If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the Forum
-
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:53 pm
If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
other 2, do you think I could transfer to a Top 20 program after 1L if I had a 2.5 UG gpa?
- northwood
- Posts: 5036
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
after your 1L only your grades and class ranking matter. You also need exceptional letters of recommendation from your professors. Your best lsat may be a soft. That being said, its very unpredictable to transfer. UG means nothing- schools care about law grades not undergrad.
- bergg007
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:21 am
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
where are you at school now and what is class rank? and URM?
- dextermorgan
- Posts: 1134
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:37 am
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
Don't take the LSAT again. That's just silly.
-
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:53 pm
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- PinkCow
- Posts: 786
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 2:03 am
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school
I sense trouble on your horizons.
- megaTTTron
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:26 pm
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
in before the storm.
-
- Posts: 334
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 11:36 pm
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
+1megaTTTron wrote:in before the storm.
- James Bond
- Posts: 2344
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school
- BrownBears09
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:48 pm
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
To be fair, how would you know?James Bond wrote:please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school
No no, and not in an anecdotal sense. I'm talking in a "Yea, at my..." fashion.
- James Bond
- Posts: 2344
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
what are you talking about?BrownBears09 wrote:To be fair, how would you know?James Bond wrote:please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school
No no, and not in an anecdotal sense. I'm talking in a "Yea, at my..." fashion.
- Kohinoor
- Posts: 2641
- Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:51 pm
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
Because gunning for 2 months is a B and 8 hours of sleep deprived cramming is an A.BrownBears09 wrote:To be fair, how would you know?James Bond wrote:please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school
No no, and not in an anecdotal sense. I'm talking in a "Yea, at my..." fashion.
- megaTTTron
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:26 pm
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
and again, in before the storm.BrownBears09 wrote:To be fair, how would you know?James Bond wrote:please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school
No no, and not in an anecdotal sense. I'm talking in a "Yea, at my..." fashion.
EDIT: DAMN, missed it by two!
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- jcunni5
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:51 pm
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
ED to GULC part time ???
-
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:53 pm
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
i am actually jewish and a tad native american...and irish...do those things count as underrepresented?
- BrownBears09
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:48 pm
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
A inquires about school.James Bond wrote:what are you talking about?BrownBears09 wrote:To be fair, how would you know?James Bond wrote:please don't depend on transferring. the odds of you placing at the top of your class at a T2 are not good, and law grades are surprisingly arbitrary.jblev2 wrote:no urm and i havent started law school yet, was starting in fall then thinking of transferring, going to start somewhere mediocre, or maybe at a decent tier 2 school
No no, and not in an anecdotal sense. I'm talking in a "Yea, at my..." fashion.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.
9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?
- megaTTTron
- Posts: 980
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:26 pm
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
really? I mean, really?BrownBears09 wrote:
A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.
9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- James Bond
- Posts: 2344
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
Apparently one can go to an Ivy league school and still make silly mistakes. Don't worry, I won't hold them against you. Let this be a learning experience.BrownBears09 wrote:A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.
9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?
In no way does one have to experience something in order to have knowledge on the subject. This is one of the silliest arguments that comes up from time to time, and goes against the entire idea of higher education, let alone common sense. It is quite easy, and commonplace, to study a subject (such as law school or law school admissions) without actually going through the process.
- sundance95
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
BrownBears09's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:BrownBears09 wrote: A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.
9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?
A) Mistakes something that is necessary to bring about a situation with something that in itself is enough to bring about that situation.
B) Trades on an inherent ambiguity in its use of the term 'school'.
C) States that one event caused another even though the second event preceded the first.
D) Infers that since two things are similar in one respect, they must be similar in another respect.
E) Dismisses an argument's proposals because of their source rather than because of their substance.
Last edited by sundance95 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
- James Bond
- Posts: 2344
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
sundance95 wrote:BrownBears09's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:BrownBears09 wrote: A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.
9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?
A) Mistakes something that is necessary to bring about a situation with something that in itself is enough to bring about that situation.
B) Trades on an inherent ambiguity in its use of the term 'school'.
C) States that an action caused another although the second action preceded the first.
D) Infers that since two things are similar in one respect, they must be similar in another respect.
E) Dismisses an argument's proposals because of their source rather than because of their substance.
- DukeCornell
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 3:19 am
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
sundance95 wrote:BrownBears09's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:BrownBears09 wrote: A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.
9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?
A) Mistakes something that is necessary to bring about a situation with something that in itself is enough to bring about that situation.
B) Trades on an inherent ambiguity in its use of the term 'school'.
C) States that one event caused another even though the second event preceded the first.
D) Infers that since two things are similar in one respect, they must be similar in another respect.
E) Dismisses an argument's proposals because of their source rather than because of their substance.
Hahahaha! I just had a flashback to Saturday.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- BrownBears09
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:48 pm
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
True story. Instead of law, did you pursue into politics?James Bond wrote:In no way does one have to experience something in order to have knowledge on the subject. This is one of the silliest arguments that comes up from time to time, and goes against the entire idea of higher education, let alone common sense. It is quite easy, and commonplace, to study a subject (such as law school or law school admissions) without actually going through the process.BrownBears09 wrote:A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.
9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?
Btw, I choose F. Question author is fellow 0L and capable of bias
Last edited by BrownBears09 on Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
- James Bond
- Posts: 2344
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
Yes. I'm currently a SenatorBrownBears09 wrote:True story. Instead of law, did you pursue into politics?James Bond wrote:In no way does one have to experience something in order to have knowledge on the subject. This is one of the silliest arguments that comes up from time to time, and goes against the entire idea of higher education, let alone common sense. It is quite easy, and commonplace, to study a subject (such as law school or law school admissions) without actually going through the process.BrownBears09 wrote:A inquires about school.
B has never attended type of said school.
B gives advice on school.
9000+ posts, and you fail to see the disconnect?
-
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 10:53 pm
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
can you do that?jcunni5 wrote:ED to GULC part time ???
- gobuffs10
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:20 am
Re: If I had a 3.5 after 1L and a 170 on my 3rd LSAT, 160 on the
After looking around their website, I haven't come across anything that says you can't. There is also potential to go FT after your first year. Call to be sure I suppose.jblev2 wrote:can you do that?jcunni5 wrote:ED to GULC part time ???
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login