3.76/173
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:13 am
Deleted
Top Law Schools
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
3.76/173 Forum
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=170221
Page 1 of 2
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:52 am
Bump
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:20 am
Since Grizz et. al. seem to be asleep
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:37 am
I had very similar statistics and CCN were all very realistic possibilities (I got into Chicago and NYU an withdrew from Columbia before the decision came back). You've got an outside shot at H too.
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:12 am
Deleted
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:18 pm
ITT someone thinks law schools care about softs that are not prestigious.danielhay11 wrote:Thanks, badfish!
Descartes, while not a "super soft," I do think TFA makes LSN less reliable. TFA won't add 5 points to an LSAT, but it is a way to make middle of the pack applicants stand out. My numbers say I'm a marginal candidate at HLS and it's peer schools; my question is whether TFA gives me a sufficient bump at those schools.
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:33 pm
Wuddup twin
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:46 pm
ITT someone thinks TFA is not a prestigious soft. Pretty sure it is shared common knowledge that TFA is an above average soft that, while as OP noted is not like +5 points on the LSAT, is something that would make a middle of the pack applicant stand out. I don't see it as much less super than being a military vet...(either up-playing TFA here or down-playing military service soft, whichever method one prefers)extremesplitter wrote:ITT someone thinks law schools care about softs that are not prestigious.danielhay11 wrote:Thanks, badfish!
Descartes, while not a "super soft," I do think TFA makes LSN less reliable. TFA won't add 5 points to an LSAT, but it is a way to make middle of the pack applicants stand out. My numbers say I'm a marginal candidate at HLS and it's peer schools; my question is whether TFA gives me a sufficient bump at those schools.
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:53 pm
If you know this to be true, why don't you just look at LSN, and anywhere that you see a bunch of waitlists or a fairly even split between admits and denials, assume your chances lie on the more positive side?danielhay11 wrote:Thanks, badfish!
Descartes, while not a "super soft," I do think TFA makes LSN less reliable. TFA won't add 5 points to an LSAT, but it is a way to make middle of the pack applicants stand out. My numbers say I'm a marginal candidate at HLS and it's peer schools; my question is whether TFA gives me a sufficient bump at those schools.
btw, you're probably in at 2 or 3 of CCN, and you have an incredibly remote shot at H unless the LSAT median magically drops a point.
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:58 pm
I don't really think CCN are reaches for you. I'd give you better than a 50% chance at all three. NYU is pretty close to a lock. Chicago is very possible, though it's the hardest to predict of the three due to its small class size. If you want to get in there try to apply as early as you can and tailor the app if possible. You're just above both medians at Columbia and you have the TFA thing going for you, so you have a fighting chance there too.
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:11 pm
CCN on down to Vandy, plus any "strong regionals" (ex: UCLA, UT, Fordham, BU/BC, GW) if they're located in the market of your choice (it's always good to have some strong scholly offers to help with negotiating).
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 1:14 pm
CRJamMasterJ wrote:If you know this to be true, why don't you just look at LSN, and anywhere that you see a bunch of waitlists or a fairly even split between admits and denials, assume your chances lie on the more positive side?danielhay11 wrote:Thanks, badfish!
Descartes, while not a "super soft," I do think TFA makes LSN less reliable. TFA won't add 5 points to an LSAT, but it is a way to make middle of the pack applicants stand out. My numbers say I'm a marginal candidate at HLS and it's peer schools; my question is whether TFA gives me a sufficient bump at those schools.
btw, you're probably in at 2 or 3 of CCN, and you have an incredibly remote shot at H unless the LSAT median magically drops a point.
But OP, I can pull a prediction out of my ass for you if you'd like.
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:13 pm
I think you'll get one of CCN and should take it
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:18 pm
I think you'll get all 3 of CCN considering the drop in applicants, but I'm clearly biased. Good luck, doe
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:51 pm
Yeah I hope for that for both y'all. Go get it
vincanity1 wrote:I think you'll get all 3 of CCN considering the drop in applicants, but I'm clearly biased. Good luck, doe
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:17 pm
Thanks to both of you, and to everyone else who gave feedback.
Good luck, # twin. We'll have to check back and compare cycles (my LSN username is the same as it is here).
Good luck, # twin. We'll have to check back and compare cycles (my LSN username is the same as it is here).
Bodhi_mind wrote:Yeah I hope for that for both y'all. Go get it
vincanity1 wrote:I think you'll get all 3 of CCN considering the drop in applicants, but I'm clearly biased. Good luck, doe
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:18 pm
Same. GLdanielhay11 wrote:Thanks to both of you, and to everyone else who gave feedback.
Good luck, # twin. We'll have to check back and compare cycles (my LSN username is the same as it is here).
Bodhi_mind wrote:Yeah I hope for that for both y'all. Go get it
vincanity1 wrote:I think you'll get all 3 of CCN considering the drop in applicants, but I'm clearly biased. Good luck, doe
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:23 pm
I don't think TFA helps in the least. I know LSs try to make it sound that way (fee waiver for TFAers, etc) but I don't think it's a game changer or even a game adjuster. Yes, it's prestigious, but there's a big supply of TFA alums among LS applicants. A TON of them end up applying to LSs.
So yes, LSN will serve OP nicely.
So yes, LSN will serve OP nicely.
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:29 pm
Based on the LSN data I've seen, this. Nowhere NEAR the results I've seen people pull with military service (esp. combat vets).IAFG wrote:I know LSs try to make it sound that way (fee waiver for TFAers, etc) but I don't think it's a game changer or even a game adjuster.
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:40 pm
Deleted
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:44 pm
I disagree with everything you just said.danielhay11 wrote:I would say I'm far more realistic of the value of TFA than others - some seem to think being in TFA is a one-way ticket to HYS, which it's not. But I also think it's pointless to argue it has no value whatsoever.Grizz wrote:Based on the LSN data I've seen, this. Nowhere NEAR the results I've seen people pull with military service (esp. combat vets).IAFG wrote:I know LSs try to make it sound that way (fee waiver for TFAers, etc) but I don't think it's a game changer or even a game adjuster.
I've heard it explained this way: law schools are looking for certain traits: maturity, leadership potential, interpersonal & communication skills, etc. Because law schools can't interview every applicant, they look for softs that screen for similar characteristics (TFA is one example, or consulting for a top firm like McKinsey is another). This also explains why military veterans have an even greater + factor than TFAers - the military both requires in greater amounts and strengthens to an exponential degree these characteristics.
This thread seems to confirm my thoughts: that TFA makes me a longshot at H, whereas I would have been a noshot without it.
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:47 pm
They could. They don't because they don't really care.danielhay11 wrote:I would say I'm far more realistic of the value of TFA than others - some seem to think being in TFA is a one-way ticket to HYS, which it's not. But I also think it's pointless to argue it has no value whatsoever.Grizz wrote:Based on the LSN data I've seen, this. Nowhere NEAR the results I've seen people pull with military service (esp. combat vets).IAFG wrote:I know LSs try to make it sound that way (fee waiver for TFAers, etc) but I don't think it's a game changer or even a game adjuster.
I've heard it explained this way: law schools are looking for certain traits: maturity, leadership potential, interpersonal & communication skills, etc. Because law schools can't interview every applicant, they look for softs that screen for similar characteristics (TFA is one example, or consulting for a top firm like McKinsey is another). This also explains why military veterans have an even greater + factor than TFAers - the military both requires in greater amounts and strengthens to an exponential degree these characteristics.
This thread seems to confirm my thoughts: that TFA makes me a longshot at H, whereas I would have been a noshot without it.
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:58 pm
Deleted
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:20 pm
What statistics are you citing?
TFA does not signal maturity any more than any other two years of work experience. Schools can interview everyone, and Northwestern very nearly does. Someone with your numbers is a longshot at H anyway.
TFA does not signal maturity any more than any other two years of work experience. Schools can interview everyone, and Northwestern very nearly does. Someone with your numbers is a longshot at H anyway.
Re: 3.76/173
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:27 pm
Are you saying that, based on a pretty good sample of LSN applicants, those with TFA have not over-performed their numbers? That'd be pretty good evidence against the more commonly shared belief that TFA = strong soft.IAFG wrote:What statistics are you citing?
TFA does not signal maturity any more than any other two years of work experience. Schools can interview everyone, and Northwestern very nearly does. Someone with your numbers is a longshot at H anyway.