Top Law Schools

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:50 pm**

asdfasdf

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:54 pm**

All the pessimism is just part of a vast conspiracy to thin the herd of potential applicants one would have to compete with.

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:59 pm**

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:All the pessimism is just part of a vast conspiracy to thin the herd of potential applicants one would have to compete with.

I don't know if you are being sarcastic but I think that is kind of true.

OP - this whole "LSAT is not really indicative of my intelligence and I'm smarter than you T14 people" has been done a hundred times. Give it a break. Put in apps and see where you get in. Statistically speaking the people who said no way are correct, one guy does not prove them wrong.

Edit: and saying that a standardized test combined with your UG GPA is not "remotely" indicative of your academic potential is just stupid.

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:09 pm**

Please do some research before complaining.

An "asealclubber" initiated a thread "3.5 175 --chances at T14?" on "Forum Archives Index » What are my chances?"
http://www.top-law-schools.com/archives ... =9&t=20635

In addition, this is how "asealclubber's" cycle turned out:

Columbia: Waitlisted
Duke: Accepted
Georgetown: Accepted
Harvard: Waitlisted then rejected
Northwestern: Accepted
NYU: Accepted
Penn: Waitlisted
U of Chicago: Accepted
U of Michigan: Accepted
UC Berkeley/Boalt: Rejected
UVA: Waitlisted

That cycle is consistent with a 3.5/175, not a 2.7/162.

Probably "asealclubber" changed his numbers (a lot of people do) so that law schools cannot identify him/her.

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:10 pm**

If you got those numbers from a TLS account, a lot of people just plug in bogus information for lols. Those probably are not their real numbers. Do they also go to "North-South-Eastern School of Chicken Plucking?"

EDIT: And I was distracted by g-chat and someone else reasoned through this.

I will say that people who have high numbers had the resolve and know-how to get those numbers. They knew where the bar was, and they jumped over it. It's also likely they had a lot of success in their academic and professional lives besides those numbers. Just because all we talk about here is numbers, because it's easy to quantify, does not mean the people behind those numbers are boring applicants.

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:11 pm**

Dude, that's nothing. Check my profile out.

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:12 pm**

d34dluk3 wrote:Dude, that's nothing. Check my profile out.

ZOMG! WHAT KINDS OF SOFTS DID YOU HAVE??!?!!?!oneone!1?!?

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:19 pm**

Look around on Law School Numbers or other admissions charts, and you'll see that most schools have easily recognizable cut-offs, based on numbers alone. Look at the accuracy of Law School Predictor, and you'll see that it's usually right, again, based on numbers alone.
It's depressing to think that, and was for me, but that appears to be how it's done. All of the admissions statements that "each application is considered" don't match up to statistical reality.

Oh, and the kid who got in to Michigan was Chuck Munger, Jr. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-1 ... chool.html

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:20 pm**

asdfasdf

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:24 pm**

MJohnson1986: the 2011-2012 "taxguy."

Good luck, bro.

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:26 pm**

asdfasdf

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:27 pm**

MJohnson1986 wrote:Poster,

Listen, I realize my first post was *brash*, but by reading other threads on this site, I have noticed an overall tone of downright pessimism.

"OP - this whole "LSAT is not really indicative of my intelligence and I'm smarter than you T14 people" has been done a hundred times. Give it a break. Put in apps and see where you get in. Statistically speaking the people who said no way are correct, one guy does not prove them wrong."

***I am sure it has been done a Thousand times, but afterall, it is up to those who sit on admission comittees to decide whether or not the candidate has portrayed themself well enough to warrant acceptance into their school. Also, how can someone be correct when they answer: you have "0%" chance...when if 1 HAS been admitted with LOWER metrics...then, although it may be UNLIKELY...i.e. closer to 0% than 100%...it is NOT impossible...so they are WRONG.

Edit: and saying that a standardized test combined with your UG GPA is not "remotely" indicative of your academic potential is just stupid.

***I can have fun with this one...A) Do you have any clue what my experiences as an undergraduate included? Do you know what I did with my time as an undergraduate student? Answers: NO GPA is MUCH MORE indicative of the EFFORT one makes as an undergraduate...so, let's say there is the Van Wilder type...who can sell ice to an eskimo...actually, let's go with "any" eskimo... Yet, Van decided that college would be much more enriching to his overall growth if he were to spend more time socializing...and benefitting his and others' lives in other ways. Then, let's say there is the 4.0/178 Ivy League guy who couldn't sell a guaranteed 15% growth investment to a millionaire investor without a clue... Now, let's say that Van received a 165 on his LSAT...and the Ivy League grad received a 175. Now, toss out all of this information and sit down in a board room for a 2 hour interview with each (because mind you, although Van may not have graduated near the top of his class...or spent all of his time in the library, he is simply NATURALLY smart...and comes from a family of equally, if not more intelligent parents (than the Ivy League student himself).)... Once the 2 hour interview is complete...odds are Van (who is far better at selling (and speaking confidently to WHOMever he confronts) will FAR outshine the Ivy Leaguer in the FIRST real-life test. Now add to this whole scenario the fact that a 165 is not all THAT bad...if I'm the partner of the firm, I'm taking my chances on Van (the one who could end up illuminating our entire firm...and grabbing the bull by the horns...and I'm not taking the guy I can get next year who will, yes, be DAMN good at document composition/review/research). I will concede that my comments before may have been a bit flagrant, but your post really hinges on "stupid" much more than my heart-felt post before.

As I said before in my previous post...I was simply looking for someone with ACTUAL admissions experience (something I do not think I will find here) to reply to the initial comments.

Maybe instead of "academic potential", I should have said "potential as an attorney", because THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO TELLING HOW TALENTED AN INDIVIDUAL MAY BE AS A LAWEYER SIMPLY BY LOOKING AT THEIR UNDERGRADUATE GPA AND THE LSAT THEY HAVE TAKEN! Especially when all testing atmospheres are of course different, and everyone's preparation different as well. Passion, dedication (moving forward) and INNATE ability to me...and hopefully to others making the decisions, would seem to be a better indicator than (2) #'s. That is afterall why they request a personal statement, resume, LORs and optional essays, right? Or are they just wasting their time?

Probably the most important skill of a practicing attorney is the ability to write persuasively. You don't have that skill, it seems.

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:28 pm**

asdfsd

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:28 pm**

people use hyperbole? WHY WASN'T I AWARE OF THIS?

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:30 pm**

I love it. Yes, OP - your success for a year as a telemarketer will make t-14 schools wet themselves with anticipation of your application. Good luck - please follow-up and let us know how it turned out.

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:32 pm**

Wait, so you worked in sales for a couple of years and now you're a paralegal? I mean, congratulations on being successful in your field, but dude, those are not stellar softs. There are a few cases of non-URM applicants outperforming their numbers, but they usually have amazing softs (think Fulbright level). I'm sorry that numbers play such a huge role in admissions, but don't blame the people here for telling you the truth. Your time would be better spent studying for a retake.

Also, I would seriously consider deleting some of the information in your first post. You've given away enough information to identify yourself to ad coms and you're not really conducting yourself in such a professional manner. Do you really want them to know that you thought socializing was more important than studying in college? By the way, why do you consider the two mutually exclusive? You can have a healthy social life and still easily break 3.0, and this is coming from someone who seriously wishes she had worked less and studied more in undergrad. Stop making excuses for yourself.

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:34 pm**

asdf

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:35 pm**

OP, apply to UMich please. There is a chance to boost our selectivity

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:36 pm**

OP seems like a good dude, though.

So many of these threads devolve into the OP getting huffy and writing about how he WILL GET INTO HARVARD BECAUSE I HAVE THE RESOLVE AND THE FRAME OF MIND AND I CAN ENVISON (sic) MYSELF SUCCEEDING!!! SO YOU CAN ALL SUCK IT!!!! CHEERS TO MY [future, imagined] SUCCESS!!!!

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:38 pm**

MJohnson1986 wrote:Nogameisfair,

Dude, that was not intended to be persuasive...I was painting a picture for someone whose logic is backwards...

I definitely don't have to defend my ability to write (or speak) persuasively to anyone on this site, because I have already proven that in my professional career and to everyone that knows me. Mind you, both of my parents attended Ivy League schools for law and have practiced law in some of the top firms in the U.S. (hence why I feel it is so important that I get into a school "out of my league" rather than settling).

I have had experience with selling between $20-$30 million in financial products in just my first year in my previous employment position. I was worked like a dog, and not given the respect I felt I deserved. I did not want to waste 6 - 10 years of my life attempting to become the "Regional Vice President" (RVP - a joke), so I decided to pursue a career as a lawyer, as I should have done years ago. I think my sales track record speaks for my persuasive ability...so I do not feel inclined to compose a persuasive essay for you to change your mind...

However, I'll even take constructive criticism from you...but you realize I am on the computer spitting these things out without even reading them, right? Do you proofread your online posts? haha Okay, but honestly, will that WE help me at all?

You are not going to get any more respect as an underemployed lawyer out of a school that you'll likely get into.

ETA if you don't want to settle, retake the LSAT, score 172+, and get into Northwestern.

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:41 pm**

MJohnson1986 wrote: Dude, that was not intended to be persuasive...I was painting a picture for someone whose logic is backwards...

HUH? Ok, keep writing on a message board not to persuade...

MJohnson1986 wrote: However, I'll even take constructive criticism from you...but you realize I am on the computer spitting these things out without even reading them, right? Do you proofread your online posts? haha Okay, but honestly, will that WE help me at all?

To answer your question, sales experience will be of marginal utility in the law school apps world. With those numbers and a good job now, you'd be better served staying put.

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:43 pm**

LOL at this thread and the OP.

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:45 pm**

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:51 pm**

acrossthelake wrote:
MJohnson1986 wrote: I REALLY would like to know how you got into Yale though with those figures, and what your softs were, so that I can compare them with mine to see if it is worst tossing $1000 into the wind to apply to some of those top-echelon schools. (I consider a great personal statement a soft, so if you had a divine one of these, just tell me so and that will help as well)

D34dluk3's profile is fake. He didn't get into Yale. He also has much better numbers.

Shhh, stop ruining the fun. This may be the best thing that's happened to me today.

<3 <3 <3

Posted: **Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:52 pm**

Yeah, it really does suck that you're going to pay for mistakes that were made so long ago, and I feel for you on that, but people are just trying to be realistic. Study really hard, retake and try for Northwestern/GULC/$ at WUSTL.

Top Law Schools

Why so negative? Forum

Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?

Re: Why so negative?