Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=117610
The application process was VERY kind to you, dear OP. Sorry you had to stay on some waitlists for a while and listen to schools talk about public interest, though. Also, that part about staying on waitlists through the fall, again rough. I think you should stay at Chicago (or Boalt, or NYU, though). Seems rough.whuts4lunch wrote:I started to empathize, then I looked at your profile. You got accepted by two T6 schools with a 168 3.6 . It seems like the application process was quite kind to you.
The waiting was pretty ridiculous. Having to put on your application your GPA, LSAT, and other info that is readily available on the LSDAS report for every school was annoying.
LMAO I wonder in all the history of ls apps if someone actually tried this! Or got their (single) parent to. lolKMaine wrote:The application process was VERY kind to you, dear OP. Sorry you had to stay on some waitlists for a while and listen to schools talk about public interest, though. Also, that part about staying on waitlists through the fall, again rough. I think you should stay at Chicago (or Boalt, or NYU, though). Seems rough.whuts4lunch wrote:I started to empathize, then I looked at your profile. You got accepted by two T6 schools with a 168 3.6 . It seems like the application process was quite kind to you.
The waiting was pretty ridiculous. Having to put on your application your GPA, LSAT, and other info that is readily available on the LSDAS report for every school was annoying.
To answer your question more directly, my least favorite part was sleepling with Admissions officers in order to get into schools that my numbers indicate I have no business applying to. They are very demanding in bed.
Ladies and gentleman, your boalt class of 2013Daytukrjabs wrote:Let's unleash some bullshit experiences with this app process.
I'm extremely pissed at the level of contempt law schools have for the applicants. I recently heard back from one law school after having gone complete for more than 6 months. They had said initially not to contact them for status updates because it will only hinder your progress, and that they will do their best to reach a decision asap. Well, their first deposit deadline was May 1st, and I didn't get accepted until yesterday. I wasn't happy about it either.
Waitlists. After months and months of waiting, some schools have the nerves to waitlist you some more and put this line in the letter: "You may be granted admission up to the first day of class." They expect us to put our lives on hold, burn bridges with current school, and fly across the country in 24 hour notice to attend theirs at a sticker price.
I wish law schools would stop their dishonest PR about public interest/service program bullshit. They know nobody follows through with it and their PI program office is just a phone and a monkey anyway. Who in the right mind will go to law school on a 6 figure debt and work a mid 5 figure job?
We are just GPA/LSAT numbers. This becomes more obvious and true as you go up the rankings. No debate/contest here.
Um, ignorant?Daytukrjabs wrote:I wish law schools would stop their dishonest PR about public interest/service program bullshit. They know nobody follows through with it and their PI program office is just a phone and a monkey anyway. Who in the right mind will go to law school on a 6 figure debt and work a mid 5 figure job?
TITCR. Except we as applicants feed this beast by basing our decisions so heavily on USNWR rankings. Which in turn are fueled by the numbers which in turn fuels the admissions system we hate so much...bschroeder wrote:One thing that really frustrated me was the mantra that most law schools put on their admissions pages about how they look at the whole person and in most cases look past the numbers for really strong candidates. But, I think we can all agree at this point that the LSAT/GPA make up about 95% (or some overwhelming majority) of their decisions about an applicant.
Dude, not to pick on you but.. Im quite poor (fee waiver poor) and was able to buy enough material to do well pretty easily. All you need is 10-15 Pts @ $10 or so each(Amazon has like a 4 for 3 deal usually) and the two bibles along with the free Superprep. I also bought a used mastery book that I basically never used for anything besides games.. cost me a grand total of maybe $250 and that was all new, plenty of stuff can be found used.quishiclocus wrote:Six-figure debt for a mid-five-figure job doesn't sound too bad to me, after having had friends who went to $30k/year+ undergrads for four years for liberal arts just to end up unemployed or working jobs they could have had without a degree at all.
I'm frustrated by how easy it is to basically buy a better LSAT score. The whole fee waiver thing is great and all, but three whole free practice tests out of how many? I had to put my other practice tests on my credit card, which does not make me a happy camper, but I don't even know what I would have done if I didn't have that avenue available. Not to mention the Bibles, courses, tutoring, etc, that I can't even manage. It's like a pat on the head to poor applicants, make people feel like they have an even chance when they don't.
PT's should be online for free in PDF format.quishiclocus wrote:Six-figure debt for a mid-five-figure job doesn't sound too bad to me, after having had friends who went to $30k/year+ undergrads for four years for liberal arts just to end up unemployed or working jobs they could have had without a degree at all.
I'm frustrated by how easy it is to basically buy a better LSAT score. The whole fee waiver thing is great and all, but three whole free practice tests out of how many? I had to put my other practice tests on my credit card, which does not make me a happy camper, but I don't even know what I would have done if I didn't have that avenue available. Not to mention the Bibles, courses, tutoring, etc, that I can't even manage. It's like a pat on the head to poor applicants, make people feel like they have an even chance when they don't.
Fixed.Desert Fox wrote:
PT's should be online LEGALLY for free in PDF format.
nycparalegal wrote:I think I'm most pissed to find out that the 25% score is really the 1% score for law schools. The cost of sending out all those applications and not actually having a shot pissed me off.
there's no question that numbers play a big role in their decisions, but there's not really any reason that the 'whole person' of someone with sub-par numbers would be better than the 'whole person' of someone with good numbers.....why not take the person with higher numbers, then?bschroeder wrote:One thing that really frustrated me was the mantra that most law schools put on their admissions pages about how they look at the whole person and in most cases look past the numbers for really strong candidates. But, I think we can all agree at this point that the LSAT/GPA make up about 95% (or some overwhelming majority) of their decisions about an applicant.
I agree with you that the LSAT is not a sure predictor of success in law school. But I also think there are many, many people with sub par numbers that aren't great with standardized tests and would flourish in law school but are kept out because of their numbers (specifically the LSAT). I just think that instead of some law schools saying that they aren't as concerned with the numbers of applicants, they should just be honest and about it and say (for example) "we weigh your LSAT by a measure of 50%, your GPA by 30% and your personal statement/LOR's by 20%." That way, at least applicants will have a better sense for how the admissions committee will view each applicant. And I realize that every law school varies in what goals they have and/or look for in applicants, but my experience has been that the numbers seem to matter more than they tend to let on in.somewhatwayward wrote:there's no question that numbers play a big role in their decisions, but there's not really any reason that the 'whole person' of someone with sub-par numbers would be better than the 'whole person' of someone with good numbers.....why not take the person with higher numbers, then?bschroeder wrote:One thing that really frustrated me was the mantra that most law schools put on their admissions pages about how they look at the whole person and in most cases look past the numbers for really strong candidates. But, I think we can all agree at this point that the LSAT/GPA make up about 95% (or some overwhelming majority) of their decisions about an applicant.
in most cases, people overestimate how special their storyand/or softs are. we do see cases of people who outperform what their numbers predict, and those are usually the people who truly do have unique stories or softs.....but the vast majority of people don't.....so it is not that the schools aren't considering the 'whole person'....it is just that there aren't many times when one person's character is clearly better than another's
Doubly funny considering the number of people with appreciably better numbers than yours who were waitlisted or rejected outright at the highest-ranked schools that admitted you.Daytukrjabs wrote:We are just GPA/LSAT numbers. This becomes more obvious and true as you go up the rankings. No debate/contest here.
I don't know the first thing about LSAC's revenue or expenses, but +1.Desert Fox wrote: PT's should be online for free in PDF format.
What do you mean SHOULD be?Desert Fox wrote: PT's should be online for free in PDF format.