Page 1 of 1
Extended time looked at negatively?
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:06 pm
by MDB408
By T-10 schools? Will a 170+ be looked at any differently?? Just wondering...
Re: Extended time looked at negatively?
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:10 pm
by ManOfTheMinute
MDB408 wrote:By T-10 schools? Will a 170+ be looked at any differently?? Just wondering...
As much as you'd like to think it wouldn't, they will not view a a regular 175 the same as an extended-time 175. Luckily, for their USNWR numbers its the same, but if you take people on here who got a 170 and gave them extra time, they could pull a 175, and law schools know that. (Without talking about how fair or unfair that might be)
And, law schools care about what their alumni will do career wise - and people need extra time to get their score will likely not contribute as much as people who dont.
Re: Extended time looked at negatively?
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:11 pm
by suralin
What do you mean by "extended time"?
Re: Extended time looked at negatively?
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:20 pm
by rad lulz
ManOfTheMinute wrote:
And, law schools care about what their alumni will do career wise
Anecdotal job placement data shows that schools sorta don't.
Re: Extended time looked at negatively?
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:23 pm
by ManOfTheMinute
rad lulz wrote:ManOfTheMinute wrote:
And, law schools care about what their alumni will do career wise
Anecdotal job placement data shows that schools sorta don't.
Even at T-10 schools?
Re: Extended time looked at negatively?
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:23 pm
by A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A
Re: Extended time looked at negatively?
Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 8:28 pm
by rad lulz
ManOfTheMinute wrote:rad lulz wrote:ManOfTheMinute wrote:
And, law schools care about what their alumni will do career wise
Anecdotal job placement data shows that schools sorta don't.
Even at T-10 schools?
They care enough to give people "fellowships" to inflate employment stats, but they really haven't decreased tuition or class sizes, so no.
