Boalt's LSAT Median Forum

[Kronk]

There are three reasons that a given individual may do better than another on the LSAT : (1) he really has better logical/analytical skills (2) he has better nerves and doesn't stress as much on test day and (3) he studies his ass off far more than his competitor

I love how everyone completely neglect (2) and ESPECIALLY (3) in their discussions on these boards. How do you know how long the 172 studied compared to the 169? I have a hunch that there's a good deal of Trolls on here who holed themselves up for 5 months, shunned the daylight, pounded away for hours a day at this one test, hit 172, and now have the arrogance to come on here and pronounce their unquestionable intellectual superiority over those in the 169 camp, many of whom studied for one half or less the time.

I think Berkeley's admission policy takes these factors into account. They realize that there is no real way to distinguish between the true geniouses who ace the LSAT with minimal prep and those who dedicate decades of their life to studying for this one test, who then try to pass of their work ethic as pristine intellect. Berkeley realizes that due to these totally unobservable discrepencies in prep time, the 169 with good grades, a compelling personality( as indicated by their personal statement), and substantive extracurricular/professional activities may very well be, ON AVERAGE, just as, if not more, intelligent than the 173 without those additional factors.

I feel you bro. I also hate it when people neglect those who choose to study minimally in UG. I mean come on, how do you know how long the 3.9 studied compared to the 3.1?

I think that choosing to not study for four years and get a sub 3.4 GPA is a lot more indicative of someone who will not be successful in law school than someone who who gets nervous for a test, though.

[09042014]

There are three reasons that a given individual may do better than another on the LSAT : (1) he really has better logical/analytical skills (2) he has better nerves and doesn't stress as much on test day and (3) he studies his ass off far more than his competitor

I love how everyone completely neglect (2) and ESPECIALLY (3) in their discussions on these boards. How do you know how long the 172 studied compared to the 169? I have a hunch that there's a good deal of Trolls on here who holed themselves up for 5 months, shunned the daylight, pounded away for hours a day at this one test, hit 172, and now have the arrogance to come on here and pronounce their unquestionable intellectual superiority over those in the 169 camp, many of whom studied for one half or less the time.

I think Berkeley's admission policy takes these factors into account. They realize that there is no real way to distinguish between the true geniouses who ace the LSAT with minimal prep and those who dedicate decades of their life to studying for this one test, who then try to pass of their work ethic as pristine intellect. Berkeley realizes that due to these totally unobservable discrepencies in prep time, the 169 with good grades, a compelling personality( as indicated by their personal statement), and substantive extracurricular/professional activities may very well be, ON AVERAGE, just as, if not more, intelligent than the 173 without those additional factors.

I feel you bro. I also hate it when people neglect those who choose to study minimally in UG. I mean come on, how do you know how long the 3.9 studied compared to the 3.1?

I think that choosing to not study for four years and get a sub 3.4 GPA is a lot more indicative of someone who will not be successful in law school than someone who who gets nervous for a test, though.

Really? I'd think the opposite. A person can choose to become more motivated. They can't choose to stop being a choker.

[rayiner]

I think that choosing to not study for four years and get a sub 3.4 GPA is a lot more indicative of someone who will not be successful in law school than someone who who gets nervous for a test, though.

Your all-important 1L grades consist almost entirely of 6-8 high-presssure time-limited exams.

[lawyering]

I think that choosing to not study for four years and get a sub 3.4 GPA is a lot more indicative of someone who will not be successful in law school than someone who who gets nervous for a test, though.

Your all-important 1L grades if you don't go to Yale consist almost entirely of 6-8 high-presssure time-limited exams.

FTFY

[stratocophic]

There are three reasons that a given individual may do better than another on the LSAT : (1) he really has better logical/analytical skills (2) he has better nerves and doesn't stress as much on test day and (3) he studies his ass off far more than his competitor

I love how everyone completely neglect (2) and ESPECIALLY (3) in their discussions on these boards. How do you know how long the 172 studied compared to the 169? I have a hunch that there's a good deal of Trolls on here who holed themselves up for 5 months, shunned the daylight, pounded away for hours a day at this one test, hit 172, and now have the arrogance to come on here and pronounce their unquestionable intellectual superiority over those in the 169 camp, many of whom studied for one half or less the time.

I think Berkeley's admission policy takes these factors into account. They realize that there is no real way to distinguish between the true geniouses who ace the LSAT with minimal prep and those who dedicate decades of their life to studying for this one test, who then try to pass of their work ethic as pristine intellect. Berkeley realizes that due to these totally unobservable discrepencies in prep time, the 169 with good grades, a compelling personality( as indicated by their personal statement), and substantive extracurricular/professional activities may very well be, ON AVERAGE, just as, if not more, intelligent than the 173 without those additional factors.

I feel you bro. I also hate it when people neglect those who choose to study minimally in UG. I mean come on, how do you know how long the 3.9 studied compared to the 3.1?

I think that choosing to not study for four years and get a sub 3.4 GPA is a lot more indicative of someone who will not be successful in law school than someone who who gets nervous for a test, though.

Really? I'd think the opposite. A person can choose to become more motivated. They can't choose to stop being a choker.

You can't teach being clutch.

[dudester]

There are three reasons that a given individual may do better than another on the LSAT : (1) he really has better logical/analytical skills (2) he has better nerves and doesn't stress as much on test day and (3) he studies his ass off far more than his competitor

I love how everyone completely neglect (2) and ESPECIALLY (3) in their discussions on these boards. How do you know how long the 172 studied compared to the 169? I have a hunch that there's a good deal of Trolls on here who holed themselves up for 5 months, shunned the daylight, pounded away for hours a day at this one test, hit 172, and now have the arrogance to come on here and pronounce their unquestionable intellectual superiority over those in the 169 camp, many of whom studied for one half or less the time.

I think Berkeley's admission policy takes these factors into account. They realize that there is no real way to distinguish between the true geniouses who ace the LSAT with minimal prep and those who dedicate decades of their life to studying for this one test, who then try to pass of their work ethic as pristine intellect. Berkeley realizes that due to these totally unobservable discrepencies in prep time, the 169 with good grades, a compelling personality( as indicated by their personal statement), and substantive extracurricular/professional activities may very well be, ON AVERAGE, just as, if not more, intelligent than the 173 without those additional factors.

I feel you bro. I also hate it when people neglect those who choose to study minimally in UG. I mean come on, how do you know how long the 3.9 studied compared to the 3.1?

I think that choosing to not study for four years and get a sub 3.4 GPA is a lot more indicative of someone who will not be successful in law school than someone who who gets nervous for a test, though.

Really? I'd think the opposite. A person can choose to become more motivated. They can't choose to stop being a choker.

Psychology fail

[mbw]

I think that choosing to not study for four years and get a sub 3.4 GPA is a lot more indicative of someone who will not be successful in law school than someone who who gets nervous for a test, though.

Really? I'd think the opposite. A person can choose to become more motivated. They can't choose to stop being a choker.

Hence, the invention of Xanax (which student health services generally give out like candy... or so I've heard...)

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

There are three reasons that a given individual may do better than another on the LSAT : (1) he really has better logical/analytical skills (2) he has better nerves and doesn't stress as much on test day and (3) he studies his ass off far more than his competitor

I love how everyone completely neglect (2) and ESPECIALLY (3) in their discussions on these boards. How do you know how long the 172 studied compared to the 169? I have a hunch that there's a good deal of Trolls on here who holed themselves up for 5 months, shunned the daylight, pounded away for hours a day at this one test, hit 172, and now have the arrogance to come on here and pronounce their unquestionable intellectual superiority over those in the 169 camp, many of whom studied for one half or less the time.

I think Berkeley's admission policy takes these factors into account. They realize that there is no real way to distinguish between the true geniouses who ace the LSAT with minimal prep and those who dedicate decades of their life to studying for this one test, who then try to pass of their work ethic as pristine intellect. Berkeley realizes that due to these totally unobservable discrepencies in prep time, the 169 with good grades, a compelling personality( as indicated by their personal statement), and substantive extracurricular/professional activities may very well be, ON AVERAGE, just as, if not more, intelligent than the 173 without those additional factors.

wrong

[$1.99]

berkeley's LSAT median is low because the school is a joke, not because they take into account other factors that the rest of the T14 ignore, boalt is not special

[Morrissey'sGhost]

There are three reasons that a given individual may do better than another on the LSAT : (1) he really has better logical/analytical skills (2) he has better nerves and doesn't stress as much on test day and (3) he studies his ass off far more than his competitor

I love how everyone completely neglect (2) and ESPECIALLY (3) in their discussions on these boards. How do you know how long the 172 studied compared to the 169? I have a hunch that there's a good deal of Trolls on here who holed themselves up for 5 months, shunned the daylight, pounded away for hours a day at this one test, hit 172, and now have the arrogance to come on here and pronounce their unquestionable intellectual superiority over those in the 169 camp, many of whom studied for one half or less the time.

I think Berkeley's admission policy takes these factors into account. They realize that there is no real way to distinguish between the true geniouses who ace the LSAT with minimal prep and those who dedicate decades of their life to studying for this one test, who then try to pass of their work ethic as pristine intellect. Berkeley realizes that due to these totally unobservable discrepencies in prep time, the 169 with good grades, a compelling personality( as indicated by their personal statement), and substantive extracurricular/professional activities may very well be, ON AVERAGE, just as, if not more, intelligent than the 173 without those additional factors.

wrong

No I'd say its pretty right.

[Morrissey'sGhost]

And for you to deride a school for preferring the candidate with unique work/extracurricular experience who can write an interesting well-thought out essay, over the robot who spends 6 months 12 hours a day prepping for a test so he can hit an extra three multiple choice questions is pretty ridiculous when you really take step back and look at it. And if you don't know individuals that fit the bill for the two categories I've described, I'd guess you're probably a member of the later group.

[kittenmittons]

And for you to deride a school for preferring the candidate with unique work/extracurricular experience who can write an interesting well-thought out essay, over the robot who spends 6 months 12 hours a day prepping for a test so he can hit an extra three multiple choice questions is pretty ridiculous when you really take step back and look at it. And if you don't know individuals that fit the bill for the two categories I've described, I'd guess you're probably a member of the former category.

EGREGIOUS anti-aspergers trolling. You sir are a bigot.

[booboo]

And for you to deride a school for preferring the candidate with unique work/extracurricular experience who can write an interesting well-thought out essay, over the robot who spends 6 months 12 hours a day prepping for a test so he can hit an extra three multiple choice questions is pretty ridiculous when you really take step back and look at it. And if you don't know individuals that fit the bill for the two categories I've described, I'd guess you're probably a member of the former category.

EGREGIOUS anti-aspergers trolling. You sir are a bigot.

There he is.

[savagecheater]

There are three reasons that a given individual may do better than another on the LSAT : (1) he really has better logical/analytical skills (2) he has better nerves and doesn't stress as much on test day and (3) he studies his ass off far more than his competitor

I love how everyone completely neglect (2) and ESPECIALLY (3) in their discussions on these boards. How do you know how long the 172 studied compared to the 169? I have a hunch that there's a good deal of Trolls on here who holed themselves up for 5 months, shunned the daylight, pounded away for hours a day at this one test, hit 172, and now have the arrogance to come on here and pronounce their unquestionable intellectual superiority over those in the 169 camp, many of whom studied for one half or less the time.

I think Berkeley's admission policy takes these factors into account. They realize that there is no real way to distinguish between the true geniouses who ace the LSAT with minimal prep and those who dedicate decades of their life to studying for this one test, who then try to pass of their work ethic as pristine intellect. Berkeley realizes that due to these totally unobservable discrepencies in prep time, the 169 with good grades, a compelling personality( as indicated by their personal statement), and substantive extracurricular/professional activities may very well be, ON AVERAGE, just as, if not more, intelligent than the 173 without those additional factors.

I feel you bro. I also hate it when people neglect those who choose to study minimally in UG. I mean come on, how do you know how long the 3.9 studied compared to the 3.1?

I think that choosing to not study for four years and get a sub 3.4 GPA is a lot more indicative of someone who will not be successful in law school than someone who who gets nervous for a test, though.

My sub-3.4 GPA (3.2) was because of particularly brutal pledging at my fraternity sophomore year.

so no.

[rundoxierun]

Just to get in on this.. I would turn down Yale for Boalt in a heart beat without a second thought..

[$1.99]

good for you, way to make the wrong but prideful choice

[irishman86]

.

[booboo]

berkeley's LSAT median is low because the school is a joke, not because they take into account other factors that the rest of the T14 ignore, boalt is not special

A Boaltie I know (not urm) spells "restaurant" as "restaraunt," which says a lot about the entrance requirements and quality of many of its students.

One person's actions says a lot about an entire institution and many of its students?

[irishman86]

.

[Ragged]

LSAT is importnat. GPA is important. Boalt is a TTT. /thread

[rundoxierun]

berkeley's LSAT median is low because the school is a joke, not because they take into account other factors that the rest of the T14 ignore, boalt is not special

A Boaltie I know (not urm) spells "restaurant" as "restaraunt," which says a lot about the entrance requirements and quality of many of its students.

Your sentence ends with "... which says a lot about the entrance requirements and quality of many of its students." Since we are already analyzing someone's spelling, how about we analyze your sentence structure and conclude that whatever institution you attend is a proper TTT.

[CredoUtIntellegam]

berkeley's LSAT median is low because the school is a joke, not because they take into account other factors that the rest of the T14 ignore, boalt is not special

A Boaltie I know (not urm) spells "restaurant" as "restaraunt," which says a lot about the entrance requirements and quality of many of its students.

With logic like this, you'll make a fine addition to Cooley's incoming class.

[ViP]

ITT splitters vent their frustrations.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

x

[stratocophic]

ITT splitters vent their frustrations.

itt people use laughable BOALTTTian logic.

who said i am frustrated?

And reverse splitters defend their inadequacies. Both groups are half fail.