Is my cycle over, save scholarship consideration? Forum

[liammial]

At most schools you take one test per class and your entire grade is based on it. So you take about 20 tests total in law school. And they are all much less fair than the LSAT. Sometimes your teacher doesn't teach you anything and you have to teach the subject to yourself. Sometimes they teach you lots of stuff but test you on something that you barely covered in class. And then of course you can't take the test whenever you're ready, nor can you retake it as many times as you want.

20>>>1. Also, the fact something else is unfair doesn't mean it's okay for the first thing to be unfair. That kind of logic would get you a bad score on the LSAT.

The field of law has a bunch of tests associated with it. And the slim margins of the LSAT are only unfair insofar as law schools have to be concerned about rankings because people care about them even though they are meaningless. Finally, Berkeley is selling the same crap, just in a different package that appeals to certain people. Deal with it.

I know why law schools care; that doesn't make it less stupid. You've yet to actually explain how Berkeley is selling the same crap. They're objectively less stats-based. They sell that, and rightfully so. That's not the "same crap," though.

[kwais]

Oh come on man. Berkeley allows students to have gotten a few points less on the LSAT, which according to your calculus, is a meaningless distinction. So how can they be be a shining beacon of holistic admissions and the rest are whores?
Also, do you plan to pull this schtick when you are in EIP with a bunch of Bs? Are you going to tell the interviewer that they are making a wild mistake using 6-7 law school exams (which are far more arbitrary than the LSAT) to judge your potential worth as an associate? At what point will you man up and just play the game and accept the consequences? Why not find a more "fair" career path?

[BigZuck]

Just because Berkeley cares about one stat over another doesn't mean they are neccessarily less stat based. Also, the wholistic approach is pretty much a flame that they can sell to a lot of people to drive up interest in their school and appear to look different. They care about the same soft factors of every other top school, they care about URMness, etc. They don't care that you were the treasurer of your fraternity and worked at a soup kitchen once. A lot of 3.8/161 types see "wholistic review" and think their run of the mill softs might get them in when, in all actuality, mere mortals need like a 170/3.85 minimum to have a realistic shot. Why? Because those are the stats that mere mortals need to get in to Berkeley! If you're URM, or LGBT, or military, etc. that might get you into Cal but there's a good chance you would snag other top schools too.

Their median LSAT is a little lower than most top schools. Like missing 3 questions on the LSAT lower. Doesn't mean they don't care about the same crap. They just package themselves as the cool hippy school stocked with fraternity treasurers and occasional soup kitchen workers to make people think that they really care about who they are deep down.

[BigZuck]

Also, I never said any of this is fair or that it's ok for it to be unfair. It just is what it is. If you want to be in the game you've gotta play the game.

[whereskyle]

3.8X/high 160 LSAT. Two years w/e as a paralegal at top, national law firm. Significant work experience during undergrad and unique softs.

In at Michigan, Duke, Cornell, GULC, BU, and BC.

Chances at H, S, Chicago, Columbia, NYU, and Penn?

What about chances for $$$ at the schools I am into?

Obviously considering a retake/reapply next summer.

ETA: I have only taken the LSAT once.

It's possible that Northwestern might throw you some money due to your work experience.

[whereskyle]

At most schools you take one test per class and your entire grade is based on it. So you take about 20 tests total in law school. And they are all much less fair than the LSAT. Sometimes your teacher doesn't teach you anything and you have to teach the subject to yourself. Sometimes they teach you lots of stuff but test you on something that you barely covered in class. And then of course you can't take the test whenever you're ready, nor can you retake it as many times as you want.

20>>>1. Also, the fact something else is unfair doesn't mean it's okay for the first thing to be unfair. That kind of logic would get you a bad score on the LSAT.

The field of law has a bunch of tests associated with it. And the slim margins of the LSAT are only unfair insofar as law schools have to be concerned about rankings because people care about them even though they are meaningless. Finally, Berkeley is selling the same crap, just in a different package that appeals to certain people. Deal with it.

I know why law schools care; that doesn't make it less stupid. You've yet to actually explain how Berkeley is selling the same crap. They're objectively less stats-based. They sell that, and rightfully so. That's not the "same crap," though.

Berk rejected me, I think, becuz I don't have a GPA. Its peers admitted me and its superiors WLed me. Stats-based and predictable like the rest of 'em.

[liammial]

Once again, I never said the LSAT shouldn't matter; I said a single point difference should mean basically nothing. Me calling Berkeley less stats-based is not based on their slightly lower LSAT medians, it's based on looking at statistics of law school applicants from my undergrad and chances of admission being considerably less predictable than for other schools (except Stanford, basically).

[BigZuck]

Once again, I never said the LSAT shouldn't matter; I said a single point difference should mean basically nothing. Me calling Berkeley less stats-based is not based on their slightly lower LSAT medians, it's based on looking at statistics of law school applicants from my undergrad and chances of admission being considerably less predictable than for other schools (except Stanford, basically).

Sweet. Best of luck to you, Godspeed friend.

[liammial]

Once again, I never said the LSAT shouldn't matter; I said a single point difference should mean basically nothing. Me calling Berkeley less stats-based is not based on their slightly lower LSAT medians, it's based on looking at statistics of law school applicants from my undergrad and chances of admission being considerably less predictable than for other schools (except Stanford, basically).

Sweet. Best of luck to you, Godspeed friend.

I guess that means I win

[midwest17]

Guys, liammial LOVES to argue. I hope that's what he wrote his PS about.

[phillywc]

Guys, liammial LOVES to argue. I hope that's what he wrote his PS about.

DEAD

[redsoxfan1989]

Postscript: Got a scholarship that will make my attendance at BU debt free today!