Top Law Schools

For those of you who don't know, GW Law, UVA, Michigan, UCLA and Kaplan are holding a mock admissions process tonight at 8 where they will be evaluating real applications (previous applications to clarify) and discussing their strengths, weaknesses, and whether or not the applicants would have been admitted.

Here is the link, it is free to register and attend.

--LinkRemoved--


Btw, the applications they will be discussing have just been released, here is the link if you want to preview the applications they will discuss

--LinkRemoved--

Disclaimer: I'm just posting this for all those interested,....I'm not a Kaplan rep or what not, in fact, I prefer powerscore...lol

Are they going to pretend like they do things holistically or are they just going to look at the GPA and LSAT and throw the rest of the file away?

shoeshine wrote:Are they going to pretend like they do things holistically or are they just going to look at the GPA and LSAT and throw the rest of the file away?

IDK, but the event is 2 hrs long and they r only reviewing 4 applications....so they must talk for awhile im assuming

shoeshine wrote:Are they going to pretend like they do things holistically or are they just going to look at the GPA and LSAT and throw the rest of the file away?

I lol'd.

egregious Kaplan trolling, none of those apps broke 160...

That last application made me cringe...sigh.

Is this for real? I almost want to sign up out of morbid curiosity to see if any of these hypothetical applicants are given hypothetical admission, because I can't imagine any of them would have a shot at GW, much less UCLA, UVA or UMich. The only one with okay GW numbers is the last one, but he has five arrests.

Let me save you two hours:

Adcomm 1:"These applications are interesting. Very nice softs indeed and someone I would love to have in my student body. However, I feel a higher LSAT score would be necessary to make this applicant a sure thing at ______. "

Adcomm 2: "I agree, this is a great applicant if it weren't for that LSAT score"

Adcomm 3: "I also think this applicant has great potential, however LSAT is such a strong indicator of law school performance. I'm uneasy about this applicant"

Kaplan Host: "Luckily, the LSAT is VERY learnable! Take this coupon for $50 off our next class and you'll have plenty of time to be prepared for the October administration! Avoid the fate of these applicants and gain admission to the top law schools with the help of Kaplan!"

I'm not going to lie, this sounds extremely useless.

I can't open the resumes for some reason

Real Madrid wrote:I can't open the resumes for some reason

It uses some weird viewer. It took forever to load, but eventually they came up for me. You may just have to wait for a bit.

NYC Law wrote:Let me save you two hours:

Adcomm 1:"These applications are interesting. Very nice softs indeed and someone I would love to have in my student body. However, I feel a higher LSAT score would be necessary to make this applicant a sure thing at ______. "

Adcomm 2: "I agree, this is a great applicant if it weren't for that LSAT score"

Adcomm 3: "I also think this applicant has great potential, however LSAT is such a strong indicator of law school performance. I'm uneasy about this applicant"

Kaplan Host: "Luckily, the LSAT is VERY learnable! Take this coupon for $50 off our next class and you'll have plenty of time to be prepared for the October administration! Avoid the fate of these applicants and gain admission to the top law schools with the help of Kaplan!"

They should have had a candidate with a 175 LSAT. That way, one of the adcomms could said, "wow, an excellent candidate! A wonderful LSAT score and it looks like he has demonstrated some leadership potential by becoming a tutor for Kaplan after he went through their course!"

...they're being pretty straight-up about the numbers, actually.

fltanglab wrote:That last application made me cringe...sigh.

They're trashing her too, lol

Thank you for the live commentary on something no one cares about.

NYC Law wrote:Thank you for the live commentary on something no one cares about.

-1

I'm actually curious to know what they said. Were there any insightful comments? Was the general takeaway "these applicants could up their chances with better LSAT prep" or was there deeper analysis on other issues? I doubt the session was particularly helpful, especially to us TLS lurkers, but I would like to know what Kaplan is peddling.

pwyoung wrote:

fltanglab wrote:That last application made me cringe...sigh.

They're trashing her too, lol

These people are all ridiculous, with perhaps the exception of the 3rd.

NYC Law wrote:Thank you for the live commentary on something no one cares about.

Oh lawdy, I posted twice in response to other's posts on an internet forum, obviously useless live commentary on something clearly no body cares about... which reminds me, why are you in this thread again?

Samara wrote:

NYC Law wrote:Thank you for the live commentary on something no one cares about.

-1

I'm actually curious to know what they said. Were there any insightful comments? Was the general takeaway "these applicants could up their chances with better LSAT prep" or was there deeper analysis on other issues? I doubt the session was particularly helpful, especially to us TLS lurkers, but I would like to know what Kaplan is peddling.

It's what you'd expect for the most part. I didn't catch the first two applications, except the tail end of the second... They emphasized throughout each one that I watched that they're looking at their medians, and if you're a late applicant that may make or break that median as one of the final members of the class, they're going to be more numbers oriented.

Other than that, they were all over the place with it. Touched WE and said their emphasis is just on having a job where you're at risk of being fired. They don't like disjointed pieces of an application - they attacked the third applicant for having limited, run-of-the-mill "membership" in clubs without heavy involvement, while having a recommendation that decided to emphasize her involvement in clubs... They talked about addendums for crimes, they want to see remorse and are wary of patterns of crime, yadda yadda yadda.

Interesting that they say they're more worried about numbers later in the process.

pwyoung wrote:

Samara wrote:

NYC Law wrote:Thank you for the live commentary on something no one cares about.

-1

I'm actually curious to know what they said. Were there any insightful comments? Was the general takeaway "these applicants could up their chances with better LSAT prep" or was there deeper analysis on other issues? I doubt the session was particularly helpful, especially to us TLS lurkers, but I would like to know what Kaplan is peddling.

It's what you'd expect for the most part. I didn't catch the first two applications, except the tail end of the second... They emphasized throughout each one that I watched that they're looking at their medians, and if you're a late applicant that may make or break that median as one of the final members of the class, they're going to be more numbers oriented.

Other than that, they were all over the place with it. Touched WE and said their emphasis is just on having a job where you're at risk of being fired. They don't like disjointed pieces of an application - they attacked the third applicant for having limited, run-of-the-mill "membership" in clubs without heavy involvement, while having a recommendation that decided to emphasize her involvement in clubs... They talked about addendums for crimes, they want to see remorse and are wary of patterns of crime, yadda yadda yadda.

Hmmm, yeah, nothing outside of the conventional wisdom. At least they paid some lip service to the weight of numbers. I wonder how many applicants like these they get. They must get a lot, considering how low acceptance rates are. People just blindly apply to super-reach schools I guess? Sure makes me glad TLS exists.

It was actually helpful to hear directly from the admissions officers rather than a bunch of 0Ls on here. Though I've heard most of it before, it was interesting to see how they wrestled through questions and decisions regarding applicants. I wish they would have picked more competitive applications, however.

So where did they come down on all of the apps? Did they make an "official" decision on all of them or did they talk about them more broadly? Not like it's the most important information to know but I guess Im a little curious.

sea15 wrote:It was actually helpful to hear directly from the admissions officers rather than a bunch of 0Ls on here. Though I've heard most of it before, it was interesting to see how they wrestled through questions and decisions regarding applicants. I wish they would have picked more competitive applications, however.

+1

It's always nice to get institutional confirmation of the advice that floats around here, especially on more prickly stuff like that last applicant's arrest record.

WhoIsDonDraper wrote:So where did they come down on all of the apps? Did they make an "official" decision on all of them or did they talk about them more broadly? Not like it's the most important information to know but I guess I'm a little curious.

At the end they took a vote, I believe it was 3 votes for the first applicant ( first member of his family to go to college, transfer from community college to UNC with i think a 3.0, not a great LSAT, dishonorable discharge from the coast guard, also a URM) the last vote went for the second applicant ( white girl who went to Georgetown, and played golf. 2.8 GPA, had decent internships, I do not remember her LSAT score.)

All 4 of the people on the panel said that the first 2 were the most competitive, though overall I think they were full of shit most of the time when talking about certain aspects of the applications. Also, none of the 4 applications were in anyway stellar, and they spoke about everything more from a wait list perspective than they should have IMO