UIUC 2015 Forum

[Gail]

My response was simple and that was that there is more to admissions than an L.S.A.T score and a GPA a message that young applicants should adhere to as those "statistics" are predictive but not determinant

Yeah. That sucks.

Gail, what were your stats if you don't mind me asking?

166/3.6x


tooswolle is 100% correct that numbers are not all of what law schools use. I applied early November. Good stats. Bad everything else.


I'm not getting in

[givemea170]

My response was simple and that was that there is more to admissions than an L.S.A.T score and a GPA a message that young applicants should adhere to as those "statistics" are predictive but not determinant

Yeah. That sucks.

Gail, what were your stats if you don't mind me asking?

166/3.6x


tooswolle is 100% correct that numbers are not all of what law schools use. I applied early November. Good stats. Bad everything else.


I'm not getting in

I know they look at other things, but other things are usually too objective to base much on. Good luck on getting in though. What do you really mean bad everything else?

[omninode]

My response was simple and that was that there is more to admissions than an L.S.A.T score and a GPA a message that young applicants should adhere to as those "statistics" are predictive but not determinant

Yeah. That sucks.

Gail, what were your stats if you don't mind me asking?

166/3.6x


tooswolle is 100% correct that numbers are not all of what law schools use. I applied early November. Good stats. Bad everything else.


I'm not getting in

I had a really weak résumé, no extracurriculars to speak of, etc. and I got in with 168/3.3x. If you get rejected I think it probably comes down to your PS or some other very specific thing. Maybe a sour LOR?

[Gail]

I know they look at other things, but other things are usually too objective to base much on. Good luck on getting in though. What do you really mean bad everything else?

I think its stupid to look at anything else, to be honest. I'm biased about that though.


For one thing. Sure. Maybe someone does have success in business. That requires getting a good job out of college (or any job out of college) in the first place. Something that some people have an advantage on over other people.

Even numbers are subjective, but the LSAT and GPA are so much more merit based than anything else. I know some people fall on the opposite side and wished that they would take soft factors into deeper account, but I don't. I don't see the relevance of bringing in tons of moneys for the company that gave me a job to succeeding in law school.


As far as bad, I could PM you my PS, which wasn't so much badly written as it probably stepped on toes of adcomms. But I also made the mistake of disclosing everything, even when they asked that I not disclose minor traffic tickets. My resume sucks. TTT undergrad. Lots of flaws to pick at. All I had were numbers. Numbers that I worked hard at. I did my best. I wanted it so badly that I effed myself for 2011-2012. I failed.

[Gail]

I had a really weak résumé, no extracurriculars to speak of, etc. and I got in with 168/3.3x. If you get rejected I think it probably comes down to your PS or some other very specific thing. Maybe a sour LOR?

From talking to a few other posters, I think that it was my PS. If you want to see it, I'll show you.

[givemea170]

I had a really weak résumé, no extracurriculars to speak of, etc. and I got in with 168/3.3x. If you get rejected I think it probably comes down to your PS or some other very specific thing. Maybe a sour LOR?

From talking to a few other posters, I think that it was my PS. If you want to see it, I'll show you.

I wouldn't mind taking a look at it. I felt uneasy about my essay until someone at essayedge told me it was great. They could have been lying, but I guess I'll know when I get all of my applications back.

I applied to 15 different schools so hopefully at least someone in my top 5 takes a chance on me as a splitter.

[Gail]

Hell, I would have taken Tulane with a big scholarship. It beats unemployment, which I feel is inevitable out of college.

[givemea170]

Hell, I would have taken Tulane with a big scholarship. It beats unemployment, which I feel is inevitable out of college.

With those stats, you should get a big scholarship somewhere. How many schools did you apply to? This whole bullshit that they aren't basing the decisions on stats is garbage I think. Outside of actually knowing someone personally, stats are the best indication they have and they should be used ALMOST exclusively IMO.

[tom2189]

in with 50% tuition. 169/3.89.

[Gail]

Hell, I would have taken Tulane with a big scholarship. It beats unemployment, which I feel is inevitable out of college.

With those stats, you should get a big scholarship somewhere. How many schools did you apply to? This whole bullshit that they aren't basing the decisions on stats is garbage I think. Outside of actually knowing someone personally, stats are the best indication they have and they should be used ALMOST exclusively IMO.

I'm still complete at 11/9 for Tulane. They've accepted people before me.


Idk. I think my cycle is example of stats not meaning everything. Next October when kids are looking at which schools to apply to on LSN, they'll see my loan little yellow pentagon or red diamond in a sea of green triangles and think, wtf?

[tooswolle]

I know they look at other things, but other things are usually too objective to base much on. Good luck on getting in though. What do you really mean bad everything else?

I think its stupid to look at anything else, to be honest. I'm biased about that though.


For one thing. Sure. Maybe someone does have success in business. That requires getting a good job out of college (or any job out of college) in the first place. Something that some people have an advantage on over other people.

Even numbers are subjective, but the LSAT and GPA are so much more merit based than anything else. I know some people fall on the opposite side and wished that they would take soft factors into deeper account, but I don't. I don't see the relevance of bringing in tons of moneys for the company that gave me a job to succeeding in law school.


As far as bad, I could PM you my PS, which wasn't so much badly written as it probably stepped on toes of adcomms. But I also made the mistake of disclosing everything, even when they asked that I not disclose minor traffic tickets. My resume sucks. TTT undergrad. Lots of flaws to pick at. All I had were numbers. Numbers that I worked hard at. I did my best. I wanted it so badly that I effed myself for 2011-2012. I failed.

I said I wouldn't respond to anything else but your point has some validity but not by much. It's true that an LSAT and GPA can predict the likelihood of your success that isnt disputable. The fact of the matter is, that TLS is a microcosm of over achievers. A 158 places an individual in the top 25% of test takers and a score in the 160s is only a difference of a few questions. A 170 is around 15-20 questions wrong. At some point statistical predictors become irrelevant. Work experience is what future employers will look at. The questions they'll ask is if you can get hired and can you produce for them. Furthermore the LSAT and GPA does not take in to account past disadvantages or whether someone had mitigating factors for lower scores in general. To base admissions on only numbers forecloses opportunities on people who could have made a difference in the legal profession. Perhaps younger people don't see how things work, but entitlement doesn't exist anymore. If you're smarter than someone but that other person out hustles you, has more charisma and is competent you're always going to loose out. I really am not looking for a debate with anyone I'm just defending the holistic methodology used by certain schools.

On a cursory glance the correlation between the LSAT and 1L grades the correlation is a .18 which isn't determinant at all of what someone can do....regardless best of luck to all. I know that when I hit law school it'll be a level playing field and I've learned from many things in life.

[givemea170]

I know they look at other things, but other things are usually too objective to base much on. Good luck on getting in though. What do you really mean bad everything else?

I think its stupid to look at anything else, to be honest. I'm biased about that though.


For one thing. Sure. Maybe someone does have success in business. That requires getting a good job out of college (or any job out of college) in the first place. Something that some people have an advantage on over other people.

Even numbers are subjective, but the LSAT and GPA are so much more merit based than anything else. I know some people fall on the opposite side and wished that they would take soft factors into deeper account, but I don't. I don't see the relevance of bringing in tons of moneys for the company that gave me a job to succeeding in law school.


As far as bad, I could PM you my PS, which wasn't so much badly written as it probably stepped on toes of adcomms. But I also made the mistake of disclosing everything, even when they asked that I not disclose minor traffic tickets. My resume sucks. TTT undergrad. Lots of flaws to pick at. All I had were numbers. Numbers that I worked hard at. I did my best. I wanted it so badly that I effed myself for 2011-2012. I failed.

I said I wouldn't respond to anything else but your point has some validity but not by much. It's true that an LSAT and GPA can predict the likelihood of your success that isnt disputable. The fact of the matter is, that TLS is a microcosm of over achievers. A 158 places an individual in the top 25% of test takers and a score in the 160s is only a difference of a few questions. A 170 is around 15-20 questions wrong. At some point statistical predictors become irrelevant. Work experience is what future employers will look at. The questions they'll ask is if you can get hired and can you produce for them. Furthermore the LSAT and GPA does not take in to account past disadvantages or whether someone had mitigating factors for lower scores in general. To base admissions on only numbers forecloses opportunities on people who could have made a difference in the legal profession. Perhaps younger people don't see how things work, but entitlement doesn't exist anymore. If you're smarter than someone but that other person out hustles you, has more charisma and is competent you're always going to loose out. I really am not looking for a debate with anyone I'm just defending the holistic methodology used by certain schools.

On a cursory glance the correlation between the LSAT and 1L grades the correlation is a .18 which isn't determinant at all of what someone can do....regardless best of luck to all. I know that when I hit law school it'll be a level playing field and I've learned from many things in life.

I've been out of undergrad for a few months.. what kind of good job record could I even have? I'm sure there are many others in a similar boat. As for past disadvantages, adcomms couldn't possible know that kind of stuff. For example, if someone were to spend the time and energy to make up something in their life that was a disadvantage, if it is well-written, it could be successful for them. It isn't like they are going to ask for the proof of the 'death of your best friend' the week during your finals or the week before your LSAT.

That is why, generally speaking, they should look at the concrete statistics and the writing. Nothing else should really matter. It is way too objective, not to mention it could all be complete bullshit.

Great that a 158 got scholarship money at Illinois. That makes me feel really good about my prospects of getting in/getting scholarship money with a 171. That is a substantial difference, and would lead one to believe there was a substantial difference in the level of intelligence between those two particular applicants in all honesty.

I may sound like a jerk, but I just don't believe in excuses like some people like to make. My GPA is low because my junior year my GPA was awful due to some rough emotional times. You won't see me with an essay on an application making excuses though. I should have handled it better and didn't.

[mooseman2216]

I said I wouldn't respond to anything else but your point has some validity but not by much. It's true that an LSAT and GPA can predict the likelihood of your success that isnt disputable. The fact of the matter is, that TLS is a microcosm of over achievers. A 158 places an individual in the top 25% of test takers and a score in the 160s is only a difference of a few questions. A 170 is around 15-20 questions wrong. At some point statistical predictors become irrelevant. Work experience is what future employers will look at. The questions they'll ask is if you can get hired and can you produce for them. Furthermore the LSAT and GPA does not take in to account past disadvantages or whether someone had mitigating factors for lower scores in general. To base admissions on only numbers forecloses opportunities on people who could have made a difference in the legal profession. Perhaps younger people don't see how things work, but entitlement doesn't exist anymore. If you're smarter than someone but that other person out hustles you, has more charisma and is competent you're always going to loose out. I really am not looking for a debate with anyone I'm just defending the holistic methodology used by certain schools.

On a cursory glance the correlation between the LSAT and 1L grades the correlation is a .18 which isn't determinant at all of what someone can do....regardless best of luck to all. I know that when I hit law school it'll be a level playing field and I've learned from many things in life.

i agree with the givemea170 as well. but the parts in red just rub me wrong. i agree that yes those numbers cannot take in to account past disadvantages. youre right about that. but in the end i earned my 166 just as everyone else earned their score. and it would seem that if a higher lsat score is indicative of a higher likelihood of success in law school and law schools are in the business of producing successful lawyers then higher lsat should = better school. youre right though, some special circumstances come into play and it is entirely subjective.

to address the 2nd red, i disagree 100 percent. being an URM does not mean that they have out hustled me or are more competent than me at all! i would be looking at a COMPLETELY different cycle if i were an URM. if that was not what you were implying, i apologize... its 6 am. but thats what it seemed like to me

i think youre numbers and your softs are your numbers and softs but things like race or economic situation should not play into the equation as a soft factor. what you did to better your economic situation definitely. but race? cmon.


to keep it a tad relevant to UIUC - i went in review 12/6 after submitting in the middle of october

[givemea170]

I said I wouldn't respond to anything else but your point has some validity but not by much. It's true that an LSAT and GPA can predict the likelihood of your success that isnt disputable. The fact of the matter is, that TLS is a microcosm of over achievers. A 158 places an individual in the top 25% of test takers and a score in the 160s is only a difference of a few questions. A 170 is around 15-20 questions wrong. At some point statistical predictors become irrelevant. Work experience is what future employers will look at. The questions they'll ask is if you can get hired and can you produce for them. Furthermore the LSAT and GPA does not take in to account past disadvantages or whether someone had mitigating factors for lower scores in general. To base admissions on only numbers forecloses opportunities on people who could have made a difference in the legal profession. Perhaps younger people don't see how things work, but entitlement doesn't exist anymore. If you're smarter than someone but that other person out hustles you, has more charisma and is competent you're always going to loose out. I really am not looking for a debate with anyone I'm just defending the holistic methodology used by certain schools.

On a cursory glance the correlation between the LSAT and 1L grades the correlation is a .18 which isn't determinant at all of what someone can do....regardless best of luck to all. I know that when I hit law school it'll be a level playing field and I've learned from many things in life.

i agree with the givemea170 as well. but the parts in red just rub me wrong. i agree that yes those numbers cannot take in to account past disadvantages. youre right about that. but in the end i earned my 166 just as everyone else earned their score. and it would seem that if a higher lsat score is indicative of a higher likelihood of success in law school and law schools are in the business of producing successful lawyers then higher lsat should = better school. youre right though, some special circumstances come into play and it is entirely subjective.

to address the 2nd red, i disagree 100 percent. being an URM does not mean that they have out hustled me or are more competent than me at all! i would be looking at a COMPLETELY different cycle if i were an URM. if that was not what you were implying, i apologize... its 6 am. but thats what it seemed like to me

i think youre numbers and your softs are your numbers and softs but things like race or economic situation should not play into the equation as a soft factor. what you did to better your economic situation definitely. but race? cmon.


to keep it a tad relevant to UIUC - i went in review 12/6 after submitting in the middle of october

Not to open a huge box of worms... but I saw someone from an HBCU with serious scholarship money to a top 14 with a 155 LSAT and 3.32 GPA. I threw up in my mouth a little. But what can you do... the system isn't going to change. Injustices are okay sometimes, is the general consensus.

[mooseman2216]

I said I wouldn't respond to anything else but your point has some validity but not by much. It's true that an LSAT and GPA can predict the likelihood of your success that isnt disputable. The fact of the matter is, that TLS is a microcosm of over achievers. A 158 places an individual in the top 25% of test takers and a score in the 160s is only a difference of a few questions. A 170 is around 15-20 questions wrong. At some point statistical predictors become irrelevant. Work experience is what future employers will look at. The questions they'll ask is if you can get hired and can you produce for them. Furthermore the LSAT and GPA does not take in to account past disadvantages or whether someone had mitigating factors for lower scores in general. To base admissions on only numbers forecloses opportunities on people who could have made a difference in the legal profession. Perhaps younger people don't see how things work, but entitlement doesn't exist anymore. If you're smarter than someone but that other person out hustles you, has more charisma and is competent you're always going to loose out. I really am not looking for a debate with anyone I'm just defending the holistic methodology used by certain schools.

On a cursory glance the correlation between the LSAT and 1L grades the correlation is a .18 which isn't determinant at all of what someone can do....regardless best of luck to all. I know that when I hit law school it'll be a level playing field and I've learned from many things in life.

i agree with the givemea170 as well. but the parts in red just rub me wrong. i agree that yes those numbers cannot take in to account past disadvantages. youre right about that. but in the end i earned my 166 just as everyone else earned their score. and it would seem that if a higher lsat score is indicative of a higher likelihood of success in law school and law schools are in the business of producing successful lawyers then higher lsat should = better school. youre right though, some special circumstances come into play and it is entirely subjective.

to address the 2nd red, i disagree 100 percent. being an URM does not mean that they have out hustled me or are more competent than me at all! i would be looking at a COMPLETELY different cycle if i were an URM. if that was not what you were implying, i apologize... its 6 am. but thats what it seemed like to me

i think youre numbers and your softs are your numbers and softs but things like race or economic situation should not play into the equation as a soft factor. what you did to better your economic situation definitely. but race? cmon.


to keep it a tad relevant to UIUC - i went in review 12/6 after submitting in the middle of october

Not to open a huge box of worms... but I saw someone from an HBCU with serious scholarship money to a top 14 with a 155 LSAT and 3.32 GPA. I threw up in my mouth a little. But what can you do... the system isn't going to change. Injustices are okay sometimes, is the general consensus.

yeah, ive noticed a few lsn profiles like that. and youre right its not gonna change so its not good bitching about it haha. ill leave the worms alone now.

[omninode]

Wow. I thought this thread was about UIUC 2015, but it has apparently devolved into some long winded discussion on the merits of the LSAT. Snooze.

[Opie]

Wow. I thought this thread was about UIUC 2015, but it has apparently devolved into some long winded discussion on the merits of the LSAT. Snooze.

Until the mods arrive. I would probably watch the off-topic ITT if I were above posters (nit that I have a problem with any of them or think it isn't a valid debate).

[confusedlaw]

in with 226000

[Cornelius]

wow someone got 33K scholarship for a 158/3.3 if LSN is accurate.

Crazy.

That would be the 11k (25%) scholarship over 3 years. Depends on how they put it into LSN. I do the yearly amount but I know some people put the 3-year value.

Yeah I figured as much... I was more surprised that was even accepted...

To respond to your under handed attack there is more to admissions than a numerical index; ie contacts with big people and professional experience. Won't go in to details about it, but let me just tell you I've probably generated more profits for my company than the average joe sees in a year. Take it for what it's worth dude; ps numbers are skewed.

Don't know why anyone is even getting worked up/surprised about it. The 158/3.3 is a URM. It's a well-documented boost.

[tooswolle]

Wow. I thought this thread was about UIUC 2015, but it has apparently devolved into some long winded discussion on the merits of the LSAT. Snooze.

Until the mods arrive. I would probably watch the off-topic ITT if I were above posters (nit that I have a problem with any of them or think it isn't a valid debate).

I'll agree with opie on this and then drop this. But before I do I'll clarify a few things. I don't disagree that stats should be the main criteria. Nor at any point did I insinuate that a urm can get a better job because they can "hustle". My positions are simple anD unequivocal, and that is that numbers dont solely identify ones chances if there are softs involved, second the LSAT which many praise is not the end all be all; my score differed from the 160s by a FEW MISSED QUESTIONS that does not at any point mean lower intelligence as some seem to posit. My third and final position is that during the employment process everyone's going to compete against each other high GPA students, students with hard science degrees and people with work experience. At the end of the day its a combination of things that will help students get jobs, one of them having meaningful work experience. Now fundamentally I can understand why a few of you guys are mad, but the perspective of merit is in the eye of the beholder. Just look at standardized testing if you can explain to me the "real" reason why every racial group does lower on every standardized test I'll give you $100. Fact of the matter is no one in higher education can hence the lower amount of high LSAT. In the end some people will hate, and that's fine I got in and I'll do fine and that's all I have to say about that.

[jkong]

In with half tuition but below 75th percentile GPA

[northside]

In with 50% tuition.

164/3.9

damn, this pretty much proves they care way too much on GPA for scholarships.

It really doesn't. The only thing it proves is that I had what they felt deserved that money.

You don't know my softs. You haven't seen my resume. You didn't read my PS. Maybe I worked hard.

[Opie]

ITT: people get hostile about why they did or did not get what they did or did not get.

Frankly, I didn't think I would get in with my 164/3.57, so I'm inclined to say that they are weighing softs heavier than most schools. I'm a non-trad with a lot of WE, some hardship in my PS, volunteering, etc.

[Cornelius]

It really doesn't. The only thing it proves is that I had what they felt deserved that money.

You don't know my softs. You haven't seen my resume. You didn't read my PS. Maybe I worked hard.

It proves you're above both medians.

Like I've said before it appears scholarships are:
above 1 median=25%
above 2 medians=50%

Keep in mind the actual medians are 163/3.7.

For the people who got more than that, probably well above both 75ths/interesting softs/URM/whatever.

[BKCentral]

Lots of hostility up in here. Could be classified as a buzz kill for my acceptance high.