Top Law Schools

*

Thank you, all.

Why do you want to go to law school?

*

speckledsparrow wrote:

Kratos wrote:Why do you want to go to law school?

Constitutional law

Then get a ph.d from a reputable program in american constitutional history, enlightenment/positivist philosophy, legal political theory, ect. Law school would be a waste for your interests. Also less debt (although I won't vouch for the job prospects).

GRE scores are far less important than your letters, grades and writing samples for most of these programs. As long as you can break 160 in english it shouldn't serve as a huge stumbling block.

Also it sounds like you're a writer, not an exam taker. Law school is mostly taking set exams. A doctoral program would provide you the opportunity to showcase your skill set and actually study what you're interested in.

speckledsparrow wrote:

Kratos wrote:Why do you want to go to law school?

Constitutional law

What about it? Like, you want to be an academic?

Yeah, go get a PhD.

speckledsparrow wrote:

Kratos wrote:Why do you want to go to law school?

Constitutional law

Yeah this really isn't a thing, in practice; get a PhD instead (granted you can get into a top program)

speckledsparrow wrote:I have a consistent history of underperformance on standardized tests, to include gifted and talented tests, SATs, and LSAT.

My scores:

153
156
159

GPA: 3.82
Softs: Published novelist and essayist
1 peer-reviewed publication (solo research)
Standard leadership positions on campus
Volunteering


Please be blunt with your advice on what I should do. I would very much appreciate. Thanks.

You can write a LSAT addendum and explain your history of low tests scores. Also send your low SAT scores. This could mitigate your low school.

LSAT addendum is not going to overcome a 159. Unfortunately for you, that is the single most heavily weighted factor at the vast majority of law schools, and "sorry I'm just bad a standardized tests" is not going to help you overcome that. Also, there's a saying: "If you want to practice constitutional law, go to Harvard in the 1960s." Agree with the above advice that you should consider geting a PhD if this is truly your interest.

sparty99 wrote:

speckledsparrow wrote:I have a consistent history of underperformance on standardized tests, to include gifted and talented tests, SATs, and LSAT.

My scores:

153
156
159

GPA: 3.82
Softs: Published novelist and essayist
1 peer-reviewed publication (solo research)
Standard leadership positions on campus
Volunteering


Please be blunt with your advice on what I should do. I would very much appreciate. Thanks.

You can write a LSAT addendum and explain your history of low tests scores. Also send your low SAT scores. This could mitigate your low school.
Legitimately studied for each take. Got a tutor. Still did not do well. Consistent with other test scores. Have had serious medical issues that are now resolved. Not URM.

This is not legit advice.

Yes, you can write such an addendum, and, yes, Yale does admit one person like this each year, but 99 times out of 100 (actually, more times than that) you're just another bro with a 159 whom American U adcomms are salivating over.

sparty99 wrote: You can write a LSAT addendum and explain your history of low tests scores. Also send your low SAT scores. This could mitigate your low school.

Not sure where you're getting this. Explaining your poor score isn't the same thing as mitigating it.

hoos89 wrote:LSAT addendum is not going to overcome a 159. Unfortunately for you, that is the single most heavily weighted factor at the vast majority of law schools, and "sorry I'm just bad a standardized tests" is not going to help you overcome that. Also, there's a saying: "If you want to practice constitutional law, go to Harvard in the 1960s." Agree with the above advice that you should consider geting a PhD if this is truly your interest.

Bitch please. I wrote an addendum and got accepted to a T50 with a full-ride scholarship.

Ron Don Volante wrote:

sparty99 wrote:

speckledsparrow wrote:I have a consistent history of underperformance on standardized tests, to include gifted and talented tests, SATs, and LSAT.

My scores:

153
156
159

GPA: 3.82
Softs: Published novelist and essayist
1 peer-reviewed publication (solo research)
Standard leadership positions on campus
Volunteering


Please be blunt with your advice on what I should do. I would very much appreciate. Thanks.

You can write a LSAT addendum and explain your history of low tests scores. Also send your low SAT scores. This could mitigate your low school.
Legitimately studied for each take. Got a tutor. Still did not do well. Consistent with other test scores. Have had serious medical issues that are now resolved. Not URM.

This is not legit advice.

Yes, you can write such an addendum, and, yes, Yale does admit one person like this each year, but 99 times out of 100 (actually, more times than that) you're just another bro with a 159 whom American U adcomms are salivating over.

Oh my bad. I guess I didn't get a full ride at T50 schools with my LSAT addendum. I must have made that up.

TheSpanishMain wrote:

sparty99 wrote: You can write a LSAT addendum and explain your history of low tests scores. Also send your low SAT scores. This could mitigate your low school.

Not sure where you're getting this. Explaining your poor score isn't the same thing as mitigating it.

Oh okay. I guess I never wrote a LSAT addendum and was accepted into T50 programs with a full-scholarship. I guess I have NO IDEA what I'm talking about. Okay. Feel free to ignore my horrible advice.

Well color me convinced.

speckledsparrow wrote:I have a consistent history of underperformance on standardized tests, to include gifted and talented tests, SATs, and LSAT.

My scores:

153
156
159

GPA: 3.82
Softs: Published novelist and essayist
1 peer-reviewed publication (solo research)
Standard leadership positions on campus
Volunteering

Legitimately studied for each take. Got a tutor. Still did not do well. Consistent with other test scores. Have had serious medical issues that are now resolved. Not URM.

Please be blunt with your advice on what I should do. I would very much appreciate. Thanks.

You have a history of underperformance on standardized tests. If so, prove it. Don’t just say so; rely on facts. If possible, include your LSAT scores on the ACT/SAT, how they were in comparison to others at your college (low), and that you performed better than your peers in college despite this.

sparty99 wrote:

TheSpanishMain wrote:

sparty99 wrote: You can write a LSAT addendum and explain your history of low tests scores. Also send your low SAT scores. This could mitigate your low school.

Not sure where you're getting this. Explaining your poor score isn't the same thing as mitigating it.

Oh okay. I guess I never wrote a LSAT addendum and was accepted into T50 programs with a full-scholarship. I guess I have NO IDEA what I'm talking about. Okay. Feel free to ignore my horrible advice.

If you have a good GPA and shit LSAT, you can get into a lot of shit schools with money. Doesn't mean it had anything to with a stupid addendum explaining you suck at taking tests.

Kratos wrote:

sparty99 wrote:

TheSpanishMain wrote:

sparty99 wrote: You can write a LSAT addendum and explain your history of low tests scores. Also send your low SAT scores. This could mitigate your low school.

Not sure where you're getting this. Explaining your poor score isn't the same thing as mitigating it.

Oh okay. I guess I never wrote a LSAT addendum and was accepted into T50 programs with a full-scholarship. I guess I have NO IDEA what I'm talking about. Okay. Feel free to ignore my horrible advice.

If you have a good GPA and shit LSAT, you can get into a lot of shit schools with money. Doesn't mean it had anything to with a stupid addendum explaining you suck at taking tests.

I mean, you are trying to say it doesn't work, but yet, I'm direct proof that it does. And by shit schools with money you can get into a lot of T3's and T4's. However, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about T50s with full-ride. You obviously know nothing about people who have a history of underperformance on standardized tests...If you scored a 20 on the ACT, but a 3.9 in college and a 155 on the LSAT, then an addendum COULD help overcome a low score and get a person admitted.

You should have retaken, bro.

sparty99 wrote:

Kratos wrote:

sparty99 wrote:
Oh okay. I guess I never wrote a LSAT addendum and was accepted into T50 programs with a full-scholarship. I guess I have NO IDEA what I'm talking about. Okay. Feel free to ignore my horrible advice.

If you have a good GPA and shit LSAT, you can get into a lot of shit schools with money. Doesn't mean it had anything to with a stupid addendum explaining you suck at taking tests.

I mean, you are trying to say it doesn't work, but yet, I'm direct proof that it does. And by shit schools with money you can get into a lot of T3's and T4's. However, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about T50s with full-ride. You obviously know nothing about people who have a history of underperformance on standardized tests...If you scored a 20 on the ACT, but a 3.9 in college and a 155 on the LSAT, then an addendum COULD help overcome a low score and get a person admitted.

A lot of T50s aren't good investments. You also have no direct proof that your addendum had any bearing whatsoever.

sparty99 wrote:

Kratos wrote: If you have a good GPA and shit LSAT, you can get into a lot of shit schools with money. Doesn't mean it had anything to with a stupid addendum explaining you suck at taking tests.

I mean, you are trying to say it doesn't work, but yet, I'm direct proof that it does. And by shit schools with money you can get into a lot of T3's and T4's. However, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about T50s with full-ride. You obviously know nothing about people who have a history of underperformance on standardized tests...If you scored a 20 on the ACT, but a 3.9 in college and a 155 on the LSAT, then an addendum COULD help overcome a low score and get a person admitted.

many T50 schools are considered shit

edit: scooped

pancakes3 wrote:You should have retaken, bro.

Who? Me? Yes. I should have (although I'm not good at those tests, so who knows how well I would have done). I landed T25s with a below 150. I probably could have gotten T14 with a 155. But oh well, I graduated and am a lawyer now.

The dude above has reached his limits. So he can apply now or work. I would work regardless, but if he truly has a history of bad test taking then an addendum is a must.

Kratos wrote:

sparty99 wrote:

Kratos wrote:

sparty99 wrote:
Oh okay. I guess I never wrote a LSAT addendum and was accepted into T50 programs with a full-scholarship. I guess I have NO IDEA what I'm talking about. Okay. Feel free to ignore my horrible advice.

If you have a good GPA and shit LSAT, you can get into a lot of shit schools with money. Doesn't mean it had anything to with a stupid addendum explaining you suck at taking tests.

I mean, you are trying to say it doesn't work, but yet, I'm direct proof that it does. And by shit schools with money you can get into a lot of T3's and T4's. However, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about T50s with full-ride. You obviously know nothing about people who have a history of underperformance on standardized tests...If you scored a 20 on the ACT, but a 3.9 in college and a 155 on the LSAT, then an addendum COULD help overcome a low score and get a person admitted.

A lot of T50s aren't good investments. You also have no direct proof that your addendum had any bearing whatsoever.

A lot of T50s are not good, but that really doesn't matter. This dude has taken the test 3x has reached the limit (I guess) so he might as well write a damn addendum.

I don't have direct proof, but don't need it. They took somoene with a 140 something LSAT. Obviously, there was something about my application that convinced them otherwise. Do you think they would have accepted a 140 something LSAT without an addendum and no proof of past low scores? Let me answer that: NO. I really don't know why you insist on proving me wrong.

sparty99 wrote:
I mean, you are trying to say it doesn't work, but yet, I'm direct proof that it does. And by shit schools with money you can get into a lot of T3's and T4's. However, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about T50s with full-ride. You obviously know nothing about people who have a history of underperformance on standardized tests...If you scored a 20 on the ACT, but a 3.9 in college and a 155 on the LSAT, then an addendum COULD help overcome a low score and get a person admitted.

It's logic like this that shows why you did so poorly on the LSAT. Just because you got a full ride doesn't mean that your LSAT addendum meant shit. OP had not indicated that (s)he is a URM, which I assure you had more to do with your outcome than the addendum.

sparty99 wrote:
A lot of T50s are not good, but that really doesn't matter. This dude has taken the test 3x has reached the limit (I guess) so he might as well right a damn addendum.

I don't have direct proof, but don't need it. They took somoene with a 140 something LSAT. Obviously, there was something about my application that convinced them otherwise. Do you think they would have accepted a 140 something LSAT without an addendum and no proof of past low scores? Let me answer that: NO. I really don't know why you insist on proving me wrong.

So? OP has choices OTHER than going to a shitty law school.

sparty99 wrote: A lot of T50s are not good, but that really doesn't matter. This dude has taken the test 3x has reached the limit (I guess) so he might as well write a damn addendum.

I don't have direct proof, but don't need it. They took somoene with a 140 something LSAT. Obviously, there was something about my application that convinced them otherwise. Do you think they would have accepted a 140 something LSAT without an addendum and no proof of past low scores? Let me answer that: NO. I really don't know why you insist on proving me wrong.

Dude, what is your background? You are obviously an exceptional case. Honestly, good for you. But you keep throwing in your anecdotal evidence in threads like this and its not helpful because you are obviously an exception.

isn't sparty URM? that's totally different dude.