3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend) Forum

prezidentv8 · Post by **prezidentv8** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 3:51 am

fats provolone wrote:
fats provolone wrote:what school are you doing your post-hoc at?

sparty99 · Post by **sparty99** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:35 pm

fats provolone wrote:
fats provolone wrote:what school are you doing your post-hoc at?

post-hac?

sparty99 · Post by **sparty99** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:43 pm

BigZuck wrote:
sparty99 wrote:
Wingtip88 wrote:Your entire post should have just read:

sparty99 wrote:your friend is a damn fool and should absolutely retake.
Every other bit of it was just you bragging about yourself while offering nothing worthwhile to OP or his situation.
Nope. Wrong. Try again. My statement is direct proof that someone can get accepted to a T50 with similar numbers. The OP can take that for what its worth. However, I mostly commented to respond to the people who say a person with a 148 shouldn't go to law school or can't be an effective lawyer. I really do not need to brag as I could basically careless about big law or the school that I graduated from.
Can you link to one post (just one) where someone on TLS said that someone with a low LSAT score can't be an effective lawyer? Just one.

Someone with a 148 might be the next Ruth Bader Ginsburg for all we know. That doesn't mean that someone with a 148 should go to law school. Do you not understand why not? Here's a hint: if we knew that you would had snagged big law with your qualifications we proably would have told you to go to law school.

I'm not going to waste my time doing that. I'm sure you could do that yourself, especially considering this is a site where people spend the time arguing whether they should work at a V50 over a V70 or should drop out of a T14 after they strike out. If a person who scored a 148 got into a T50 (more likely a T20) with a full or near ride scholarship then perhaps they should go to law school if after retaking the LSAT, could not do any better.

hoos89 · Post by **hoos89** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:48 pm

Who is honestly getting a full ride at a T20 (or even a T50) with a 148?

sparty99 · Post by **sparty99** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:51 pm

hoos89 wrote:Who is honestly getting a full ride at a T20 (or even a T50) with a 148?

I mean, T20 probably no one. T50? Me and some other people. Anyway. I'm over it. OP: tell your damn friend to retake.

hoos89 · Post by **hoos89** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:23 pm

sparty99 wrote:
hoos89 wrote:Who is honestly getting a full ride at a T20 (or even a T50) with a 148?
I mean, T20 probably no one. T50? Me and some other people. Anyway. I'm over it. OP: tell your damn friend to retake.

There is just so much at work here that is so unlikely to fall into place for someone with a sub-150. 1) Admission to T50; 2) Full-ride at said T50; 3) positive employment outcome AFTER FINISHING BELOW MEDIAN at said T50. Seriously, what are you not telling us?

ETA: Quick perusal of your post history reveals AA Male. Hmmmm....

fats provolone · Post by **fats provolone** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:24 pm

i don't know why you keep pushing the issue. sparty clearly doesn't want to talk about it. he's just trying to keep to himself

BigZuck · Post by **BigZuck** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 3:47 pm

So you're raging against a machine that doesn't actually exist? Why would you do that?

AReasonableMan · Post by **AReasonableMan** » Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:08 pm

Regardless of any score improvement, if someone studied and got a 148 they're going to get owned by the curve at any respectable school. Retaking should be about minimizing the harm, not a ticket to success.

rdawkins28 · Post by **rdawkins28** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 7:57 pm

Did OP ask if the friend should retake? Nope.
Did OP ask if the friend should go to law school? Nope.
Did OP ask if the friend would be wasting a high GPA? Nope.
Did OP ask if the friend is "shit at logical reasoning?" Nope.
Did OP ask if the friend would get scholarships? Nope.
Did OP ask if the friend would do well in law school? Nope.
Did OP ask if the friend could get a job after law school? Nope.
Did OP ask if the friend could be be an effective lawyer? Nope.

So what the heck did OP ask?

OP asked for a friend: What are his chances at University of Illinois?

Answer: mylsn

Wingtip88 · Post by **Wingtip88** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:06 pm

rdawkins28 wrote:Answer: mylsn

mylsn's answer: 0%

fats provolone · Post by **fats provolone** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:06 pm

is TLS a discussion forum? yes

fats provolone · Post by **fats provolone** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:07 pm

is rdawkins28 brave? so

fats provolone · Post by **fats provolone** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:08 pm

is TLS a law school-themed yahoo answers? not yet

utahraptor · Post by **utahraptor** » Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:10 pm

fats provolone wrote:is TLS a law school-themed yahoo answers? not yet

Some of us are trying our best to take it there

AReasonableMan · Post by **AReasonableMan** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 12:15 am

sparty99 wrote:
hoos89 wrote:Who is honestly getting a full ride at a T20 (or even a T50) with a 148?
I mean, T20 probably no one. T50? Me and some other people. Anyway. I'm over it. OP: tell your damn friend to retake.

If he got a full to a T50 with a 148 then his app had to have something. Even with the GPA and URM status, the 148 is too low to get a full ride. But in all honesty, depending on how high your GPA is, this road is likely cut off to the OP. What was your GPA? If you helped the school's ranking in two ways by raising the GPA median and by being URM then assuming they buy your LSAT doesn't accurately reflect your ability, there's no reason not to take you. If OP only raises the GPA median, your experience is irrelevant because you help the school in two ways vs. his on. But I agree your outcome suggests the addendum and/or something else in your application has some non-negligible value. However, the reality is that because we don't know the role your URM status played, your anecdotal story isn't relevant to OP's friend.

jbagelboy · Post by **jbagelboy** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 12:56 pm

sparty99 wrote:Just for the record: I had a gpa lower than that and a LSAT score around that number and landed a full scholarship at a T50. Everyone on this site told me I should have done a retake. They are right as a 160 would have landed acceptance to a Top 5 program. However, I'm not sure I would have done much better as I'm just not good at the LSAT, SAT, etc. Nonetheless, I graduated and landed a job in big-law. I say this to tell the haters who think that someone with a 148 shouldn't go to law school or won't become an effective laywer. Outside of that, your friend is a damn fool and should absolutely retake.

No

JuTMSY4 · Post by **JuTMSY4** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:16 pm

sparty99 wrote:
Nope. Wrong. Try again. My statement is direct proof that someone can get accepted to a T50 with similar numbers. The OP can take that for what its worth. However, I mostly commented to respond to the people who say a person with a 148 shouldn't go to law school or can't be an effective lawyer. I really do not need to brag as I could basically careless about big law or the school that I graduated from.

this statement is why you did poorly on the LSAT.

Unrelated: How much less could you care about Big Law or the school you graduated from?

rdawkins28 · Post by **rdawkins28** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:49 pm

Wingtip88 wrote:
rdawkins28 wrote:Answer: mylsn
mylsn's answer: 0%

Heh. Can only lead OP/friend to water. Up to him/her if he/she wants to drink it.

gnomgnomuch · Post by **gnomgnomuch** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 2:25 pm

sparty99 wrote:Just for the record: I had a gpa lower than that and a LSAT score around that number and landed a full scholarship at a T50. Everyone on this site told me I should have done a retake. They are right as a 160 would have landed acceptance to a Top 5 program. However, I'm not sure I would have done much better as I'm just not good at the LSAT, SAT, etc. Nonetheless, I graduated and landed a job in big-law. I say this to tell the haters who think that someone with a 148 shouldn't go to law school or won't become an effective laywer. Outside of that, your friend is a damn fool and should absolutely retake.

Aren't you AA?
Also, using anecdotal evidence to justify taking out 280k of loans, and wasting three years of your life, for a .01 (and really, it's lower) chance at getting a job that pays 160k (and 100k in reality after taxes) that will wear you out mentally, emotionally and physically just so you could repay those 280k in loans is absolutely idiotic.

People like you are the exceptions to the rule, and while this worked out in your favor, 99% of people in your situation will end up fucked. Stop telling people about your amazing results and luck (no matter how smart you are you need luck in LS) unless you're willing to acknowledge that most people aren't going to get your results, but in fact will end up financially fucked, with no prospects at paying off those loans, a useless degree and very possible no job at all... resulting in three years and 280k of wasted time and money.

Also, with OP's friends GPA/LSAT he/she will be going sticker or close to sticker, while you went on a full ride. These are completely different situations.

downinDtown · Post by **downinDtown** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 2:35 pm

BigZuck wrote:
sparty99 wrote:
Wingtip88 wrote:Your entire post should have just read:

sparty99 wrote:your friend is a damn fool and should absolutely retake.
Can you link to one post (just one) where someone on TLS said that someone with a low LSAT score can't be an effective lawyer? Just one.

Someone with a 148 might be the next Ruth Bader Ginsburg for all we know. That doesn't mean that someone with a 148 should go to law school. Do you not understand why not? Here's a hint: if we knew that you would had snagged big law with your qualifications we proably would have told you to go to law school.

Now this just has me wondering who is the biggest "anomaly" in BigLaw (i.e., who has the lowest LSAT and ended up at the firm with the highest Vault ranking?) I know there was some LSAT to job survey posted, but it was mostly just a bunch of 160 and 170 folks from T14 schools saying that they got V10 jobs. So who among you has the lowest LSAT and still got BigLaw?

I think we could all name at least one person who largely "outperformed" their expected job outcome based on their LSAT and still snagged BigLaw, but for every one, you could probably think of 5-10 people with crappy LSATs that still went to a TTT and are now under-/un- employed. As much as we want things to be holistic, it's still a numbers game (higher uGPA + higher LSAT = better law school + scholly money = less debt + generally better job prospects).

My view is that it's not that people with lower LSATs can't be effective lawyers; it's that people with lower LSATs tend to only get accepted into lower-ranked schools--schools which tend to have much lower job numbers--and last I checked, you had to be an employed lawyer to be an effective lawyer.

sparty99 · Post by **sparty99** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 5:18 pm

gnomgnomuch wrote:
sparty99 wrote:Just for the record: I had a gpa lower than that and a LSAT score around that number and landed a full scholarship at a T50. Everyone on this site told me I should have done a retake. They are right as a 160 would have landed acceptance to a Top 5 program. However, I'm not sure I would have done much better as I'm just not good at the LSAT, SAT, etc. Nonetheless, I graduated and landed a job in big-law. I say this to tell the haters who think that someone with a 148 shouldn't go to law school or won't become an effective laywer. Outside of that, your friend is a damn fool and should absolutely retake.

Aren't you AA?
Also, using anecdotal evidence to justify taking out 280k of loans, and wasting three years of your life, for a .01 (and really, it's lower) chance at getting a job that pays 160k (and 100k in reality after taxes) that will wear you out mentally, emotionally and physically just so you could repay those 280k in loans is absolutely idiotic.

People like you are the exceptions to the rule, and while this worked out in your favor, 99% of people in your situation will end up fucked. Stop telling people about your amazing results and luck (no matter how smart you are you need luck in LS) unless you're willing to acknowledge that most people aren't going to get your results, but in fact will end up financially fucked, with no prospects at paying off those loans, a useless degree and very possible no job at all... resulting in three years and 280k of wasted time and money.

Also, with OP's friends GPA/LSAT he/she will be going sticker or close to sticker, while you went on a full ride. These are completely different situations.

First off, I never said ANYONE should take out 280k in loans. Second, I didn't experience any luck. I earned everything I received. My scholarship and job opportunities. Lastly, as I have consistently stated, OP's friend should retake.

fats provolone · Post by **fats provolone** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 6:44 pm

"I didn't experience any luck"

LOL what a ridiculous statement

AReasonableMan · Post by **AReasonableMan** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 7:12 pm

JuTMSY4 wrote:
sparty99 wrote:
Nope. Wrong. Try again. My statement is direct proof that someone can get accepted to a T50 with similar numbers. The OP can take that for what its worth. However, I mostly commented to respond to the people who say a person with a 148 shouldn't go to law school or can't be an effective lawyer. I really do not need to brag as I could basically careless about big law or the school that I graduated from.
this statement is why you did poorly on the LSAT.

Unrelated: How much less could you care about Big Law or the school you graduated from?

Actually, this statement suggests he would do well on the LSAT.

If you don't think Sparty is a liar, then you would have to agree that he presented evidence that someone COULD get into a top fifty with similar numbers.

It's true Sparty is URM, but his statement never specifies that any person including non-URM's can, only that "someone can." He also never states that it's a good idea to go to law school with this score, or that this situation is a desirable outcome.

Basically, if you're going to be a dick and engage in an ad hominem attack against him, at least be right.

sparty99 · Post by **sparty99** » Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:36 pm

fats provolone wrote:"I didn't experience any luck"

LOL what a ridiculous statement

I guess it was luck for whatever cock-suck school that admitted you.

3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend) Forum

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Register for access!

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Register now!

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Register now, it's still FREE!

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Re: 3.9 and 148, for a friend (a stubborn friend)

Seriously? What are you waiting for?