Top Law Schools

Just to find out if a lot of people ended up cancelling, I for one just did.

.

I cancelled during the test. I choked on RC (usually my best section), and never recovered.

I don't want to be the umpteenth person to start a "should I cancel?" thread and I also don't want to to be that person that starts a "chances" thread when I have no score, so I'll just ask here.

I'm aiming for 170+ in December. I am guessing my October LSAT is anywhere from a -14 to a -28 (cringe), so I already know 170 is all but out this time, but hopefully I at least landed on the north side of 160. I want to have at least a decent shot at Northwestern. My GPA is 2.4 (cringe again).

Would a low score before a (hopefully much) better retake hurt my chances with NU? Supposedly NU does not average, but I wonder if just seeing the lower score still has more of a negative effect than canceling.

My goal is lower top 14, Howard, or bust. I am concentrating on Northwestern because they seem to be the most splitter-friendly school and I do have some work experience - very unremarkable, but at least I haven't been sitting at home twiddling my thumbs for six years straight. I figure with 170 or above I at least have a 50/50 chance with them, while I have very low hopes for a 2.4 getting in at any other T14 whether I cancel or not. After looking at LSN I'm confident that I can get into Howard with a 160 or above but I know I should be doing way better than 160.

Ask Desert Fox. Pm him. He goes to Northwestern - he applied as a splitter, and he is generally informed about the app process in general.

I must warn you he will probably make fun of you for scoring below a 170 though.

I cancelled. I immediately realized that the actual test exposed the weaknesses of how I had been studying over the past 3 months. I didn't spend enough effort on RC, I only did 4 section PT's, and worst of all, every time I finished a section in a PT I'd check the answers because I was too impatient. When I got to the test and didn't have that security blanket, it absolutely ruined me. I've regrouped, developed a new plan, and preparing for December.

tazmolover wrote:Ask Desert Fox. Pm him. He goes to Northwestern - he applied as a splitter, and he is generally informed about the app process in general.

I must warn you he will probably make fun of you for scoring below a 170 though.

Yeah, I'm familiar with his posts, so that would be expected, lol. Didn't realize he went to Northwestern though. Thanks!

Cynthia Rose, are you african american? If not you would be best served not going to howard.

Patriot1208 wrote:Cynthia Rose, are you african american? If not you would be best served not going to howard.

Just wondering, why do I hear this a lot?

tazmolover wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:Cynthia Rose, are you african american? If not you would be best served not going to howard.

Just wondering, why do I hear this a lot?

Howard places very well considering it's ranking. But this is because many big firms go there for minority recruitment. With howard being the only historically black college with a law school (I'm not positive but I think this is true), it is a good place for firms to go and get the diversity they want without having to travel to many other schools. But for a white person you are better off going to a regional school where you want to preactice because the likelihood of getting biglaw out of there is just as slim if not worse for you than it will be at a different university where you would like to practice. Also, Howards main market is New York, not DC

tazmolover wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:Cynthia Rose, are you african american? If not you would be best served not going to howard.

Just wondering, why do I hear this a lot?

Patriot, I am black (I assumed that since I mentioned Howard it was an automatic inference...sorry, didn't mean to pull a Shakespeare on you there ), and tazmolover, the reason you hear that is because Howard is a T3. It does no good, placement-wise, for someone who is not black. For a black person it falls below T14, but probably above most of the rest of the T25 I think; firms are more likely to go there for OCI than say, the University of Minnesota. Even if the firms are only going for affirmative action hires, at least they're going there. Though in fairness this is more of a biglaw issue, and I'm not really sold on the idea that I'm cut out for biglaw...but if I get stuck with a bunch of loans I'll really have no choice.

Edit - Patriot beat me with the explanation. (S)he is right that their main market is New York. They're not the only HBCU with a law school, there are three, maybe four more that are ABA-accredited and I can think of one that is only regionally accredited. However, Howard is the only one with any actual name recognition/any kind of weight behind its name whatsoever in law circles, and I'm unabashedly a prestige whore now. So it's the only HBCU I would even consider despite its T3 status. I do know a professor there and she is an amazing teacher so that does help a bit. I'm concerned about the administration though; I've heard a lot of complaints.

cynthia rose wrote:

tazmolover wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:Cynthia Rose, are you african american? If not you would be best served not going to howard.

Just wondering, why do I hear this a lot?

Patriot, I am black (I assumed that since I mentioned Howard it was an automatic inference...sorry, didn't mean to pull a Shakespeare on you there ), and tazmolover, the reason you hear that is because Howard is a T3. It does no good, placement-wise, for someone who is not black. For a black person it falls below T14, but probably above most of the rest of the T25 I think; firms are more likely to go there for OCI than say, the University of Minnesota. Even if the firms are only going for affirmative action hires, at least they're going there. Though in fairness this is more of a biglaw issue, and I'm not really sold on the idea that I'm cut out for biglaw...but if I get stuck with a bunch of loans I'll really have no choice.

lol, I mean I figured, but I didn't want to assume. But I also wasn't sure because you may likely don't need a 170 for NW as a URM.

Patriot1208 wrote:

cynthia rose wrote:

tazmolover wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:Cynthia Rose, are you african american? If not you would be best served not going to howard.

Just wondering, why do I hear this a lot?

Patriot, I am black (I assumed that since I mentioned Howard it was an automatic inference...sorry, didn't mean to pull a Shakespeare on you there ), and tazmolover, the reason you hear that is because Howard is a T3. It does no good, placement-wise, for someone who is not black. For a black person it falls below T14, but probably above most of the rest of the T25 I think; firms are more likely to go there for OCI than say, the University of Minnesota. Even if the firms are only going for affirmative action hires, at least they're going there. Though in fairness this is more of a biglaw issue, and I'm not really sold on the idea that I'm cut out for biglaw...but if I get stuck with a bunch of loans I'll really have no choice.

lol, I mean I figured, but I didn't want to assume. But I also wasn't sure because you may likely don't need a 170 for NW as a URM.

Really? That's interesting. I looked on LSN but of course info is scarce for the T14 when the GPA gets that low. I also noticed that most of the splitters who got rejected applied too late (Jan-March) and I'm thinking that made a huge difference. With that said, I try not to operate under the URM mentality even though I know the advantage is there...if anything it makes me want a 170 more now because if I can get in NU with less than that, where else can I get in with 170+?

I think I'm leaning towards not canceling now. I need Friday to get here already so I can stop fighting myself over this.

With a 2.4 gpa I think any advantage you may have had will negligible.

Aqualibrium wrote:With a 2.4 gpa I think any advantage you may have had will negligible.

AA is never negligible.

Patriot1208 wrote:

Aqualibrium wrote:With a 2.4 gpa I think any advantage you may have had will negligible.

AA is never negligible.

The reasoning behind the boost is the idea that the test is biased, and these candidates show they will excel as students in other ways. With a 2.4 she damn well better get a 170+ if she is interested in any t14. Just my opinion, I just don't think a 16x, unless it is on the higher end of that range will cut it. I would love to be proven wrong though, and wish her the best of luck.

Aqualibrium wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:

Aqualibrium wrote:With a 2.4 gpa I think any advantage you may have had will negligible.

AA is never negligible.

The reasoning behind the boost is the idea that the test is biased, and these candidates show they will excel as students in other ways. With a 2.4 she damn well better get a 170+ if she is interested in any t14. Just my opinion, I just don't think a 16x, unless it is on the higher end of that range will cut it. I would love to be proven wrong though, and wish her the best of luck.

Whatever the reasoning may be, the practice is to make sure that the schools get at least 25-33% minorites. Basically, minorities are just competing with other minorities to make sure that they fill out what they need in the class to feel as if they have diversity.

Patriot1208 wrote:

Aqualibrium wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:

Aqualibrium wrote:With a 2.4 gpa I think any advantage you may have had will negligible.

AA is never negligible.

The reasoning behind the boost is the idea that the test is biased, and these candidates show they will excel as students in other ways. With a 2.4 she damn well better get a 170+ if she is interested in any t14. Just my opinion, I just don't think a 16x, unless it is on the higher end of that range will cut it. I would love to be proven wrong though, and wish her the best of luck.

Whatever the reasoning may be, the practice is to make sure that the schools get at least 25-33% minorites. Basically, minorities are just competing with other minorities to make sure that they fill out what they need in the class to feel as if they have diversity.

Well you forgot to mention they want certain minorities. If just being a minority qualified, I'm sure law school would be dominated by Asians.

Patriot1208 wrote:

Aqualibrium wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:

Aqualibrium wrote:With a 2.4 gpa I think any advantage you may have had will negligible.

AA is never negligible.

The reasoning behind the boost is the idea that the test is biased, and these candidates show they will excel as students in other ways. With a 2.4 she damn well better get a 170+ if she is interested in any t14. Just my opinion, I just don't think a 16x, unless it is on the higher end of that range will cut it. I would love to be proven wrong though, and wish her the best of luck.

Whatever the reasoning may be, the practice is to make sure that the schools get at least 25-33% minorites. Basically, minorities are just competing with other minorities to make sure that they fill out what they need in the class to feel as if they have diversity.

I don't totally agree with this. I also resent the idea that urms are only there for diversity (or perhaps I just resent the way it was presented; you make it seem as though grades and LSAT don't matter at all because we are only evaluated based on our skin color).

I personally scored higher on the LSAT than 75 percent of my classmates. Everyone isn't there because of their skin, some people legitimately busted your ass on the LSAT my friend.

Aqualibrium wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:

Aqualibrium wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:AA is never negligible.

The reasoning behind the boost is the idea that the test is biased, and these candidates show they will excel as students in other ways. With a 2.4 she damn well better get a 170+ if she is interested in any t14. Just my opinion, I just don't think a 16x, unless it is on the higher end of that range will cut it. I would love to be proven wrong though, and wish her the best of luck.

Whatever the reasoning may be, the practice is to make sure that the schools get at least 25-33% minorites. Basically, minorities are just competing with other minorities to make sure that they fill out what they need in the class to feel as if they have diversity.

I don't totally agree with this. I also resent the idea that urms are only there for diversity (or perhaps I just resent the way it was presented; you make it seem as though grades and LSAT don't matter at all because we are only evaluated based on our skin color).

I personally scored higher on the LSAT than 75 percent of my classmates. Everyone isn't there because of their skin, some people legitimately busted your ass on the LSAT my friend.

hmm, I think you must be touchy on this subject because I definitely don't think my presentation implies that I believe minorities are there ONLY for skin color. And in nowhere did I state that I believe white people are inherently smarter. But what I did state is that essentially, URM's have to compete solely with each other, not with other races. Schools have to show some sense of diversity as well as firms. And because the smaller number of african americans applying to law schools in comparison to white people it requires that many schools have to dip to what would be considered less qualified candidates. It's almost the same as in-state for some schools. Virginia or UNC legitimately have to let in a few less qualified candidates from in state to fill out their in state requirements. This is because a lot less residents apply to schools compared to out of state residents. This has nothing to do with how smart you are or inherently how smart a race is, it's just a numbers game, and schools have to fill out that 25%-33% for their reputation.

You aren't only evaluated on your skin color. But you are evaluated on your skin color. I'm not here to say that this is right or wrong ethically but it is a fact. That said, this isn't an issue of "race" only. If you are AA, and you have a personal statement of being raised in a normal way in a normal average situation, your LSAT and GPA will have to be higher than someone who came from a terrible situation and persevered. AA or white or anything, this is the case.

I'm not going to even continue commenting on this issue here because its been beaten to death. I just appreciate that some posters who are URM don't act like that has nothing to do with their decisions and expectations, but AT THE SAME TIME aren't taking the particular situational advantage as a free pass and are instead more motivated to accomplish as much or more than their peers in a particular law school. Because whether or not you think URM policy is good, THIS is why it exists.

Don't cancel based on how you "felt" during the test. Cancel based on whether you believe you prepared enough for the exam, and the scores you were getting on your practice tests.

Personally, I took every single practice test released (35 or so at the time) under timed conditions. On the last 10 practice tests, my scores ranged between 173 and 179. Still, on the day of the exam, I felt rushed and slightly confused, and almost certain that I had botched the test. I almost cancelled. I'm glad I didn't, because I got a 176.

The decision to cancel should be based on how you were practicing and testing leading up to the exam. If you were being lax about timing requirements, or if you didn't take all the practice tests, you might want to cancel and practice smarter. If your scores were in a tight grouping during your entire time studying, you likely scored in that range on test day, assuming there were no freak occurrences or distractions. However, almost nobody scores higher than their practice range. So if you're hoping for a 170, you need to be scoring 170+ on your practice tests to get there.

In the context of this discussion, I just want to point out that Caucasians aren't necessarily kept out of any spots because of Affirmative Action. When California universities were no longer allowed to use AA, the percentage of African Americans and Hispanics plummeted, and the percentage of Asians skyrocketed. The percentage of Caucasians did not significantly change.

So remember that the next time a white person complains about a minority taking "his" spot... he most likely wouldn't have gotten in anyway... if the spot was taken, it was taken from an Asian.

Faustian_SA wrote:If you were being lax about timing requirements, or if you didn't take all the practice tests, you might want to cancel and practice smarter.

I took exactly 1 practice test and didn't time it. You people are crazy!
(Then again, I didn't finish the Logic Games because of time mismanagement. Nevermind.)

Attorney wrote:In the context of this discussion, I just want to point out that Caucasians aren't necessarily kept out of any spots because of Affirmative Action. When California universities were no longer allowed to use AA, the percentage of African Americans and Hispanics plummeted, and the percentage of Asians skyrocketed. The percentage of Caucasians did not significantly change.

So remember that the next time a white person complains about a minority taking "his" spot... he most likely wouldn't have gotten in anyway... if the spot was taken, it was taken from an Asian.

I see a flaw in the reasoning...similar to the flaw in the FDR question on an old PT.