2010 Splitters Application Thread Forum

[beachbum]

Wiseguy has the right perspective. None of us truly know the adcomms methodology on admissions, so any speculation is merely for our entertainment. That said, my application contains much more than a low LSAT score, and I was heavily recruited by Hastings (if you call several emails inviting me to the info session and to apply over the course of this cycle heavy). But more importantly, I would be a great addition to the law school, and maybe Hastings feels the same way. So, I'm not going to draw from last year's experience (0-8), or some other student's experience who received a lot of rejections.

We'll all learn our fate soon enough. My point is simply don't rule me out just because of my LSAT score.

Stranger things have probably happened, but you sound like you're getting your hopes up about this, and I don't think that's wise. While I'm sure you have great softs, and I think softs are more important than TLS "wisdom" would have you believe, your numbers generally still have to be in the ballpark to receive legitimate consideration. And a 136 LSAT is just really, really bad.

Admissions can sometimes be confusing and mysterious, and many schools will send you e-mails soliciting your application and selling their programs, but... I dunno, just don't get your hopes up. If you really want Hastings, your best bet is probably gonna be to improve that LSAT.

[ProfitsProphets]

As much as the numbers are important in the application process, I'm a firm believer that the other elements of one's app are equally important. While some schools favor higher GPA's, others prefer a higher LSAT score. But one constant remains: the remainder of your app has to be on point.

Take my experience, for example. I'm still in contention (week 7 in review) at a top-40 program, yet I have a 136 LSAT score. Granted, I'm URM and non-traditional applicant, but my app is solid. Honestly, who knows what will ultimately happen with my app, but it's nice to feel like I have a fighting chance, even with my yucky score.

So, retaking the LSAT to change a 169 to 171 (with marginal grades) is less important than assuring your application captures your audience.

Jesus Christ. Retake. And study. You barely got above what you'd probably get if you just blind guessed or took the LSAT hammered. While you think you're "still in contention" at a t-40, it really means they are waiting to ding you. For the love of god, retake. or don't go to law school.

You should never assume anything when you don't have all the facts. Actually, I'm retaking the 10/1 LSAT. I'm studying, as you assumed I wasn't. And I'm
Not really sure why you, a complete stranger, would be offering me advice as to whether or not I should go to law school.

I wasn't actually going to apply this year, but I had discussions with an adcomm member, who said "why not try, see what happens, and if it doesn't work out, you're early for next year with a better LSAT score."

So, my hopes aren't high, I'm not naive, in the sense that I think my score is even remotely good, but I just gave it a shot to save a year, that's it. If not, I'll be back next cycle.

[splitmuch]

- With the TLS common belief that high lsat + great work experience means you're a lock at Northwestern, I was a little disappointed. I think my late application that was not at all tailored to the school hurt me.

I think that the common belief is pretty accurate, I just don't think 170 is quite high enough to be covered by it.

[ProfitsProphets]

Wiseguy has the right perspective. None of us truly know the adcomms methodology on admissions, so any speculation is merely for our entertainment. That said, my application contains much more than a low LSAT score, and I was heavily recruited by Hastings (if you call several emails inviting me to the info session and to apply over the course of this cycle heavy). But more importantly, I would be a great addition to the law school, and maybe Hastings feels the same way. So, I'm not going to draw from last year's experience (0-8), or some other student's experience who received a lot of rejections.

We'll all learn our fate soon enough. My point is simply don't rule me out just because of my LSAT score.

Stranger things have probably happened, but you sound like you're getting your hopes up about this, and I don't think that's wise. While I'm sure you have great softs, and I think softs are more important than TLS "wisdom" would have you believe, your numbers generally still have to be in the ballpark to receive legitimate consideration. And a 136 LSAT is just really, really bad.

Admissions can sometimes be confusing and mysterious, and many schools will send you e-mails soliciting your application and selling their programs, but... I dunno, just don't get your hopes up. If you really want Hastings, your best bet is probably gonna be to improve that LSAT.

Trust me, I know what rejection is like, and that result is the likely outcome this cycle. But if it isn't, then I got in with a 136. If so, all it means is the rest of my app mattered that much.

[DreamsInDigital]

- With the TLS common belief that high lsat + great work experience means you're a lock at Northwestern, I was a little disappointed. I think my late application that was not at all tailored to the school hurt me.

I think that the common belief is pretty accurate, I just don't think 170 is quite high enough to be covered by it.

I think if my GPA had at least been closer to 3.0 than 2.5, I think the 170 would have been ok.

But because of the gpa and late app, I think you're right.

[Hannibal]

- With the TLS common belief that high lsat + great work experience means you're a lock at Northwestern, I was a little disappointed. I think my late application that was not at all tailored to the school hurt me.

I think that the common belief is pretty accurate, I just don't think 170 is quite high enough to be covered by it.

I think if my GPA had at least been closer to 3.0 than 2.5, I think the 170 would have been ok.

But because of the gpa and late app, I think you're right.

It's only covered by over 170, and only when you ED.

[chrisbru]

Trust me, I know what rejection is like, and that result is the likely outcome this cycle. But if it isn't, then I got in with a 136. If so, all it means is the rest of my app mattered that much.

Honestly, even if you get in, I wouldn't go.

Two reasons:
1) If you retake and still can't get at least a 155, I would be VERY nervous about being able to survive law school
2) a 156 vs. a 136 might mean a scholarship, depending on where you apply and what your GPA is. A 166 instead of a 136 means possible full rides.

I appreciate that you want to save a year. But, at this point, it's not worth it. You need to wait a year, study WELL (quality > quantity), get a solid score, and apply again. It could save you a lot of money and heartache.

[ProfitsProphets]

Trust me, I know what rejection is like, and that result is the likely outcome this cycle. But if it isn't, then I got in with a 136. If so, all it means is the rest of my app mattered that much.

Honestly, even if you get in, I wouldn't go.

Two reasons:
1) If you retake and still can't get at least a 155, I would be VERY nervous about being able to survive law school
2) a 156 vs. a 136 might mean a scholarship, depending on where you apply and what your GPA is. A 166 instead of a 136 means possible full rides.

I appreciate that you want to save a year. But, at this point, it's not worth it. You need to wait a year, study WELL (quality > quantity), get a solid score, and apply again. It could save you a lot of money and heartache.

Thanks chrisbru. This is the best advice I've been given thus far. I'm a little confused, however, as I thought this site was designed for applicants to "share their experiences," which I do, but I usually receive negative feedback devaluing me as an applicant.

To your point:
1) This may hold some weight, but even top schools rarely admit anyone with less than 160 LSAT, yet there is always a top half of the class and a bottom. This suggest that the LSAT has no bearing on how well one will do in law school. Plus, I've heard from many law students and attorneys and they all say the same thing: "The LSAT has nothing to do with dictating law school success." I believe the LSAT has more to do with one's ability to commit a great deal of time studying, in essence measuring one's commitment, as well as one having access to resources to better prepare for the test. Case in point, Hastings has graduated 1800 LEOP students since 1969, all of whom had marginal LSAT scores upon entering.

2) I agree 100%, and I've thought about this extensively. But at age 36, dealing with long-term unemployment and family responsibilities, I don't care if I have to pay sticker to get in. I'm certain I can apply for private scholarships as well as receive need-based aid. Yet, if I don't get in, I'm already testing in the the high 150's (I know a lot now that I didn't know then).

Either way, I'm better prepared for which ever avenue I have to travel. Thanks for your non-negative feedback.

P.S. If it matters, my GPA is 3.71 (3.65 LSDAS).

[Mike12188]

To your point:
1) This may hold some weight, but even top schools rarely admit anyone with less than 160 LSAT, yet there is always a top half of the class and a bottom. This suggest that the LSAT has no bearing on how well one will do in law school. Plus, I've heard from many law students and attorneys and they all say the same thing: "The LSAT has nothing to do with dictating law school success." I believe the LSAT has more to do with one's ability to commit a great deal of time studying, in essence measuring one's commitment, as well as one having access to resources to better prepare for the test. Case in point, Hastings has graduated 1800 LEOP students since 1969, all of whom had marginal LSAT scores upon entering.

LOL at this reasoning

Did you know what an LSAT was when you signed up for it?

[Kabuo]

1) This may hold some weight, but even top schools rarely admit anyone with less than 160 LSAT, yet there is always a top half of the class and a bottom. This suggest that the LSAT has no bearing on how well one will do in law school. Plus, I've heard from many law students and attorneys and they all say the same thing: "The LSAT has nothing to do with dictating law school success." I believe the LSAT has more to do with one's ability to commit a great deal of time studying, in essence measuring one's commitment, as well as one having access to resources to better prepare for the test. Case in point, Hastings has graduated 1800 LEOP students since 1969, all of whom had marginal LSAT scores upon entering.

Earlier I was wondering how someone capable of stringing sentences together could score a 136. Then I saw #1. In my effort to make this not entirely negative feedback, I'm not going to talk about it anymore. And now for some hopefully helpful feedback, it is well documented on this site that when a school lists a 25th of 161 and a 75th, of say, 164, it does not mean that 25% of the students have lower than a 161. It's actually more likely that the 25% "under" the 25th are also at the 25th, or just barely under it, not say, 25 points beneath it.

Also, I went on vacation for a week and was just wondering: how did the splitter thread get stuck on discussing 136s? Anyone in that last Columbia fee waiver wave get a decision last week?

[chrisbru]

1) This may hold some weight, but even top schools rarely admit anyone with less than 160 LSAT, yet there is always a top half of the class and a bottom. This suggest that the LSAT has no bearing on how well one will do in law school. Plus, I've heard from many law students and attorneys and they all say the same thing: "The LSAT has nothing to do with dictating law school success." I believe the LSAT has more to do with one's ability to commit a great deal of time studying, in essence measuring one's commitment, as well as one having access to resources to better prepare for the test. Case in point, Hastings has graduated 1800 LEOP students since 1969, all of whom had marginal LSAT scores upon entering.

Understand about the family/employment situation.

However... Just so we're clear here... It has been statistically proven that the LSAT is the best available predictor for law school success. It is NOT perfect, and there could potentially be a better way... But of everything available, it is the best predictor. If it wasn't, law schools wouldn't focus so heavily on it.

[ProfitsProphets]

To your point:
1) This may hold some weight, but even top schools rarely admit anyone with less than 160 LSAT, yet there is always a top half of the class and a bottom. This suggest that the LSAT has no bearing on how well one will do in law school. Plus, I've heard from many law students and attorneys and they all say the same thing: "The LSAT has nothing to do with dictating law school success." I believe the LSAT has more to do with one's ability to commit a great deal of time studying, in essence measuring one's commitment, as well as one having access to resources to better prepare for the test. Case in point, Hastings has graduated 1800 LEOP students since 1969, all of whom had marginal LSAT scores upon entering.

LOL at this reasoning

Did you know what an LSAT was when you signed up for it?

If the number sequence in your name indicates your birthdate, I'll let this slide and leave it as you have a lot to learn about society, in general.

[ProfitsProphets]

1) This may hold some weight, but even top schools rarely admit anyone with less than 160 LSAT, yet there is always a top half of the class and a bottom. This suggest that the LSAT has no bearing on how well one will do in law school. Plus, I've heard from many law students and attorneys and they all say the same thing: "The LSAT has nothing to do with dictating law school success." I believe the LSAT has more to do with one's ability to commit a great deal of time studying, in essence measuring one's commitment, as well as one having access to resources to better prepare for the test. Case in point, Hastings has graduated 1800 LEOP students since 1969, all of whom had marginal LSAT scores upon entering.

Understand about the family/employment situation.

However... Just so we're clear here... It has been statistically proven that the LSAT is the best available predictor for law school success. It is NOT perfect, and there could potentially be a better way... But of everything available, it is the best predictor. If it wasn't, law schools wouldn't focus so heavily on it.

Duly noted!

[ProfitsProphets]

1) This may hold some weight, but even top schools rarely admit anyone with less than 160 LSAT, yet there is always a top half of the class and a bottom. This suggest that the LSAT has no bearing on how well one will do in law school. Plus, I've heard from many law students and attorneys and they all say the same thing: "The LSAT has nothing to do with dictating law school success." I believe the LSAT has more to do with one's ability to commit a great deal of time studying, in essence measuring one's commitment, as well as one having access to resources to better prepare for the test. Case in point, Hastings has graduated 1800 LEOP students since 1969, all of whom had marginal LSAT scores upon entering.

Earlier I was wondering how someone capable of stringing sentences together could score a 136. Then I saw #1. In my effort to make this not entirely negative feedback, I'm not going to talk about it anymore. And now for some hopefully helpful feedback, it is well documented on this site that when a school lists a 25th of 161 and a 75th, of say, 164, it does not mean that 25% of the students have lower than a 161. It's actually more likely that the 25% "under" the 25th are also at the 25th, or just barely under it, not say, 25 points beneath it.

Also, I went on vacation for a week and was just wondering: how did the splitter thread get stuck on discussing 136s? Anyone in that last Columbia fee waiver wave get a decision last week?

Thank you, I understand percentiles. I don't think we're stuck on discussing my experience. Feel free to change the topic. I'm sharing my experience. You share yours. (And just learning I found how to formlation sentence, thanks to phonics I'm hooked).

[red_alertz]

Wiseguy has the right perspective. None of us truly know the adcomms methodology on admissions, so any speculation is merely for our entertainment. That said, my application contains much more than a low LSAT score, and I was heavily recruited by Hastings (if you call several emails inviting me to the info session and to apply over the course of this cycle heavy). But more importantly, I would be a great addition to the law school, and maybe Hastings feels the same way. So, I'm not going to draw from last year's experience (0-8), or some other student's experience who received a lot of rejections.

We'll all learn our fate soon enough. My point is simply don't rule me out just because of my LSAT score.

you are right, the admissions process is entirely unpredictable, I know a few, not just one, but a few people, with GPA in the 2.2-2.4 range and LSAT in the 130's being accepted into hastings through LEOP, I would think it is quite prevalent for this to happen

[Mike12188]

To your point:
1) This may hold some weight, but even top schools rarely admit anyone with less than 160 LSAT, yet there is always a top half of the class and a bottom. This suggest that the LSAT has no bearing on how well one will do in law school. Plus, I've heard from many law students and attorneys and they all say the same thing: "The LSAT has nothing to do with dictating law school success." I believe the LSAT has more to do with one's ability to commit a great deal of time studying, in essence measuring one's commitment, as well as one having access to resources to better prepare for the test. Case in point, Hastings has graduated 1800 LEOP students since 1969, all of whom had marginal LSAT scores upon entering.

LOL at this reasoning

Did you know what an LSAT was when you signed up for it?

If the number sequence in your name indicates your birthdate, I'll let this slide and leave it as you have a lot to learn about society, in general.

what does my age and society in general have to do with your lack of logical reasoning?

[Mike12188]

1) This may hold some weight, but even top schools rarely admit anyone with less than 160 LSAT, yet there is always a top half of the class and a bottom. This suggest that the LSAT has no bearing on how well one will do in law school. Plus, I've heard from many law students and attorneys and they all say the same thing: "The LSAT has nothing to do with dictating law school success." I believe the LSAT has more to do with one's ability to commit a great deal of time studying, in essence measuring one's commitment, as well as one having access to resources to better prepare for the test. Case in point, Hastings has graduated 1800 LEOP students since 1969, all of whom had marginal LSAT scores upon entering.

Earlier I was wondering how someone capable of stringing sentences together could score a 136. Then I saw #1. In my effort to make this not entirely negative feedback, I'm not going to talk about it anymore. And now for some hopefully helpful feedback, it is well documented on this site that when a school lists a 25th of 161 and a 75th, of say, 164, it does not mean that 25% of the students have lower than a 161. It's actually more likely that the 25% "under" the 25th are also at the 25th, or just barely under it, not say, 25 points beneath it.

Also, I went on vacation for a week and was just wondering: how did the splitter thread get stuck on discussing 136s? Anyone in that last Columbia fee waiver wave get a decision last week?

Interested in this as well, although paying $12 to apply there was pretty much playing the lottery for me.

[ProfitsProphets]

To your point:
1) This may hold some weight, but even top schools rarely admit anyone with less than 160 LSAT, yet there is always a top half of the class and a bottom. This suggest that the LSAT has no bearing on how well one will do in law school. Plus, I've heard from many law students and attorneys and they all say the same thing: "The LSAT has nothing to do with dictating law school success." I believe the LSAT has more to do with one's ability to commit a great deal of time studying, in essence measuring one's commitment, as well as one having access to resources to better prepare for the test. Case in point, Hastings has graduated 1800 LEOP students since 1969, all of whom had marginal LSAT scores upon entering.

LOL at this reasoning

Did you know what an LSAT was when you signed up for it?

If the number sequence in your name indicates your birthdate, I'll let this slide and leave it as you have a lot to learn about society, in general.

what does my age and society in general have to do with your lack of logical reasoning?

If you have a problem, PM me.

[ProfitsProphets]

Wiseguy has the right perspective. None of us truly know the adcomms methodology on admissions, so any speculation is merely for our entertainment. That said, my application contains much more than a low LSAT score, and I was heavily recruited by Hastings (if you call several emails inviting me to the info session and to apply over the course of this cycle heavy). But more importantly, I would be a great addition to the law school, and maybe Hastings feels the same way. So, I'm not going to draw from last year's experience (0-8), or some other student's experience who received a lot of rejections.

We'll all learn our fate soon enough. My point is simply don't rule me out just because of my LSAT score.

you are right, the admissions process is entirely unpredictable, I know a few, not just one, but a few people, with GPA in the 2.2-2.4 range and LSAT in the 130's being accepted into hastings through LEOP, I would think it is quite prevalent for this to happen

thanks, red_alertz, for pointing out what is already established: The "numbers" don't mean as much as the people behind them. So, as I have been pointing out, my LEOP application is "in contention" until I hear otherwise (nearly 2 months In review).

[chrisbru]

thanks, red_alertz, for pointing out what is already established: The "numbers" don't mean as much as the people behind them. So, as I have been pointing out, my LEOP application is "in contention" until I hear otherwise (nearly 2 months In review).

This is absolutely NOT true in the law school admissions process. The numbers gain first priority, with the "people behind them" (read: softs, PS, recs, etc.) are a second consideration once you pass the litmus test that is GPA/LSAT indexes.

That being said, I know nothing about the LEOP application process, so my above statement may not be reflected in this specific instance. For the vast majority of law school applications, however, it is correct.

[red_alertz]

Wiseguy has the right perspective. None of us truly know the adcomms methodology on admissions, so any speculation is merely for our entertainment. That said, my application contains much more than a low LSAT score, and I was heavily recruited by Hastings (if you call several emails inviting me to the info session and to apply over the course of this cycle heavy). But more importantly, I would be a great addition to the law school, and maybe Hastings feels the same way. So, I'm not going to draw from last year's experience (0-8), or some other student's experience who received a lot of rejections.

We'll all learn our fate soon enough. My point is simply don't rule me out just because of my LSAT score.

you are right, the admissions process is entirely unpredictable, I know a few, not just one, but a few people, with GPA in the 2.2-2.4 range and LSAT in the 130's being accepted into hastings through LEOP, I would think it is quite prevalent for this to happen

thanks, red_alertz, for pointing out what is already established: The "numbers" don't mean as much as the people behind them. So, as I have been pointing out, my LEOP application is "in contention" until I hear otherwise (nearly 2 months In review).

yeah this website is extremely elitist so not everything you hear is correct, hang in there with the hastings app, I think you have a good shot

[Flips88]

yeah this website is extremely elitist so not everything you hear is correct, hang in there with the hastings app, I think you have a good shot

Yeah almost 30 points below median LSAT = good shot.

[splitmuch]

How bout this, you put down 100 bucks and I'll lay you 10 to 1 odds you don't get in.

[red_alertz]

yeah this website is extremely elitist so not everything you hear is correct, hang in there with the hastings app, I think you have a good shot

Yeah almost 30 points below median LSAT = good shot.

like profitprophet said, his app is still in contention and LSAT isn't even that important in the admissions process, let alone for the LEOP admissions, what he may lack in LSAT score, he oculd've made it up by other aspects of his app, don't be so negative

[Flips88]

yeah this website is extremely elitist so not everything you hear is correct, hang in there with the hastings app, I think you have a good shot

Yeah almost 30 points below median LSAT = good shot.

like profitprophet said, his app is still in contention and LSAT isn't even that important in the admissions process, let alone for the LEOP admissions, what he may lack in LSAT score, he oculd've made it up by other aspects of his app, don't be so negative

They're still 21 points below the LEOP median. 157 is in the 70th percentile of scorers. 136 is the 7th percentile. I'm not being negative, I'm being realistic. Someone that scores that low on the LSAT shouldn't be given false hope.