Top Law Schools

wildcatmccane wrote:So I am getting punished for not getting the degrees at the same time, which a person who also received 2 degrees, but at the same time, accomplished the exact same thing requirements.

wildcatmccane wrote:It even reports that I have a second degree. How in the world can I have the second degree according to lsac if my grades from up to the first degree don't have the complete accomplishment of those requirements for the second degree?

wildcatmccane wrote:addendum worthy or not?

wildcatmccane wrote:ah but you made a mistake.

I didn't just go back and take basket weaving to raise my GPA. I went and did undergrad work to get another undergrad degree that holds the same title as the first.

I could have just as easily taken basket weaving gotten the BS and then gotten a degree in chemistry. Would that be right to say those classes were not part of my undergrad?

wildcatmccane wrote:ah but you made a mistake.

I didn't just go back and take basket weaving to raise my GPA. I went and did undergrad work to get another undergrad degree that holds the same title as the first.

I could have just as easily taken basket weaving gotten the BS and then gotten a degree in chemistry. Would that be right to say those classes were not part of my undergrad?

Is there any protection by LSAC against people who did the same thing you described but never graduate until they have taken all the university's easy classes? no. So yes, it is punishing my GPA that I earned for another degree.

wildcatmccane wrote:I don't wont to be coming off as a dork, I know I am though.
You perfectly didn't address my question. What are the safe guards against a student taking easy classes before doing their first degree? None.

My point is it is still undergrad. Grad is a whole new field. Undergrad is undergrad. Once graduating you have to reapply to a new college. So there is direction to a degree. During your first undergrad you could just as easily milk the easy classes as after the first degree.

This all presoposes you knew the rules before hand. Is there any reason for somone to assume this rule at all?

wildcatmccane wrote:I don't wont to be coming off as a dork, I know I am though.
You perfectly didn't address my question. What are the safe guards against a student taking easy classes before doing their first degree? None.

My point is it is still undergrad. Grad is a whole new field. Undergrad is undergrad. Once graduating you have to reapply to a new college. So there is direction to a degree. During your first undergrad you could just as easily milk the easy classes as after the first degree.

This all presoposes you knew the rules before hand. Is there any reason for somone to assume this rule at all?

wildcatmccane wrote:haha I am just annoyed to all hell.

The logic just does not exist for this rule. I am surprised there are so many deal with its for a degree that begins by logical testing

vanwinkle wrote:

wildcatmccane wrote:I don't wont to be coming off as a dork, I know I am though.
You perfectly didn't address my question. What are the safe guards against a student taking easy classes before doing their first degree? None.

My point is it is still undergrad. Grad is a whole new field. Undergrad is undergrad. Once graduating you have to reapply to a new college. So there is direction to a degree. During your first undergrad you could just as easily milk the easy classes as after the first degree.

This all presoposes you knew the rules before hand. Is there any reason for somone to assume this rule at all?

There are no "safeguards" in place, and sure, plenty of people "game" the system by taking easy classes. But the complexity of setting up a system to check against that, to weigh relative strengths of classes, and factor them in would be daunting, and really wouldn't result in any significant advantages to LSAC or law schools. What do they gain from all that increased complexity? Besides, practically every degree plan requires you to take a minimum number of hours of upper-level course work that ensures you're not just taking simple fluff classes.

The reason I brought up the grad GPA thing is that it's related to your own argument; if they did allow undergrad classes that benefitted a GPA after the first graduate degree, why not allow grad classes that did also, if someone (somehow, and it has happened) had a higher graduate GPA than undergrad? Every time you make an exception you invite more exceptions, and the policy reasons for making an exception for the grad student would be nearly identical to yours: That by raising your GPA even with the inclusion of harder classes it indicates a better capability than your current LSDAS GPA suggests.

But you can dismiss that argument with "Grad work is grad work." So you should be able to realize how easy it is for people to dismiss your argument, as well, since it's not grad work, and there's nothing to assure anyone that it really is hard work, and besides which, who would you be assuring? LSAC? In that case you'd be asking them to develop a procedure for making exceptions, which would add complexity to the application process, which would add costs... and for what overall gain? If you have a low GPA, you can still nail the LSAT, make a good argument in your PS, and get into T14 schools, so you're not disadvantaged that severely by such a rule anyway.

You're ignoring my general point, which is this: They've chosen a simple, straightforward, and broad rule without exceptions, and while you'd gain an advantage from them having a different rule, that doesn't make the different rule better. And no, there's no reason for anyone to assume this rule, but 1) there are other reasons to assume that it's good to keep your GPA up even before you get your first bachelor's degree and 2) it's a rule you can look up if you really want to know how law school admissions works. None of it presupposes you know the rule beforehand; it just presupposes that you have to follow the rule whether you're aware of it or not, which is true for a lot of rules in life, from the criminal law all the way down to law school applications.

wildcatmccane wrote:haha I am just annoyed to all hell.

The logic just does not exist for this rule. I am surprised there are so many deal with its for a degree that begins by logical testing

Good thing to learn before you get to law school, if you really want to succeed there: Just because you don't see the logic for a rule doesn't mean there's no logic behind it. It just means you don't understand it yet.

wildcatmccane wrote:haha I am just annoyed to all hell.

The logic just does not exist for this rule. I am surprised there are so many deal with its for a degree that begins by logical testing

vanwinkle wrote:

wildcatmccane wrote:I don't wont to be coming off as a dork, I know I am though.
You perfectly didn't address my question. What are the safe guards against a student taking easy classes before doing their first degree? None.

My point is it is still undergrad. Grad is a whole new field. Undergrad is undergrad. Once graduating you have to reapply to a new college. So there is direction to a degree. During your first undergrad you could just as easily milk the easy classes as after the first degree.

This all presoposes you knew the rules before hand. Is there any reason for somone to assume this rule at all?

There are no "safeguards" in place, and sure, plenty of people "game" the system by taking easy classes. But the complexity of setting up a system to check against that, to weigh relative strengths of classes, and factor them in would be daunting, and really wouldn't result in any significant advantages to LSAC or law schools. What do they gain from all that increased complexity? Besides, practically every degree plan requires you to take a minimum number of hours of upper-level course work that ensures you're not just taking simple fluff classes.

The reason I brought up the grad GPA thing is that it's related to your own argument; if they did allow undergrad classes that benefitted a GPA after the first graduate degree, why not allow grad classes that did also, if someone (somehow, and it has happened) had a higher graduate GPA than undergrad? Every time you make an exception you invite more exceptions, and the policy reasons for making an exception for the grad student would be nearly identical to yours: That by raising your GPA even with the inclusion of harder classes it indicates a better capability than your current LSDAS GPA suggests.

But you can dismiss that argument with "Grad work is grad work." So you should be able to realize how easy it is for people to dismiss your argument, as well, since it's not grad work, and there's nothing to assure anyone that it really is hard work, and besides which, who would you be assuring? LSAC? In that case you'd be asking them to develop a procedure for making exceptions, which would add complexity to the application process, which would add costs... and for what overall gain? If you have a low GPA, you can still nail the LSAT, make a good argument in your PS, and get into T14 schools, so you're not disadvantaged that severely by such a rule anyway.

You're ignoring my general point, which is this: They've chosen a simple, straightforward, and broad rule without exceptions, and while you'd gain an advantage from them having a different rule, that doesn't make the different rule better. And no, there's no reason for anyone to assume this rule, but 1) there are other reasons to assume that it's good to keep your GPA up even before you get your first bachelor's degree and 2) it's a rule you can look up if you really want to know how law school admissions works. None of it presupposes you know the rule beforehand; it just presupposes that you have to follow the rule whether you're aware of it or not, which is true for a lot of rules in life, from the criminal law all the way down to law school applications.

wildcatmccane wrote:haha I am just annoyed to all hell.

The logic just does not exist for this rule. I am surprised there are so many deal with its for a degree that begins by logical testing

Good thing to learn before you get to law school, if you really want to succeed there: Just because you don't see the logic for a rule doesn't mean there's no logic behind it. It just means you don't understand it yet.

disco_barred wrote:ITT: Vanwinkle unwittingly provides solid examples for writing answers on law school exams

hijodehombre wrote:/thread