Top Law Schools

rookhawk wrote:Friends,

I provide you with a reason NOT to promptly withdraw your applications from Tier-1 schools EVEN IF you don't have any intention of going to those programs.

The reasoning is as follows:

1. If you do not withdraw promptly it means that your spot will be relinquished to another student in the later stages of the waiting period. During this period the non-traditional students with tenacity will be fighting against the slightly higher scoring students also left in consideration. At that point, the lower scoring people with better softs stand a better chance of getting into the programs. This is a win for those with tenacity and a loss for some of the higher GPA/LSAT people. This will result in the median scores of the institution you decided not to attend will potentially go down. This effect may push YOUR program you do accept to have a higher median score of admits than the scores at the schools you were accepted into but didn't enroll. A net effect is you are pushing the scores up at your school (by enrolling) while providing an opportunity for the scores of enrollees at the schools you don't attend to go down.

In the end, it provides a win for those of us with tenacity (increased acceptance odds) while decreasing the scores of schools you didn't attend which should benefit your program credibility/ranking when you go on to look for a job.

It also benefits the tenacious low-scorers who get to defy those with higher grades during the waitlist period insuring that more enthusiastic people get into law in lieu of those with solely good standardized test scores.

WIN / WIN (and the only losers are the "pretty good" students that can't close the deal during waitlist periods)

newyorker88 wrote:Are you serious with this foolishness or just bored tonight?

newyorker88 wrote:

rookhawk wrote:Friends,

I provide you with a reason NOT to promptly withdraw your applications from Tier-1 schools EVEN IF you don't have any intention of going to those programs.

The reasoning is as follows:

1. If you do not withdraw promptly it means that your spot will be relinquished to another student in the later stages of the waiting period. During this period the non-traditional students with tenacity will be fighting against the slightly higher scoring students also left in consideration. At that point, the lower scoring people with better softs stand a better chance of getting into the programs. This is a win for those with tenacity and a loss for some of the higher GPA/LSAT people. This will result in the median scores of the institution you decided not to attend will potentially go down. This effect may push YOUR program you do accept to have a higher median score of admits than the scores at the schools you were accepted into but didn't enroll. A net effect is you are pushing the scores up at your school (by enrolling) while providing an opportunity for the scores of enrollees at the schools you don't attend to go down.

In the end, it provides a win for those of us with tenacity (increased acceptance odds) while decreasing the scores of schools you didn't attend which should benefit your program credibility/ranking when you go on to look for a job.

It also benefits the tenacious low-scorers who get to defy those with higher grades during the waitlist period insuring that more enthusiastic people get into law in lieu of those with solely good standardized test scores.

WIN / WIN (and the only losers are the "pretty good" students that can't close the deal during waitlist periods)

Are you serious with this foolishness or just bored tonight?

vanwinkle wrote:

newyorker88 wrote:Are you serious with this foolishness or just bored tonight?

He rambled about this theory in another thread earlier tonight. I think he's stupid enough to actually think this would accomplish something.

vanwinkle wrote:--ImageRemoved--

rookhawk wrote:Thank you all for concluding my test. (I won a dollar for this)

I wagered someone that the average law school applicant would be more offended by someone entering with powerful soft skills than they would if someone with more equivocal grades got into a program.

The argument was that people are threatened by those that are different...that their grades being inferior gets them into the same peer group may reflect that there is more to success than grades and that perhaps the original applicant's emphasis on their stats is somehow marginalized. (similar to the proveable bias on TLS against URMs getting into programs with different stats)

Any socialogists wish to chime in on this gentleman's wager at TLS poster's expense?

rookhawk wrote:That would be what LSAT would call "source argument" flaw in reasoning:

"drawing a conclusion about the merit of a position and the content of a position based solely upon the character of the person espousing the opinion"

rookhawk wrote:Before I hand the $1 back, please enumerate why the argument is flawed (no need to argue against the conclusion that was drawn to win the bet because that was agreed before the wager was set)

So far we have people very alarmed at the result of the argument, not the logical benefit to the person not withdrawing.

vanwinkle wrote:

newyorker88 wrote:Are you serious with this foolishness or just bored tonight?

He rambled about this theory in another thread earlier tonight. I think he's stupid enough to actually think this would accomplish something.

Cupidity wrote:Dear OP,

Screw You

Sincerely,
A "pretty good" student