Thomas Cooley or Texas Wesleyan? Forum

[minnbills]

Those who are born and bred for success and achievement crush the LSAT. You either have it or you don't.

[Bilqis]

I beg to differ here..

Most of you try to portray the LSAT as this test that only those especially endowed can score high in and those who "haven't got it" are alas helpless and nothing much can be done. It's really just a skill that with dogged perseverance can be surely acquired if not perfected. I know this for a fact from personal experience and have read so many stories that corroborate this. Many who thought it was helpless ended up scoring in the 99%.

I can tell why your score is low.
generalizing from small/unrepresentative sample size?

I don't think 160 on my first attempt that I didn't even prepare for is low. I would counter your accusation by saying that you formed a judgement based upon unavailable data and hence won't predictably fare all that well.

Anyway you also overlooked how I am addressing the downers here hence it is perfectly consistent to consider them representative given that they constitute 90% of the respondents.

Peace

[Mr. Pancakes]

[Tiago Splitter]

I beg to differ here..

Most of you try to portray the LSAT as this test that only those especially endowed can score high in and those who "haven't got it" are alas helpless and nothing much can be done. It's really just a skill that with dogged perseverance can be surely acquired if not perfected. I know this for a fact from personal experience and have read so many stories that corroborate this. Many who thought it was helpless ended up scoring in the 99%.

?

There is a reason why "retake" is such a common refrain. If the test was about natural intelligence only retaking would provide no benefit.

[Nova]

I don't think 160 on my first attempt that I didn't even prepare for is low.

Says the poster considering Cooley and Tex Wes.

[Mr. Pancakes]

I don't think 160 on my first attempt that I didn't even prepare for is low.

Says the poster considering Cooley and Tex Wes.

there's no fucking way you would have a 160 and "high" gpa and still be considering either of these schools.

[dowu]

[dowu]

I beg to differ here..

Most of you try to portray the LSAT as this test that only those especially endowed can score high in and those who "haven't got it" are alas helpless and nothing much can be done. It's really just a skill that with dogged perseverance can be surely acquired if not perfected. I know this for a fact from personal experience and have read so many stories that corroborate this. Many who thought it was helpless ended up scoring in the 99%.

I can tell why your score is low.
generalizing from small/unrepresentative sample size?

I don't think 160 on my first attempt that I didn't even prepare for is low. I would counter your accusation by saying that you formed a judgement based upon unavailable data and hence won't predictably fare all that well.

Anyway you also overlooked how I am addressing the downers here hence it is perfectly consistent to consider them representative given that they constitute 90% of the respondents.

Peace

5 dollars says you'll be back, troll.

[Bilqis]

Yes 160, is it a big deal?

I see it as a disappointing score.

I have 3.9 GPA.

I have no idea Cooley or Wesleyan are that bad, I applied to several schools and I have yet to hear from them. Those were unusually quick in getting back to me.

I am aiming for 175+.

Don't be needlessly mean.

[splitbrain]

Yes 160, is it a big deal?

I see it as a disappointing score.

I have 3.9 GPA.

I have no idea Cooley or Wesleyan are that bad, I applied to several schools and I have yet to hear from them. Those were unusually quick in getting back to me.

I am aiming for 175+.

Don't be needlessly mean.

I wouldn't call that "needless" based on your posts and intentions.

ETA: Trolls are the piñatas of the internets, anyway.

[dowu]

Yes 160, is it a big deal?

I see it as a disappointing score.

I have 3.9 GPA.

I have no idea Cooley or Wesleyan are that bad, I applied to several schools and I have yet to hear from them. Those were unusually quick in getting back to me.

I am aiming for 175+.

Don't be needlessly mean.

Okay, so with a 160 LSAT, you should be shooting for top law schools listed in the "TLS STATS" link above. Other than that, don't waste your GPA or your time/money.

[TyrionLannister]

I must get into a law school as quickly as possible.

Why? Simply because of this?

I live with 4 roommates and they are as annoying as hell

But also considering this:

I just moved into a new city

and

when I start university my living conditions would change

Are you just wanting to start law school asap because of hating your new roommates? Assuming that you aren't being forced to live there, why not get a new apartment?
Also adding to the confusion is this statement:

who could honestly study with somebody living with you in the same room?

Followed in rather short manner by this:

I study an average of 5 hours a day, sometimes 8, no exaggeration.

Which leads me to think that you actually CAN find the time to better your career path, but you simply want to take an easier, ill-advised way out.

Basically, as it reads ITT, you want to start at law school right away, because the two aforementioned schools are ready to provide you with a full ride this fall?

I understand that your plan is this:

I intend to transfer after a year, provided of course that I score in the top 5% , to Duke.

But this advice should really sway you:

I'm at a T14, the admissions dean once told me and a couple other students that she receives dozens of transfer applications from Cooley each and every year...she doesn't exactly look kindly on these applicants. I imagine deans at other T-14's, including Duke, would take a similar approach.

and since that non-transfering alternative is dropping out, and since this would happen:

I'm not sure you want to have dropping out of Cooley on your record.

Then you should really just retake, reapply, move out, perhaps find a job that allows you to live in an apartment with fewer than 4 roommates, and enjoy the benefits that a 3.9 GPA and a decent retake LSAT score will provide.

And if you simply must go to Cooley or Wesleyan, because you have to, have to , HAVE TO go to law school ASAP!!

...Well then, I guess the only thing left to say is this:

Don't. Please.

In all seriousness, retake and reapply. Don't waste your 3.9

[Bilqis]

Tyrion..

I was truly impressed by how intelligent and considerate your answer was, thank you.

The situation is as I described, yes I study 5 to 8 hours a day but they are without the needed focus and with much strain.

I understand that Cooley is so utterly bad that one better not go to law school at all than go there, even for free. I got that clearly now. So I will probably move out and re-take the LSAT on June or October if necessary.

Indeed why should I settle for anything less than a top school, I am the top of my class and all that I have raised are trivial objections.

Again thank you!

[mattviphky]

I beg to differ here..

Most of you try to portray the LSAT as this test that only those especially endowed can score high in and those who "haven't got it" are alas helpless and nothing much can be done. It's really just a skill that with dogged perseverance can be surely acquired if not perfected. I know this for a fact from personal experience and have read so many stories that corroborate this. Many who thought it was helpless ended up scoring in the 99%.

I'm honestly confused about why you feel this way. I think most, if not all, people say that the test is definitely about studying and perseverance. Look in the lsat prep thread, and you'll see everyone talking about how they are studying to improve their score. My first pt was a 153, but I got it up to a 172 after over 5 months of studying; many people share similar stories on this site.

[SaintsTheMetal]

Texas Wesleyan with ties and a full ride doesn't seem too bad.. you'll more likely than not find some kind of work.

[1776]

Not real

[Bilqis]

I beg to differ here..

Most of you try to portray the LSAT as this test that only those especially endowed can score high in and those who "haven't got it" are alas helpless and nothing much can be done. It's really just a skill that with dogged perseverance can be surely acquired if not perfected. I know this for a fact from personal experience and have read so many stories that corroborate this. Many who thought it was helpless ended up scoring in the 99%.

I'm honestly confused about why you feel this way. I think most, if not all, people say that the test is definitely about studying and perseverance. Look in the lsat prep thread, and you'll see everyone talking about how they are studying to improve their score. My first pt was a 153, but I got it up to a 172 after over 5 months of studying; many people share similar stories on this site.

It shouldn't be confusing to you if you read most of the answers posted, especially the one with the olympic gold medalist.

Your story is inspiring, thank you for sharing, this is my belief, the LSAT is merely a skill, like learning how to ride a bike or a new language, you have no idea what you are doing at first but sure enough pattern and consistency materialize.