3.79 GPA 173 LSAT Forum

[billydaduck]

.

[johnfootball]

I know you want in-depth analysis, but given that you are not an URM and your softs are average, mylsn.info is going to be where any of us derive info to answer your question.

[jbagelboy]

Congrats on the terrific score.

Try not to let your grades drop too much this semester. Law schools will see it in December/January. The difference between a 3.71 and 3.8+ could be the difference between Harvard, $75K+ at CCN and a few full ride offers below, or ~$50K at CCN and ~80-100K at lower T14s.

[billydaduck]

So would a consensus be that I would be safe for Chicago this cycle and probably getting money? LSN using the range I gave gives 11-7-0 but no 173's waitlisted.

There weren't sufficient numbers for Stanford so that's the one I'm most looking for advice on.

[Tiago Splitter]

Stanford is very unlikely. If you really want it you should retake (sounds like you think you have a few points in you somewhere) and get straight A's this year to pull your GPA up. Though that probably isn't happening, you should still have excellent results. Don't get too caught up with the "T6" designation though; your numbers may get you a huge scholarship offer from a lower T-14 that you'd be crazy to pass up.

[cotiger]

So would a consensus be that I would be safe for Chicago this cycle and probably getting money? LSN using the range I gave gives 11-7-0 but no 173's waitlisted.

There weren't sufficient numbers for Stanford so that's the one I'm most looking for advice on.

Dunno what range you looked at, but it sounds too broad. Here's one that's probably better:


If your GPA does drop significantly, here's what you're looking at:

[Kimikho]

hai

[dnptan]

Numbers twin! (At least now, just got a 173 in my LSAT)

Here's what happened to me last year:

3.82/170 LSAT, Double Major Engineering/Biology, Started a company, Work in IP Law (Consultant)

H - WL Rej
C - WL Withdraw
Chi - WL Withdraw
NYU - In
Boalt - In

No Money anywhere

That's with a 170. Looking forward to applying this year with my 173. Hopefully this post helps. Congrats on that 173 bro!

[midwest17]

You're an anarchist who wants to be a lawyer? I'm confused.

[Straw_Mandible]

You're an anarchist who wants to be a lawyer? I'm confused.

+1

[billydaduck]

.

[dnptan]

dnptan: Thank you that was helpful to see beyond what lsn info tells you about applicants; I wish you the best of luck!

midwest17: Nothing in anarchist belief would prevent someone from being a lawyer or a judge

Something I didn't ask; would it be worth mentioning that my school GPA is average is a 3.1 (have a letter of rec mention this)? I know today a lot of private schools have 3.4-3.6 medians.

1) Yep no problem
2) Isn't anarchy the state of no enforced government? Doesn't someone need to enforce the law?
3) Nope. That's what the LSAC report is for.

[billydaduck]

.

[dnptan]

The best description I can give in a brief blog post is that anarchists accept the supremacy of the individual and therefore the state as understood as a monopoly of force over a given geographic area is immoral; that said you can have institutions that enforce laws and maintain an order in an area provided they are voluntary contracted with. The non aggression principle is key; if someone attacks or infringes you or your property then you have a right to defense. If such exploitative institutions exist around you it is not immoral to act within them provided you do not explicitly try to either expand them or increase their exploitative nature or prevent their dis-assembly

Sounds more like a new world order than true anarchy. "Do what you want" and "Don't do this" just don't mix. Honestly trolls get rid of any hope of individualistic supremacy. I did it for the lolz beats any argument in your framework.

[billydaduck]

.

[midwest17]

The best description I can give in a brief blog post is that anarchists accept the supremacy of the individual and therefore the state as understood as a monopoly of force over a given geographic area is immoral; that said you can have institutions that enforce laws and maintain an order in an area provided they are voluntary contracted with. The non aggression principle is key; if someone attacks or infringes you or your property then you have a right to defense. If such exploitative institutions exist around you it is not immoral to act within them provided you do not explicitly try to either expand them or increase their exploitative nature or prevent their dis-assembly

I'm not sure what methods of dis-assembly you're not allowed to try to prevent, but just FYI, I think the bar in every state requires you to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.

[midwest17]

The best description I can give in a brief blog post is that anarchists accept the supremacy of the individual and therefore the state as understood as a monopoly of force over a given geographic area is immoral; that said you can have institutions that enforce laws and maintain an order in an area provided they are voluntary contracted with. The non aggression principle is key; if someone attacks or infringes you or your property then you have a right to defense. If such exploitative institutions exist around you it is not immoral to act within them provided you do not explicitly try to either expand them or increase their exploitative nature or prevent their dis-assembly

By the way, what you're describing sounds much more like extreme libertarianism than typical anarchism. (Anarchists might think that a state voluntarily (in the limited sense of voluntary that anarchists accept) contracted with would be legitimate, but my understanding is that anarchism still involves the rejection of hierarchical institutions that enforce laws). Not trying to get into a debate about terminology, just explaining my confusion.

[jbagelboy]

True anarchy means you reject the social contract. It's not particularly original. Libertarians simply limit it's realm. There's a distinction.

You aren't an anarchist. David Friedman is just a rogue classical economist. As far as the law is concerned, he basically advocates langdellian incentives-as-primacy social theory. It's not anarchism, its just reactionary and fictional.

You probably just don't like black people and you're cloaking it in political theory. Sounds like a postmodern commonality to me. Get over it bro!

[Tiago Splitter]

True anarchy means you reject the social contract. It's not particularly original. Libertarians simply limit it's realm. There's a distinction.

You aren't an anarchist. David Friedman is just a rogue classical economist. As far as the law is concerned, he basically advocates langdellian incentives-as-primacy social theory. It's not anarchism, its just reactionary and fictional.

You probably just don't like black people and you're cloaking it in political theory. Sounds like a postmodern commonality to me. Get over it bro!

Damn dude. Even by your standards this is especially douchey.

[billydaduck]

.

[didntgo89072014]

Well that escalated quickly

[dnptan]

Topic just got hot.

Please avoid fighting over the internet. Insults will get you nowhere. If I were an ad-com your superiority complex would mean an auto-ding. Maybe you should wait a few years before going to law school. You are going to get criticized for your views a lot, and if this is how you handle it, I am not confident that you will enjoy or get the most out of the law school experience.

But it's your call. My only real request is to stop making this personal. Passive-aggressive statements really irk me. Please don't destroy the value of the already all-too-rare word "Thank you" by using it in sarcasm. Personal request.

[jbagelboy]

True anarchy means you reject the social contract. It's not particularly original. Libertarians simply limit it's realm. There's a distinction.

You aren't an anarchist. David Friedman is just a rogue classical economist. As far as the law is concerned, he basically advocates langdellian incentives-as-primacy social theory. It's not anarchism, its just reactionary and fictional.

You probably just don't like black people and you're cloaking it in political theory. Sounds like a postmodern commonality to me. Get over it bro!

Damn dude. Even by your standards this is especially douchey.

my apologies. for real though.

[jbagelboy]

OP: I was out of line. Not sure why I said that. Sometimes I engage overly carelessly in political polemics and I take issues in the abstract and come off as blunt in conversation. I'm familiar with the work you referenced and I think it has some problematic interpretations that we could discuss at length via PM, but that's neither here nor there and in no way was it appropriate for me to take a personal tone.


hope you'll accept my apology. good luck this cycle