I think theres a huge difference between how the ACT and SAT are viewed in different parts of the nation... Here (East Coast/ South) it seems as if you only go take the ACT if you aren't satisfied with ur SAT score and think u have a better shot with another test.Bildungsroman wrote:Everyone at my high school had to take the ACT their junior year. I think it's be a statewide requirement (CO).HeavenWood wrote:I went to HS in suburban Philly, and the ACT was quite hip for being a "more holistic" measure of aptitude. Close to 1/3 of my classmates elected to take it. I took both tests, but scored in the exact same percentiles on each.Bildungsroman wrote:Hey man, as someone who went to high school in the western US I can tell you that the ACT is very much alive and well and being foisted upon students.sundance95 wrote: Are you quoting ACT splits? Man when I was in HS the ACT was the red headed step child of the standardized tests...
Splitters in law school Forum
- Nom Sawyer

- Posts: 913
- Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:28 am
Re: Splitters in law school
-
whymeohgodno

- Posts: 2508
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
This was definitely the prevailing view at my highschool when I applied.I think theres a huge difference between how the ACT and SAT are viewed in different parts of the nation... Here (East Coast/ South) it seems as if you only go take the ACT if you aren't satisfied with ur SAT score and think u have a better shot with another test.
People who took the ACT in addition to the SAT (I didn't know anyone who took only the ACTs) usually did so because they weren't satisfied by their SAT score.
-
czelede

- Posts: 689
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 1:54 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
Yeah it's mandatory in the midwest. I personally found the SAT easier.whymeohgodno wrote:This was definitely the prevailing view at my highschool when I applied.I think theres a huge difference between how the ACT and SAT are viewed in different parts of the nation... Here (East Coast/ South) it seems as if you only go take the ACT if you aren't satisfied with ur SAT score and think u have a better shot with another test.
People who took the ACT in addition to the SAT (I didn't know anyone who took only the ACTs) usually did so because they weren't satisfied by their SAT score.
- crumpetsandtea

- Posts: 7147
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:57 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
Do you mind if I ask what school(s) you're referencing here? (: Gives me hope though!! My most paralyzing fear is that I'll get to law school and be a total flunk-out. I'm so paranoid that when I was reading the beginning of this thread I legit bought into the fake horror stories people were tossing out. 
-
005618502

- Posts: 2577
- Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:56 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
168 doesnt really qualify for what this thread i referring to.crumpetsandtea wrote:Do you mind if I ask what school(s) you're referencing here? (: Gives me hope though!! My most paralyzing fear is that I'll get to law school and be a total flunk-out. I'm so paranoid that when I was reading the beginning of this thread I legit bought into the fake horror stories people were tossing out.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
HeavenWood

- Posts: 2890
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:42 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
168s can be splitters--hell, even a 160 is technically a splitter with a 2.5 GPA. There's just a fine line between splitters and super-splitters.AssumptionRequired wrote:168 doesnt really qualify for what this thread i referring to.crumpetsandtea wrote:Do you mind if I ask what school(s) you're referencing here? (: Gives me hope though!! My most paralyzing fear is that I'll get to law school and be a total flunk-out. I'm so paranoid that when I was reading the beginning of this thread I legit bought into the fake horror stories people were tossing out.
-
whymeohgodno

- Posts: 2508
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
I think most people are assuming 170+ LSAT score here since it's hard to get into a "top law school" as a splitter without 170+ LSAT.
-
005618502

- Posts: 2577
- Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:56 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
This. Plus people with a 168 dont have an advantage over a 165 or even much against a 160 i would imaginewhymeohgodno wrote:I think most people are assuming 170+ LSAT score here since it's hard to get into a "top law school" as a splitter without 170+ LSAT.
-
005618502

- Posts: 2577
- Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:56 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
One question i have is this: Does what you score on the LSAT matter as much as what your cold diagnostic was? I mean would comparing 2 peoples cold diag likely correlate more then their score after what could be months of studying?
-
whymeohgodno

- Posts: 2508
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
As a splitter? They actually do depending on how big the split is.AssumptionRequired wrote:This. Plus people with a 168 dont have an advantage over a 165 or even much against a 160 i would imaginewhymeohgodno wrote:I think most people are assuming 170+ LSAT score here since it's hard to get into a "top law school" as a splitter without 170+ LSAT.
-
whymeohgodno

- Posts: 2508
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
I think diagnostic matters more for RC more than any other section. If you scored a -10 RC and -8 LR but -0 LG, I'd say that's a pretty horrible diagnostic compared to a -0 RC, -8 LR, -10 LG.AssumptionRequired wrote:One question i have is this: Does what you score on the LSAT matter as much as what your cold diagnostic was? I mean would comparing 2 peoples cold diag likely correlate more then their score after what could be months of studying?
-
HeavenWood

- Posts: 2890
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:42 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
A 168 splitter would have trouble breaking into the T14. The best school they could probably snag would be WUSTL.whymeohgodno wrote:As a splitter? They actually do depending on how big the split is.AssumptionRequired wrote:This. Plus people with a 168 dont have an advantage over a 165 or even much against a 160 i would imaginewhymeohgodno wrote:I think most people are assuming 170+ LSAT score here since it's hard to get into a "top law school" as a splitter without 170+ LSAT.
- beachbum

- Posts: 2758
- Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
dude what.AssumptionRequired wrote:This. Plus people with a 168 dont have an advantage over a 165 or even much against a 160 i would imaginewhymeohgodno wrote:I think most people are assuming 170+ LSAT score here since it's hard to get into a "top law school" as a splitter without 170+ LSAT.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
whymeohgodno

- Posts: 2508
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
Yeah a 168 splitter would have no chance of breaking the t14 unless they were URM.HeavenWood wrote:A 168 splitter would have trouble breaking into the T14. The best school they could probably snag would be WUSTL.whymeohgodno wrote:As a splitter? They actually do depending on how big the split is.AssumptionRequired wrote:This. Plus people with a 168 dont have an advantage over a 165 or even much against a 160 i would imaginewhymeohgodno wrote:I think most people are assuming 170+ LSAT score here since it's hard to get into a "top law school" as a splitter without 170+ LSAT.
-
005618502

- Posts: 2577
- Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 10:56 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
This just sounds dumb. I know RC is the hardest to improve but it is not the best showing of how one will perform in LSwhymeohgodno wrote:I think diagnostic matters more for RC more than any other section. If you scored a -10 RC and -8 LR but -0 LG, I'd say that's a pretty horrible diagnostic compared to a -0 RC, -8 LR, -10 LG.AssumptionRequired wrote:One question i have is this: Does what you score on the LSAT matter as much as what your cold diagnostic was? I mean would comparing 2 peoples cold diag likely correlate more then their score after what could be months of studying?
-
HeavenWood

- Posts: 2890
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:42 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
I would venture reading comprehension is extremely important in law school (whether the LSAT RC section is a decent measure of reading comprehension is another issue).AssumptionRequired wrote:This just sounds dumb. I know RC is the hardest to improve but it is not the best showing of how one will perform in LSwhymeohgodno wrote:I think diagnostic matters more for RC more than any other section. If you scored a -10 RC and -8 LR but -0 LG, I'd say that's a pretty horrible diagnostic compared to a -0 RC, -8 LR, -10 LG.AssumptionRequired wrote:One question i have is this: Does what you score on the LSAT matter as much as what your cold diagnostic was? I mean would comparing 2 peoples cold diag likely correlate more then their score after what could be months of studying?
-
whymeohgodno

- Posts: 2508
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
When did I ever say RC is the best showing of how one will perform in LS?AssumptionRequired wrote:This just sounds dumb. I know RC is the hardest to improve but it is not the best showing of how one will perform in LSwhymeohgodno wrote:I think diagnostic matters more for RC more than any other section. If you scored a -10 RC and -8 LR but -0 LG, I'd say that's a pretty horrible diagnostic compared to a -0 RC, -8 LR, -10 LG.AssumptionRequired wrote:One question i have is this: Does what you score on the LSAT matter as much as what your cold diagnostic was? I mean would comparing 2 peoples cold diag likely correlate more then their score after what could be months of studying?
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
09042014

- Posts: 18203
- Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
IIRC both RC and LR were tied for most predictive, and LG was lower, by a fairly significant margin, but still higher than GPA.
Cold diagnostics are useless. People's talents and prior experiences may make them much more suited to the formatting of the test. On my first PT I tried to do LG in my head and got >15 wrong. Ten minutes of the LG bible and I was down to <5. Same went for RC and knowing how fast I was supposed to be reading.
Cold diagnostics are useless. People's talents and prior experiences may make them much more suited to the formatting of the test. On my first PT I tried to do LG in my head and got >15 wrong. Ten minutes of the LG bible and I was down to <5. Same went for RC and knowing how fast I was supposed to be reading.
- Chupavida

- Posts: 208
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 2:37 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
.
Last edited by Chupavida on Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- homestyle28

- Posts: 2362
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:48 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
I'm assuming all the drool and barely being able to function gives it away.arism87 wrote:Is this for real..? Esp the last post- how in the world would you know who was a splitter?
I'm not even a splitter, just curious, sheesh!
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- gman

- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:32 pm
Re: Splitters in law school
Hate to bump an old thread (especially for my first post... sheesh, starting out strong), but this first page was hilarious. Though the trolling was obvious, I couldn't help but feel all my worst fears about my future as a 1L splitter were being confirmed. I am the future Desert Fox, apparently - which is to say an EE undergrad who could never get into or want to get into a decent EE PhD program.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login