The Official September 2017 Study Group Forum

[oopsu812]

I don't really want to engage in the kind of pointless and repetitive TLS battle on the subject, so this is going ITT instead - But the highest scores on the GRE are the percentile equivalent to a 173 / 172 on the LSAT. Anecdotally, it also seems like people generally don't study near as much for the GRE as they do for the LSAT, so the effect would be even more pronounced if that's true.

The process is already disadvantageous enough to STEM applicants and applicants with lower GPAs because of grade deflation or having to work through UG - I'm not sure why we need to make it even more so. All due respect to H, this is also very obviously a gambit to deal with their inability to maintain their LSAT without compromising their GPA (I don't mean this as an insult to H - Just that they're a group with their own interests). We needn't pretend it's for altruistic reasons (least of all "diversity").

This is my takeover as well. However, is there a possibility that this makes high LSAT scores even rarer?

I hope so. I'm just worried it will make things more difficult for splitters - Seems like the decreasing amount of high scores will cease to be an issue, and schools will be able to fill their class and maintain their LSAT just as well without them.

I hope the effect won't be drastic. But regardless, there are a fair few (potential) negatives and really no positives of this aside from perhaps a lessening of LSAC's stranglehold. Not sure why some are defending it so virulently.

I suppose my hope is that people with 3.9+ GPAs will just take the GRE instead of the LSAT because they don't need to compensate for a low GPA, making 3.7-3.8xs with very high LSATs more desirable. I'm not sure where that'd leave super splitters though.

[Mikey]

So.

Keep it informative but to the point.

For my LOR writers (1 of which I spoke to exclusivily through email), I just wrote something brief that included:

1. thanks for writing me a LOR, it is greatly appreciated.
2. a sentence of 2 explaining how LSAC handles LORs electronically incase they did not know
3. what class(es) you took with them and the grade you got
4. don't send them any materials (resume, essays, etc) unless they ask you to. just simply ask them briefly IF there is anything they would like you to send to them for your letter.

I had 1 prof who asked for a resume, another who asked for nothing. ask them first though, don't just send them something !

That was my fallback, which seems like a better plan. Basically state (in a non demeaning or condescending way) if they needed any help/content then to let me know. I think that is simpler. Thanks a lot Mikey

[+] Spoiler

No problem. But now there's a hole in my screen

[Alexandros]

.

[34iplaw]

@TWiiX, one LR recommender is a semi-family friend that I work with (my work situation is complicated) so I just talked to him in person, and the LR request is a professor I had a long time ago that I got along with extremely well.

I can't find the email chain, but I found an early draft of the initial email that I sent to a friend to do an initial proof on. Given the submitted the letter in less than two weeks, I don't think there was any back and forth. Initially, I had discussed meeting with him in person, but I was unable to make it up.

[+] Spoiler

Hello Professor _______________________,

I hope that the new academic year is going well so far. I wanted to discuss this in person, but, unfortunately, I do not think that I will be in Ithaca in the near future. For that reason, I thought it might be best to make an initial inquiry through email.

I am in the process of applying to law schools and have just finished sitting for my LSAT. Law schools heavily weigh recommendations from undergraduate professors - even if fairly removed from undergrad such as myself - along with GPA and LSAT score. Law schools weigh recommendations heavily, as it can provide them critical insight into the type of student they are considering to admit.

While it is quite some time ago at this point, I would greatly appreciate if you consider writing a letter of recommendation for me. I think that you probably better understand my academic capabilities than many other professors due to the presentation driven nature and relatively small size of the _____________________________ class.

If it is something that you would be interested in and capable of doing with your given commitments this semester, I would greatly appreciate it. If so, I can follow up with further details, information, or answer any questions you may have about the process before any form of commitment. As a general broad stroke, the process will involve submitting a single letter either through mail or online through LSAC which will be distributed to all schools that I apply.

I greatly appreciate your time and consideration, and I apologize for the relative length of this email. I hope all is well.

Sincerely,
_______________

For someone that has already agreed, I think it is best to try to keep things relatively short and sweet. The lengthier nature of my email was intended to give the professor a few things to cite to basically back out if they weren't fully into it.

For you, I think something like...

Dear Professor that has already agreed to write this noise,

Thank you again for agreeing to write my letter of recommendation. As you are aware, letters of recommendation are critical components of law school applications, as they allow law school admissions to better understand the type of student they are admitting and ensure that they possess _________, _______________, _____________. (put in some qualities you care they mention... probably an easy way to get them to mention those qualities without explicitly asking them)

[here are brief instructions and general info on how the LOR process works... 1-3 sentences]

(I think you combined your last two points into a paragraph just labeling attachments... this part is a bit more tricky since I think it's weird to assume that they do not know how to write LORs... perhaps say something that sort of qualifies it since law school LORs may not be as common depending on their field of study... if you suspect they write a bunch, I'd just have a brief offering to get them the info)

To assist you with the process, I have uploaded several attachments. For information about me, '____.pdf' contains my resume and '____.pdf' contains some rockstar paper I wrote for you that you loved and will remind you of how good I am. For information on letters of recommendation for law school, I have provided '________.pdf', '__________.pdf', and '________.pdf' which can help further illuminate the process if needed.

I greatly appreciate your time, help, and, most importantly, support in my law school ambitions. If there is anything at all I can do to help with the process or clarify any ambiguity, please let me know.

Sincerely,
LeftSideTWiiX

[34iplaw]

Alex, I think you'll be fine in the end. You're a high GPA/high LSAT. You'll still be incredibly rare.

IMO, the change will most impact reverse splitters (unless they crush the GRE instead of taking the LSAT), but it's pure speculation without fully understanding how reporting requirements will change. Reverse splitters lose what they have to offer; splitters do not.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Alex, I think you'll be fine in the end. You're a high GPA/high LSAT. You'll still be incredibly rare.

IMO, the change will most impact reverse splitters (unless they crush the GRE instead of taking the LSAT), but it's pure speculation without fully understanding how reporting requirements will change. Reverse splitters lose what they have to offer; splitters do not.

I agree with this. I think the change is supposed to be of the benefit more to splitters than anyone else

[oopsu812]

I'm just selfishly hoping it'll help people in the 3.8ish, 175+ range, lol.

[Alexandros]

.

[34iplaw]

I'm just selfishly hoping it'll help people in the 3.8ish, 175+ range, lol.

I mean, it couldn't possibly hurt them in any way. If you use that 7sage table, 175+ is the 99.5%ile. That's 500 test-takers and, certainly, not all of them have a 3.8 or higher.

You're fine. In the end, this isn't going to mean you needed to go to HYP to go to law school. TBH, there are far better options from a monetary standpoint out of HYP with a 3.8+ than law school, and this change to the LSAT certainly will not change that.

@Alex, ah. Gotya. Re-point to Jager, I, personally, think it will hurt reverse splitters the most as the change directly devalues a high GPA. It possibly indirectly devalues a high LSAT. All that said, I think it's way too early to tell how it will meaningfully change the process. Granted, my reasoning for why one is direct and the other is indirect probably boils down to semantics in the end.

[Mikey]

Alex's score is indeed rare.

Ugh how

[oopsu812]

I'm just selfishly hoping it'll help people in the 3.8ish, 175+ range, lol.

I mean, it couldn't possibly hurt them in any way. If you use that 7sage table, 175+ is the 99.5%ile. That's 500 test-takers and, certainly, not all of them have a 3.8 or higher.

You're fine. In the end, this isn't going to mean you needed to go to HYP to go to law school. TBH, there are far better options from a monetary standpoint out of HYP with a 3.8+ than law school, and this change to the LSAT certainly will not change that.

I think you're right. I do wonder though, as Alex pointed out earlier, how it'll affect merit aid. Will super high GPAs with a high GRE score get money over a splitter?

[34iplaw]

I'm just selfishly hoping it'll help people in the 3.8ish, 175+ range, lol.

I mean, it couldn't possibly hurt them in any way. If you use that 7sage table, 175+ is the 99.5%ile. That's 500 test-takers and, certainly, not all of them have a 3.8 or higher.

You're fine. In the end, this isn't going to mean you needed to go to HYP to go to law school. TBH, there are far better options from a monetary standpoint out of HYP with a 3.8+ than law school, and this change to the LSAT certainly will not change that.

I think you're right. I do wonder though, as Alex pointed out earlier, how it'll affect merit aid. Will super high GPAs with a high GRE score get money over a splitter?

I don't know, and I don't think it's really reasonable to make a definitive call given how many moving parts there are. I'd say one should look at what happened with business schools, but I think scholarships and admissions to business school are too different from law school to make a definitive call.

[Alexandros]

.

[dj9i27]

[

[dj9i27]

.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I'm just selfishly hoping it'll help people in the 3.8ish, 175+ range, lol.

If (for instance) CLS's GPA shoots up and its LSAT stays the same, folks like us will be just another brick in the wall.

@34 - I agree that it would hurt reverse splitters (perhaps the most), but it would also hurt splitters. I think it would help people who would otherwise be reverse splitters - Applicants who could do well on the GRE but not the LSAT (but didn't actually take the latter).

I do agree that's it's too soon to say on all these fronts - and I hope things won't change very fast, if they do. My point is only that there are a great deal of potential negatives and not many positives.

Hmm yeah, Your argument makes a ton of sense. I was just thinking from a very broad standpoint that they are trying to get more students who aren't as statistically outstanding as have been typically accepted in the past mainly in regards to GPA. For the most part, I think its safe to argue that there are a ton of people as proof in this thread who have "above average and really good" (as in the average kid who goes to college) GPA who are brilliant people who will have extremely successful futures, but these applicants wouldnt be accepted because they dont have a 3.8x+ GPA. I think the schools see that these applicants with slightly lower GPAs can contribute the same and if not more than their perfect numbers counterparts.

[Rupert Pupkin]

I don't think I know more than 1 person irl with above a 3.8

Same... especially in legitimate majors

[dj9i27]

]

[Rupert Pupkin]

I don't think I know more than 1 person irl with above a 3.8

Same... especially in legitimate majors

[+] Spoiler

hahahahah BRUH.

[Mikey]

I don't think I know more than 1 person irl with above a 3.8

Same... especially in legitimate majors

[+] Spoiler

hahahahah BRUH.

oOooOOOoOooooO

[Rupert Pupkin]

I'm just selfishly hoping it'll help people in the 3.8ish, 175+ range, lol.

I mean, it couldn't possibly hurt them in any way. If you use that 7sage table, 175+ is the 99.5%ile. That's 500 test-takers and, certainly, not all of them have a 3.8 or higher.

You're fine. In the end, this isn't going to mean you needed to go to HYP to go to law school. TBH, there are far better options from a monetary standpoint out of HYP with a 3.8+ than law school, and this change to the LSAT certainly will not change that.

@Alex, ah. Gotya. Re-point to Jager, I, personally, think it will hurt reverse splitters the most as the change directly devalues a high GPA. It possibly indirectly devalues a high LSAT. All that said, I think it's way too early to tell how it will meaningfully change the process. Granted, my reasoning for why one is direct and the other is indirect probably boils down to semantics in the end.

Yeah agree with this. Both points def make sense. Time will tell. I think next cycle will be an incredible one

[Alexandros]

,

[oopsu812]

I'm just selfishly hoping it'll help people in the 3.8ish, 175+ range, lol.

If (for instance) CLS's GPA shoots up and its LSAT stays the same, folks like us will be just another brick in the wall.

@34 - I agree that it would hurt reverse splitters (perhaps the most), but it would also hurt splitters. I think it would help people who would otherwise be reverse splitters - Applicants who could do well on the GRE but not the LSAT (but didn't actually take the latter).

I do agree that's it's too soon to say on all these fronts - and I hope things won't change very fast, if they do. My point is only that there are a great deal of potential negatives and not many positives (unless you count the short term interests of HLS).

That's pretty much my biggest fear. I'm counting on schools like CLS for money lol.

[Alexandros]

,

[AvatarMeelo]

So. I asked my professors in person to write me LoR's (it's been a month and a half or so), and they all happily agreed. Does anyone have a nice format they've found online or that they've written in order to officially ask for them? I'll be sending this via email..

I'm thinking something along the lines of this type of structure :

* Hey thanks for agreeing to write me a LoR.....

* Here are some details about LSAC's digital submission form....

* [missing this piece where I think I should include some sample materials/references/examples on how to write a good LoR and what to include.. but I don't know how to word it.]

* And finally wrap up with some brief discussion reminding them what courses I took of theirs, which notable projects I worked on, and update them on my resume/work experience since I've been out of UG.



Can anyone shed some insight on the bracketed area? Or provide feedback in general?

Maybe these two can chime in since they see the light of the promised land?

[+] Spoiler

PAGING NERDS

I'm using this! http://chrisblattman.com/letters/