. Forum

[kalvano]

You're going to make a wonderful attorney. No matter how wrong you are, you keep going.

[mbw]

...

[firebreathingliberal]

If the OP's question was what LSAT score & GPA does an URM need to get into certain law schools, then direct her to lawschoolpredictor or to USNews. But that wasn't her question & her post contained a lot more information to consider.

Therein lies your problem CW. You are complicating an otherwise simple question. She asked for school suggestions based on her GPA, LSAT, and life experience. Then you subsequently went off on a tangent about her not having a score and scolding us for telling her the advice we have. As I said we can't begin to assume what an Adcomm would make of her softs, but we can make some assumptions based on her GPA and LSAT and that is what we have done. You took it one step further into an area where none of us are qualified to comment.

[firebreathingliberal]

EDIT - Holy hell, say what you mean to the first time. I've never seen more edits.

+1

[mbw]

...

[CanadianWolf]

You're reading what you want to read into this thread. I made very realistic suggestions based on the OP self tested score. Again, this thread is about the OP & her concerns. I've addressed those & recommended getting an actual LSAT score. Still the best advice because it is realistic based on the info. in the original post.

[drdolittle]

You're getting too emotional. Posters have suggested Stanford & top 14 law schools. That's not fair to the OP.

Good work CanadianWolf. It never ceases to amaze me how bone-headed some TLS posters can appear, and how they actually got into the schools they're attending with such attitude. The fact remains that without an actual LSAT score, much of this discussion is pure speculation. But, based on LSN over the past few years, even NA/AI applicants typically had to score above 160 for Stanford, high 150s for Berkeley, regardless of GPA.

[kalvano]

You're reading what you want to read into this thread. I made very realistic suggestions based on the OP self tested score.

I'd like an answer to my question. Your position is that the only type of diagnostic LSAT that is realistic is one administered in a testing facility by a proctor?

Or what is your position? Becuase 99.9% of the people on this site began with a diagnostic LSAT and went from there.

[CanadianWolf]

It doesn't matter unless it is an actual LSAT score from a real test that law schools will accept. If you don't believe me, then just send in your practice test scores with your law school applications & see what happens.

[firebreathingliberal]

You're reading what you want to read into this thread. I made very realistic suggestions based on the OP self tested score.

Look your original advice wasn't bad. But then you began flaming other posters as having "attitude" and going off on tangents about this and that. I'm not reading between the lines.

You're getting too emotional. Posters have suggested Stanford & top 14 law schools. That's not fair to the OP.

Good work CanadianWolf. It never ceases to amaze me how bone-headed some TLS posters can appear, and how they actually got into the schools they're attending with such attitude. The fact remains that without an actual LSAT score, much of this discussion is pure speculation. But, based on LSN over the past few years, even NA/AI applicants typically had to score above 160 for Stanford, high 150s for Berkeley, regardless of GPA.

I think you two are missing the point. This thread is ENTIRELY about speculation. ITT we are asked to suggest schools using the OP's numbers to SPECULATE as to where she could get in. So then when she said, "I am going to study really hard." Some more speculating ensued as to where she could go if she raised her score to X. SPECULATION!!!!!!

I feel like my head is in a vice right now.....

[CanadianWolf]

It shouldn't feel that way because many have progressed from insults & name-calling to offering reasoned arguments.
As I wrote earlier, I am much older & much more experienced so I am going to approach issues from a different perspective & in a different manner.

[mbw]

...

[kalvano]

It doesn't matter unless it is an actual LSAT score from a real test that law schools will accept. If you don't believe me, then just send in your practice test scores with your law school applications & see what happens.

So somewhere I take it you missed the part about the OP studying for the LSAT? Or where everyone has pointed out that everyone starts with a diagnostic LSAT and goes from there? Or are you just unwilling to acknowledge it because then it will prove how incredibly wrong you've been?

[CanadianWolf]

kalvano: No, I didn't miss anything; I just focused on the relevant facts & issues raised by the OP.
P.S. Good intentions are not a substitute for actual results.

[Thirteen]

It doesn't matter unless it is an actual LSAT score from a real test that law schools will accept. If you don't believe me, then just send in your practice test scores with your law school applications & see what happens.

Dude, stop. Everyone knows that you need an actual LSAT.

[CanadianWolf]

Dude, you understand!

[kalvano]

kalvano: No, I didn't miss anything; I just focused on the relevant facts & issues raised by the OP.

The relevant fact is that your LSAT score doesn't just magically appear. You take a diagnostic, which establishes what you need to work on. You study, hopefully raise your score, and then you take the LSAT and go from there.

Nothing in this thread has contradicted that. You even have a lady who is directly familiar with this type of situation that you're arguing against.

[mbw]

...

[CanadianWolf]

She doesn't have one to raise. I am wedded to the fact that one needs an actual LSAT score to get admitted to an ABA approved law school. Thirteen got it on his very first post in this thread.

[kalvano]

As best I can tell, CW's position is that you shouldn't study or use a diagnostic at all. Just take it and then go from there.

[firebreathingliberal]

It doesn't matter unless it is an actual LSAT score from a real test that law schools will accept. If you don't believe me, then just send in your practice test scores with your law school applications & see what happens.

So somewhere I take it you missed the part about the OP studying for the LSAT? Or where everyone has pointed out that everyone starts with a diagnostic LSAT and goes from there? Or are you just unwilling to acknowledge it because then it will prove how incredibly wrong you've been?

At some point we might want to entertain the idea that CW believes that the OP isn't capable of raising her lsat... I mean, why is he so wedded to this idea?

Maybe he just is unfamiliar with the concepts of practice and gameday... or in this case testday

[CanadianWolf]

No, I just addressed the OP's concerns based on her original post.

[firebreathingliberal]

No, I just addressed the OP's concerns based on her original post.

I'll concede this. Your FIRST post ITT was direct and to the OP's question. It is the rest of your posts that sparked this little tangent we have gone on.

Edit: Your initial advice was ok but seemed to discount the OP's ability to test well after 4 mos of studying.

[mbw]

...

[kalvano]

No, I just addressed the OP's concerns based on her original post.

I live but was hoping to get suggestions of other schools that might fit my stats. I'd consider moving if it meant a better education and job prospects after school.