and writing issue spotter exam answers. So assuming I'm motivated to do so, I'll PROBABLY graduate in the top quarter of my class.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1454815485/

Now to private practice. If I get this far, assuming I come off as sufficiently "winsome" to V5 interviewers, I'll POSSIBLY get hired. If I stay motivated and find ways to differentiate myself for eight years, I'll have a LEGITIMATE CHANCE to make Equity Partner.

That's all. I've got a long way to go, and I may well have to confront a number of unforeseen bumps in the road. But that's what I'm going to try to do---one step at a time.

User avatar
Flips88

Diamond
Posts: 15246
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby Flips88 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:53 am

Image

csprizzle38

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:29 am

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby csprizzle38 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:54 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
csprizzle38 wrote:
Flips88 wrote:Yeah, you're gonna be despised by all your law school classmates and probs turn off every single job interviewer with your personality.


I don't think so. One of my goals is to be a well-liked, respected guy on Law Review; thus, to the extent I find people aren't responding well to my "interpersonal style," I'll adapt accordingly.

Why is being on LR relevant to whether you'll be liked by your classmates?


I didn't mean to suggest there's a fundamental connection. I'm sure that many LR editors are generally disliked; and, conversely, that many students not on LR are generally liked.

I was just saying that I'd like to be known as an impressive dude people admire---and being an A student could potentially contribute to that. I didn't mean anything by it...

igo2northwestern

Bronze
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 12:07 am

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby igo2northwestern » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:04 pm

csprizzle38 wrote:I never "insisted" anything of the sort. I insisted that I'm obviously smart enough to get mostly A's at the University of Maine, which in combination with my 165+ LSAT and URM status, would probably translate into an acceptance at a T-14. So if I'm motivated to get those A's---which I clearly am---I'll PROBABLY pull it off.

Whoa whoa whoa, is that some back-pedaling I'm spotting here? Weren't we gunning for that phi beta kappa summa cum laude?

gonzofists

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:55 pm

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby gonzofists » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:08 pm

i came out of lurking for two years to say that.


i wish i could see OP fail in person. also you put your facebook online in this horrific thread. you're not smart.




you're dumb.
Last edited by gonzofists on Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

csprizzle38

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:29 am

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby csprizzle38 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:09 pm

igo2northwestern wrote:
csprizzle38 wrote:I never "insisted" anything of the sort. I insisted that I'm obviously smart enough to get mostly A's at the University of Maine, which in combination with my 165+ LSAT and URM status, would probably translate into an acceptance at a T-14. So if I'm motivated to get those A's---which I clearly am---I'll PROBABLY pull it off.

Whoa whoa whoa, is that some back-pedaling I'm spotting here? Weren't we gunning for that phi beta kappa summa cum laude?


Of course! I will certainly be an out-and-proud "gunner" at UMaine haha. (I may go back in the closet during law school for the social reasons articulated earlier.)

In writing that, I sought to demonstrate two things: that although (1) I don't feel as though I've already achieved what I've set out to achieve, (2) I do have solid grounds for believing that my motivation and ability can get me to my desired destination (albeit, over a long period of time haha). Hence the hypothetical reasoning.
Last edited by csprizzle38 on Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
chuckbass

Platinum
Posts: 9956
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:29 pm

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby chuckbass » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:12 pm

csprizzle38 wrote:
igo2northwestern wrote:
csprizzle38 wrote:I never "insisted" anything of the sort. I insisted that I'm obviously smart enough to get mostly A's at the University of Maine, which in combination with my 165+ LSAT and URM status, would probably translate into an acceptance at a T-14. So if I'm motivated to get those A's---which I clearly am---I'll PROBABLY pull it off.

Whoa whoa whoa, is that some back-pedaling I'm spotting here? Weren't we gunning for that phi beta kappa summa cum laude?


Of course! I will certainly be an out-and-proud "gunner" at UMaine haha. (I may go back in the closet during law school for the social reasons articulated earlier.)

In writing that, I sought to demonstrate that I'm not saying I've already achieved what I've set out to achieve. Hence the hypothetical chain of reasoning.

But wait, what about the back-pedaling? The first half of this thread is you talking like you've already achieved summa/pbk...

csprizzle38

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:29 am

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby csprizzle38 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:18 pm

gonzofists wrote:i came out of lurking for two years to say that.


i wish i could see OP fail in person. also you put your facebook online in this horrific thread. you're not smart.




you're dumb.


I'll be happy to assuage any concerns this thread might raise to readers relevant to my academic and professional advancement (beginning four years from now). I have nothing to hide.

gonzofists

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:55 pm

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby gonzofists » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:19 pm

csprizzle38 wrote:
gonzofists wrote:i came out of lurking for two years to say that.


i wish i could see OP fail in person. also you put your facebook online in this horrific thread. you're not smart.




you're dumb.


I'll be happy to assuage any concerns this thread might raise to readers relevant to my academic and professional advancement (beginning four years from now). I have nothing to hide.


it's very clear you have nothing to hide. that's how everyone can tell you're stupid.

User avatar
anyriotgirl

Platinum
Posts: 8349
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2013 11:54 am

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby anyriotgirl » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:26 pm

I read all six pages of this but there is still one thing I haven't figured out. Where did you pick up the idea that 166 is a good LSAT score?

csprizzle38

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:29 am

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby csprizzle38 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:30 pm

I have nothing to hide because either I'll accomplish what I've set out to accomplish---or not. Period.

If I graduate summa/phi beta kappa with great LOR's, excel as a 1L, and not burn out for eight years, then I'll have succeeded (at a slightly lesser firm if not Cravath). If I don't, then ... commit suicide? haha (that's not funny)... I don't.

moralsentiments

Bronze
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:11 pm

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby moralsentiments » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:39 pm

Ok I'm going to chime in here because I went through almost exactly what you are going through.

1. I'm confused as to why you are doing 4 years at a university AFTER cc. As far as I know transferring from a cc will put you as a junior at the transferred university (meaning you'll only need to plan that schedule for 2 years).

2. I had 5 unofficial W's that were counted as failed grades. Not going to get into why but essentially it was one semester that I dropped all my courses, but since I didn't do it properly in the system they became F's (my bad). This was in 2005 might I add, so approx. 8-9 years removed.

3. I retook all courses with F marks, transferred to a university (a "good" one), and got A's and A+'s in every class. I graduated summa cum laude and phi beta kappa (among other useless things). AND I had the benefit of getting A+'s which worked in my favor for LSAC calculations. Without revealing my GPA, let's say it's close to what you think you'll end up with assuming 4.0. You have more F's (or zeros) than I did, so unless you're taking far more courses than I did (which you would be if you're doing 4 full years on top of cc), you might find yourself with less than what you calculated.

4. Regarding LS admissions, I don't think summa cum laude OR phi beta kappa mean anything really. What does mean something is the UGPA score they report to USNWR. If that's a 3.4, phi beta kappa isn't going to help raise it. As far as future employment, yah i'm sure law firms like having phi beta kappa or summa on their employee profiles, but again, it's not a deal breaker and certainly not going to work against you if you don't have it.

5. To be candid, the history major isn't going to impress anyone. I did Poli Sci, and wish with every ounce of my being that I had done Econ instead. Not only is it more useful in terms of understanding most of what poli sci studies, but it's far more quant heavy which is more impressive to law school adcomms than a bunch of "history of ______" classes, and furthermore if you decide law school is not right for you, MBA programs as well as many masters and phd programs EVEN in soft sciences like poli sci or history are more and more often requiring (or at least desiring) strong quant backgrounds for research purposes. So win/win.

6. You're LSAT score is good. I mean its like 90+% so cool, and since you're black it may be good enough for a lot of schools for which it would not normally be good enough, but why risk it. You're going to be a "splitter" at least somewhat in the eyes of T-14s, so make it an easier decision for them and retake. Games is easy to get better, if you're plateauing, seek advice from here and anywhere else and get a couple more questions correct next time sealing a 170+.

7. Again, to be candid, it seems like with your current plan, the only thing setting you apart from all the other soft science majors getting 4.0s is the color of your skin. You should be working toward getting other factors to work in your favor as well (LSAT, change of major, work experience, etc.). Especially in the event that law school doesn't pan out. I think most people have at least thought twice about law school considering the job market. Have a back up plan.

8. Finally, don't assume you'll get a 4.0. I don't know how hard "history of ___" is at your school, or what grade inflation looks like, but assuming a perfect grade in every class is risky to me.

Hope this helps coming from someone who did essentially what you're about to do and now seeing 20/20 hindsight wishes they could have done it differently.


EDIT: btw i didn't read more than the first page of posts, so sorry if this dead horse has already been beat.
Last edited by moralsentiments on Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
sunsheyen

New
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 11:59 am

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby sunsheyen » Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:41 pm

anyriotgirl wrote:I read all six pages of this but there is still one thing I haven't figured out. Where did you pick up the idea that 166 is a good LSAT score?



Seriously though, why are y'all even responding to this foolishness? He already got an A in AP History and a whopping 166 (which he doubts he can improve more than a couple of points). He was dedicated to law in high school and has been working toward this plan all along...except when he blew off the local CC.

I skimmed through the thread and I may have missed something. Why does one need a full four years at university if there will already be courses completed in a CC? Wouldn't they satisfy some prerequisites? Don't those AP grades and corresponding high scores also count for placing out of certain courses? Wouldn't it be burning money and time taking extra courses, running the risk of getting something less than an A?

But oh yeah, life will go perfectly according to plan. Because that's what happens in real life.

Also, sir, you are embarrassing to us Black folks. Can you find something else in your background? Pull a Tiger Woods on us? Please?

Posters: Stop trying to send him over there to the URM board. You can have him.

http://vimeo.com/61499874

csprizzle38

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:29 am

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby csprizzle38 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:05 pm

anyriotgirl wrote:I read all six pages of this but there is still one thing I haven't figured out. Where did you pick up the idea that 166 is a good LSAT score?


I'll rephrase the question: "Why am I proud of my LSAT ability?"

LSAC. They declare on page one of each test form that you should "treat each section as a separate mini-test." I've achieved perfect scores on *numerous* LR and RC sections. (As in 25/25 and 27/27.) I scored 166 in June *even though* I skipped over two Logic Games. That's what's inhibiting me from reaching 170.

Here's why I believe that one's performance on that section isn't a very meaningful barometer for one's legal aptitude: The difficulty of completing a LG derives from the fact you're totally unfamiliar with the premises from which you're expected to make immediate inferences. Which is why once you've memorized the rules, the inferences follow quickly and painlessly.

That's not very reflective of the "analytical skills" required to effectively spot and develop issues in an exam context. For in that context, you're (in theory, at least) intimately familiar with the rules from which you're expected to make inferences in light of the facts. And although students will inevitably produce their *outlines* with varying levels of efficiency, there's no reason why a motivated student who synthesizes new information at a marginally slower rate than her classmate who scored 23/23 on AR can't compensate by working marginally harder to nail it down at the end of the term. (This line of thought extends to private practice as well, for reasons so obvious I won't state them.)

If there's one defense for the section, it's that it does an OK job differentiating liberal arts majors with similar verbal skills on some type of "IQ metric" that adds a pinch of predictive validity. By the same token, though, LSAC could probably replace it with the GRE Quantitative and achieve the same statistical outcomes.

In brief, I'm proud of my LSAT ability because I'm unquestionably very gifted as to the two most important portions of the exam for gauging one's aptitude for law.

(Besides, diminishing marginal returns set in pretty quickly after 165. For example, the difference between 155 and 165 is much more significant than that between 165 and 175, let alone 170.)
Last edited by csprizzle38 on Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:22 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
cron1834

Gold
Posts: 2299
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 1:36 am

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby cron1834 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:06 pm

sunsheyen wrote:
Also, sir, you are embarrassing to us Black folks. Can you find something else in your background? Pull a Tiger Woods on us? Please?

Posters: Stop trying to send him over there to the URM board. You can have him.

http://vimeo.com/61499874

:lol: :lol:

User avatar
Flips88

Diamond
Posts: 15246
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby Flips88 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:11 pm

Dude wrote a 5 paragraph essay on why he thinks his LSAT score is impressive. LOL just LOL.

gonzofists

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:55 pm

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby gonzofists » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:12 pm

csprizzle38 wrote:
anyriotgirl wrote:I read all six pages of this but there is still one thing I haven't figured out. Where did you pick up the idea that 166 is a good LSAT score?


I'll rephrase the question: "Why am I proud of my LSAT ability?"

LSAC. They declare on page one of each test form that you should "treat each test as a separate mini-test." I've achieved perfect scores on *numerous* LR and RC sections. (As in 25/25 and 27/27.) I scored 166 in June *even though* I skipped over two Logic Games. That's what's inhibiting me from reaching 170.

Here's why I believe that one's performance on that section isn't a very meaningful barometer for one's legal aptitude: The difficulty of completing a LG derives from the fact you're totally unfamiliar with the premises from which you're expected to make immediate inferences. Which is why once you've memorized the rules, the inferences follow quickly and painlessly.

That's not very reflective of the "analytical skills" required to effectively spot and develop issues in an exam context. For in that context, you're (in theory, at least) intimately familiar with the rules from which you're expected to make inferences in light of the facts. And although students will inevitably produce their *outlines* with varying levels of efficiency, there's no reason why a motivated student who synthesizes new information at a marginally slower rate than her classmate who scored 23/23 on AR can't compensate by working marginally harder to nail it down at the end of the term. (This line of thought extends to private practice as well, for reasons so obvious I won't state them.)

If there's one defense for the section, it's that it does an OK job differentiating liberal arts majors with similar verbal skills on some type of "IQ metric" that adds a pinch of predictive validity. By the same token, though, LSAC could probably replace it with the GRE Quantitative and achieve statistically isomorphic outcomes.

In summary, I'm proud of my LSAT ability because I'm unquestionably very gifted as to the two most important portions of the exam for predicting my legal aptitude.

(Besides, diminishing marginal returns set in pretty quickly after 165. For example, the difference between 155 and 165 is much more significant than that between 165 and 175, let alone 170.)



Failed community college. Then makes suggestions on how LSAC could improve the LSAT structure. Then calls himself gifted.

You're a disney douchebag

csprizzle38

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:29 am

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby csprizzle38 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:28 pm

moralsentiments wrote:Ok I'm going to chime in here because I went through almost exactly what you are going through.

1. I'm confused as to why you are doing 4 years at a university AFTER cc. As far as I know transferring from a cc will put you as a junior at the transferred university (meaning you'll only need to plan that schedule for 2 years).

2. I had 5 unofficial W's that were counted as failed grades. Not going to get into why but essentially it was one semester that I dropped all my courses, but since I didn't do it properly in the system they became F's (my bad). This was in 2005 might I add, so approx. 8-9 years removed.

3. I retook all courses with F marks, transferred to a university (a "good" one), and got A's and A+'s in every class. I graduated summa cum laude and phi beta kappa (among other useless things). AND I had the benefit of getting A+'s which worked in my favor for LSAC calculations. Without revealing my GPA, let's say it's close to what you think you'll end up with assuming 4.0. You have more F's (or zeros) than I did, so unless you're taking far more courses than I did (which you would be if you're doing 4 full years on top of cc), you might find yourself with less than what you calculated.

4. Regarding LS admissions, I don't think summa cum laude OR phi beta kappa mean anything really. What does mean something is the UGPA score they report to USNWR. If that's a 3.4, phi beta kappa isn't going to help raise it. As far as future employment, yah i'm sure law firms like having phi beta kappa or summa on their employee profiles, but again, it's not a deal breaker and certainly not going to work against you if you don't have it.

5. To be candid, the history major isn't going to impress anyone. I did Poli Sci, and wish with every ounce of my being that I had done Econ instead. Not only is it more useful in terms of understanding most of what poli sci studies, but it's far more quant heavy which is more impressive to law school adcomms than a bunch of "history of ______" classes, and furthermore if you decide law school is not right for you, MBA programs as well as many masters and phd programs EVEN in soft sciences like poli sci or history are more and more often requiring (or at least desiring) strong quant backgrounds for research purposes. So win/win.

6. You're LSAT score is good. I mean its like 90+% so cool, and since you're black it may be good enough for a lot of schools for which it would not normally be good enough, but why risk it. You're going to be a "splitter" at least somewhat in the eyes of T-14s, so make it an easier decision for them and retake. Games is easy to get better, if you're plateauing, seek advice from here and anywhere else and get a couple more questions correct next time sealing a 170+.

7. Again, to be candid, it seems like with your current plan, the only thing setting you apart from all the other soft science majors getting 4.0s is the color of your skin. You should be working toward getting other factors to work in your favor as well (LSAT, change of major, work experience, etc.). Especially in the event that law school doesn't pan out. I think most people have at least thought twice about law school considering the job market. Have a back up plan.

8. Finally, don't assume you'll get a 4.0. I don't know how hard "history of ___" is at your school, or what grade inflation looks like, but assuming a perfect grade in every class is risky to me.

Hope this helps coming from someone who did essentially what you're about to do and now seeing 20/20 hindsight wishes they could have done it differently.


EDIT: btw i didn't read more than the first page of posts, so sorry if this dead horse has already been beat.



Thank you for your thoughtful response!

4.) I think you're beginning from a faulty assumption: viz., that white law school admissions and URM law school admissions aren't distinctive. Since my viability as an applicant can be *independent* of my ability to assist my target school in the "numbers game," it stands to reason that soft factors---e.g., Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude, Honors College, student body president, homosexuality---can tip the scale. (This should shed light on my next point.)

5.) I'm majoring in history because I think it will be the most intellectually stimulating way to gain induction to Phi Beta Kappa. It's my hope that the former will be interpreted as "rigorous" in light of the latter, despite the former not being a hard science.

1.) I have fewer than thirty credits, so I could theoretically transfer only as a sophomore. But I'm hoping to start over, by which I mean acquire an intensive, four-year liberal arts education. Moreover, now that I know it will be to my advantage to offset those seven zeroes as much as possible with subsequent coursework, I'm interested all the more.

6 and 7.) My LSAT score in June is on the low end of my range. It's also above the 25th percentiles at Virginia, Penn, and Michigan. :wink:

csprizzle38

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:29 am

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby csprizzle38 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:29 pm

gonzofists wrote:
csprizzle38 wrote:
anyriotgirl wrote:I read all six pages of this but there is still one thing I haven't figured out. Where did you pick up the idea that 166 is a good LSAT score?


I'll rephrase the question: "Why am I proud of my LSAT ability?"

LSAC. They declare on page one of each test form that you should "treat each test as a separate mini-test." I've achieved perfect scores on *numerous* LR and RC sections. (As in 25/25 and 27/27.) I scored 166 in June *even though* I skipped over two Logic Games. That's what's inhibiting me from reaching 170.

Here's why I believe that one's performance on that section isn't a very meaningful barometer for one's legal aptitude: The difficulty of completing a LG derives from the fact you're totally unfamiliar with the premises from which you're expected to make immediate inferences. Which is why once you've memorized the rules, the inferences follow quickly and painlessly.

That's not very reflective of the "analytical skills" required to effectively spot and develop issues in an exam context. For in that context, you're (in theory, at least) intimately familiar with the rules from which you're expected to make inferences in light of the facts. And although students will inevitably produce their *outlines* with varying levels of efficiency, there's no reason why a motivated student who synthesizes new information at a marginally slower rate than her classmate who scored 23/23 on AR can't compensate by working marginally harder to nail it down at the end of the term. (This line of thought extends to private practice as well, for reasons so obvious I won't state them.)

If there's one defense for the section, it's that it does an OK job differentiating liberal arts majors with similar verbal skills on some type of "IQ metric" that adds a pinch of predictive validity. By the same token, though, LSAC could probably replace it with the GRE Quantitative and achieve statistically isomorphic outcomes.

In summary, I'm proud of my LSAT ability because I'm unquestionably very gifted as to the two most important portions of the exam for predicting my legal aptitude.

(Besides, diminishing marginal returns set in pretty quickly after 165. For example, the difference between 155 and 165 is much more significant than that between 165 and 175, let alone 170.)



Failed community college. Then makes suggestions on how LSAC could improve the LSAT structure. Then calls himself gifted.

You're a disney douchebag


I guess you have to go higher up in the rankings than Cornell to find students capable of argumentation that consists of more than ad-hominen snark.

User avatar
gnomgnomuch

Silver
Posts: 540
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:34 pm

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby gnomgnomuch » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:32 pm

csprizzle38 wrote:
anyriotgirl wrote:I read all six pages of this but there is still one thing I haven't figured out. Where did you pick up the idea that 166 is a good LSAT score?


I'll rephrase the question: "Why am I proud of my LSAT ability?"

LSAC. They declare on page one of each test form that you should "treat each test as a separate mini-test." I've achieved perfect scores on *numerous* LR and RC sections. (As in 25/25 and 27/27.) I scored 166 in June *even though* I skipped over two Logic Games. That's what's inhibiting me from reaching 170.

Here's why I believe that one's performance on that section isn't a very meaningful barometer for one's legal aptitude: The difficulty of completing a LG derives from the fact you're totally unfamiliar with the premises from which you're expected to make immediate inferences. Which is why once you've memorized the rules, the inferences follow quickly and painlessly.

That's not very reflective of the "analytical skills" required to effectively spot and develop issues in an exam context. For in that context, you're (in theory, at least) intimately familiar with the rules from which you're expected to make inferences in light of the facts. And although students will inevitably produce their *outlines* with varying levels of efficiency, there's no reason why a motivated student who synthesizes new information at a marginally slower rate than her classmate who scored 23/23 on AR can't compensate by working marginally harder to nail it down at the end of the term. (This line of thought extends to private practice as well, for reasons so obvious I won't state them.)

If there's one defense for the section, it's that it does an OK job differentiating liberal arts majors with similar verbal skills on some type of "IQ metric" that adds a pinch of predictive validity. By the same token, though, LSAC could probably replace it with the GRE Quantitative and achieve statistically isomorphic outcomes.

In summary, I'm proud of my LSAT ability because I'm unquestionably very gifted as to the two most important portions of the exam for predicting my legal aptitude.

(Besides, diminishing marginal returns set in pretty quickly after 165. For example, the difference between 155 and 165 is much more significant than that between 165 and 175, let alone 170.)


While a 166 is an objectively good score,(93% aint bad, no matter what you're doing) its not good enough for the top top schools.
OP, if you actually managed to get a 166 and you skipped two games, stop posting on this thread, go on 7sage drill LG until you puke, retake the test, get a 170+ score, get a 4.0 and then go to a great school for a good price. LG is without a doubt the easiest section of the LSAT, and if you're as smart as you claim, you should have no problems destroying the test.

Also, in what possible world do you think its a good idea to post your FB on here. Adcoms routinely go to TLS. I'm not saying this WILL happen, but it could. They could stumble upon this thread, see what kind of elitist douche you are, and go "you know what, we don't need this kid." Seriously, you've referenced your HIGH SCHOOL AP classes to show to us how smart you are.... i mean goddam.

Are you gonna walk in to class on your first day of LS, plop down next to the kid sitting next to you in LRW and go..."soooooooooooo i got a 4 on my AP history exam, you're about to.... GO DOWN." You'll get laughed out of class. Oh, and in the real world, people value simplicity and directness. Your "elegant scalliac" writing skills will HURT you. Your boss doesn't want to open up a thesaurus every time he gets a memo from you. -_-

csprizzle38

New
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 10:29 am

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby csprizzle38 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:50 pm

gnomgnomuch wrote:
csprizzle38 wrote:
anyriotgirl wrote:I read all six pages of this but there is still one thing I haven't figured out. Where did you pick up the idea that 166 is a good LSAT score?


I'll rephrase the question: "Why am I proud of my LSAT ability?"

LSAC. They declare on page one of each test form that you should "treat each test as a separate mini-test." I've achieved perfect scores on *numerous* LR and RC sections. (As in 25/25 and 27/27.) I scored 166 in June *even though* I skipped over two Logic Games. That's what's inhibiting me from reaching 170.

Here's why I believe that one's performance on that section isn't a very meaningful barometer for one's legal aptitude: The difficulty of completing a LG derives from the fact you're totally unfamiliar with the premises from which you're expected to make immediate inferences. Which is why once you've memorized the rules, the inferences follow quickly and painlessly.

That's not very reflective of the "analytical skills" required to effectively spot and develop issues in an exam context. For in that context, you're (in theory, at least) intimately familiar with the rules from which you're expected to make inferences in light of the facts. And although students will inevitably produce their *outlines* with varying levels of efficiency, there's no reason why a motivated student who synthesizes new information at a marginally slower rate than her classmate who scored 23/23 on AR can't compensate by working marginally harder to nail it down at the end of the term. (This line of thought extends to private practice as well, for reasons so obvious I won't state them.)

If there's one defense for the section, it's that it does an OK job differentiating liberal arts majors with similar verbal skills on some type of "IQ metric" that adds a pinch of predictive validity. By the same token, though, LSAC could probably replace it with the GRE Quantitative and achieve statistically isomorphic outcomes.

In summary, I'm proud of my LSAT ability because I'm unquestionably very gifted as to the two most important portions of the exam for predicting my legal aptitude.

(Besides, diminishing marginal returns set in pretty quickly after 165. For example, the difference between 155 and 165 is much more significant than that between 165 and 175, let alone 170.)


While a 166 is an objectively good score,(93% aint bad, no matter what you're doing) its not good enough for the top top schools.
OP, if you actually managed to get a 166 and you skipped two games, stop posting on this thread, go on 7sage drill LG until you puke, retake the test, get a 170+ score, get a 4.0 and then go to a great school for a good price. LG is without a doubt the easiest section of the LSAT, and if you're as smart as you claim, you should have no problems destroying the test.

Also, in what possible world do you think its a good idea to post your FB on here. Adcoms routinely go to TLS. I'm not saying this WILL happen, but it could. They could stumble upon this thread, see what kind of elitist douche you are, and go "you know what, we don't need this kid." Seriously, you've referenced your HIGH SCHOOL AP classes to show to us how smart you are.... i mean goddam.

Are you gonna walk in to class on your first day of LS, plop down next to the kid sitting next to you in LRW and go..."soooooooooooo i got a 4 on my AP history exam, you're about to.... GO DOWN." You'll get laughed out of class. Oh, and in the real world, people value simplicity and directness. Your "elegant scalliac" writing skills will HURT you. Your boss doesn't want to open up a thesaurus every time he gets a memo from you. -_-


Hahahahahahahaha every sentence I've written has been from a DEFENSIVE standpoint! Are you kidding me?!! Unbelievable...

I should "bend over and take it" (pun intended) when people suggest I'm NOT SMART because of my sub-170 LSAT score and the fact I *unofficially withdrew* (as in *stopped attending*) community college... not fire back that I've had a few moments where my academic potential has shined through. Yep, I'm most definitely in the wrong.

Wow.

moralsentiments

Bronze
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 10:11 pm

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby moralsentiments » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:11 pm

4.) I think you're beginning from a faulty assumption: viz., that white law school admissions and URM law school admissions aren't distinctive. Since my viability as an applicant can be *independent* of my ability to assist my target school in the "numbers game," it stands to reason that soft factors---e.g., Phi Beta Kappa, summa cum laude, Honors College, student body president, homosexuality---can tip the scale. (This should shed light on my next point.)


Lol, believe me there's no faulty assumption here. I'm well aware how LS admissions differ for whites/asians/middle-easterns compared to that of blacks/hispanics. I agree that it's less of a numbers game for URM in that you're not really competing with your white counterparts. So yes, the more you have going for you competing against other blacks/hispanics is going to help. I just think (key word there, this is only my opinion) that phi beta kappa, etc. isn't as important as perhaps you think. When it comes down to it, and I'll preface what I'm about to say with an apology if it comes off as insensitive, law school adcomms want you because of your skin color. THAT'S your soft factor. The only one that really matters. So go ahead and get phi beta kappa, but I think you're actual GPA is what is going to be most important.

5.) I'm majoring in history because I think it will be the most intellectually stimulating way to gain induction to Phi Beta Kappa. It's my hope that the former will be interpreted as "rigorous" in light of the latter, despite the former not being a hard science.


It's not, and it won't.

6 and 7.) My LSAT score in June is on the low end of my range. It's also above the 25th percentiles at Virginia, Penn, and Michigan. :wink:


Again, as I said before
and since you're black it may be good enough for a lot of schools for which it would not normally be good enough, but why risk it
I thought this revealed my understanding of the difference between white and URM admissions, but either way I hold my position. If you're shooting for these schools, the other black kids shooting for these schools are likely going to have LSAT scores in your ballpark as well. Since the games section is where you're having the most difficulty, and you have 4 years to get a better score, why not do it? If you hit over 170 (which seems possible considering what you've said), then do it. You'll increase your chances of merit aid, and likely open doors to even higher ranked schools sans HYS that might be a better fit. Who knows? I apologize if I'm misreading things, but you're reluctance and your reasoning for said reluctance comes off as lazy. It implies to me that since as a URM you can get into schools with a lower LSAT than your white counterparts, that you should just ride that train and not work to improve your score. It feeds into the bullshit notion that URMs can't score as high on the LSAT. It's crap, you can clearly score just as high if not higher than many (you're already at 93rd %). Man up (or woman up, whatever), retake the LSAT and knock it out of the park. You have 4 years for Christ's sake.
Last edited by moralsentiments on Sat Jan 27, 2018 6:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
gnomgnomuch

Silver
Posts: 540
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:34 pm

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby gnomgnomuch » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:21 pm

csprizzle38 wrote:
gnomgnomuch wrote:
csprizzle38 wrote:
anyriotgirl wrote:I read all six pages of this but there is still one thing I haven't figured out. Where did you pick up the idea that 166 is a good LSAT score?


I'll rephrase the question: "Why am I proud of my LSAT ability?"

LSAC. They declare on page one of each test form that you should "treat each test as a separate mini-test." I've achieved perfect scores on *numerous* LR and RC sections. (As in 25/25 and 27/27.) I scored 166 in June *even though* I skipped over two Logic Games. That's what's inhibiting me from reaching 170.

Here's why I believe that one's performance on that section isn't a very meaningful barometer for one's legal aptitude: The difficulty of completing a LG derives from the fact you're totally unfamiliar with the premises from which you're expected to make immediate inferences. Which is why once you've memorized the rules, the inferences follow quickly and painlessly.

That's not very reflective of the "analytical skills" required to effectively spot and develop issues in an exam context. For in that context, you're (in theory, at least) intimately familiar with the rules from which you're expected to make inferences in light of the facts. And although students will inevitably produce their *outlines* with varying levels of efficiency, there's no reason why a motivated student who synthesizes new information at a marginally slower rate than her classmate who scored 23/23 on AR can't compensate by working marginally harder to nail it down at the end of the term. (This line of thought extends to private practice as well, for reasons so obvious I won't state them.)

If there's one defense for the section, it's that it does an OK job differentiating liberal arts majors with similar verbal skills on some type of "IQ metric" that adds a pinch of predictive validity. By the same token, though, LSAC could probably replace it with the GRE Quantitative and achieve statistically isomorphic outcomes.

In summary, I'm proud of my LSAT ability because I'm unquestionably very gifted as to the two most important portions of the exam for predicting my legal aptitude.

(Besides, diminishing marginal returns set in pretty quickly after 165. For example, the difference between 155 and 165 is much more significant than that between 165 and 175, let alone 170.)


While a 166 is an objectively good score,(93% aint bad, no matter what you're doing) its not good enough for the top top schools.
OP, if you actually managed to get a 166 and you skipped two games, stop posting on this thread, go on 7sage drill LG until you puke, retake the test, get a 170+ score, get a 4.0 and then go to a great school for a good price. LG is without a doubt the easiest section of the LSAT, and if you're as smart as you claim, you should have no problems destroying the test.

Also, in what possible world do you think its a good idea to post your FB on here. Adcoms routinely go to TLS. I'm not saying this WILL happen, but it could. They could stumble upon this thread, see what kind of elitist douche you are, and go "you know what, we don't need this kid." Seriously, you've referenced your HIGH SCHOOL AP classes to show to us how smart you are.... i mean goddam.

Are you gonna walk in to class on your first day of LS, plop down next to the kid sitting next to you in LRW and go..."soooooooooooo i got a 4 on my AP history exam, you're about to.... GO DOWN." You'll get laughed out of class. Oh, and in the real world, people value simplicity and directness. Your "elegant scalliac" writing skills will HURT you. Your boss doesn't want to open up a thesaurus every time he gets a memo from you. -_-


Hahahahahahahaha every sentence I've written has been from a DEFENSIVE standpoint! Are you kidding me?!! Unbelievable...

I should "bend over and take it" (pun intended) when people suggest I'm NOT SMART because of my sub-170 LSAT score and the fact I *unofficially withdrew* (as in *stopped attending*) community college... not fire back that I've had a few moments where my academic potential has shined through. Yep, I'm most definitely in the wrong.

Wow.


I never suggested you're not smart, i suggested you're trying too hard to show everyone how SMART you are. Dude, you withdrew from CC, if you don't want people to judge you for that, don't bring it up. I'm not judging you poorly because you have a sub 170 LSAT or because you withdrew from CC, but because you're arguing with people, who at first had your best interests at heart. Instead of shutting up and listening to people who have proven themselves, you launch into prose about how PBK/SUMMA will vault you into the top tier of schools, YET, you have yet to do anything to prove to us that you're capable of doing so.

Also, you're not owed anything. No-one will care if you're black and gay. It makes for a good PS/DS, nothing more. Sure your URM status will boost you above your numbers, but your GPA wont be higher than a 3.4, which precludes you from the top schools.

You haven't even started COLLEGE, and you're talking about how you're gonna be working at Cravath, and becoming an EQUITY partner. There's a 70% chance you wont even make it to your 4th year in Big-Law. You have to bring business into a firm to have even a shot at making partner (forget equity), and with your social skills people wont want to help you out/work with you.

User avatar
Flips88

Diamond
Posts: 15246
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:42 pm

Re: 166 cc dropout looking to turn it around in 4 year college

Postby Flips88 » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:26 pm

gnomgnomuch wrote:
You haven't even started COLLEGE, and you're talking about how you're gonna be working at Cravath, and becoming an EQUITY partner.

Hey bro, don't put words in his mouth. He only said he'll be equity partner "at a slightly lesser firm if not Cravath." He's managing expectations.



Return to “What are my chances??

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest