Official TLS Wailisted to Accepted thread 2010 Forum

[rockstar4488]

I believe you are very much required to have submitted those grades

[cigrainger]

I believe you are very much required to have submitted those grades

You are required to submit those grades, but law schools recognise them for what they are: community college grades from years ago. I don't believe they report them as your GPA to USNWR, if that's what you mean.

[danieltorrey]

You need to look that up on your LSAC profile. There are a couple of international applicant threads around where you could get more accurate info.

I'll do that, thanks a bunch!

[danieltorrey]

I believe you are very much required to have submitted those grades

You are required to submit those grades, but law schools recognise them for what they are: community college grades from years ago. I don't believe they report them as your GPA to USNWR, if that's what you mean.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I submitted them because I was required to, but never considered them very important. Well, I'll keep up the WL work (loci's, Lor's etc.) and will consider retaking the LSAT. Of course, there is always transfers after my first year, and then the main factor is first year performance.

Cheers.

[MURPH]

If I may redirect from the flame war going on above, here's my cycle thus far. Stats are 3.85/168. I'm a URM with two years work experience after attending a strong (T5) undergrad.

Good numbers LT, I suspect you will have to figure out who is plucking high GPAs off of the waitlist. Virginia seems to be but they have a temporary hold on WL-->Admits now. I haven't had time to research into the other schools yet but hang in there. It is going to be a fun summer for us on the WL.

[danieltorrey]

Yeah, I am an URM. But what is odd is that I was checking LSN, and there are some people there who made into GW with lower LSATs than mine for the 2009-2010 cycle. Some even as low as 148 LSAT and 2.91 GPA. That is wayyyyy lowwr than mine. Its hard to tell what is the criteria for acceptance, the acceptance process is not very transparent. How am I supposed to verify, for example, if I am not being discriminated against?
Anyway, thank you for the input, it's much appreciated!

that 148/2.91 is probably a backdoor, my relatives have donated millions of dollars to GW entrance....life's not fair-deal with it...my tardive roommate (144 lsat) from ug went to fordham law bc his father was on the board....i definitely would not take solace from someone getting in with a 148.

discrimination? you mean, your hoping to get accepted into a top 20 law-school with a median lsat that is a full 5 points higher than your highest lsat score, and the word "discrimination" is what comes to mind??? wow.

i say just be persistent with your loci's.......your numbers could just have easily constituted a quick DING; your urm status is probably still very beneficial-even in the WL stage, and i am willing to argue that as a non-urm, you should have been dinged straight up..hundreds of applicants with higher lsat's and very strong gpa's have been rejected.....

I forgot to mention that I have applied for GW's part-time program, sorry, it totally slipped my mind. I was checking out the new rankings at USNWR, and they have a more in depth breakdown of the PT ranking. On that ranking, GW's 25/75th LSAT percentile is 162/167, so that narrows the gap a bit between my 160 and their median LSAT. Putting that together with URM, legal background, do you think the picture is a bit more positive?

Cheers!

[D. H2Oman]

I understand that you may have found it strange that I brought up the word "discrimination" on a previous post. However, I said it as an example of unverifiability. I don't necessarily believe I am being discriminated against. Law school is almost as much about hypothesis as is philosophy, legal rules are actually hypothesis of incidence, so its good to get used to many hypothesis flying around, just for the sake of pushing the limits of a given rule or practice, Supreme Court Justices do that all the time.

Holy shit. You are a moron.

[98234872348]

The reason, I think, and anyone has the right to disagree with me here, that I didn't score better on the LSAT is the language barrier, and not the reasoning skills. See, each section has 35 minutes, correct? The fact is that despite all my training in the English language, I just can't read as fast as a native speaker. I can read as accurate as a native speaker, it just takes me a bit longer. I once gave myself extra 5 minutes, just to compensate for the language deficiency, and when I did that, my score jumped to 168/170. So I don't believe it's in the reasoning skills that I lack, but in reading slower. And of course, the legal profession is not a speed reading challenge, its a logical and argumentative one, where professionals usually have enough time to prepare their arguments.

You realize that legal professionals are very frequently pressured to do a ton of reading in a very short time, right? You should also realize that ALL law school exams are time pressured and often involved lengthy fact patterns that you have to read and analyze before you can begin writing your answer, which accounts for 100 percent of your grade...

Also, you realize that affirmative action is discrimination by definition, and that you're not being discriminated against if a school doesn't take your race into account when deciding whether or not to accept you, right?

[hoyasaxon]

what ethnicity are you daniel torrey, if i may ask? if you are a genuine urm- you should have a semi-solid shot at GW for both FT and PT programs...Im not sure if the differences between the two programs are that disparate, bc GW recently cut its PT program in half and accepted a lot of high LSAT'ers into that program to move back to #20 on the usnwr.

i think you are absolutely, definitely over-valuing your "softs" (what we here in the states call extracurricular activities, letters of rec, publications, graduate degrees (yes this includes you, along with M.D's, PhD's......you know, doctors); in all honesty, I would be willing to bet that your WL was dictated MUCH MORE by your urm status than by anything work/profession/ambition-related.

you are also neglecting the importance of the LSAT...just look at the USC 2010 thread....again, there are superbly qualified candidates with 166 LSAT's getting rejected with a ferocious vengeance......each point matters, and the point is that you should not expect anything from anyone here on the boards if you are trying to gain empathy with your situation -which is a below 25th percentile lsat taker feeling entitled for admittance at a top 20 program (just for being a lawyer from another country???). and again, even if english is an ancillary language, your self-proclaimed, thorough, latin jargon-infused, exhaustive delving into the nuances of legal thought should have easily over-ridden your "slower" reading, and could have easily dictated a much, much higher lsat score.

GW is not a public school- it is a private entity and institution, with private funders and shareholders, just like any other corporation. they do not owe you anything, and they have a right to reject and accept whomever they please.

if you have a gw or die mentality, the only way to "guarantee" yourself a slot is to jack up your lsat score.....by a good amount...even then, its no certainty.

[Matteliszt]

If anyone is interested in vandy, I am watching LSN and keeping track of it here

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 7&t=116308

Good luck to everyone.

GW's 25/75th LSAT percentile is 162/167, so that narrows the gap a bit between my 160 and their median LSAT. Putting that together with URM, legal background, do you think the picture is a bit more positive?

You are still well under the 25th percentile. Any information you get from us about wait lists is speculative. Watch the trends in LSN for yourself and see when the wait list starts moving who they are accepting. They are most likely going to be trying to fill slots of people who declined their offers, so you need someone like you who is low lsat/gpa/urm. Mainly you need to hope diversity candidates drop so you can fill in for them. All anyone on this forum can tell you is "You might get in"

[danieltorrey]

I understand that you may have found it strange that I brought up the word "discrimination" on a previous post. However, I said it as an example of unverifiability. I don't necessarily believe I am being discriminated against. Law school is almost as much about hypothesis as is philosophy, legal rules are actually hypothesis of incidence, so its good to get used to many hypothesis flying around, just for the sake of pushing the limits of a given rule or practice, Supreme Court Justices do that all the time.

Holy shit. You are a moron.

Ok, I beg to differ. Anyway, what have you done in law? I'd like to see you try to back up your extremely offensive comment. If you don't, that's because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about; if you try, I am actually curious to what you're gonna come up with.

[DanInALionsDen]

I started out on the SPWL at GULC, now I have a full tuition scholarship offer there... weird.

Still waitlisted at:

Columbia
NYU
Penn

[D. H2Oman]

I understand that you may have found it strange that I brought up the word "discrimination" on a previous post. However, I said it as an example of unverifiability. I don't necessarily believe I am being discriminated against. Law school is almost as much about hypothesis as is philosophy, legal rules are actually hypothesis of incidence, so its good to get used to many hypothesis flying around, just for the sake of pushing the limits of a given rule or practice, Supreme Court Justices do that all the time.

Holy shit. You are a moron.

Ok, I beg to differ. Anyway, what have you done in law? I'd like to see you try to back up your extremely offensive comment. If you don't, that's because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about; if you try, I am actually curious to what you're gonna come up with.

Sorry, I should have phrased my argument Glen Beck style like you did. I'm not saying danieltorrey is a COMPLETE MORON it is merely a hypothesis. Sorry for the confusion.

[danieltorrey]

what ethnicity are you daniel torrey, if i may ask? if you are a genuine urm- you should have a semi-solid shot at GW for both FT and PT programs...Im not sure if the differences between the two programs are that disparate, bc GW recently cut its PT program in half and accepted a lot of high LSAT'ers into that program to move back to #20 on the usnwr.

i think you are absolutely, definitely over-valuing your "softs" (what we here in the states call extracurricular activities, letters of rec, publications, graduate degrees (yes this includes you, along with M.D's, PhD's......you know, doctors); in all honesty, I would be willing to bet that your WL was dictated MUCH MORE by your urm status than by anything work/profession/ambition-related.

you are also neglecting the importance of the LSAT...just look at the USC 2010 thread....again, there are superbly qualified candidates with 166 LSAT's getting rejected with a ferocious vengeance......each point matters, and the point is that you should not expect anything from anyone here on the boards if you are trying to gain empathy with your situation -which is a below 25th percentile lsat taker feeling entitled for admittance at a top 20 program (just for being a lawyer from another country???). and again, even if english is an ancillary language, your self-proclaimed, thorough, latin jargon-infused, exhaustive delving into the nuances of legal thought should have easily over-ridden your "slower" reading, and could have easily dictated a much, much higher lsat score.

GW is not a public school- it is a private entity and institution, with private funders and shareholders, just like any other corporation. they do not owe you anything, and they have a right to reject and accept whomever they please.

if you have a gw or die mentality, the only way to "guarantee" yourself a slot is to jack up your lsat score.....by a good amount...even then, its no certainty.

Well, let's start from the begging. GW may be a private institution, great. It was chartered by Congress though, and it most likely receives federal grants, therefore, it can not choose whatever criteria it may want to. Federal or state sponsorship makes that particular institution attached to the public standards. Moreover, property law 101, you cannot to whatever you want with your property. Can I decide that, as long as it stays in my property, the laws of the land don't apply? Yeah, go for it, its going to be funny.

I get that a lot of you guys are pissed assuming I came over to this country thinking I am entitled to something. I assure you, that is not the case. All I expect from you, as prospective lawyers, is some respect for the legal profession as colleges, no matter where you come from. Do you know that if you go to Europe, your JD degree gets downgraded to a LLB? The roman-based civil law has one thousand years experience over the common law, and more than 3 times as much people in the world solve their legal problems trough the civil law system than the common law. There is a lot a U.S. trained lawyer can learn from a civil law trained one, just as the other way around. I don't believe in the superiority of a legal tradition over another, I just think we can both learn from each other. That is why I came over here. So, do I believe my legal degree has more weight than my URM? Yeah, I do. And if it doesn't, than I actually think schools should reject me on the spot. I would not want to take part of a culture in which legal profession colleagues don't show the same respect for each other.
LSAT wise, I think it would be hilarious if you tried that in my language, or any other language for that matter.

My Ethnicity? Lusitan.

[danieltorrey]

I understand that you may have found it strange that I brought up the word "discrimination" on a previous post. However, I said it as an example of unverifiability. I don't necessarily believe I am being discriminated against. Law school is almost as much about hypothesis as is philosophy, legal rules are actually hypothesis of incidence, so its good to get used to many hypothesis flying around, just for the sake of pushing the limits of a given rule or practice, Supreme Court Justices do that all the time.

Holy shit. You are a moron.

Ok, I beg to differ. Anyway, what have you done in law? I'd like to see you try to back up your extremely offensive comment. If you don't, that's because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about; if you try, I am actually curious to what you're gonna come up with.

Sorry, I should have phrased my argument Glen Beck style like you did. I'm not saying danieltorrey is a COMPLETE MORON it is merely a hypothesis. Sorry for the confusion.

No problem mate, you are excused.

[MURPH]

Seriously, Take the flame war someplace else please.

[D. H2Oman]

So, do I believe my legal degree has more weight than my URM? Yeah, I do. And if it doesn't, than I actually think schools should reject me on the spot. I would not want to take part of a culture in which legal profession colleagues don't show the same respect for each other.
LSAT wise, I think it would be hilarious if you tried that in my language, or any other language for that matter.

My Ethnicity? Lusitan.

Good news bro, your legal degree does indeed have more weight than your URM status.....because you're not actually a URM.

[robin600]

So, do I believe my legal degree has more weight than my URM? Yeah, I do. And if it doesn't, than I actually think schools should reject me on the spot. I would not want to take part of a culture in which legal profession colleagues don't show the same respect for each other.
LSAT wise, I think it would be hilarious if you tried that in my language, or any other language for that matter.

My Ethnicity? Lusitan.

Good news bro, your legal degree does indeed have more weight than your URM status.....because you're not actually a URM.

Seperate thread for doucheyness please!

Anyways, has anyone else been accepted off a wait list besides Georgetown? If so can we start to keep track of that here too. If this is just a G-Town thread, perhaps a re-name is in order?

[Matteliszt]

Anyways, has anyone else been accepted off a wait list besides Georgetown? If so can we start to keep track of that here too. If this is just a G-Town thread, perhaps a re-name is in order?

Since Murph is the only one really looking at data, its mainly his schools. I am watching Vandy and ND, but I have a separate thread for Vandy.

[MURPH]

Anyways, has anyone else been accepted off a wait list besides Georgetown? If so can we start to keep track of that here too. If this is just a G-Town thread, perhaps a re-name is in order?[/quote]

There really has not been much action anywhere else. Vandy, Penn, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and a few others that I've looked at are not pulling from the waitlist yet. UVA took some high GPA folks that I posted above but not much. Don't worry over the next few weeks I expect some more action all around. I put my deposit down at UCLA and did not accept offers from Minnesota and UIUC. A lot of schools had deadlines this week so let the shuffling begin.

[danieltorrey]

[DOOM]

lol. dick move.

[danieltorrey]

The reason, I think, and anyone has the right to disagree with me here, that I didn't score better on the LSAT is the language barrier, and not the reasoning skills. See, each section has 35 minutes, correct? The fact is that despite all my training in the English language, I just can't read as fast as a native speaker. I can read as accurate as a native speaker, it just takes me a bit longer. I once gave myself extra 5 minutes, just to compensate for the language deficiency, and when I did that, my score jumped to 168/170. So I don't believe it's in the reasoning skills that I lack, but in reading slower. And of course, the legal profession is not a speed reading challenge, its a logical and argumentative one, where professionals usually have enough time to prepare their arguments.

You realize that legal professionals are very frequently pressured to do a ton of reading in a very short time, right? You should also realize that ALL law school exams are time pressured and often involved lengthy fact patterns that you have to read and analyze before you can begin writing your answer, which accounts for 100 percent of your grade...

Also, you realize that affirmative action is discrimination by definition, and that you're not being discriminated against if a school doesn't take your race into account when deciding whether or not to accept you, right?

Yes, you are absolutely correct that discrimination goes both ways, positive and negative. I did write "discriminated against", which was meant to mean negative discrimination (the kind that works against someone, instead of in favor of someone). As you pointed out, affirmative action is a good example of positive discrimination, similar to the balancing effect that consumer protection's laws are meant to have (the balancing of unequal and unmeritorius discrepancies on the bargaining power of the parties or the correction of past wrongdoings). John Rawls crafted a very persuasive case for that in his very influential book "A Theory of Justice" (great reading) and thanks for pointing that out!

Cheers!

[danieltorrey]

lol. dick move.

Sorry about that, although my previous posts can still be found in other peoples reply's and quotes. I stand by what I wrote, but I think we should cut back on the conflict of ideas that was going on.

Happy to accept constructive comments though!

Cheers

[hoyasaxon]

Danieltorrey, this thread is titled the "TLS WL to ACCEPTED" thread- this is not your own personal thread for jotting down every thought you experience in paragraph form. since this thread is for either notifiying other users of one's ACTUALLY getting in off a WL (which you havent), or updating users of particular WL-to-accept patterns that have been emerging (which you havent), you really should start your own thread....even if you dont get many responses, you dont have to commandeer this one...i see that you already tried starting your own thread, and that the forum response wasnt very vigorous--this is a sign that you should move on, not ask the same questions on another thread.

.... you are the one who started dropping latin jargon and talking about being a real-life lawyer. you are the one who concluded that english as a second language is dropping your lsat from a potential 170 to a 160, and that 5 minutes extra time per section would have really helped you out (again, this is the case for everyone). you are the one who said, "I sat in during classes at GW, American, and GMU and I was able to answer 50% of the questions correctly-in my own head!"...how is this chain of implied-superiority statements treating us like equal colleagues?, yet, you accuse us of not being civil? again, interesting discussion, but none of this is relevant to THIS THREAD. go start your own.

you first asked for advice posing as a traditional applicant, then you added that you are a urm, then you added that you're a lawyer, then you added that you're applying PT, now we find that you're not a urm, just someone who needs to go back to TLS-basics...i suggest starting with the acronyms thread.

you have a right to, but definitely do not need to inundate separate threads with lengthy, paragraph-form musingseach time you experience a thought.....

your pages worth of posts could have been reduced to two simple lines: "HELLO, MY NAME IS DANIEL TORREY, I AM NOT A URM, I HAVE AN INTERNATIONAL LAW DEGREE- WHAT ARE MY CHANCES FOR GW PT WITH A 160 LSAT?"

answer: "you may have a chance- anything else is 110% speculation"

i say if GW doesnt pull through, go take the LSAT again and kick some ass - again, please remember that this is the thread for "WAITLIST TO ACCEPTED" candidates or for those who are trying to gleam any new information from emerging WL-A patterns on sources such as LSN.