SMU 2010! Forum

[texag08]

Go to TT we need your slot.

No but seriously, go to TT because we need your slot.

[clairecate]

Waitlisted 4/28
162 3.4

just signed up for the June LSAT, anyone with me?

Do you think it will help to take the June LSAT? When I called the admissions office for information about being on the wait list, they said that we couldn't submit any additional/updated materials for them to review.

Actually, I didn't put down seat deposits at Houston or Baylor so I'm kind of out of options. Looks like I'll be taking the June and October LSATs and re-applying for next cycle early decision. However, I think it was stated that they would be accepting updated transcripts/scores/LOCI's, just not until after June 1? I need to call tomorrow and ask, but I might wait until next week since admissions is probably a little preoccupied right now. I was making 165-168's on my practices and got a 162 on the real thing, so I know I can do better. I'd rather get a job and reapply than waste my time at UH or Baylor when I'm going to be living in Dallas - finding a job after graduation would be nearly impossible with SMU and UT dominating this market.

[Thirteen]

In today, finally!

Now I'm wondering what to do as I have a $300 deposit due tomorrow for Texas Tech. I have full-ride from Texas Tech, and apparently it's not too difficult to transfer from Tech to SMU... I would attend with the intention to transfer to UT or SMU. Any thoughts???

If you need more time to make a decision... pay the $300 deposit so you have time to sit down and really get your head around it. This is not a decision you want to make in a time crunch induced panic. Throwing away $300 is a small price to pay in order to be sure that you've made the best decision. (Assuming the deposit at Tech is non-binding.)
As for taking Tech with the intention of transferring to UT or SMU... that's a bad idea. If you enroll at Tech, you better be damn sure that you will be happy graduating from Tech. There are simply too many things that are out of your control. Nobody... no matter what their prior experience, LSAT score, etc... says, can reliably predict that they will be in the top X% of the class at any particular school. Just because someone got admitted to Harvard doesn't mean that they would be top 5% at TTT U.

Choosing Tech because of the scholarship may be the best option for you. But only if you would be happy with a degree from Tech.

If you really want to end up at SMU and you're using the transfer plan simply to try to save a year of tuition then you're really rolling the dice on a low percentage move. In my opinion, it would be foolish beyond believe to give up a guaranteed acceptance at SMU so you can go to a different school intending to transfer to SMU. Saving a year's worth of tuition would be cool and all... but the chances of it actually happening are low. You would be better off taking a year's worth of tuition and betting it on black. Better odds than counting on a transfer.

This entire post is credited, especially the bolded part. Congrats on being admitted!

[kalvano]

Now I'm wondering what to do as I have a $300 deposit due tomorrow for Texas Tech. I have full-ride from Texas Tech, and apparently it's not too difficult to transfer from Tech to SMU... I would attend with the intention to transfer to UT or SMU. Any thoughts???

Lubbock is to Dallas what Baghdad is to St. Croix.

Take SMU.

[dekscholar]

In today, finally!

Now I'm wondering what to do as I have a $300 deposit due tomorrow for Texas Tech. I have full-ride from Texas Tech, and apparently it's not too difficult to transfer from Tech to SMU... I would attend with the intention to transfer to UT or SMU. Any thoughts???

If you need more time to make a decision... pay the $300 deposit so you have time to sit down and really get your head around it. This is not a decision you want to make in a time crunch induced panic. Throwing away $300 is a small price to pay in order to be sure that you've made the best decision. (Assuming the deposit at Tech is non-binding.)
As for taking Tech with the intention of transferring to UT or SMU... that's a bad idea. If you enroll at Tech, you better be damn sure that you will be happy graduating from Tech. There are simply too many things that are out of your control. Nobody... no matter what their prior experience, LSAT score, etc... says, can reliably predict that they will be in the top X% of the class at any particular school. Just because someone got admitted to Harvard doesn't mean that they would be top 5% at TTT U.

Choosing Tech because of the scholarship may be the best option for you. But only if you would be happy with a degree from Tech.

If you really want to end up at SMU and you're using the transfer plan simply to try to save a year of tuition then you're really rolling the dice on a low percentage move. In my opinion, it would be foolish beyond believe to give up a guaranteed acceptance at SMU so you can go to a different school intending to transfer to SMU. Saving a year's worth of tuition would be cool and all... but the chances of it actually happening are low. You would be better off taking a year's worth of tuition and betting it on black. Better odds than counting on a transfer.

This entire post is credited, especially the bolded part. Congrats on being admitted!

Thanks for the input. I'll probably buy myself some time till I see what type of aid SMU offers me.

[texasforever]

With so many low to mid-160s getting WL, it's obvious that SMU had a much stronger pool of applicants to choose from this year. Unfortunately, this also means that people who would normally be WL are being rejected out of hand. That said, there have been at least two 157s admitted FT today...so I guess all hope is not yet lost.

Have to admit, that bugs a LOT, but clearly there was something about their apps SMU liked more than us with higher LSAT's. There was not a single person not admitted with my LSAT last year. This is humiliating .

I have to respond to this to preference my 157. I am a terrible standardized test taker and have been since grade school. However, I have never known anything else than the top 1% of my class from high school on. I could go on for days about the damn LSAT and how it will have absolutely nothing to do with how I do in law school. I will probably spend a ton of money one day researching trends on how LSAT score/scholarship money relates to class rank. I am willing to bet that the reverse splitters end up doing better because they already know how to outstudy everyone, both in quality and quantity. They are also paying full price, which means their debt depends on their grades. This is pure speculation, however.

In the end, law school is inherently unfair. Unlike med school where schools can weed out everyone to the point that they can actually interview them, everyone in the world thinks they can be lawyer because they took the LSAT. Hell, if I could reasonably discern things about monarch butterflies better than everyone else I'd go to Harvard too. I can't though, and thus I will pay sticker at SMU.

Congrats to everyone who got in today and good luck to all those waitlisted. I am officially retiring from TLS as it has become the equivalent of crack cocaine and I can't take it anymore.

Corripe Cervisiam!

[Thirteen]

Don't forget to sign up for the Facebook group here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=1 ... 626&ref=ts

[jgrin]

With so many low to mid-160s getting WL, it's obvious that SMU had a much stronger pool of applicants to choose from this year. Unfortunately, this also means that people who would normally be WL are being rejected out of hand. That said, there have been at least two 157s admitted FT today...so I guess all hope is not yet lost.

Have to admit, that bugs a LOT, but clearly there was something about their apps SMU liked more than us with higher LSAT's. There was not a single person not admitted with my LSAT last year. This is humiliating .

I have to respond to this to preference my 157. I am a terrible standardized test taker and have been since grade school. However, I have never known anything else than the top 1% of my class from high school on. I could go on for days about the damn LSAT and how it will have absolutely nothing to do with how I do in law school. I will probably spend a ton of money one day researching trends on how LSAT score/scholarship money relates to class rank. I am willing to bet that the reverse splitters end up doing better because they already know how to outstudy everyone, both in quality and quantity. They are also paying full price, which means their debt depends on their grades. This is pure speculation, however.

In the end, law school is inherently unfair. Unlike med school where schools can weed out everyone to the point that they can actually interview them, everyone in the world thinks they can be lawyer because they took the LSAT. Hell, if I could reasonably discern things about monarch butterflies better than everyone else I'd go to Harvard too. I can't though, and thus I will pay sticker at SMU.

Congrats to everyone who got in today and good luck to all those waitlisted. I am officially retiring from TLS as it has become the equivalent of crack cocaine and I can't take it anymore.

Corripe Cervisiam!

+1

The LSAT is the most stupid judgement of how a student will do. I think it is a major flaw in the system that someone with a 2.2 and a 170 is better than my 3.5 153. I worked hard for 4 years to get my GPA where it is, and the other person slacked off and didn't care about his/her studies. Although they know how to sequence letters, they don't know how to study, yet prestigious law schools feel they do. The whole system needs to be based on undergraduate prestige and undergraduate GPA, with the LSAT being secondary.

[maxpayne]

With so many low to mid-160s getting WL, it's obvious that SMU had a much stronger pool of applicants to choose from this year. Unfortunately, this also means that people who would normally be WL are being rejected out of hand. That said, there have been at least two 157s admitted FT today...so I guess all hope is not yet lost.

Have to admit, that bugs a LOT, but clearly there was something about their apps SMU liked more than us with higher LSAT's. There was not a single person not admitted with my LSAT last year. This is humiliating .

I have to respond to this to preference my 157. I am a terrible standardized test taker and have been since grade school. However, I have never known anything else than the top 1% of my class from high school on. I could go on for days about the damn LSAT and how it will have absolutely nothing to do with how I do in law school. I will probably spend a ton of money one day researching trends on how LSAT score/scholarship money relates to class rank. I am willing to bet that the reverse splitters end up doing better because they already know how to outstudy everyone, both in quality and quantity. They are also paying full price, which means their debt depends on their grades. This is pure speculation, however.

In the end, law school is inherently unfair. Unlike med school where schools can weed out everyone to the point that they can actually interview them, everyone in the world thinks they can be lawyer because they took the LSAT. Hell, if I could reasonably discern things about monarch butterflies better than everyone else I'd go to Harvard too. I can't though, and thus I will pay sticker at SMU.

Congrats to everyone who got in today and good luck to all those waitlisted. I am officially retiring from TLS as it has become the equivalent of crack cocaine and I can't take it anymore.

Corripe Cervisiam!

+1

The LSAT is the most stupid judgement of how a student will do. I think it is a major flaw in the system that someone with a 2.2 and a 170 is better than my 3.5 153. I worked hard for 4 years to get my GPA where it is, and the other person slacked off and didn't care about his/her studies. Although they know how to sequence letters, they don't know how to study, yet prestigious law schools feel they do. The whole system needs to be based on undergraduate prestige and undergraduate GPA, with the LSAT being secondary.

You might open up a can of worms with the traditional LSAT vs. GPA battle. Here are a few threads that touch on the subject. This list goes on and on and on and on....you get the picture.

It might just be easier to agree to disagree.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =2&t=25109
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =6&t=50250
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =7&t=47566
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =2&t=42776

[keg411]

Didn't mean to open up a can of worms. Just frustrated. Undergrad was a long time ago for me, and it hurts that the issues that I had back then have come back to haunt me now.

[justsmu10]

I could not agree more with the last couple of posts RE: LSAT vs GPA. I have great admiration for those who can score extremely well on the LSAT, because it is a very difficult assessment. I have taken both the GRE and GMAT, and I found the LSAT to be a lot harder (for me, at least) than either of those. That said, it is sad that law schools base their decisions largely on the score one makes on a standardized test. Sure, the ability to comprehend, analyze, and reason is essential in the field of law, but the real world applications of those skills rarely involve time limits. On the LSAT, one has less than 2 minutes to answer each question correctly...I can't think of a situation a lawyer would be presented with where he or she would have only 2 minutes to reason through a complex set of facts. My LSAT score (along with most everybody else's) would go up exponentially if there was no time restriction. I realize we are all on the same playing field...everyone has to deal with the same time limits...that's why I give huge props to those who can work with lightning speed and accuracy while not letting the clock enter their thoughts and break their focus. However, I think GPA should be given much more weight.

[wellington]

The test is just the first in a long line of challenges in which you must learn to think differently and adapt to a specific skill set.

Some people don't do well on pressure situations like the LSAT, and some don't.

We all know certain majors in undergrad are ridiculously easy to pad the GPA. LSAT is the great equalizer in that it doesn't matter where you went or what you majored in, it's the same test. But I agree, it's ability to determine the future is shaky at best. And, again, I agree with Max in saying that, depending on your positioning (good gpa vs good lsat), you opinion might fall accordingly.

For those of you thinking of retaking to up your LSAT, this was the best piece of advice I got in my prep: The LSAT doesn't test intelligence, it tests a particular skill set. Mastering the LSAT revolves around your dedication in learning those skills.

Good luck to all those who received rejections in wherever you go or whatever you do, and double good luck to those of you placed on the waiting list.

[Thirteen]

+1

The LSAT is the most stupid judgement of how a student will do. I think it is a major flaw in the system that someone with a 2.2 and a 170 is better than my 3.5 153. I worked hard for 4 years to get my GPA where it is, and the other person slacked off and didn't care about his/her studies. Although they know how to sequence letters, they don't know how to study, yet prestigious law schools feel they do. The whole system needs to be based on undergraduate prestige and undergraduate GPA, with the LSAT being secondary.

Anti-Thirteen trolling??? Also, knowing how to study and actually studying are two seperate things.

[kalvano]

I found the LSAT difficult but not impossible. I just don't think like whoever designed the test questions.

I don't think the LSAT is really a reliable indicator of how well you'll do in law school, but I understand the need to use a standardized test for admissions purposes.

Pehaps that's the point? To be able to advocate for something you don't agree with?

[Ty Webb]

+1

The LSAT is the most stupid judgement of how a student will do. I think it is a major flaw in the system that someone with a 2.2 and a 170 is better than my 3.5 153. I worked hard for 4 years to get my GPA where it is, and the other person slacked off and didn't care about his/her studies. Although they know how to sequence letters, they don't know how to study, yet prestigious law schools feel they do. The whole system needs to be based on undergraduate prestige and undergraduate GPA, with the LSAT being secondary.

Anti-Thirteen trolling??? Also, knowing how to study and actually studying are two seperate things.

No kidding. Hey, more power to all of you overachievers! But remember that the people who underperformed college according to their mental skill set often have a good reason (working 30 hrs/week qualifies in my case) and those who don't have a good reason often grow up and realize their potential. At that point, they've got a solid mental hold and the willpower.

It's a lot like scouting in baseball. All you Ryan Rowland-Smiths are nice. You pitch to contact, you're not going to walk a ton of guys, but don't fault the law schools for wanting the Ubaldo Jimenezs. They know that a 100 MPH heater with late tailing action could eventually turn into a Cy Young winner, while Ryan Rowland-Smith will continue to plug toward a 4.20 ERA.


*Many assumptions made in this thread, and some intended to piss off individuals who assume that every person with a high LSAT/low GPA "doesn't know how to study, blah, blah, blah, words, words, words." Question my ability to handle law school based upon work ethic and I'll question yours based upon a test that says you have inferior mental capacity under pressure. Capiche?

[Generic20101L]

The LSAT is brilliant. It tests intelligence, attention span, organization, etc... You have to study for it over and over unless youre just some savant. I feel like I could get a 175 in theory, but I could never dedicate myself to something like that, so I guess I can't get a 175, but getting a 175 either proves you're some savant or you just studied your ass off for months, which is what you have to do for law school.

[ladysixmonkey]

No kidding. Hey, more power to all of you overachievers! But remember that the people who underperformed college according to their mental skill set often have a good reason (working 30 hrs/week qualifies in my case) and those who don't have a good reason often grow up and realize their potential. At that point, they've got a solid mental hold and the willpower.

It's a lot like scouting in baseball. All you Ryan Rowland-Smiths are nice. You pitch to contact, you're not going to walk a ton of guys, but don't fault the law schools for wanting the Ubaldo Jimenezs. They know that a 100 MPH heater with late tailing action could eventually turn into a Cy Young winner, while Ryan Rowland-Smith will continue to plug toward a 4.20 ERA.


*Many assumptions made in this thread, and some intended to piss off individuals who assume that every person with a high LSAT/low GPA "doesn't know how to study, blah, blah, blah, words, words, words." Question my ability to handle law school based upon work ethic and I'll question yours based upon a test that says you have inferior mental capacity under pressure. Capiche?

So then where do you put us people who have near perfect GRE scores but sucked a a big one named LSAT? Hm...I guess we're just stupid. lol

[Billy Batts]

With so many low to mid-160s getting WL, it's obvious that SMU had a much stronger pool of applicants to choose from this year. Unfortunately, this also means that people who would normally be WL are being rejected out of hand. That said, there have been at least two 157s admitted FT today...so I guess all hope is not yet lost.

Have to admit, that bugs a LOT, but clearly there was something about their apps SMU liked more than us with higher LSAT's. There was not a single person not admitted with my LSAT last year. This is humiliating .

I have to respond to this to preference my 157. I am a terrible standardized test taker and have been since grade school. However, I have never known anything else than the top 1% of my class from high school on. I could go on for days about the damn LSAT and how it will have absolutely nothing to do with how I do in law school. I will probably spend a ton of money one day researching trends on how LSAT score/scholarship money relates to class rank. I am willing to bet that the reverse splitters end up doing better because they already know how to outstudy everyone, both in quality and quantity. They are also paying full price, which means their debt depends on their grades. This is pure speculation, however.

In the end, law school is inherently unfair. Unlike med school where schools can weed out everyone to the point that they can actually interview them, everyone in the world thinks they can be lawyer because they took the LSAT. Hell, if I could reasonably discern things about monarch butterflies better than everyone else I'd go to Harvard too. I can't though, and thus I will pay sticker at SMU.

Congrats to everyone who got in today and good luck to all those waitlisted. I am officially retiring from TLS as it has become the equivalent of crack cocaine and I can't take it anymore.

Corripe Cervisiam!

That friggin' 157 tells me that you don't study as well as your GPA might suggest.
The LSAT is learnable.

[legalese_retard]

Saw this was already posted, but you can vote for SMU's video on ATL if you liked it:

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/04/law-revu ... finalists/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLbzBhGFhA4

[Ty Webb]

No kidding. Hey, more power to all of you overachievers! But remember that the people who underperformed college according to their mental skill set often have a good reason (working 30 hrs/week qualifies in my case) and those who don't have a good reason often grow up and realize their potential. At that point, they've got a solid mental hold and the willpower.

It's a lot like scouting in baseball. All you Ryan Rowland-Smiths are nice. You pitch to contact, you're not going to walk a ton of guys, but don't fault the law schools for wanting the Ubaldo Jimenezs. They know that a 100 MPH heater with late tailing action could eventually turn into a Cy Young winner, while Ryan Rowland-Smith will continue to plug toward a 4.20 ERA.


*Many assumptions made in this thread, and some intended to piss off individuals who assume that every person with a high LSAT/low GPA "doesn't know how to study, blah, blah, blah, words, words, words." Question my ability to handle law school based upon work ethic and I'll question yours based upon a test that says you have inferior mental capacity under pressure. Capiche?

So then where do you put us people who have near perfect GRE scores but sucked a a big one named LSAT? Hm...I guess we're just stupid. lol

Hey, I never claimed that my assertions were correct. Simply using the same line of reasoning that says a person with a low GPA "didn't know how to study", which is not always the case.

[ladysixmonkey]

No kidding. Hey, more power to all of you overachievers! But remember that the people who underperformed college according to their mental skill set often have a good reason (working 30 hrs/week qualifies in my case) and those who don't have a good reason often grow up and realize their potential. At that point, they've got a solid mental hold and the willpower.

It's a lot like scouting in baseball. All you Ryan Rowland-Smiths are nice. You pitch to contact, you're not going to walk a ton of guys, but don't fault the law schools for wanting the Ubaldo Jimenezs. They know that a 100 MPH heater with late tailing action could eventually turn into a Cy Young winner, while Ryan Rowland-Smith will continue to plug toward a 4.20 ERA.


*Many assumptions made in this thread, and some intended to piss off individuals who assume that every person with a high LSAT/low GPA "doesn't know how to study, blah, blah, blah, words, words, words." Question my ability to handle law school based upon work ethic and I'll question yours based upon a test that says you have inferior mental capacity under pressure. Capiche?

So then where do you put us people who have near perfect GRE scores but sucked a a big one named LSAT? Hm...I guess we're just stupid. lol

Hey, I never claimed that my assertions were correct. Simply using the same line of reasoning that says a person with a low GPA "didn't know how to study", which is not always the case.

And let the specious arguments begin. Welcome to ls.

[Ty Webb]

Back on topic - what will today bring?

[Sangiovese]

That friggin' 157 tells me that you don't study as well as your GPA might suggest.
The LSAT is learnable.

Indeed it is. However, it is not intuitively obvious that it's learnable. When I decided to go to school, I thought about doing LSAT prep and decided against it. "There is no learnable content, it just tests logic" was my *flawed* reasoning.

So, I took it cold and got a 156. Then I found TLS and realized that not only is the test highly learnable, but logic games is the area where the greatest improvement is possible (and is also where I lost 4 out of every 5 points that I missed).

Could I study, retake it, and do much better? Almost certainly. Is it worth it to me (geographically bound to a single school, which accepted me even with my low lsat) to sit out a year and reapply next year with a higher score? Nope. At 40 years old, a year of my time is worth more to me than the potential gain in scholarship money.

The point of my story? It is silly to assume something about someone based on a single number taken out of context. LSAT or GPA... both of them can provide a real indication of someone's aptitude toward a certain skill set. And both of them can be very misleading in certain instances.

As for the general direction this thread has taken...

None of us knows exactly what the admissions committee was looking for or why they favored one candidate over another. We can look at the numbers and say "I should get picked instead of that person" but what we have to realize is that while the numbers are important, they aren't the whole package. And to be honest, even the numbers are not an apples to apples comparison. Does a 165 that was achieved after preparing for 9 months and taking the test twice really indicate a better chance of success in law school than a 160 taken cold? Is a 3.5 earned while working 40 hours per week less impressive than a 4.0 achieved while having no responsibilities other than school? What about someone who got a 4.0 while working 50 hours per week, but had an easier major? We never see the whole package, so it would be silly to think we can evaluate our true standing in relation to another candidate whom we do not know.

I understand that it really, really stinks to get rejected or waitlisted when you feel like you were a strong candidate... but I think it is petty to lash out at someone who was accepted just because "the numbers" indicate that you are a better candidate. Having a higher LSAT score doesn't make you a better person (or necessarily a better candidate) than someone who scored lower. The same goes for a high GPA. It really says a lot about people that this thread turned from a love-fest where everyone was rooting for each other a couple days ago, to a place where people are taking potshots at each other because they have a higher GPA/LSAT, better haircut, or whatever.

Sorry about the rant, but this cranky old guy just felt that something had to be said. Now get off my lawn, and behave yourselves!

[peeves4026]

So does anyone know what a WL means? Is it a death blow or do we still have a shot??

Yeah, I'm trying to figure this out. Thoughts anyone??!? Is waitlist a soft let down?? I'm waitlisted at UT and SMU with 163, 3.7 SMU undergrad and am struggling with what to do.

[lawschoolhopeful189]

That friggin' 157 tells me that you don't study as well as your GPA might suggest.
The LSAT is learnable.

As for the general direction this thread has taken...

None of us knows exactly what the admissions committee was looking for or why they favored one candidate over another. We can look at the numbers and say "I should get picked instead of that person" but what we have to realize is that while the numbers are important, they aren't the whole package. And to be honest, even the numbers are not an apples to apples comparison. Does a 165 that was achieved after preparing for 9 months and taking the test twice really indicate a better chance of success in law school than a 160 taken cold? Is a 3.5 earned while working 40 hours per week less impressive than a 4.0 achieved while having no responsibilities other than school? What about someone who got a 4.0 while working 50 hours per week, but had an easier major? We never see the whole package, so it would be silly to think we can evaluate our true standing in relation to another candidate whom we do not know.

I understand that it really, really stinks to get rejected or waitlisted when you feel like you were a strong candidate... but I think it is petty to lash out at someone who was accepted just because "the numbers" indicate that you are a better candidate. Having a higher LSAT score doesn't make you a better person (or necessarily a better candidate) than someone who scored lower. The same goes for a high GPA. It really says a lot about people that this thread turned from a love-fest where everyone was rooting for each other a couple days ago, to a place where people are taking potshots at each other because they have a higher GPA/LSAT, better haircut, or whatever.

Sorry about the rant, but this cranky old guy just felt that something had to be said. Now get off my lawn, and behave yourselves!

This.