179 LSAT/2nd Class Upper Honours Forum

[LLB2JD]

Not familiar with the specific tiers... I always assumed T meant top there... My bad... Anyway, to rephrase, what are my chances at getting into Yale, Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, U of Chicago, NYU and Berkley?

To answer your question specifically, you have a more than average chance into landing at least one of those schools, except for Yale where nobody knows anybody that goes there nor whether it is really a law school. I'll suggest you apply beyond those schools though. I think you will definitely get schools in T-30 who would throw money at you just because of your LSAT.

[TommyK]

Oh no - I'm calm. Didn't you see? I used the emoticon with sunglasses, not the emoticon with devil horns. Everything's cool, baby.

But you didn't address the issue of the discrepancy between your claiming to have read every post in the thread and your passing over my having said exactly what you said, even when you had an additional post under your belt in this very thread.

AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THE RULES?

I seem to feel this thread is slowly getting off track, but I'll go with you. I had read every post available when I clicked reply. I got an incoming call from a client. I took it. I finished my reply. By that time, you had already posted. So the result were two posts that had similar content.

Yeah, I guess you're right. I didn't read every post. I just read every post that was available at the beginning of me writing a reply. Holy smokes. Relax, pal. Everything will be okay.

[pkpop]

Considered "URM" or given an admissions boost, probably not. But I thought law schools love to "diversify" the class as much as possible, and having foreign students is like a talking point for them. Don't you think it might make the schools look twice at foreign applicants with high numbers?

I'd be curious about how many high LSAT scoring foreign applicants there are that actually apply to U.S law schools.

[weejonbu]

Thanks for the correction guys, I am always happy to know that I CAN actually learn something new from online forum discussion. Still, it seems there is some speculation about this person's fate, just as there is about all of us law school applicants. Sentinels, as the previous poster recommends, just cast a wide net and hope for the best.

[clintonius]

Oh no - I'm calm. Didn't you see? I used the emoticon with sunglasses, not the emoticon with devil horns. Everything's cool, baby.

But you didn't address the issue of the discrepancy between your claiming to have read every post in the thread and your passing over my having said exactly what you said, even when you had an additional post under your belt in this very thread.

AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THE RULES?

I seem to feel this thread is slowly getting off track, but I'll go with you. I had read every post available when I clicked reply. I got an incoming call from a client. I took it. I finished my reply. By that time, you had already posted. So the result were two posts that had similar content.

Yeah, I guess you're right. I didn't read every post. I just read every post that was available at the beginning of me writing a reply. Holy smokes. Relax, pal. Everything will be okay.

You, my friend, need to watch the Big Lebowski. And to just take it easy, man. Would you just take it easy?

They're gonna kill that poor woman!

(Watch the movie)

[TommyK]

Oh no - I'm calm. Didn't you see? I used the emoticon with sunglasses, not the emoticon with devil horns. Everything's cool, baby.

But you didn't address the issue of the discrepancy between your claiming to have read every post in the thread and your passing over my having said exactly what you said, even when you had an additional post under your belt in this very thread.

AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO GIVES A SHIT ABOUT THE RULES?

I seem to feel this thread is slowly getting off track, but I'll go with you. I had read every post available when I clicked reply. I got an incoming call from a client. I took it. I finished my reply. By that time, you had already posted. So the result were two posts that had similar content.

Yeah, I guess you're right. I didn't read every post. I just read every post that was available at the beginning of me writing a reply. Holy smokes. Relax, pal. Everything will be okay.

You, my friend, need to watch the Big Lebowski. And to just take it easy, man. Would you just take it easy?

They're gonna kill that poor woman!

(Watch the movie)

I really liked that rug. Really tied the room together.

[kevin261186]

you will get $0 scholarship money if you are not a U.S. citizen. You will also have to prove that you can meet the full cost of tution and living expenses before you star. This, of course, vasies from school to school, but private schools insist on you be able to pay for your J.D. If you take out loans to do this you will need a co-signer who has good credit in the U.S. and is willing to take a risk on you.

Sorry if this repeated anything on the previous page; I didn't bother reading all of the posts.

[dresden doll]

It's pretty impressive how full of fail the majority of the responses are.

1) LSAC will translate whatever GPA you received at a foreign institution into an American equivalent law schools can work with. It's the regular practice when it comes to applicants from other countries.

2) You do not need to dwell on your desire to attend law school any more than the average applicant. Law schools will have you if your numbers help their medians regardless of your reasons for wanting to study in the United States.

3) How does it not occur to anyone that percentage of foreign students across the board is low because not many foreigners apply to attend US law schools to begin with?

4) Asssuming median-boosting numbers, you will qualify for merit based scholarships. You will not qualify for government loans or need based money at state schools, however.

5) You will not receive a URM boost. You will be neither disadvantaged nor advantaged by your international background and your cycle will be numbers-based, just like everyone else's.

In translation, assuming LSAC translates your transcript into a solid GPA in American terms, you have excellent shot at both admission and scholarships at T6 schools. Hth.

[094320]

..

[clintonius]

I really liked that rug. Really tied the room together.

<3

[LLB2JD]

It's pretty impressive how full of fail the majority of the responses are.

1) LSAC will translate whatever GPA you received at a foreign institution into an American equivalent law schools can work with. It's the regular practice when it comes to applicants from other countries.

2) You do not need to dwell on your desire to attend law school any more than the average applicant. Law schools will have you if your numbers help their medians regardless of your reasons for wanting to study in the United States.

3) How does it not occur to anyone that percentage of foreign students across the board is low because not many foreigners apply to attend US law schools to begin with?

4) Asssuming median-boosting numbers, you will qualify for merit based scholarships. You will not qualify for government loans or need based money at state schools, however.

5) You will not receive a URM boost. You will be neither disadvantaged nor advantaged by your international background and your cycle will be numbers-based, just like everyone else's.

In translation, assuming LSAC translates your transcript into a solid GPA in American terms, you have excellent shot at both admission and scholarships at T6 schools. Hth.

I agree with the above.

[Bolded] was the point I was making too. It seemed like a classic error of reasoning question.

[hypothalamus]

Let me to qualify at least my claims, dear friends.

1. Of course, there are fewer international applicants than American ones. However, there ARE reasons why foreigners without permanent residency/citizenship are indeed disadvantaged in applying to schools below the top few. One of them being that most schools make NO effort whatsoever to help such students pay for law school and are aware they can't afford, which is why they just don't admit them. Most law schools past, like, top 10 don't even mention international students on their websites!

2. That said, I personally spoke with the HSL associate dean of admissions in the fall and asked her why there are still so few internationals. She, of course, didn't give a straightforward answer and said something about law school being expensive -- and this is a school that actually does make the best effort to make legal education affordable, even to foreigners (i.e. co-signs loans, etc).

3. In conclusion, yes, Yale and Harvard and Columbia like bragging about their diversity and how many internationals they have. Their undergraduate schools do, too. As soon as you go past the top 10 schools, however, or even top 6, this is not at all the case. If you have amazing numbers, then yes, you can apply and probably get into a T6 school, which will admit you irrespective of nationality and co-sign your loans. If your numbers are more in the pretty good but not amazing range, you lose competitive advantage over Americans to lower-ranked schools.

This is my understanding and you can try to argue, but I've been there and done that with applying to colleges four years ago. I remember recently reading what George Washington Law says about internationals -- it goes along those lines: "If you really wanna come here, and like, have really good numbers, sure, like, we'll take you, but you have to, like, figure out a way to get $200 000. K, cool, anticipating your application!"

[hypothalamus]

Oh, and the LSAC *specifically* says they do NOT convert foreign GPA to American GPA, when the person is considered foreign-educated. Instead, they give some sort of non-numerical estimate of how the student performed in undergrad.

[thecilent]

Also, I don't think India = urm.

[TommyK]

Also, I don't think India = urm.

I think this point needs to be highlighted. Wouldn't you agree, clintonius?

[thecilent]

Also, I don't think India = urm.

I think this point needs to be highlighted. Wouldn't you agree, clintonius?

Duh. I actually read threads before I post.

[09042014]

Also, I don't think India = urm.

It's not. Indians are likely ORM if you count education as a whole.

[LLB2JD]

With a 179 LSAT, the talk about URM boost is basically moot.

[anli]

I cannot speak with any authority on the subject, but from casual observation at my school, I have noticed that the foreign students often have difficulty grasping nuances of the language and deeply-embedded cultural assumptions regarding the law. I mean this in no way to be prejudicial - particularly if you were educated in an English-speaking country, you should have little trouble with the language elements of the law. That said, it would not surprise me if admissions officers are warier of taking international students for the aforementioned reasons. After all, law schools teach American law (whereas colleges are, or aspire generally to be, less U.S.-centric).

If I were an admissions officer, I would want strong evidence than a foreign applicant intends to stay in the U.S. and practice here. This may include prioritizing those countries from which it is easier to immigrate, as a J.D. is no guarantee of a green card. If an applicant intends to practice at home but wants an American legal education, the L.L.M. degree is more appropriate (and certainly more of a cash cow).

[dresden doll]

If I were an admissions officer, I would want strong evidence than a foreign applicant intends to stay in the U.S. and practice here. This may include prioritizing those countries from which it is easier to immigrate, as a J.D. is no guarantee of a green card. If an applicant intends to practice at home but wants an American legal education, the L.L.M. degree is more appropriate (and certainly more of a cash cow).

A USA JD can be useful regardless of whether or not the applicant intends to stay in the United States upon graduating. I personally know a CLS grad from my home country that now works for a bank in London courtesy of her elite degree. I also add that, prior to that, she worked for a V30 firm's Germany office.

At any rate, I don't see how a person's plans upon graduation are any of admission officer's business. If someone would like a useless degree, they should be allowed to obtain it. There is no reason for the admission officer to patronize applicants by letting them know that certain programs would be more appropriate relative to others.

[anli]

At any rate, I don't see how a person's plans upon graduation are any of admission officer's business. If someone would like a useless degree, they should be allowed to obtain it. There is no reason for the admission officer to patronize applicants by letting them know that certain programs would be more appropriate relative to others.

I respectfully but strongly disagree. If you look at the interview with the Yale Dean of Admissions recently posted on this site, she notes that she is wary of those students who begin a Ph.D program but drop out after several years, because it sometimes reflects indecision and a desire to attend law school as a safe alternative. I share that concern. Law school is a professional degree, not a general education; elite law schools are the gatekeepers to elite legal positions, just as admissions officers are the gatekeepers to those schools. If I were an admissions officer, I would feel a responsibility to both my school and the profession to train lawyers, not individuals who merely want a credential to work at a foreign bank. I understand that that attitude may be patronizing, but given the rate of discontent among lawyers and law students, I believe it is - or at any rate, should be - more widely held.

[hypothalamus]

If I were an admissions officer, I would want strong evidence than a foreign applicant intends to stay in the U.S. and practice here. This may include prioritizing those countries from which it is easier to immigrate, as a J.D. is no guarantee of a green card. If an applicant intends to practice at home but wants an American legal education, the L.L.M. degree is more appropriate (and certainly more of a cash cow).

=====> This is what I mean when I say that many people on TLS seem to think internationals have to JUSTIFY their choice to study law in the US....

Not to mention the presumption that a person cannot learn a foreign language to the extent where it becomes a second native language. No offense, but there are people perfectly capable of learning a few foreign languages fluently (and fluently enough to understand linguistic nuances). Foreign language education in the US is undoubtedly lacking in many respects, but this should not serve as the basis for the conclusion that it is so everywhere in the world...

[dresden doll]

I respectfully but strongly disagree. If you look at the interview with the Yale Dean of Admissions recently posted on this site, she notes that she is wary of those students who begin a Ph.D program but drop out after several years, because it sometimes reflects indecision and a desire to attend law school as a safe alternative. I share that concern. Law school is a professional degree, not a general education; elite law schools are the gatekeepers to elite legal positions, just as admissions officers are the gatekeepers to those schools. If I were an admissions officer, I would feel a responsibility to both my school and the profession to train lawyers, not individuals who merely want a credential to work at a foreign bank. I understand that that attitude may be patronizing, but given the rate of discontent among lawyers and law students, I believe it is - or at any rate, should be - more widely held.

I see no relevance w/r/t your analogy to Ph.D. drop outs. Practicing law outside the United States is in no way akin to dropping out. I likewise do not understand how using a US JD to work at international offices breeds or feeds into discontent 'among lawyers and law students.' If you're talking discontent of the JDU kind, that's the discontent borne of inability to find a job in the legal profession, a phenomenon that has nothing to do with foreigners working for banks or Biglaw firms' international offices.

Also, hypothalamus's last post is completely credited. As a bilingual individual, I assure you that I have good grasp on nuances of the English language, as do all foreigners at my current school.

[09042014]

I respectfully but strongly disagree. If you look at the interview with the Yale Dean of Admissions recently posted on this site, she notes that she is wary of those students who begin a Ph.D program but drop out after several years, because it sometimes reflects indecision and a desire to attend law school as a safe alternative. I share that concern. Law school is a professional degree, not a general education; elite law schools are the gatekeepers to elite legal positions, just as admissions officers are the gatekeepers to those schools. If I were an admissions officer, I would feel a responsibility to both my school and the profession to train lawyers, not individuals who merely want a credential to work at a foreign bank. I understand that that attitude may be patronizing, but given the rate of discontent among lawyers and law students, I believe it is - or at any rate, should be - more widely held.

I see no relevance w/r/t your analogy to Ph.D. drop outs. Practicing law outside the United States is in no way akin to dropping out. I likewise do not understand how using a US JD to work at international offices breeds or feeds into discontent 'among lawyers and law students.' If you're talking discontent of the JDU kind, that's the discontent borne of inability to find a job in the legal profession, a phenomenon that has nothing to do with foreigners working for banks or Biglaw firms' international offices.

Also, hypothalamus's last post is completely credited. As a bilingual individual, I assure you that I have good grasp on nuances of the English language, as do all foreigners at my current school.

Dres speaks better english than me.

[hypothalamus]

Dresden doll speaks better English than many native speakers on TLS .

To end the language fluency discussion, because it stems from unsound assumptions on one poster's part: there is a reason law schools do not require a language proficiency test. Most Americans can't do well on the LSAT; if foreign takers didn't understand the "nuances" of the language of the test, they could never score in the 170s. The LSAT is, thus, a sufficient precaution against poor language skills.

Anli, I think admissions officers at the best law schools in the US only guard against incompetence. In my experience, well-educated foreigners are not less competent than well-educated Americans.