Top Law Schools

goldenbear2020 wrote:WUSTL:
LSAT 168 GPA 3.0-3.5 Scholarship $100,000 or more
LSAT 167 GPA 3.0-3.5 Scholarship $0 (or a WL)

SweetTort wrote:Jesus, stop whining and just fucking retake. If the test is really such a small thing, then just do better on it.

chicagoburger wrote:

SweetTort wrote:Jesus, stop whining and just fucking retake. If the test is really such a small thing, then just do better on it.

I never want to study for LSAT in the first place, not to mention retake.

I never thought about law school before. But the more I know about this admission process, the less respect I hold for some of the T1 schools.

And you watch your language.

Pozzo wrote:

chicagoburger wrote:

SweetTort wrote:Jesus, stop whining and just fucking retake. If the test is really such a small thing, then just do better on it.

I never want to study for LSAT in the first place, not to mention retake.

I never thought about law school before. But the more I know about this admission process, the less respect I hold for some of the T1 schools.

And you watch your language.

Wait. Aren't you actually retaking already?

Rigo wrote:LSAT is more indicative of law school success than GPA anyways so I don't get the outrage other than you're butthurt you didn't score higher.

SweetTort wrote:Jesus, stop whining and just fucking retake. If the test is really such a small thing, then just do better on it.

chicagoburger wrote:

Pozzo wrote:

chicagoburger wrote:

SweetTort wrote:Jesus, stop whining and just fucking retake. If the test is really such a small thing, then just do better on it.

I never want to study for LSAT in the first place, not to mention retake.

I never thought about law school before. But the more I know about this admission process, the less respect I hold for some of the T1 schools.

And you watch your language.

Wait. Aren't you actually retaking already?

I will retake.

[+] Spoiler

[+] Spoiler

chicagoburger wrote: What kind of class do they want?
All KJDs and no adults make a law school soulless.

chicagoburger wrote:LSAT 164 GPA 3.1 Scholarship $120,000
LSAT 161 GPA 3.0 Scholarship $94,500
...

The University of Illinois is chasing numbers like they never learn from their dirty past.
One stupid test can offset four years of shitty undergraduate study, let alone zero life experience.

What kind of class do they want?

All KJDs and no adults make a law school soulless.

snowball2 wrote:

chicagoburger wrote:LSAT 164 GPA 3.1 Scholarship $120,000
LSAT 161 GPA 3.0 Scholarship $94,500
...

The University of Illinois is chasing numbers like they never learn from their dirty past.
One stupid test can offset four years of shitty undergraduate study, let alone zero life experience.

What kind of class do they want?

All KJDs and no adults make a law school soulless.

Are you actually expecting any school to offer more money for lesser performance? Not at all following your rant. And try not to minimize the quality of the application.

chicagoburger wrote:To me, 3.0 should go nowhere in law schools because that's really telling about your undergraduate performance over a long period of time.
Because of a 3-months crash course you get big scholarship from reputable law schools regardless how shitty undergrad you are...what a joke

chicagoburger wrote:

snowball2 wrote:

chicagoburger wrote:LSAT 164 GPA 3.1 Scholarship $120,000
LSAT 161 GPA 3.0 Scholarship $94,500
...

The University of Illinois is chasing numbers like they never learn from their dirty past.
One stupid test can offset four years of shitty undergraduate study, let alone zero life experience.

What kind of class do they want?

All KJDs and no adults make a law school soulless.

Are you actually expecting any school to offer more money for lesser performance? Not at all following your rant. And try not to minimize the quality of the application.

To me, 3.0 should go nowhere in law schools because that's really telling about your undergraduate performance over a long period of time.
Because of a 3-months crash course you get big scholarship from reputable law schools regardless how shitty undergrad you are...what a joke

snowball2 wrote:

chicagoburger wrote:To me, 3.0 should go nowhere in law schools because that's really telling about your undergraduate performance over a long period of time.
Because of a 3-months crash course you get big scholarship from reputable law schools regardless how shitty undergrad you are...what a joke

Well you can get to 3.0 a number of ways; start out strong then slack off, start weak and then excel, or simply stay consistent. Each communicates something different. Combine that with softs and a strong personal statement and a slacker freshman that got 3 subsequent years of great grades is a pretty appealing candidate. And the LSAT has proven value. Yes, some of it can be taught, but no amount of retaking will get you from 140-180 (I'll accept that there may be anecdotal exceptions).

lawof11 wrote:

snowball2 wrote:

chicagoburger wrote:To me, 3.0 should go nowhere in law schools because that's really telling about your undergraduate performance over a long period of time.
Because of a 3-months crash course you get big scholarship from reputable law schools regardless how shitty undergrad you are...what a joke

Well you can get to 3.0 a number of ways; start out strong then slack off, start weak and then excel, or simply stay consistent. Each communicates something different. Combine that with softs and a strong personal statement and a slacker freshman that got 3 subsequent years of great grades is a pretty appealing candidate. And the LSAT has proven value. Yes, some of it can be taught, but no amount of retaking will get you from 140-180 (I'll accept that there may be anecdotal exceptions).

snowball2 wrote:

chicagoburger wrote:To me, 3.0 should go nowhere in law schools because that's really telling about your undergraduate performance over a long period of time.
Because of a 3-months crash course you get big scholarship from reputable law schools regardless how shitty undergrad you are...what a joke

Well you can get to 3.0 a number of ways; start out strong then slack off, start weak and then excel, or simply stay consistent. Each communicates something different. Combine that with softs and a strong personal statement and a slacker freshman that got 3 subsequent years of great grades is a pretty appealing candidate. And the LSAT has proven value. Yes, some of it can be taught, but no amount of retaking will get you from 140-180 (I'll accept that there may be anecdotal exceptions).

Again--or it could be something completely different from those scenarios. I took mostly stem classes and then rushed a fraternity my freshman year, I made deans list a bunch towards the end of Sophomore and in my Junior years, and my Senior year my grades were back down. I was also the president of my fraternity my senior year, which was on probation the whole year, forcing me to have countless meetings with the dean and to pour countless amounts of time into related obligations.

It's easy to categorize and use heuristics, but it's intellectually lazy. Every person has a different story, and this prime example of the fundamental attribution error. Oh--there's a reason why I didn't perform up to X and do Y. But all those other guys are soulless K-JDs, who will do shitty in law school, or whatever--and wholly neglect the same allowances/explanations for others' that you would include for yourself.

I think especially for people that are four or five years out--the GPA is much a less barometer or predictor of performance. I mean, I was 17 when I started undergrad. I was an immature, impressionable, hedonistic mass. I'm 26 now, a much, much more mature version of my college self.

It's just horribly short sighted to make large-scale, and quite assumptive, structural criticisms about an 'entire program,' and its applicants, that's based more on your own emotion rather than anything remotely intellectual.

mjb447 wrote:Law school will be soulless regardless of the makeup of the student body, TYVM.