Flips88 wrote:Hey bro, don't put words in his mouth. He only said he'll be equity partner "at a slightly lesser firm if not Cravath." He's managing expectations.gnomgnomuch wrote:
You haven't even started COLLEGE, and you're talking about how you're gonna be working at Cravath, and becoming an EQUITY partner.
Hey, it's summer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebXbLfLACGMscottidsntknow wrote:You have way too much time on your hands if you can make such long-winded posts. You should get back to your reading.
Want to continue reading?
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
Ok, glad to see you acknowledge the "bump", and sorry to say, but I still stick to my guns, they want you because of your race. If you were white, with the same numbers, phi beta kappa and all, they wouldn't want you. Love it or hate it, law schools want to diversify their classes. They don't really care if the black/hispanic kids they accept are from rich parents in Malibu or if they are from poor families in inner cities, they want your skin color so they can report it to the ABA, LSAC, USNWR, etc. Again, this is just my opinion, but it seems based on the way admissions work, interviews I've seen/read, and having been through the process myself, that the "bump" has more to do with your skin color than anything else. Right off the bat with your LSAT score, you're using that "bump" to your advantage, but there are limits to that bump, and a few easily obtainable extra points on the LSAT will overcome some of those limits, and open more doors for you. Speaking of limits, your skin color is not going to completely mask a subpar GPA. Your grades will never be "off the grid." I also don't buy the notion that you'd be a legitimate white applicant for all schools except HYS with a 166 LSAT. Would you get into some T14s? Yah, probably at sticker. But I don't see UChi or Columbia accepting a 166/3.9ish very often and if so with much if any scholarship.1.) To be sure, if I manage to achieve in undergrad what I plan to, my most important "soft factor" will still be my race---but I don't think that's why they'll ultimately want me. I think my race will allow them to *painlessly* control for my by then six-year-old F's. Once those grades are off the grid, I'd be a legitimate white applicant anywhere excepting H/Y/S. (I'm not aware of any precedent that says a "URM bump" can't come in this form. Even if I were white, such a "bump" would only be fair.)
I'm not meaning to assert anything, it's just my opinion (sorry if I didn't make that clear). I stick by it. Sorry dude, those classes don't look tough. Like I said before, I DID exactly what you are setting out to do. I got the Summa, and PBK. I took Calculus, Stats, Econ, Russian language, among my other major courses. In fact, that's likely what got me PBK (my breadth of courses). It's not "nearly impossible" to earn A's in those classes. I did it, and I'm Joe Blow.2.) That's an assertion, not an argument. And I find it ludicrous. Not all high GPA humanities transcripts are created equal, a fact that won't be lost on admissions counselors when I apply. Obviously, graduating summa and PBK from an Honors program after four years of upper-level courses in not only history but also economics, French, and mathematical logic would produce a record perceived as "very rigorous." Why? Because it's nearly impossible to earn A's in all of those tough courses unless one treats undergrad like law school... You think Joe Blow 173 LSAT could just "breeze" through that schedule and maintain a 3.96? (I will be working my fu****g ass off haha.)
I'm not making two points, I'm making one. You should retake the LSAT. I'm not suggesting your reluctance makes you lazy, I'm suggesting your reluctance makes you come off as lazy. Two different things. This idea you have about a risk to taking it again if you get an inferior score is unfounded. Schools only take your highest score into account. You could get a 177 first try, take it again twice trying to hit the big 180 and get diarrhea both times and score 170s, it doesn't matter, schools will take the 177. MAYBE HYS will care, other than that, it's nothing to lose sleep over.3.) Here, you make two points. First, you suggest I should retake the LSAT because doing so could be beneficial. Second, you suggest my reluctance makes me a "lazy" and "content to game the system." My two counterpoints: First, though retaking obviously has upside potential, since it also has downside risk (I could score lower, after all), that's not an adequate justification. Consider: If at the end of junior year I find myself in a solid position to make my case to law schools (as a URM), shouldn't I test the waters to see if I can get any bites risk-free? If I'm accepted, then great; if not, I'll retake and reapply senior year. Second, I have no choice but to game the system. If four years from now my caucasian Doppelgänger retakes and scores 170, thanks to LSAC's GPA formula, he still probably won't get into UVA or Berkeley! (I resent the system at least as much as you do. Do you think somebody with my ego wants to "beg" his way into law school?)
Interesting thing to say for someone who's Cravath partner or bustcsprizzle38 wrote:No matter what---even if I score 180 on the LSAT---I won't be applying to Harvard (scary curve), Yale (they don't even have a curve and I will not have cured cancer), or Stanford (California). I would honestly choose Fordham over all three.
I didn't say it was nearly impossible to earn A's in them; I said it was nearly impossible to just show up for the final exam and get an A. You got them without studying? I'll have the Graduate American History Seminar instructor, chair of the history department, and chair of the Honors College emphasize that, like my PBK induction suggests, it's not easy to get A's many of the courses that I took.moralsentiments wrote:I think you might be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'll address the misunderstanding as follows:
Ok, glad to see you acknowledge the "bump", and sorry to say, but I still stick to my guns, they want you because of your race. If you were white, with the same numbers, phi beta kappa and all, they wouldn't want you. Love it or hate it, law schools want to diversify their classes. They don't really care if the black/hispanic kids they accept are from rich parents in Malibu or if they are from poor families in inner cities, they want your skin color so they can report it to the ABA, LSAC, USNWR, etc. Again, this is just my opinion, but it seems based on the way admissions work, interviews I've seen/read, and having been through the process myself, that the "bump" has more to do with your skin color than anything else. Right off the bat with your LSAT score, you're using that "bump" to your advantage, but there are limits to that bump, and a few easily obtainable extra points on the LSAT will overcome some of those limits, and open more doors for you. Speaking of limits, your skin color is not going to completely mask a subpar GPA. Your grades will never be "off the grid." I also don't buy the notion that you'd be a legitimate white applicant for all schools except HYS with a 166 LSAT. Would you get into some T14s? Yah, probably at sticker. But I don't see UChi or Columbia accepting a 166/3.9ish very often and if so with much if any scholarship.1.) To be sure, if I manage to achieve in undergrad what I plan to, my most important "soft factor" will still be my race---but I don't think that's why they'll ultimately want me. I think my race will allow them to *painlessly* control for my by then six-year-old F's. Once those grades are off the grid, I'd be a legitimate white applicant anywhere excepting H/Y/S. (I'm not aware of any precedent that says a "URM bump" can't come in this form. Even if I were white, such a "bump" would only be fair.)
I'm not meaning to assert anything, it's just my opinion (sorry if I didn't make that clear). I stick by it. Sorry dude, those classes don't look tough. Like I said before, I DID exactly what you are setting out to do. I got the Summa, and PBK. I took Calculus, Stats, Econ, Russian language, among my other major courses. In fact, that's likely what got me PBK (my breadth of courses). It's not "nearly impossible" to earn A's in those classes. I did it, and I'm Joe Blow.2.) That's an assertion, not an argument. And I find it ludicrous. Not all high GPA humanities transcripts are created equal, a fact that won't be lost on admissions counselors when I apply. Obviously, graduating summa and PBK from an Honors program after four years of upper-level courses in not only history but also economics, French, and mathematical logic would produce a record perceived as "very rigorous." Why? Because it's nearly impossible to earn A's in all of those tough courses unless one treats undergrad like law school... You think Joe Blow 173 LSAT could just "breeze" through that schedule and maintain a 3.96? (I will be working my fu****g ass off haha.)
I'm not making two points, I'm making one. You should retake the LSAT. I'm not suggesting your reluctance makes you lazy, I'm suggesting your reluctance makes you come off as lazy. Two different things. This idea you have about a risk to taking it again if you get an inferior score is unfounded. Schools only take your highest score into account. You could get a 177 first try, take it again twice trying to hit the big 180 and get diarrhea both times and score 170s, it doesn't matter, schools will take the 177. MAYBE HYS will care, other than that, it's nothing to lose sleep over.3.) Here, you make two points. First, you suggest I should retake the LSAT because doing so could be beneficial. Second, you suggest my reluctance makes me a "lazy" and "content to game the system." My two counterpoints: First, though retaking obviously has upside potential, since it also has downside risk (I could score lower, after all), that's not an adequate justification. Consider: If at the end of junior year I find myself in a solid position to make my case to law schools (as a URM), shouldn't I test the waters to see if I can get any bites risk-free? If I'm accepted, then great; if not, I'll retake and reapply senior year. Second, I have no choice but to game the system. If four years from now my caucasian Doppelgänger retakes and scores 170, thanks to LSAC's GPA formula, he still probably won't get into UVA or Berkeley! (I resent the system at least as much as you do. Do you think somebody with my ego wants to "beg" his way into law school?)
And I wasn't implying or otherwise that you are trying to game the system or "beg" your way into law school. I legitimately think that your 166 is a good score, and I think based on your issues with games, you could do much better. I don't buy the notion that a lot of people have that URMs CAN'T score as high as others just because the DON'T. Maybe it's access to resources, or whatever, but schools accommodating for the lower mean I think only makes the problem worse because I think it unintentionally incentivizes URM applicants to be OK with a score at the 25th % for schools because they know they can get in with it while non-URM students likely couldn't and it creates complacency despite the fact that the URM applicant could likely retake for a higher score and eliminate the prevailing notion of their inability to score at the level of non-URMs. I don't know, these are just my thoughts, but irrespective of all of that, I still think you should retake the LSAT. At the very least it will increase your likeliness of obtaining larger scholarships making your life overall easier.
Just because i have nothing else to do ill address your points.csprizzle38 wrote:@Moralsentiments
1.) To be sure, if I manage to achieve in undergrad what I plan to, my most important "soft factor" will still be my race---but I don't think that's why they'll ultimately want me. I think my race will allow them to *painlessly* control for my by then six-year-old F's. Once those grades are off the grid, I'd be a legitimate white applicant anywhere excepting H/Y/S. (I'm not aware of any precedent that says a "URM bump" can't come in this form. Even if I were white, such a "bump" would only be fair.)
2.) That's an assertion, not an argument. And I find it ludicrous. Not all high GPA humanities transcripts are created equal, a fact that won't be lost on admissions counselors when I apply. Obviously, graduating summa and PBK from an Honors program after four years of upper-level courses in not only history but also economics, French, and mathematical logic would produce a record perceived as "very rigorous." Why? Because it's nearly impossible to earn A's in all of those tough courses unless one treats undergrad like law school... You think Joe Blow 173 LSAT could just "breeze" through that schedule and maintain a 3.96? (I will be working my fu****g ass off haha.)
3.) Here, you make two points. First, you suggest I should retake the LSAT because doing so could be beneficial. Second, you suggest my reluctance makes me a "lazy" and "content to game the system." My two counterpoints: First, though retaking obviously has upside potential, since it also has downside risk (I could score lower, after all), that's not an adequate justification. Consider: If at the end of junior year I find myself in a solid position to make my case to law schools (as a URM), shouldn't I test the waters to see if I can get any bites risk-free? If I'm accepted, then great; if not, I'll retake and reapply senior year. Second, I have no choice but to game the system. If four years from now my caucasian Doppelgänger retakes and scores 170, thanks to LSAC's GPA formula, he still probably won't get into UVA or Berkeley! (I resent the system at least as much as you do. Do you think somebody with my ego wants to "beg" his way into law school?)
@gnomgnomuch
I won't be jealous if I don't get into a "higher ranked" school than NYU/Penn/UVA. To maximize one's chances of breaking into NYC Big Law, one should get A's as a 1L at a "top school." No matter what---even if I score 180 on the LSAT---I won't be applying to Harvard (scary curve), Yale (they don't even have a curve and I will not have cured cancer), or Stanford (California). I would honestly choose Fordham over all three.
And My GPA will not be "3.4." After I retake the courses I failed this coming semester, my community college transcript will be 3.5+. And after my four years at Orono, my real college transcript will be 3.9+. Both of which will be available along with LSAC's GPA "thing." Put differently, LSAC can say I'm a "3.4." But they will be objectively, obviously, manifestly, seriously, ridiculously WRONG. So there.
Why thank you, Ms. ___!xylocarp wrote:Interesting thing to say for someone who's Cravath partner or bustcsprizzle38 wrote:No matter what---even if I score 180 on the LSAT---I won't be applying to Harvard (scary curve), Yale (they don't even have a curve and I will not have cured cancer), or Stanford (California). I would honestly choose Fordham over all three.
You are quite a character
csprizzle38 wrote:I didn't say it was nearly impossible to earn A's in them; I said it was nearly impossible to just show up for the final exam and get an A. You got them without studying? I'll have the Graduate American History Seminar instructor, chair of the history department, and chair of the Honors College emphasize that, like my PBK induction suggests, it's not easy to get A's many of the courses that I took.moralsentiments wrote:I think you might be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'll address the misunderstanding as follows:
Ok, glad to see you acknowledge the "bump", and sorry to say, but I still stick to my guns, they want you because of your race. If you were white, with the same numbers, phi beta kappa and all, they wouldn't want you. Love it or hate it, law schools want to diversify their classes. They don't really care if the black/hispanic kids they accept are from rich parents in Malibu or if they are from poor families in inner cities, they want your skin color so they can report it to the ABA, LSAC, USNWR, etc. Again, this is just my opinion, but it seems based on the way admissions work, interviews I've seen/read, and having been through the process myself, that the "bump" has more to do with your skin color than anything else. Right off the bat with your LSAT score, you're using that "bump" to your advantage, but there are limits to that bump, and a few easily obtainable extra points on the LSAT will overcome some of those limits, and open more doors for you. Speaking of limits, your skin color is not going to completely mask a subpar GPA. Your grades will never be "off the grid." I also don't buy the notion that you'd be a legitimate white applicant for all schools except HYS with a 166 LSAT. Would you get into some T14s? Yah, probably at sticker. But I don't see UChi or Columbia accepting a 166/3.9ish very often and if so with much if any scholarship.1.) To be sure, if I manage to achieve in undergrad what I plan to, my most important "soft factor" will still be my race---but I don't think that's why they'll ultimately want me. I think my race will allow them to *painlessly* control for my by then six-year-old F's. Once those grades are off the grid, I'd be a legitimate white applicant anywhere excepting H/Y/S. (I'm not aware of any precedent that says a "URM bump" can't come in this form. Even if I were white, such a "bump" would only be fair.)
I'm not meaning to assert anything, it's just my opinion (sorry if I didn't make that clear). I stick by it. Sorry dude, those classes don't look tough. Like I said before, I DID exactly what you are setting out to do. I got the Summa, and PBK. I took Calculus, Stats, Econ, Russian language, among my other major courses. In fact, that's likely what got me PBK (my breadth of courses). It's not "nearly impossible" to earn A's in those classes. I did it, and I'm Joe Blow.2.) That's an assertion, not an argument. And I find it ludicrous. Not all high GPA humanities transcripts are created equal, a fact that won't be lost on admissions counselors when I apply. Obviously, graduating summa and PBK from an Honors program after four years of upper-level courses in not only history but also economics, French, and mathematical logic would produce a record perceived as "very rigorous." Why? Because it's nearly impossible to earn A's in all of those tough courses unless one treats undergrad like law school... You think Joe Blow 173 LSAT could just "breeze" through that schedule and maintain a 3.96? (I will be working my fu****g ass off haha.)
I'm not making two points, I'm making one. You should retake the LSAT. I'm not suggesting your reluctance makes you lazy, I'm suggesting your reluctance makes you come off as lazy. Two different things. This idea you have about a risk to taking it again if you get an inferior score is unfounded. Schools only take your highest score into account. You could get a 177 first try, take it again twice trying to hit the big 180 and get diarrhea both times and score 170s, it doesn't matter, schools will take the 177. MAYBE HYS will care, other than that, it's nothing to lose sleep over.3.) Here, you make two points. First, you suggest I should retake the LSAT because doing so could be beneficial. Second, you suggest my reluctance makes me a "lazy" and "content to game the system." My two counterpoints: First, though retaking obviously has upside potential, since it also has downside risk (I could score lower, after all), that's not an adequate justification. Consider: If at the end of junior year I find myself in a solid position to make my case to law schools (as a URM), shouldn't I test the waters to see if I can get any bites risk-free? If I'm accepted, then great; if not, I'll retake and reapply senior year. Second, I have no choice but to game the system. If four years from now my caucasian Doppelgänger retakes and scores 170, thanks to LSAC's GPA formula, he still probably won't get into UVA or Berkeley! (I resent the system at least as much as you do. Do you think somebody with my ego wants to "beg" his way into law school?)
And I wasn't implying or otherwise that you are trying to game the system or "beg" your way into law school. I legitimately think that your 166 is a good score, and I think based on your issues with games, you could do much better. I don't buy the notion that a lot of people have that URMs CAN'T score as high as others just because the DON'T. Maybe it's access to resources, or whatever, but schools accommodating for the lower mean I think only makes the problem worse because I think it unintentionally incentivizes URM applicants to be OK with a score at the 25th % for schools because they know they can get in with it while non-URM students likely couldn't and it creates complacency despite the fact that the URM applicant could likely retake for a higher score and eliminate the prevailing notion of their inability to score at the level of non-URMs. I don't know, these are just my thoughts, but irrespective of all of that, I still think you should retake the LSAT. At the very least it will increase your likeliness of obtaining larger scholarships making your life overall easier.
Respectfully, I think the fact I'm pursuing four years of coursework, rather than two, distinguishes my situation from yours fundamentally. I'm not talking about transferring to a university after starting out (i.e., earning credits that will go towards graduation requirements) in community college; I'm talking about completing 130 credits---freshman year through senior year---in four subsequent years of Honors courses. What's the key ground of distinction? I can say on my application, "I really had a new beginning." I'm really starting over, as though I'm a freshman in college (with a GRE-level vocabulary and LSAT-level critical thinking skills). And since I'm a URM, there's a good chance they will overlook the zeroes from community college and look instead at my four year (eight semester) UMaine transcript (which will read 3.9-4.0). I don't feel guilty about that at all. A 166 on a bad day is, to my mind, no less impressive than a 169 on a good one; so I don't feel guilty about my "bump."
I'm sure if I don't get any bites as a junior (and I'll only be applying to four or five schools), I'll retake as a senior and reapply. But someone in my position, assuming I graduate with highest honors, would be stupid to risk dropping my below 164 unnecessarily. That would be bad, bad, bad.
https://www.law.upenn.edu/admissions/jd/faqs.php#lsat
(Of course, now that I think of it, I could just cancel if I don't feel like it's a 168+, but what if my compass is off?)
Don't "fool myself" into thinking my race will incline a top school to ignore community college zeroes that will be six years old and admit me on the basis of a summa GPA maintained throughout four years of being the star student in the Honors College and a member of PBK (which is the BEST indication of rigor any humanities major can hope for)?gnomgnomuch wrote:Just because i have nothing else to do ill address your points.csprizzle38 wrote:@Moralsentiments
1.) To be sure, if I manage to achieve in undergrad what I plan to, my most important "soft factor" will still be my race---but I don't think that's why they'll ultimately want me. I think my race will allow them to *painlessly* control for my by then six-year-old F's. Once those grades are off the grid, I'd be a legitimate white applicant anywhere excepting H/Y/S. (I'm not aware of any precedent that says a "URM bump" can't come in this form. Even if I were white, such a "bump" would only be fair.)
2.) That's an assertion, not an argument. And I find it ludicrous. Not all high GPA humanities transcripts are created equal, a fact that won't be lost on admissions counselors when I apply. Obviously, graduating summa and PBK from an Honors program after four years of upper-level courses in not only history but also economics, French, and mathematical logic would produce a record perceived as "very rigorous." Why? Because it's nearly impossible to earn A's in all of those tough courses unless one treats undergrad like law school... You think Joe Blow 173 LSAT could just "breeze" through that schedule and maintain a 3.96? (I will be working my fu****g ass off haha.)
3.) Here, you make two points. First, you suggest I should retake the LSAT because doing so could be beneficial. Second, you suggest my reluctance makes me a "lazy" and "content to game the system." My two counterpoints: First, though retaking obviously has upside potential, since it also has downside risk (I could score lower, after all), that's not an adequate justification. Consider: If at the end of junior year I find myself in a solid position to make my case to law schools (as a URM), shouldn't I test the waters to see if I can get any bites risk-free? If I'm accepted, then great; if not, I'll retake and reapply senior year. Second, I have no choice but to game the system. If four years from now my caucasian Doppelgänger retakes and scores 170, thanks to LSAC's GPA formula, he still probably won't get into UVA or Berkeley! (I resent the system at least as much as you do. Do you think somebody with my ego wants to "beg" his way into law school?)
@gnomgnomuch
I won't be jealous if I don't get into a "higher ranked" school than NYU/Penn/UVA. To maximize one's chances of breaking into NYC Big Law, one should get A's as a 1L at a "top school." No matter what---even if I score 180 on the LSAT---I won't be applying to Harvard (scary curve), Yale (they don't even have a curve and I will not have cured cancer), or Stanford (California). I would honestly choose Fordham over all three.
And My GPA will not be "3.4." After I retake the courses I failed this coming semester, my community college transcript will be 3.5+. And after my four years at Orono, my real college transcript will be 3.9+. Both of which will be available along with LSAC's GPA "thing." Put differently, LSAC can say I'm a "3.4." But they will be objectively, obviously, manifestly, seriously, ridiculously WRONG. So there.
1) You obviously have NO idea what it takes to get NYC big-law. It requires t-14, and top half (in some cases even lower). At schools like Fordham, i'd say it would require top 3rd. Harvard's "curve" isn't a killer. There are no actual grades, Just H's and P's (with some exceptions). Median at H gets NYC Big-law pretty dam easily. Yale is the best thing in the world. There's no pressure to ace your classes, because basically everyone gets a job. Only super prestigious PI/Clerkships/Big-fed have to seriously contend for grades, and then not to the same extent as they would have had to do so anywhere else. Stanford, is Harvard, but in Cali. If you actually think Stanford cant get you back to NYC for BIG-Law, you need to do some research, And, if you actually choose Fordham over any of the three you're quiet possibly the biggest idiot I've ever encountered.
2) Your GPA WILL be a 3.4. Just because you'll have retaken those classes, doesn't mean they'll get wiped off of your LSAC conversion. So even assuming you pull out 7 A's for those 7 F's, you'll still only have a 2.0 for those classes. Also, you might want to recheck your calculations. I had a 3.3 GPA after my freshman year...I've basically been a 4.0 student since then, and my GPA is 3.68. So, your GPA might be lower than you think it will be, I don't know how bad 7 F's will make your GPA, but I can only imagine.
3) LSAC wont be wrong. You play by their rules, and if you have a 3.4, that's what will be reported. You can spin your 7 CC classes however you want, and you might find adcoms overlooking them - to an extent. But don't fool yourself into thinking that a 4.0 in your undergrad transcript will wash away your 0.0 in CC.
4) You aren't creating a rigorous schedule. And even if you were, nobody cares. A 3.8 in basket weaving from*state school* with a 170 LSAT, is better than a 3.5 in quantum physics from MIT with a 170 LSAT. Even though everyone will tell you that the MIT guy had a more rigorous UG education.
Register now!
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
You can disagree all you want. You're wrong. This accurately describes your position. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsgcsprizzle38 wrote:Don't "fool myself" into thinking my race will incline a top school to ignore community college zeroes that will be six years old and admit me on the basis of a summa GPA maintained throughout four years of being the star student in the Honors College and a member of PBK (which is the BEST indication of rigor any humanities major can hope for)?gnomgnomuch wrote:Just because i have nothing else to do ill address your points.csprizzle38 wrote:@Moralsentiments
1.) To be sure, if I manage to achieve in undergrad what I plan to, my most important "soft factor" will still be my race---but I don't think that's why they'll ultimately want me. I think my race will allow them to *painlessly* control for my by then six-year-old F's. Once those grades are off the grid, I'd be a legitimate white applicant anywhere excepting H/Y/S. (I'm not aware of any precedent that says a "URM bump" can't come in this form. Even if I were white, such a "bump" would only be fair.)
2.) That's an assertion, not an argument. And I find it ludicrous. Not all high GPA humanities transcripts are created equal, a fact that won't be lost on admissions counselors when I apply. Obviously, graduating summa and PBK from an Honors program after four years of upper-level courses in not only history but also economics, French, and mathematical logic would produce a record perceived as "very rigorous." Why? Because it's nearly impossible to earn A's in all of those tough courses unless one treats undergrad like law school... You think Joe Blow 173 LSAT could just "breeze" through that schedule and maintain a 3.96? (I will be working my fu****g ass off haha.)
3.) Here, you make two points. First, you suggest I should retake the LSAT because doing so could be beneficial. Second, you suggest my reluctance makes me a "lazy" and "content to game the system." My two counterpoints: First, though retaking obviously has upside potential, since it also has downside risk (I could score lower, after all), that's not an adequate justification. Consider: If at the end of junior year I find myself in a solid position to make my case to law schools (as a URM), shouldn't I test the waters to see if I can get any bites risk-free? If I'm accepted, then great; if not, I'll retake and reapply senior year. Second, I have no choice but to game the system. If four years from now my caucasian Doppelgänger retakes and scores 170, thanks to LSAC's GPA formula, he still probably won't get into UVA or Berkeley! (I resent the system at least as much as you do. Do you think somebody with my ego wants to "beg" his way into law school?)
@gnomgnomuch
I won't be jealous if I don't get into a "higher ranked" school than NYU/Penn/UVA. To maximize one's chances of breaking into NYC Big Law, one should get A's as a 1L at a "top school." No matter what---even if I score 180 on the LSAT---I won't be applying to Harvard (scary curve), Yale (they don't even have a curve and I will not have cured cancer), or Stanford (California). I would honestly choose Fordham over all three.
And My GPA will not be "3.4." After I retake the courses I failed this coming semester, my community college transcript will be 3.5+. And after my four years at Orono, my real college transcript will be 3.9+. Both of which will be available along with LSAC's GPA "thing." Put differently, LSAC can say I'm a "3.4." But they will be objectively, obviously, manifestly, seriously, ridiculously WRONG. So there.
1) You obviously have NO idea what it takes to get NYC big-law. It requires t-14, and top half (in some cases even lower). At schools like Fordham, i'd say it would require top 3rd. Harvard's "curve" isn't a killer. There are no actual grades, Just H's and P's (with some exceptions). Median at H gets NYC Big-law pretty dam easily. Yale is the best thing in the world. There's no pressure to ace your classes, because basically everyone gets a job. Only super prestigious PI/Clerkships/Big-fed have to seriously contend for grades, and then not to the same extent as they would have had to do so anywhere else. Stanford, is Harvard, but in Cali. If you actually think Stanford cant get you back to NYC for BIG-Law, you need to do some research, And, if you actually choose Fordham over any of the three you're quiet possibly the biggest idiot I've ever encountered.
2) Your GPA WILL be a 3.4. Just because you'll have retaken those classes, doesn't mean they'll get wiped off of your LSAC conversion. So even assuming you pull out 7 A's for those 7 F's, you'll still only have a 2.0 for those classes. Also, you might want to recheck your calculations. I had a 3.3 GPA after my freshman year...I've basically been a 4.0 student since then, and my GPA is 3.68. So, your GPA might be lower than you think it will be, I don't know how bad 7 F's will make your GPA, but I can only imagine.
3) LSAC wont be wrong. You play by their rules, and if you have a 3.4, that's what will be reported. You can spin your 7 CC classes however you want, and you might find adcoms overlooking them - to an extent. But don't fool yourself into thinking that a 4.0 in your undergrad transcript will wash away your 0.0 in CC.
4) You aren't creating a rigorous schedule. And even if you were, nobody cares. A 3.8 in basket weaving from*state school* with a 170 LSAT, is better than a 3.5 in quantum physics from MIT with a 170 LSAT. Even though everyone will tell you that the MIT guy had a more rigorous UG education.
I respectfully disagree with your analysis---all of it.
A. Nony Mouse wrote:OP, you really don't yet get how law school admissions work (or college, for that matter). That's fine - there's no reason you should. But if you've come here to find out about them, why do you keep asserting things that people who've actually gone through the law school application process disagree with? What is your point in being here? I mean, you've decided certain things about what make a schedule "rigorous" and how adcomms will look at your application and what grades you're going to get, with very little basis as far as I can tell, and you keep simply asserting them. Why bother? why come here and try to convince us of these things?
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
OutCold wrote:Did you guys really spend seven pages debating whether this guy--who's only demonstrated performance in higher education has been to fail out of community college--would be able to earn a 4.0 over eight semesters, land PBK, get into an elite law school, make law review, and then become a partner at Cravath?
What's this now?I've spent the last three years of my life reading---alone, in my room---the opinions and dissents of Scalia and Posner, the books of Bryan Garner, and the appellate briefs of Clement, Olson, Shanmugam, and many others. I write in a forceful, elegant tone because it's fun and because I've become quite adept at it.
Nah dude posted his facebook on one of the pages. It's unfortunately not a flame or a troll. He's just really this insufferable as a person.jd20132013 wrote:actually nevermind its pretty boring trolling
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Already a member? Login
*crossing my fingers this doesn't get locked*nightcheese wrote:Damn, this thread is still going? I read up to page 6 earlier this afternoon. I thought for sure it would've gotten locked while I was at work!
btw, OP, did you know your cell phone number is public on your facebook page? If you've gotten any weird calls lately, I swear it wasn't me. I'm just here for the schadenfreude. *grabs popcorn and wine*
I regret joining. It's not worth the occasional spam emails.Flips88 wrote:Bro, srsly, no one gives a fuck about Phi Beta Kappa.
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
