What are my T14 chances? Forum

[UFKage]

Hello all,

I scored a 175 on the Dec. '12 LSAT (my first and only), but I graduated in 2006 with only a 3.5 (B.S. Finance, University of Florida). I just didn't take school too seriously back then.

I've spent the past six years in the US Navy as an Arabic linguist. Between the academic rigors of that field, the general discipline inherent throughout the military, and the wisdom that comes with being a little older I'm a much more serious and dedicated student now. But are those experiences enough to prove that to admissions boards?

I figure HYS are probably too much of a stretch, but what about CCN specifically and then the rest of the T14?

Thanks ahead of time for anyone willing to give me their two cents!

[uvabro]

you have a chance.

[dingbat]

you have a chance.

[2014]

YS are not worth apps, H is but it is a tiny chance.

CC will both probably WL you and you will probably get off of both. Small chance at RD acceptance though.

N is 50/50 WL/In and you will get in off the WL

Really good shot at everywhere below with moderate scholarships. Some might WL you to yield protect.

[20141023]

.

[UFKage]

YS are not worth apps, H is but it is a tiny chance.

CC will both probably WL you and you will probably get off of both. Small chance at RD acceptance though.

N is 50/50 WL/In and you will get in off the WL

Really good shot at everywhere below with moderate scholarships. Some might WL you to yield protect.

This is exactly the type of feedback I'm looking for. Thanks! Any thoughts on what else I might be able to do to enhance my standing in the CCN grouping between now and September when I start applying?

[UFKage]

See my last two posts in this thread regarding your ability to speak Arabic.

Interesting. I hadn't really thought of the Arabic as anything other than showing that I'd thrived in a demanding language training program (Nothing to fairly fluent in a year and a half). Will be sure to have it somewhere on the resume.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

To be fair, military is one of the strongest non-URM softs. You may have a better than tiny chance at Harvard. Stanford is slim. Yale almost certainly not.

You're essentially a lock everywhere else.

http://www.mylsn.info/dispresults.php - factor in a slight boost in addition to these numbers (military + relevant language fluency + non-trad).

[20141023]

.

[UFKage]

Yeah... good point rizzy_rawls. I guess it's time to bring in kingsfield69 for this one. His cycle alone proved that softs can > numbers even for non-URMs.

I hadn't really thought of the Arabic as anything other than showing that I'd thrived in a demanding language training program (Nothing to fairly fluent in a year and a half). Will be sure to have it somewhere on the resume.

Hmmmmm.... if you still only have 1.5 years in Arabic, it might be difficult trying to pass as "fluent," so you might want to stick to the route you mentioned... that is, saying that you are still studying it and have done very well in an environment that is both physically and mentally taxing. I wouldn't try to put "fluent" on your resume if you don't feel that you are to that level yet (or if you do, add a qualifier to indicate the level of your fluency). Were there any qualifications you got from the program you were in that indicate the level of your language abilities? If there were, I would simply write those instead.

I actually went to a military language school. It was a 1.5 year program, during which I even earned an AA in Arabic Studies. And I took the Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT) which the military's standardized test for language proficiency (as you probably figured out from the title). So I can certainly quantify it.

[20141023]

.

[IAFG]

Yeah... good point rizzy_rawls. I guess it's time to bring in kingsfield69 for this one. His cycle alone proved that softs can > numbers even for non-URMs.

I hadn't really thought of the Arabic as anything other than showing that I'd thrived in a demanding language training program (Nothing to fairly fluent in a year and a half). Will be sure to have it somewhere on the resume.

Hmmmmm.... if you still only have 1.5 years in Arabic, it might be difficult trying to pass as "fluent," so you might want to stick to the route you mentioned... that is, saying that you are still studying it and have done very well in an environment that is both physically and mentally taxing. I wouldn't try to put "fluent" on your resume if you don't feel that you are to that level yet (or if you do, add a qualifier to indicate the level of your fluency). Were there any qualifications you got from the program you were in that indicate the level of your language abilities? If there were, I would simply write those instead.

So you have this one particular type of credential showing your fluency, and now you assume AdComms value it because you have it? Who the fuck are you with this shit?

[UFKage]

Yeah... good point rizzy_rawls. I guess it's time to bring in kingsfield69 for this one. His cycle alone proved that softs can > numbers even for non-URMs.

I hadn't really thought of the Arabic as anything other than showing that I'd thrived in a demanding language training program (Nothing to fairly fluent in a year and a half). Will be sure to have it somewhere on the resume.

Hmmmmm.... if you still only have 1.5 years in Arabic, it might be difficult trying to pass as "fluent," so you might want to stick to the route you mentioned... that is, saying that you are still studying it and have done very well in an environment that is both physically and mentally taxing. I wouldn't try to put "fluent" on your resume if you don't feel that you are to that level yet (or if you do, add a qualifier to indicate the level of your fluency). Were there any qualifications you got from the program you were in that indicate the level of your language abilities? If there were, I would simply write those instead.

So you have this one particular type of credential showing your fluency, and now you assume AdComms value it because you have it? Who the fuck are you with this shit?

Easy there, killer.

We obviously got a little side-tracked on the language thing. I don't think anyone was saying the language thing would matter at all in the end, just that if it did, it would be more useful to have a quantifiable measure than just claiming "fluency". And even that is really all just to show that I take my academics more seriously than I did 7 years ago.

[IAFG]

Yeah... good point rizzy_rawls. I guess it's time to bring in kingsfield69 for this one. His cycle alone proved that softs can > numbers even for non-URMs.

I hadn't really thought of the Arabic as anything other than showing that I'd thrived in a demanding language training program (Nothing to fairly fluent in a year and a half). Will be sure to have it somewhere on the resume.

Hmmmmm.... if you still only have 1.5 years in Arabic, it might be difficult trying to pass as "fluent," so you might want to stick to the route you mentioned... that is, saying that you are still studying it and have done very well in an environment that is both physically and mentally taxing. I wouldn't try to put "fluent" on your resume if you don't feel that you are to that level yet (or if you do, add a qualifier to indicate the level of your fluency). Were there any qualifications you got from the program you were in that indicate the level of your language abilities? If there were, I would simply write those instead.

So you have this one particular type of credential showing your fluency, and now you assume AdComms value it because you have it? Who the fuck are you with this shit?

Easy there, killer.

We obviously got a little side-tracked on the language thing. I don't think anyone was saying the language thing would matter at all in the end, just that if it did, it would be more useful to have a quantifiable measure than just claiming "fluency". And even that is really all just to show that I take my academics more seriously than I did 7 years ago.

as someone who is also fluent in a language, no one has ever asked me for some random credential or challenged my fluency in any way (other than expecting me to actually be able to apply it on the job). regulus seems to have decided this is super important because he has it, but if some sort of quantifiable measure were important to adcomms... wouldn't they expressly ask for it?

[UFKage]

That's a good point. I guess our reasoning was just that if you do happen to have objective measures it can only help.

But in the end, the whole language discussion is probably just academic in terms of admissions. I'm really just hoping that my LSAT along with some of my x-factors can demonstrate that I'm a far more disciplined student than I was seven years ago when I finished school with a 3.5.

[20141023]

.

[b123]

So you have this one particular type of credential showing your fluency, and now you assume AdComms value it because you have it? Who the fuck are you with this shit?

this kind of makes you sound like an asshole.

[2014]

YS are not worth apps, H is but it is a tiny chance.

CC will both probably WL you and you will probably get off of both. Small chance at RD acceptance though.

N is 50/50 WL/In and you will get in off the WL

Really good shot at everywhere below with moderate scholarships. Some might WL you to yield protect.

This is exactly the type of feedback I'm looking for. Thanks! Any thoughts on what else I might be able to do to enhance my standing in the CCN grouping between now and September when I start applying?

Make money so you can ED and give yourself a scholarship.

I mean honestly there really is nothing I can think of. Just enjoy yourself and prepare for a long process and hope for the best.

[Tiago Splitter]

You're in great shape at Columbia/NYU

[Br3v]

Very good chance

[rad lulz]

So you have this one particular type of credential showing your fluency, and now you assume AdComms value it because you have it? Who the fuck are you with this shit?

this kind of makes you sound like an asshole.

Naw IAFG is right

[20141023]

.

[rad lulz]

So you have this one particular type of credential showing your fluency, and now you assume AdComms value it because you have it? Who the fuck are you with this shit?

this kind of makes you sound like an asshole.

Naw IAFG is right

Sorry rad lulz, but IAFG doesn’t have anything to back up her claim that such qualifications aren’t beneficial to have (not to mention she’s being a total douche with the way she approached what could have been a pleasant conversation about the topic).

If you were an adcomm / employer reviewing the application of an applicant who sold themself as someone who wanted to use Korean to work with clients in Korea, but on their resume it just said “Proficient in Korean” or “Fluent in Korean,” would you admit/hire that person just on those claims alone (in combination with the strength of the rest of their application, of course)? What if you admitted / hired them and their linguistic ability was absolute garbage? Having standardized, recognized qualifications not only shows that you are motivated enough to go out there and get these credentials, but it also allows the person reading your application to get a better understanding of your true ability without actually meeting you.

I am not saying that such qualifications will override a lacking LSAT/GPA... I just don't understand how you all can actually think that having them them won't shore up one's application in some way.

Because people who make admissions decisions act nothing like HR people

[IAFG]

You're making the oldest mistake in the book: thinking that adcomms think they way you would. You're going around claiming credentials to back up language proficiency is important with no basis at all for your claim.

The truth is, adcomms don'y care that much about languages at all and they have a lot of good reasons for not caring.

[UFKage]

Alright, let's clear this up: I know the AdComms don't care about languages and I don't care about them either. I only mentioned it offhand in the first place and we all went off on a tangent.

I was just wondering what people thought on the potential for my work/military experience to overshadow the weaker GPA from 2006.