Top Law Schools

I am going to apply to Widener because my LSAT is so bad (155). Is this a good idea. MY dad's friend is a judge in Philadelphia and he went to Widener.

Philosopher King wrote:I am going to apply to Widener because my LSAT is so bad (155). Is this a good idea. MY dad's friend is a judge in Philadelphia and he went to Widener.

Applying isn't a bad idea, it's the attending that's the issue...

.

justinp wrote:

Philosopher King wrote:I am going to apply to Widener because my LSAT is so bad (155). Is this a good idea. MY dad's friend is a judge in Philadelphia and he went to Widener.

Retake the LSAT. You're not going to get into anywhere worth going with a 155. I guarantee you that you can get a much better score if you put some actual effort into it.

Widener is a ticket to lifelong debt slavery.

I did put some "actual effort" into it. It's a dumb test that means nothing and I'm not going to let it control what I do. Screw LSAC. I can't wait until next cycle to apply, I just can't. Either I go to law school now or never. I have too much dignity to play this sadistic LSAT game with pathetic losers that think it should actually matter for law school admissions. I am going to look into suing LSAC for violating the ADA.

Philosopher King wrote:Either I go to law school now or never.

The latter, then.

Philosopher King wrote: I am going to look into suing LSAC for violating the ADA.

Sounds like a winning plan.

Philosopher King wrote:

justinp wrote:

Philosopher King wrote:I am going to apply to Widener because my LSAT is so bad (155). Is this a good idea. MY dad's friend is a judge in Philadelphia and he went to Widener.

Retake the LSAT. You're not going to get into anywhere worth going with a 155. I guarantee you that you can get a much better score if you put some actual effort into it.

Widener is a ticket to lifelong debt slavery.

I did put some "actual effort" into it. It's a dumb test that means nothing and I'm not going to let it control what I do. Screw LSAC. I can't wait until next cycle to apply, I just can't. Either I go to law school now or never. I have too much dignity to play this sadistic LSAT game with pathetic losers that think it should actually matter for law school admissions. I am going to look into suing LSAC for violating the ADA.

lol.

tagged for lolz

Nelson wrote:

Philosopher King wrote: I am going to look into suing LSAC for violating the ADA.

Sounds like a winning plan.

Well the unjust status quo sure as hell isn't winning anything either. LSAC is breaking the law and I'm going to try to hold them accountable for it.

Philosopher King wrote:
Well the unjust status quo sure as hell isn't winning anything either. LSAC is breaking the law and I'm going to try to hold them accountable for it.

I think you should go start an Occupy LSAC camp. That'll show 'em!

fundamentallybroken wrote:

Philosopher King wrote:
Well the unjust status quo sure as hell isn't winning anything either. LSAC is breaking the law and I'm going to try to hold them accountable for it.

I think you should go start an Occupy LSAC camp. That'll show 'em!

Yeah well I actually respected the Occupy cretin more than I do the LSAC people. Unfortunately LSAC gets away with what they do because it's such a small percentage of the population that is victimized. We're not the "99%" exactly, if you know what I mean. Within that small group of victims, almost everyone either agrees with LSAC (some on here want to shower them with presents for the -14 curve for example) or has been conditioned to accept unjust circumstances because they beleive change cannot be affected. But I have the better arguments and that's what's important to me. LSAC couldn't win an argument with me in court.

Philosopher King wrote:]But I have the better arguments and that's what's important to me. LSAC couldn't win an argument with me in court.

Go on...

The chief public defender in my county went to Weidner as well... about three decades ago. There was a time when paying to go to Weidner was a defensible proposition but that time has passed. The people in this thread aren't advising you in the kindest way but they are correct.

It's my "dream" to go to law school too but if I don't get into the right schools with the right amount of money I'm going to have to forgo that dream. It's something everyone applying to law schools would be wise to accept.

I understand it sucks to give up on something you wanted but there are other career options out there for you that you can find fulfillment in. Good luck with everything.

And if you don't want to give up, study and get an amazing score on your retake

MrPapagiorgio wrote:

Philosopher King wrote:]But I have the better arguments and that's what's important to me. LSAC couldn't win an argument with me in court.

Go on...

What? With my arguments? I said a lot about this in the Dec. 2011 waiting thread on the last few pages. This thread is about Widener and I really want some opinions about that. I have several different families of arguments against LSAC. The only ones I would ever make in a real court are, of course the legal arguments. See the Dec. 2011 waiting thread for more of my arguments. pp. 491-496 is good.

But here is my argument against LSAC about their illegal behavior:

My argument against LSAC is that accommodations must be given in order to counteract a disability and ADA accommodations are not given to give the person an advantage but rather to take away or at least diminish an unfair disadvantage. That's a big difference. On the DRBA website is says that the ADA says that "For a test-taker with sensory, manual or speech impairments, the test provider must ensure that the examination is selected and administered 'so as to best ensure that' the examination results accurately reflect the individual's aptititude or achievement level or whatever other factor the examination purports to measure, rather than reflecting the [disability]." Well, by telling law schools that your test results should be interpreted differently than other test-takers, they are, in effect, making sure that your disability is reflected. What results could possibly reflect a disability more than ones that come with a letter saying to interpret them as lesser than other scores because the person got accommodations to diminish the effect of his or her disability. It's blatantly illegal it seems and the LSAC pinheads think they can get away with it. I would love to change that.

TommyK wrote:tagged for lolz

ETA: I really think the 155 is going to be the problem here, not the asterisk indicating you got an accomodated score. Retake or don't go.

Average hefeweizen at best.

No13baby wrote:

TommyK wrote:tagged for lolz

ETA: I really think the 155 is going to be the problem here, not the asterisk indicating you got an accomodated score. Retake or don't go.

I didn't get accommodations precisely because I was dissuaded by LSAC's illegal practices.

Philosopher King wrote:

No13baby wrote:

TommyK wrote:tagged for lolz

ETA: I really think the 155 is going to be the problem here, not the asterisk indicating you got an accomodated score. Retake or don't go.

I didn't get accommodations precisely because I was dissuaded by LSAC's illegal practices.

Well, there's your problem. You know that accomodated scores aren't used to calculate schools' medians, right? If you think you'd do better with an accomodated score, retake with accomodations. Jesus.

No13baby wrote:Well, there's your problem. You know that accomodated [sic] scores aren't used to calculate schools' medians, right? If you think you'd do better with an accomodated [sic] score, retake with accomodations [sic]. Jesus.

This is good information. If this is true then my case against LSAC is strengthened greatly.

Philosopher King wrote:

No13baby wrote:Well, there's your problem. You know that accomodated [sic] scores aren't used to calculate schools' medians, right? If you think you'd do better with an accomodated [sic] score, retake with accomodations [sic]. Jesus.

This is good information. If this is true then my case against LSAC is strengthened greatly.

You're an uninteresting troll. Strive harder.

.

justinp wrote:

Philosopher King wrote:

justinp wrote:

Philosopher King wrote:I am going to apply to Widener because my LSAT is so bad (155). Is this a good idea. MY dad's friend is a judge in Philadelphia and he went to Widener.

Retake the LSAT. You're not going to get into anywhere worth going with a 155. I guarantee you that you can get a much better score if you put some actual effort into it.

Widener is a ticket to lifelong debt slavery.

I did put some "actual effort" into it. It's a dumb test that means nothing and I'm not going to let it control what I do. Screw LSAC. I can't wait until next cycle to apply, I just can't. Either I go to law school now or never. I have too much dignity to play this sadistic LSAT game with pathetic losers that think it should actually matter for law school admissions. I am going to look into suing LSAC for violating the ADA.

Is trolling? Or is serious?

What do you mean? Why are people saying I'm a troll?

Philosopher King wrote: I did put some "actual effort" into it. It's a dumb test that means nothing and I'm not going to let it control what I do. Screw LSAC. I can't wait until next cycle to apply, I just can't. Either I go to law school now or never. I have too much dignity to play this sadistic LSAT game with pathetic losers that think it should actually matter for law school admissions. I am going to look into suing LSAC for violating the ADA.

--ImageRemoved--













But seriously, don't go to Widener. If you really have a disability, test with accommodations. You can't complain until you actually apply and get denied. Even if you actually were going to sue LSAC, which would hardly be the first time someone tried this, there's something known as the "case or controversy" requirement. It means unless you actually did apply for accommodations and get denied, you wouldn't even have standing to sue.

If you plan on working in Delaware and can get a scholarship then it isn't a bad choice. But Widener isn't going much further than Delaware and Philadelphia. Nonetheless it is very expensive (36k) a year and without a sizeable scholarship I would advice against it. You can certainly do well coming from Widener but you're going to need to do well with your grades. My advice would be to take the time to retake and put the effort into studying because the LSAT is the only thing you can control right now. Why risk it on the hopes of getting top grades when you can put that effort into the LSAT for June or February. I sat out a year and was pretty much in your exact shoes last year. I was going to attend Widener at full sticker and thought better of it. Retook in October and received a 20k/year scholarship. Unless I end up negotiating a full ride, I doubt I will end up there but waiting a year has only benefited me and I recommend you don't rush into law school without a solid game plan.

Some advice from a 1L at Widener. I would start by disregarding the form posts of, T4 and $ XXX,XXX of debt. Make the choice that is the best for you, irrespective of the opinions of anonymous internet posters. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.