Feb Waiters: is TODAY the DAY? [New Poll] Forum

[OliveBC]

All but two of the February administrations in that link were 3 days before the release date, which would make Monday the best guess.

WE'RE SO CLOSE.

Too bad I have two essays due after the weekend, or I'd spend all weekend in bed sedating myself with television and delivery.

Exactly how I feel. How am i suppose to concentrate on writing two papers? And seems like it'll be monday fingers crossed

I also have a ton of HW this weekend...yet don't really want to do anything but compulsively check my email

its only 2 more days though, we can do this guys!

[bruin91]

So crazy what a difference a few LSAT points can make. While a 75%+ GPA and a 165 will get you into a T20 with no money, a 75%+GPA and a 168 will get you substantial amount of money. (Basing this off LSN)

How can a few questions on the LSAT make a difference of $100,000? I don't get it.

[kelliedn]

What's a 75% GPA? I'm new to all this lingo.....

[fredmerz]

It's truly absurd. We all know any one of us could have scored within at least a +-3 on every LSAT we've ever taken. Guessing right on three 50-50s could, arguable, drastically alter one's future prospects. We should revolt.

[jvincent11]

It's truly absurd. We all know any one of us could have scored within at least a +-3 on every LSAT we've ever taken. Guessing right on three 50-50s could, arguable, drastically alter one's future prospects. We should revolt.

LSAC acknowledges this which is why they release a 3 point score band with scores now, even though it probably has no effect on admission decisions. Unless you average a 180, luck, or lack of, plays a role in your LSAT score.

[Arcticlynx]

So crazy what a difference a few LSAT points can make. While a 75%+ GPA and a 165 will get you into a T20 with no money, a 75%+GPA and a 168 will get you substantial amount of money. (Basing this off LSN)

How can a few questions on the LSAT make a difference of $100,000? I don't get it.

Totally agree with this…

I feel like LSAT scores have taken on way more weight in law school admissions than they were ever meant too/should. I blame it on the rankings, the fact that the best students want to go to the highest ranked schools, and those schools have to complete for high LSAT averages to attract the best students and it creates one really screwed up feedback cycle. To the point that there are students spending thousands of dollars and months of their live, just to get a better LSAT score rather than pursuing real world experience, community service, work, research, scholarship. I find it completely lopsided that we’re talking about scoring +2 on a test as being more important than having the best recommendations, work experience, publications, character, career aspirations, etc… I mean I think that a test is important, but to the point that people are studying as much as we all do, it’s not like the LSAT measures intelligence or our capacity to perform well in law school, it’s measures how much time and money we can devote to learning the test… I just find it kind of ridiculous, but it’s not like we're going to change the system.

[facile princeps]

What's a 75% GPA? I'm new to all this lingo.....

A school's 75th percentile GPA. It's the GPA that's higher than 75% of the last entering class for a given school. Look here for an example.

[fredmerz]

I feel like LSAT scores have taken on way more weight in law school admissions than they were ever meant too/should. I blame it on the rankings, the fact that the best students want to go to the highest ranked schools, and those schools have to complete for high LSAT averages to attract the best students and it creates one really screwed up feedback cycle. To the point that there are students spending thousands of dollars and months of their live, just to get a better LSAT score rather than pursuing real world experience, community service, work, research, scholarship. I find it completely lopsided that we’re talking about scoring +2 on a test as being more important than having the best recommendations, work experience, publications, character, career aspirations, etc… I mean I think that a test is important, but to the point that people are studying as much as we all do, it’s not like the LSAT measures intelligence or our capacity to perform well in law school, it’s measures how much time and money we can devote to learning the test… I just find it kind of ridiculous, but it’s not like we're going to change the system.

This. Precisely. I think it is up to all of us not to buy into this as much as we possibly can. Of course one has to be realistic, especially when so much money is at stake, but to take NYC as an example: I have a friend who went to Columbia, absolutely despised it and now wants to do anything but the law; I have two friends who went to Cardoza, absolutely loved it, and are both making money hand over fist and totally satisfied with their careers. I'm not using these anecdotes to claim school or ranking doesn't matter, but it's foolish to think either will make or break you.

[chuckbass]

While there are problems with the test, I don't necessarily see a good alternative. There needs to be some way to weed out applicants besides GPA, and honestly I think that benefits most of us that didn't go to HYP or a similar school for undergrad. Also considering that the test is learnable, if you put in the time and really want to get into a top school you can.

[chuckbass]

So crazy what a difference a few LSAT points can make. While a 75%+ GPA and a 165 will get you into a T20 with no money, a 75%+GPA and a 168 will get you substantial amount of money. (Basing this off LSN)

How can a few questions on the LSAT make a difference of $100,000? I don't get it.

Totally agree with this…

I feel like LSAT scores have taken on way more weight in law school admissions than they were ever meant too/should. I blame it on the rankings, the fact that the best students want to go to the highest ranked schools, and those schools have to complete for high LSAT averages to attract the best students and it creates one really screwed up feedback cycle. To the point that there are students spending thousands of dollars and months of their live, just to get a better LSAT score rather than pursuing real world experience, community service, work, research, scholarship. I find it completely lopsided that we’re talking about scoring +2 on a test as being more important than having the best recommendations, work experience, publications, character, career aspirations, etc… I mean I think that a test is important, but to the point that people are studying as much as we all do, it’s not like the LSAT measures intelligence or our capacity to perform well in law school, it’s measures how much time and money we can devote to learning the test… I just find it kind of ridiculous, but it’s not like we're going to change the system.

There is a correlation between LSAT score and 1L grades. Also, the LSAT evens the playing field with people who went to elite UGs, were able to afford awesome unpaid internships, etc.

In short, you (figurative you) may have had the best upbringing, the best schools, access to professors of note to write you LORs but here, in this three and a half hour test, I have a chance to prove that I have the same or better chops than you do.

Still if you think this is crazy, wait until you have to go to LS and do shit that will have nothing to do with actual law, or pass the bar.

Sorry didn't see this, obviously I agree haha!

[jvincent11]

I feel like LSAT scores have taken on way more weight in law school admissions than they were ever meant too/should. I blame it on the rankings.

There has to be a test, but if I answer 1 or 2 more questions correctly out of 100 than someone else am I really a better applicant? Considering the standard deviation for an applicant's LSAT score is 3, 1 or 2 points should not make that big of a difference, but in reality it makes a HUGE difference.

Ask yourself this question: would you rather have the best recommendation in the world or an extra point on the LSAT?

[TheMostDangerousLG]

I feel like LSAT scores have taken on way more weight in law school admissions than they were ever meant too/should. I blame it on the rankings.

There has to be a test, but if I answer 1 or 2 more questions correctly out of 100 than someone else am I really a better applicant? Considering the standard deviation for an applicant's LSAT score is 3, 1 or 2 points should not make that big of a difference, but in reality it makes a HUGE difference.

Ask yourself this question: would you rather have the best recommendation in the world or an extra point on the LSAT?

I think you are overdetermining the difference of one or two points. An admissions committee is not automatically going to choose a 176 candidate over a 175 candidate. It's easy to make massive inferences from LSN, but you have to be careful.

At the end of the day, yes, a 169 and a 170 probably are evaluated quite differently. But I think as you move up, the difference becomes more slight.

[jvincent11]

At the end of the day, yes, a 169 and a 170 probably are evaluated quite differently. But I think as you move up, the difference becomes more slight.

I imagine 169 is significantly worse than 170

[TERS]

a 169 and a 170 probably are evaluated quite differently.

Probably not.

[rebexness]

a 169 and a 170 probably are evaluated quite differently.

Probably not.

Probably yes.

[wannabelawstudent]

I have a 167/2.5 and I just got a 25k/year a scholly at Minnesota (out of state), while a Minnesota UG with a 166/3.4 got waitlisted.....its all about those medians.

Not that I meant to put anymore pressure on you guys

[TERS]

You're right. A 168 versus a 169 and a 170 versus a 171 are each completely different than a 169 versus a 170; admissions committees are completely unreasonable and have an irrational love of the aesthetics of numbers.

[OliveBC]

You're right. A 168 versus a 169 and a 170 versus a 171 are each completely different than a 169 versus a 170; admissions committees are completely unreasonable and have an irrational love of the aesthetics of numbers.

I feel like 169 is the most painful lsat score

[kelliedn]

You know....scores were released on Saturday in 2010, so.....it is possible.....

I'm just saying...

[jvincent11]

You're right. A 168 versus a 169 and a 170 versus a 171 are each completely different than a 169 versus a 170; admissions committees are completely unreasonable and have an irrational love of the aesthetics of numbers.

I feel like 169 is the most painful lsat score

Not as painful as 168

[OliveBC]

You know....scores were released on Saturday in 2010, so.....it is possible.....

I'm just saying...

is this for real?!?!

[wannabelawstudent]

You know....scores were released on Saturday in 2010, so.....it is possible.....

I'm just saying...

is this for real?!?!

Yes it actually is.

[OliveBC]

You know....scores were released on Saturday in 2010, so.....it is possible.....

I'm just saying...

is this for real?!?!

Yes it actually is.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

You're right. A 168 versus a 169 and a 170 versus a 171 are each completely different than a 169 versus a 170; admissions committees are completely unreasonable and have an irrational love of the aesthetics of numbers.

I feel like 169 is the most painful lsat score

I would think a 179 is.

[ws81086n]

For Oct 2010, scores were released on Saturday. Seems like an aberration though. Not getting my hopes up.