Top Law Schools

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 am**

X asks his / her chances, X has good GPA but lower than 172 LSAT.

Unanimous TLS opinion #1: YHS is out.
Unanimous TLS opinion #2: Unless it is Nobel prize caliber, softs do not matter.

Paradox: HLS accepts ~220 people with lower than 170/171 LSAT score (25% percentile). Nobel prize is awarded in 6 categories, and except for peace, a maximum of 3 people can receive the award in a category in a year. (6*3 = 18) Assuming there are no people receiving Nobels during undergraduate and everyone applying to law school do so within 12 years of completing undergraduate, there are exactly (18*12 = 216) Nobel prize winners.

Which one of the following resolves the apparent paradox above?

a - The 25th percentile of HLS consists of every Nobel prize winner of the last 12 years.
b - TLS is wrong. (Somebody is wrong on the internet)
c - HLS is a lie. (So is cake)
d - Screenshots or it didn't happen.
e - None of the above.

Thanks!

(BEFORE A STORM OF AD HOMINEM, I DID NOT TAKE THE LSAT YET, HENCE I AM NOT THE X IN QUESTION)

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:03 am**

You're distorting the advice TLS gives and for what -- lulz? Ridiculous thread.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:10 am**

miamiman wrote:You're distorting the advice TLS gives and for what -- lulz? Ridiculous thread.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:14 am**

Where exactly is the distortion? Indeed I made this thread for lulz, but the replies confused me a bit, you claim the two TLS opinions I referred to are not meant to be used together or what exactly?

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:18 am**

nullisecundus wrote:Where exactly is the distortion? Indeed I made this thread for lulz

I stopped caring enough to respond here.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:19 am**

nullisecundus wrote:Where exactly is the distortion?

nullisecundus wrote: Unanimous TLS opinion #2: Unless it is Nobel prize caliber, softs do not matter.

I understand your grievances, but the above is a pretty obvious distortion.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:19 am**

As far as percentiles go, there is no difference between the case where the entire bottom 25% of the class has a 171 and the case where the bottom 24% has a 170 or lower but the next person has a 171. The truth is somewhere in between and unknowable (other than to HLS admissions staff), but that accounts for at least part of the discrepancy.

Also, URM.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:20 am**

You aren't as smart or clever as you think you are.

hi cc

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:21 am**

nullisecundus wrote:Where exactly is the distortion? Indeed I made this thread for lulz, but the replies confused me a bit, you claim the two TLS opinions I referred to are not meant to be used together or what exactly?

People are going to base their advice on probability. Especially if someone isn't a URM, the chances of being part of that lower 25th percentile is slim.

At best, it's a total crapshoot — if Harvard wanted, they could fill another few classes with students above that 25th percentile, and they have an enormous number of applicants to choose from with approximately 25th percentile numbers to fill those extremely limited spots. So telling someone they have a good chance would be awful advice.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:48 am**

oakroom wrote:Also, URM.

Plus, where did the 220 people come from? I think Harvard selects around 550 people each year, not 880, so the lower-than-25% would be closer to 140 or something.

Also, define "good" GPA. Harvard's median is 3.89. I have not seen that many people on here with 170~172 LSAT and 3.89+ GPA.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:32 pm**

880~ = Accepted
550~ = Enrolled

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:29 pm**

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:35 pm**

nullisecundus wrote:X asks his / her chances, X has good GPA but lower than 172 LSAT.

Unanimous TLS opinion #1: YHS is out.
Unanimous TLS opinion #2: Unless it is Nobel prize caliber, softs do not matter.

Paradox: HLS accepts ~220 people with lower than 170/171 LSAT score (25% percentile). Nobel prize is awarded in 6 categories, and except for peace, a maximum of 3 people can receive the award in a category in a year. (6*3 = 18) Assuming there are no people receiving Nobels during undergraduate and everyone applying to law school do so within 12 years of completing undergraduate, there are exactly (18*12 = 216) Nobel prize winners.

Which one of the following resolves the apparent paradox above?

a - The 25th percentile of HLS consists of every Nobel prize winner of the last 12 years.
b - TLS is wrong. (Somebody is wrong on the internet)
c - HLS is a lie. (So is cake)
d - Screenshots or it didn't happen.
e - None of the above.

Thanks!

(BEFORE A STORM OF AD HOMINEM, I DID NOT TAKE THE LSAT YET, HENCE I AM NOT THE X IN QUESTION)

Not sure this is an entirely accurate view of the TLS opinion either. I'm a 4.0/170/mediocre softs and I was told YHS should be my reaches, not that they were out.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:36 pm**

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:40 pm**

First off, yes, people on TLS don't know what they are talking about. One does not need Nobel Prize-level softs to get into HYS with those stats.

But nonetheless, your argument is critically flawed. You do some cute number crunching on Nobel prize data, but you explicitly state the following:
"

nullisecundus wrote:Unanimous TLS opinion #2: Unless it is Nobel prize caliber, softs do not matter.

.

"Nobel prize caliber" does not mean "only Nobel prize."

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:42 pm**

I believe the typical advice given by TLS posters for folks with a 3.85+/172 is that HYS are unlikely but certainly worth the application fee.

I sincerely doubt any rational human would contest that advice.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:48 pm**

yeah for the most part, TLS advice on YHS has been pretty decent/accurate

your examples and misrepresentations are so poorly done that...oh man, iunno what to say haha; everyone's already said it for me

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:52 pm**

This is the LSN data for students with LSATs below 172 but GPAs above 3.9 (URMs excluded)

This is the LSN data for students with LSATs below 170 but GPAs above 3.9 (URMs excluded)

--ImageRemoved--
This is an image of some black students graduating college.

I think that should more or less cover it.

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:03 pm**

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:02 pm**

kazu wrote: Also, define "good" GPA. Harvard's median is 3.89. I have not seen that many people on here with 170~172 LSAT and 3.89+ GPA.

That would be me and I'm currently rotting on the Harvard WL. Oh well, that's life.. eh?

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:34 pm**

kittenmittons wrote:You aren't as smart or clever as you think you are.

hi cc

hi km

Posted: **Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:50 pm**

OP: learn much you must, before time it is for LSAT

Posted: **Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:20 am**

JollyGreenGiant wrote:
kazu wrote: Also, define "good" GPA. Harvard's median is 3.89. I have not seen that many people on here with 170~172 LSAT and 3.89+ GPA.
That would be me and I'm currently rotting on the Harvard WL. Oh well, that's life.. eh?

Aww I'm sorry

Posted: **Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:11 am**

SOMETIMES GENERAL TRENDS HAVE EXCEPTIONS I DARESAY

Posted: **Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:41 am**

SBL wrote:SOMETIMES GENERAL TRENDS HAVE EXCEPTIONS I DARESAY

Blasphemy!

Top Law Schools

Something weird about TLS Forum

Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS

Re: Something weird about TLS