Interesting, 155/3.9 - opinions appreciated Forum

[hdsoc]

Yeah, a more holistic approach and the use of the type of reasoning skills that they want their students to have. They should see a cumulative 4.0 GPA with a double major in philosophy and political science as conclusive evidence that I have the skills the LSAT tests for. Just take one sample class out: Logic. I got a 96% in that class (which is an A of course). That included dozens of hours of lecture, dozens of hours of studying, three tests, and one cumulative final exam. The professor was a good teacher and there was no way I could have gotten the grades I did without being good at logic. Does not that say more about my logic abilities than 35 minutes of filling in bubbles on the LSAT LR section while having to pee really really bad?

That might be true, but LSAC can't exactly scope out each class on all of our transcripts to make sure they're not really focused on the philosophy of reality television, hence standardized tests.

[Gizmo]

Does not that say more about my logic abilities than 35 minutes of filling in bubbles on the LSAT LR section while having to pee really really bad?

Sometimes I can almost take you seriously, until you throw shit like this in.

[danitt]

I've never seen someone so averse to retaking and improving their score. Dude! Wake up! No school that you want to attend wants someone with that score. You're looking at denials possibly through the top 75 I would even hazard to say. RETAKE. The LSAT is what it is and you shall deal or don't go to law school. In fact, don't go to law school.

[omninode]

I don't think I can look at another one of these chances threads because seeing people deliberate and talk themselves into decisions that could likely ruin their lives is tragic and depressing.
OP, LISTEN

What's tragic is the LSAT's very existence. LSAC people should get life in prison for the lives they have ruined.

How besides something like the LSAT do you expect schools to assess thousands of applications when the difficulty of obtaining a high GPA differs so widely between schools and majors, people's 'softs' are often related to family connections rather than skill, etc.? What is your alternative suggestion? I see you posting stuff about the unfairness of the LSAT frequently, so surely you have something else in mind.

Yeah, a more holistic approach and the use of the type of reasoning skills that they want their students to have. They should see a cumulative 4.0 GPA with a double major in philosophy and political science as conclusive evidence that I have the skills the LSAT tests for. Just take one sample class out: Logic. I got a 96% in that class (which is an A of course). That included dozens of hours of lecture, dozens of hours of studying, three tests, and one cumulative final exam. The professor was a good teacher and there was no way I could have gotten the grades I did without being good at logic. Does not that say more about my logic abilities than 35 minutes of filling in bubbles on the LSAT LR section while having to pee really really bad?

So you studied hard. Good for you. Meanwhile, some professors would give you an A just for showing up. Like it or not, a 4.0 doesn't say a whole lot about the student. Standards vary widely from one school to the next. That is why a standardized test is needed.

[lifqiu]

If you are serious about applying, be specific in the area you want to practice in.

That is a LONG list of schools that you are applying to. At this point in admissions, the time spent and probability of getting in does not correlate positively.

I suggest trimming down to schools that you are VERY enthusiastic about and eliminating the others. All those application fees add up!!

[Philosopher King]

Yeah, a more holistic approach and the use of the type of reasoning skills that they want their students to have. They should see a cumulative 4.0 GPA with a double major in philosophy and political science as conclusive evidence that I have the skills the LSAT tests for. Just take one sample class out: Logic. I got a 96% in that class (which is an A of course). That included dozens of hours of lecture, dozens of hours of studying, three tests, and one cumulative final exam. The professor was a good teacher and there was no way I could have gotten the grades I did without being good at logic. Does not that say more about my logic abilities than 35 minutes of filling in bubbles on the LSAT LR section while having to pee really really bad?

That might be true, but LSAC can't exactly scope out each class on all of our transcripts to make sure they're not really focused on the philosophy of reality television, hence standardized tests.

LOL, my university does have those types of classes but I wouldn't take them. We had a philosophy of hip-hop course, for example. Ridiculous. Here are some of the philosophy courses I have taken: Intro to Philosophy, Contemporary Moral Problems, Logic, History of Ancient Philosophy, 400-level Ethics, and 400-level Political Philosophy (which brought together my two majors/interests beautifully!). Next semester I am taking 400-level Social Philosophy, Critical Thinking, Philosophy of Human Rights, and History of Modern Philosophy. In my opinion every single one of these courses is applicable to the study of law or the skills the LSAT tests for.

As an aside, I may want to be a philosophy professor someday and I was seriously considering going directly to a 5 year Ph.D. program instead of law school to do that. If I came back to my university to teach I would advocate for a philosophy of Seinfeld course to be run for a semester. If I knew for sure I could convince them to have this and that I could teach it then I would definitely drop everything and sign up for the GREs! Of course I would probably have the same problem with the GREs as I do the LSAT so whatever. I asked one of my professors who got her Ph.D. right after undergrad about the GREs and she said they were kind of like SATs but for graduate school. But, of course, I never took the SATs.

Does not that say more about my logic abilities than 35 minutes of filling in bubbles on the LSAT LR section while having to pee really really bad?

Sometimes I can almost take you seriously, until you throw shit like this in.

Hey the truth is the truth. It's meant to show how stupid the LSAT is. Unless a law school doesn't have bathrooms then they shouldn't judge their candidates by how much their bladder distracts them.

[Ludo!]

It's been a couple years since I took the LSAT but are you not allowed to pee during it anymore?

[Philosopher King]

It's been a couple years since I took the LSAT but are you not allowed to pee during it anymore?

You are but it cuts into your time and since my classroom was like a half-mile away from the bathroom, my score would have suffered drastically due to lost time.

[Ludo!]

You know your law school exams are going to be timed too right? And you can't retake those.

[snehpets]

I don't think I can look at another one of these chances threads because seeing people deliberate and talk themselves into decisions that could likely ruin their lives is tragic and depressing.
OP, LISTEN

What's tragic is the LSAT's very existence. LSAC people should get life in prison for the lives they have ruined.

How besides something like the LSAT do you expect schools to assess thousands of applications when the difficulty of obtaining a high GPA differs so widely between schools and majors, people's 'softs' are often related to family connections rather than skill, etc.? What is your alternative suggestion? I see you posting stuff about the unfairness of the LSAT frequently, so surely you have something else in mind.

Yeah, a more holistic approach and the use of the type of reasoning skills that they want their students to have. They should see a cumulative 4.0 GPA with a double major in philosophy and political science as conclusive evidence that I have the skills the LSAT tests for. Just take one sample class out: Logic. I got a 96% in that class (which is an A of course). That included dozens of hours of lecture, dozens of hours of studying, three tests, and one cumulative final exam. The professor was a good teacher and there was no way I could have gotten the grades I did without being good at logic. Does not that say more about my logic abilities than 35 minutes of filling in bubbles on the LSAT LR section while having to pee really really bad?

Obviously that would be ideal. The issue is how schools are supposed to know how much work you had to put into that class, how good your prof was, how well you mastered the material. For instance, I too did extremely well in logic, but that's because my class was a joke and everyone got an A basically. Furthermore, what about schools that don't even offer classes like that? Holistic, non-LSAT based admissions would be great, but with the number of applicants and the huge differences between undergrads, there has to be a way to standardize things. The having to go to the bathroom thing is why you can take it more than once.

This has gotten off-topic, sorry. OP, I would be reluctant to go into debt to attend the schools you'll get into, I definitely think you should exclude your t-14 reaches, but best of luck.

[Real Madrid]

I will not be retaking. I have my reasons; I will be going to one of these schools (or another one if someone has a recommendation), and I will make the best of it and be successful in my own way.

Please, I apprecaite any advice that does not involve retaking and that involves schools on the list or others that I can and should consider based on great reputation, financials, or both. Thanks so much.

People don't understand what that means in this forum. Yes the economy is bad. Yes its hard to get jobs. Yes some schools are better then others; but if everybody friggen "retakes" as much as its suggested in this forum, there would be no friggen law students because even a 181 is not good enough. So, basically always retake. Just take it over, over and over, because the letters r-e-t-a-k-e are the only keys that produce letters on the screen once you log into TLS Forums.

Probably one of the more frustrating things in here when you are actually looking for RELEVANT advice.

Sometimes the truth hurts. And to be honest, the people giving this advice are really doing the OP more of a favor than people like you saying, "Do whatever you want! Take out 200k in non-dischargeable debt to go to a tier 3 school."

[goldenflash19]

OP, I was somewhat of a reverse splitter by T14 standards before DEC, so I'll offer you my two cents. Retake is the only credited response here. You are selling your self short regardless if you pay sticker at a somewhat reputable school or get a scholly TTTT. If taking one year off would earn you even $75,000 in scholarships, wouldn't it be worth it? $75,000 for one year of work (really an off year) is more than the amount of money you'll be making coming out of any school where you'd get accepted. We're saying this for your own good.

I retook a disappointing 1st LSAT and am LOVING life right now. It sucks, but it's worth it. I was in your shoes to a lesser degree post-October.

BTW, UF is out. Their numbers are deceptive- a ridiculously high number of spots are saved for in-state applicants.

Best of luck!

[cinephile]

Yeah, a more holistic approach ...

The single takeaway that I got from Civil Procedure is that law is primarily concerned with efficiency. Not accuracy or fairness, but just simple cost-benefit analysis. A holistic approach is difficult to administer and inefficient. Besides, it is what it is. You aren't going to change the standards for getting into a law school. Just work your hardest on your retake and enjoy the benefits from your new score.

[bhan87]

You know your law school exams are going to be timed too right? And you can't retake those.

Oh god how I wish this wasn't the case...

[hdsoc]

[quote="Philosopher King"]

LOL, my university does have those types of classes but I wouldn't take them. We had a philosophy of hip-hop course, for example. Ridiculous. Here are some of the philosophy courses I have taken: Intro to Philosophy, Contemporary Moral Problems, Logic, History of Ancient Philosophy, 400-level Ethics, and 400-level Political Philosophy (which brought together my two majors/interests beautifully!). Next semester I am taking 400-level Social Philosophy, Critical Thinking, Philosophy of Human Rights, and History of Modern Philosophy. In my opinion every single one of these courses is applicable to the study of law or the skills the LSAT tests for.

[quote="Philosopher King"]

My point wasn't that I thought your classes were those type of classes...my point is that there's no way for LSAC to know one way or another, without simply taking your word for it. Sometimes the name of classes and level can be misleading....and the quality certainly varies from professor to professor and school to school.

[Philosopher King]

You know your law school exams are going to be timed too right? And you can't retake those.

Oh god how I wish this wasn't the case...

What! Why would they do that?

[danitt]

You know your law school exams are going to be timed too right? And you can't retake those.

Oh god how I wish this wasn't the case...

What! Why would they do that?

.....huh? Whaddya mean.....I'm so confused.

[bhan87]

You know your law school exams are going to be timed too right? And you can't retake those.

Oh god how I wish this wasn't the case...

What! Why would they do that?

They wouldn't of course. Just subtly agreeing to the idea that law school exams are much worse than the LSAT.

But here's a thought. Getting into a better law school with a higher LSAT could be just as valuable as an A on a law school exam. One you can retake multiple times, the other you get only one shot at. How would you maximize your opportunities?

[Its Always Sunny]

OP you need to decide where you want to practice when you graduate. No offense but your overestimating your chances at a lot of schools because bottom line you have a 65th percentile lsat. With a 155 your prob looking at 0$ money besides at TTTT. Fsu and UF are out and I'd say you have a 50/50 chance at Miami with no money.

[094320]

..

[Flips88]

So you studied hard. Good for you. Meanwhile, some professors would give you an A just for showing up. Like it or not, a 4.0 doesn't say a whole lot about the student. Standards vary widely from one school to the next. That is why a standardized test is needed.

Dude, a 4.0 most certainly says something about a student, mostly that they had a work ethic throughout all of college and that they performed well in all their classes. At any given university, the number of people that graduate with one is very slim (at my university for instance, ~1% of my graduating class had a 4.0)

[Philosopher King]

So you studied hard. Good for you. Meanwhile, some professors would give you an A just for showing up. Like it or not, a 4.0 doesn't say a whole lot about the student. Standards vary widely from one school to the next. That is why a standardized test is needed.

Dude, a 4.0 most certainly says something about a student, mostly that they had a work ethic throughout all of college and that they performed well in all their classes. At any given university, the number of people that graduate with one is very slim (at my university for instance, ~1% of my graduating class had a 4.0)

I agree with this assessment. The average GPA at my university is a 3.07. Ivy League schools tend to be the ones that give students "As just for showing up." Take, for example, Brown University with its 3.6 (almost an A-) average GPA. I have never met anyone else at my university with a 4.0 GPA, although I don't discuss grades with my friends much. But you would be surprised. The chairman of the SGA by-laws committee, for example, had to wait until his GPA rose above 2.5 to be elected to the exec. board. From what people say it sounds like super high GPAs aren't common, even with the people I hang out with.

[omninode]

I was not talking about your school specifically. It's great that your school had high standards, congratulations. My point was that standards vary from school to school (and even within schools, between departments or professors), making GPA an unreliable measure of students' abilities.

[snehpets]

I was not talking about your school specifically. It's great that your school had high standards, congratulations. My point was that standards vary from school to school (and even within schools, between departments or professors), making GPA an unreliable measure of students' abilities.

Yes. This. For instance, as you yourself pointed out OP, Brown seems to give out As pretty easily, while other schools do grade deflation and barely anyone gets As. Furthermore, these differences can occur even between professors at the same school. Because grading by professors is subjective, there will probably never be any way to objectively measure one's gpa against someone else's with any kind of accuracy.

[paratactical]

I was not talking about your school specifically. It's great that your school had high standards, congratulations. My point was that standards vary from school to school (and even within schools, between departments or professors), making GPA an unreliable measure of students' abilities.

Yes. This. For instance, as you yourself pointed out OP, Brown seems to give out As pretty easily, while other schools do grade deflation and barely anyone gets As. Furthermore, these differences can occur even between professors at the same school. Because grading by professors is subjective, there will probably never be any way to objectively measure one's gpa against someone else's with any kind of accuracy.

I also think that GPA is a weak stat because grades can waiver from professor to professor even within a school. IMO, if you're going to toss one of the two numbers, it should hands-down be the GPA. Applications based on standardized tests, resumes, and essay would more accurately represent the qualifications needed for effective legal practice than a set of grades, resumes, and essays would.