Underperformed for a 173- taking questions Forum

[rad lulz]

You sound like an insufferable douche.

HTH.

[kwais]

Top three headlines of the day.

Europe spiraling into financial ruin
Egypt elects Muslim Brotherhood
Some kid gets a completely predictable score, given his pt average.

There is plenty of reading on the first two out there. Good thing OP is here to flesh out the third.

[Clearly]

Jesus, about time. Thank you to the previous 2 posters. I couldn't believe people took this seriously.

Congrats on the score, I'm not trying to be a douche, its an accomplishment, but totally undeserving of starting this thread. If you had never shot below 178, and hit 173, I suspect we MIGHT have some questions on how pissed you must be, or what you did wrong. But you started a thread to field questions regarding a totally predictable occurrence, nothing unique about this at all. Also, if you want HYS, retake Oct, and prep your ass off. I genuinely believe anyone who can score a 173 can score a 177 if they work towards improving whatever 1 thing fucks them up every test, and draws a lucky test that highlights their skills. At this point we have shown we are very good at this test, not much lays between that and 177+ besides one or two deficiencies, and luck.

[Starships]

Didn't realize I would draw this much criticism- live and learn I suppose.

And I wasn't starting the thread to bitch about the 173- I was over the moon with a "real" score that could "really" get me into law school. I'm quite thankful/ happy that I got this thing done.

I posted the underperformance distinction because I assumed (I know this applies to me) that nobody would care to take any kind of LSAT advice from a 173 scorer. For TLS, it's not that good of a score. But if people have LSAT related questions, I believe I am quite competent to answer them, or at least more so than my score would indicate. I have been answering PM's to the best of my ability.

And I knew I was a douche- but an insufferable one? That really stings, breh.

[Nova]

I posted the underperformance distinction because I assumed (I know this applies to me) that nobody would care to take any kind of LSAT advice from a 173 scorer. For TLS, it's not that good of a score.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... ?f=6&t=396

[CorkBoard]

Didn't realize I would draw this much criticism- live and learn I suppose.

And I wasn't starting the thread to bitch about the 173- I was over the moon with a "real" score that could "really" get me into law school. I'm quite thankful/ happy that I got this thing done.

I posted the underperformance distinction because I assumed (I know this applies to me) that nobody would care to take any kind of LSAT advice from a 173 scorer. For TLS, it's not that good of a score. But if people have LSAT related questions, I believe I am quite competent to answer them, or at least more so than my score would indicate. I have been answering PM's to the best of my ability.

And I knew I was a douche- but an insufferable one? That really stings, breh.

It sounds more like you're trying to obnoxiously dickslang your 173 by calling it an underperformance.

[Starships]

Thank you Nova- didn't realize that was a forum to post tips in, but rather one of those TLS pre-put-together pages of advice (never read it). I mentioned not knowing this in my first post in this thread- I don't think anyone cared though.

Big fan of the word "dickslang."

I am as sorry that this came off the wrong way. I was really just trying to offer myself up for advice and thought the credential thing was necessary. Hope I didn't ruin anybody's day.

[Nova]

I was also trying to imply that you dont need a 174+ to give legit, helpful advice that posters and lurkers will listen to. Posters and lurkers who are scoring in the 140s and 150s are often well served by taking advice from those who scored in the 160s.

[CorkBoard]

I am as sorry that this came off the wrong way. I was really just trying to offer myself up for advice and thought the credential thing was necessary. Hope I didn't ruin anybody's day.

GOD DAMNIT MY LIFE IS RUINED FOREVER

[jkpolk]

GOD DAMNIT MY LIFE IS RUINED FOREVER

why u mad cork?

[TrialLawyer16]

Didn't realize I would draw this much criticism- live and learn I suppose.

And I wasn't starting the thread to bitch about the 173- I was over the moon with a "real" score that could "really" get me into law school. I'm quite thankful/ happy that I got this thing done.

I posted the underperformance distinction because I assumed (I know this applies to me) that nobody would care to take any kind of LSAT advice from a 173 scorer. For TLS, it's not that good of a score. But if people have LSAT related questions, I believe I am quite competent to answer them, or at least more so than my score would indicate. I have been answering PM's to the best of my ability.

And I knew I was a douche- but an insufferable one? That really stings, breh.

It sounds more like you're trying to obnoxiously dickslang your 173 by calling it an underperformance.

Lol wow

And unfortunately it doesn't matter what you scored on preptests, broham. It's all about game day

[longagofaraway30]

What, may I ask, was your SAT score

[Mr.Binks]

Soo.. lock this thread..?