Top Law Schools

assuming i've been in very late elims of the NDT, and it seems like there has been a long legacy of hys attending NDT winners (even a commencement speaker for H) , how significant of a soft is this (in a vacuum)?

I understand establishing a scale is difficult, so compare it to known softs, like a rhodes, a marshall or a quantitative scale based on GPA.

t13plz wrote:assuming i've been in very late elims of the NDT, and it seems like there has been a long legacy of hys attending NDT winners (even a commencement speaker for H) , how significant of a soft is this (in a vacuum)?

I understand establishing a scale is difficult, so compare it to known softs, like a rhodes, a marshall or a quantitative scale based on GPA.

So, you want us to put the softs into a vacuum and then compare them to a hard factor?

I'd say something like 5.73.

Edit: NDT=nondestructive testing

JazzOne wrote: Edit: NDT=nondestructive testing

NDT = National Debate Tournament.

LeDique wrote:

JazzOne wrote: Edit: NDT=nondestructive testing

NDT = National Debate Tournament.

NDT=nephrology dialysis transplantation

Do you have a 3.8+ GPA and a 171+ LSAT score? if not, then National Debate final or whatever wont matter

JazzOne wrote:

t13plz wrote:assuming i've been in very late elims of the NDT, and it seems like there has been a long legacy of hys attending NDT winners (even a commencement speaker for H) , how significant of a soft is this (in a vacuum)?

I understand establishing a scale is difficult, so compare it to known softs, like a rhodes, a marshall or a quantitative scale based on GPA.

So, you want us to put the softs into a vacuum and then compare them to a hard factor?

I'd say something like 5.73.

Edit: NDT=nondestructive testing

you're cute, and that's lovely; however, I don't think thats what I was asking.

People seem to quantify a rhodes with a soft that will let you get into schools beyond your numbers. I was asking you to look at an NDT late elim participant in a vacuum because I wanted a general consensus on the significance of that achievement alone, assuming I don't already have a prestigious fellowship or scholarship such as a rhodes or marshall.

Oban wrote:Do you have a 3.8+ GPA and a 171+ LSAT score? if not, then National Debate final or whatever wont matter

I do, and I'm retaking a 171. HTH.

Sorry to be curt, but you clearly don't know how much work goes into the NDT - or what it is. So why trivialize it and answer?

t13plz wrote:

JazzOne wrote:

t13plz wrote:assuming i've been in very late elims of the NDT, and it seems like there has been a long legacy of hys attending NDT winners (even a commencement speaker for H) , how significant of a soft is this (in a vacuum)?

I understand establishing a scale is difficult, so compare it to known softs, like a rhodes, a marshall or a quantitative scale based on GPA.

So, you want us to put the softs into a vacuum and then compare them to a hard factor?

I'd say something like 5.73.

Edit: NDT=nondestructive testing

you're cute, and that's lovely; however, I don't think thats what I was asking.

People seem to quantify a rhodes with a soft that will let you get into schools beyond your numbers. I was asking you to look at an NDT late elim participant in a vacuum because I wanted a general consensus on the significance of that achievement alone, assuming I don't already have a prestigious fellowship or scholarship such as a rhodes or marshall.

The reason I joked is that nobody on this forum has any idea how to "quantify" a soft factor. That's what makes them soft factors. It probably depends on the school, and maybe individual adcomms weigh these things differently. What kind of answer are you hoping to get? NDT<Miss America<Rhodes<Marshall<<<<<<<<<<<<numbers

JazzOne wrote:

t13plz wrote:

JazzOne wrote:

t13plz wrote:assuming i've been in very late elims of the NDT, and it seems like there has been a long legacy of hys attending NDT winners (even a commencement speaker for H) , how significant of a soft is this (in a vacuum)?

I understand establishing a scale is difficult, so compare it to known softs, like a rhodes, a marshall or a quantitative scale based on GPA.

So, you want us to put the softs into a vacuum and then compare them to a hard factor?

I'd say something like 5.73.

Edit: NDT=nondestructive testing

you're cute, and that's lovely; however, I don't think thats what I was asking.

People seem to quantify a rhodes with a soft that will let you get into schools beyond your numbers. I was asking you to look at an NDT late elim participant in a vacuum because I wanted a general consensus on the significance of that achievement alone, assuming I don't already have a prestigious fellowship or scholarship such as a rhodes or marshall.

The reason I joked is that nobody on this forum has any idea how to "quantify" a soft factor. That's what makes them soft factors. It probably depends on the school, and maybe individual adcomms weigh these things differently. What kind of answer are you hoping to get? NDT<Miss America<Rhodes<Marshall<<<<<<<<<<<<numbers

haha, something like that.

touche. I think that my own insecurity of being borderline is getting to me.

I expect it to help you by l----l that much

t13plz wrote:haha, something like that.

Well, you're a sport. Sorry to hijack your thread. The general consensus on TLS is that numbers mean far more than softs. But honestly, it's just speculation based on the LSN graphs. The databases are incomplete; the sample size is small; and the applicant pool varies from year to year. So, I have my doubts about the collective TLS wisdom on this matter. I don't even know who you could turn to for advice. Perhaps you could reach out to some alums of HYS who have the NDT soft, and see if they are willing to share any information with you. I doubt they really know what goes on in the admission office either, though.

t13plz wrote:assuming i've been in very late elims of the NDT, and it seems like there has been a long legacy of hys attending NDT winners (even a commencement speaker for H) , how significant of a soft is this (in a vacuum)?

I understand establishing a scale is difficult, so compare it to known softs, like a rhodes, a marshall or a quantitative scale based on GPA.

on par with being president of a club, less than .1 GPA.

JazzOne wrote:

t13plz wrote:haha, something like that.

Well, you're a sport. Sorry to hijack your thread. The general consensus on TLS is that numbers mean far more than softs. But honestly, it's just speculation based on the LSN graphs. The databases are incomplete, and the applicant pool varies from year to year, so I have my doubts about the collective TLS wisdom on this matter. I don't even know who you could turn to for advice. Perhaps you could reach out to some alums of HYS who have the NDT softs, and see if they are willing to share any information with you. I doubt they really know what goes on in the admission office either, though.

+1 Also, if it really is that much work, it's probably more correlation than causation.

t13plz wrote:Sorry to be curt, but you clearly don't know how much work goes into the NDT - or what it is. So why trivialize it and answer?

Everyone on this forum is super anxious. We're either waiting for admissions decisions, or we're in the midst of OCI, or we have LS finals around the corner. Don't take it personally. We come on here to smart off anonymously so that we don't make jackasses of ourselves when it really matters.

Yeah I'm thinking it will be a solid soft, but I'm doubtful that it will get you somewhere you don't belong. If you had won it maybe, but breaking to quarters or something probably isn't going to be as distinguishing as you want it to be. I did some policy debate in college and know some things about it, so I'm sure you worked really hard and are a really great debater, I just don't think it's as much separation as rhodes/marshall would be. In fact, I'm very doubtful that it is. Just on the eye test if you go "this guy went to the semis in the NDT" people will go "what?" If you say they won the Rhodes scholarship then people will know that is an accomplishment. I bet less than five percent of this country knows what the NDT is, policy debate isn't exactly the world's most accessible activity. You have to remember a lot of competitive people go to law school so is policy debate more work then ice skating, entrepreneurial contests, fencing, mock trial, whatever you can think of? It's something really hard for the ad comms to figure out because there are so many moving parts. This is why the vacuum thing is pointless.

If I had to quantify it:
.06 GPA points on a 4.0 scale
.4545 LSAT points.

^The above scale is absurd, but you asked, that's just my gut feeling.

Schools list how many Rhodes scholars they have in a given class. No one even mentions NDT finalists/semifinalists.

whymeohgodno wrote:Schools list how many Rhodes scholars they have in a given class. No one even mentions NDT finalists/semifinalists.

that's actually not true, yale did.


..so what about a rhodes, marshall, fulbright, or truman does that put me beyond the numbers?

t13plz wrote:

whymeohgodno wrote:Schools list how many Rhodes scholars they have in a given class. No one even mentions NDT finalists/semifinalists.

that's actually not true, yale did.

the part about them not caring is true though

capitalacq wrote:

t13plz wrote:

whymeohgodno wrote:Schools list how many Rhodes scholars they have in a given class. No one even mentions NDT finalists/semifinalists.

that's actually not true, yale did.

the part about them not caring is true though

touche, again. you're probably right, lol. it sucks to feel insignificant.

NDT = not doing this...shit

t13plz wrote: touche, again. you're probably right, lol. it sucks to feel insignificant.

You wouldn't feel this way if you really believed that being a NDT finalist is an significant achievement.

(1) i did debate and understand that late outrounds of the NDT is a big fucking deal. you're probably going to crack skulls in law school wherever you end up.
(2) some adcoms will think it's a big deal. some will not. HYS (in particular H) tend to attract a lot of successful college debaters and i think adcoms have a clue what the NDT is and what it entails. i wrote a personal statement about debate and i think it helped contextualize and explain exactly what college debate entails.
(3) if you coached HS debate, that might help too. JR seemed very impressed that i coached a TOC finalist even though i did next to nothing.

in other words... you want credit for losing at an extracurricular?

The only people who care about debate is debaters. Nobody else cares that you speak fast and spew out as many terrible arguments as you can.

smittytron3k wrote:(1) i did debate and understand that late outrounds of the NDT is a big fucking deal. you're probably going to crack skulls in law school wherever you end up. .

lololol

Look, I tried to be nice. It didn't work.

r6_philly wrote:

t13plz wrote: touche, again. you're probably right, lol. it sucks to feel insignificant.

You wouldn't feel this way if you really believed that being a NDT finalist is an significant achievement.

Bro, who are you dawg?

Just because I try to be disarming and not a douche bag doesn't make it a good idea to talk about shit you don't understand.

--LinkRemoved-- (Yale, Gtown law prof, Scotus clerk)
http://www.susmangodfrey.com/?id=186 (Northwestern, Order of the Coif, 10th circuit, Susman Godfrey Partner)
http://www.bartlit-beck.com/lawyers-BrianPrestes.html (Chicago, Order of the Coif, Executive Editor LR, 1st COA, Partner)
http://www.wc.com/sandrews (Chicago, High Honors, Partner V10)
http://www.sperling-law.com/hessell.shtml (Chicago, Honors, DC COA, Partner)
http://www.nyclu.org/node/1022 (corey, Harvard, Magna, 6th COA, NYU adjunct, ACLU Senior Staff Attorney)
--LinkRemoved-- (UVA, associate)

There are probably a total of 9 other people during this time period (late nineties - early 2000s) that have similar qualifications. These were just the first 7 people. What's really interesting r6_philly is that they all seem to mention their participation in late elims of the NDT in their public profiles. Hell, the Gtown prof still makes a yearly trip to the harvard debate tournament.

It seems like they all think its a big f*cking deal if they think mention NDT participation after COA and clerking for scotus 10-15 years later.

Desert Fox wrote:The only people who care about debate is debaters. Nobody else cares that you speak fast and spew out as many terrible arguments as you can.

You're probably right. I just hope someone on the adcom at HYS used to debate.

capitalacq wrote:

smittytron3k wrote:(1) i did debate and understand that late outrounds of the NDT is a big fucking deal. you're probably going to crack skulls in law school wherever you end up. .

lololol

Dude, and you? What are you talking about? You're a 0L who dreams about UCONN. I'm sorry, but why are you trying to marginalize someone else's accomplishments. Dude, you clearly made a few mistakes down the road, at least academically, that I haven't. Do you think I want to be you? Do you gain satisfaction from trivializing other people? Sorry about your tiny pink accomplishments.