Is my cycle over, save scholarship consideration? Forum

[BigZuck]

Dude.

http://www.mylsn.info

Sorry for asking an absurd question. I somewhat doubt the reliability of LSN on this issue given that 1) not everyone updates their scholarship info and 2) there is a low sample size. Hence why I posted. Thanks.

It's probably going to be more reliable than random TLS anecdotes.

Maybe, but I don't follow why its so outrageous to ask on a "What are my chances" forum for additional guidance. Thanks for the duplicative posting though, it is much appreciated!

You don't want to give us any information that could give you more insight into your chances than what mylsn can give you. You didn't want to share exact numbers, you don't want to tell us what your softs are, etc. All we can assume is that you're a vanilla 3.8/169 and mylsn can give you way more insight than our individual anecdotes can.

[BigZuck]

Also, this:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 9&t=170051

[oxie]

Sorry for asking an absurd question. I somewhat doubt the reliability of LSN on this issue given that 1) not everyone updates their scholarship info and 2) there is a low sample size. Hence why I posted. Thanks.

If you're looking for information about what kind of scholarships a school gives out and how many students at the school get $$, you should check out the breakdown of grants and scholarship in the school's ABA Law School Data report. It'll will be linked to at the top of the school's profile on the LSAC website.

[redsoxfan1989]

Sorry for asking an absurd question. I somewhat doubt the reliability of LSN on this issue given that 1) not everyone updates their scholarship info and 2) there is a low sample size. Hence why I posted. Thanks.

If you're looking for information about what kind of scholarships a school gives out and how many students at the school get $$, you should check out the breakdown of grants and scholarship in the school's ABA Law School Data report. It'll will be linked to at the top of the school's profile on the LSAC website.

Very informative, thanks!

[liammial]

I'm sorry, but this is an absolute joke if it's true. A one point increase (which is literally ONE QUESTION on the LSAT) is the difference between having a great chance and having little chance at [X] school? How does that make any sense? Guess right on one 50/50 question and you're into NYU; guess wrong and you're out?

That's how admissions tests and medians work...If you get things right, you get better results. This is a problem? A school with a 170 median is helped by a student with a 171, and hurt by a student with a 169... It's a fine line, but there has to be a line somewhere...

I know how medians work. My point is that law schools have an obligation to accept the most capable and interesting class possible. A one point difference says nothing whatsoever about these criteria. I never said a 168 and a 169 should be viewed as the same; they should be viewed as different by an EXTREMELY MARGINAL amount, which, according to this website, is not the case. A place like NYU, one of the very best law schools in the country, is using single point differences in relation to their median LSAT score as a crucial metric in admissions? That is clearly ridiculous. It makes you respect a school like Berkeley or Stanford a hell of a lot more.

FWIW I've only gotten one decision back and it was an acceptance to a great school, so I'm not bitter--I'm just stating the obvious.

[BigZuck]

I'm sorry, but this is an absolute joke if it's true. A one point increase (which is literally ONE QUESTION on the LSAT) is the difference between having a great chance and having little chance at [X] school? How does that make any sense? Guess right on one 50/50 question and you're into NYU; guess wrong and you're out?

That's how admissions tests and medians work...If you get things right, you get better results. This is a problem? A school with a 170 median is helped by a student with a 171, and hurt by a student with a 169... It's a fine line, but there has to be a line somewhere...

I know how medians work. My point is that law schools have an obligation to accept the most capable and interesting class possible. A one point difference says nothing whatsoever about these criteria. I never said a 168 and a 169 should be viewed as the same; they should be viewed as different by an EXTREMELY MARGINAL amount, which, according to this website, is not the case. A place like NYU, one of the very best law schools in the country, is using single point differences in relation to their median LSAT score as a crucial metric in admissions? That is clearly ridiculous. It makes you respect a school like Berkeley or Stanford a hell of a lot more.

FWIW I've only gotten one decision back and it was an acceptance to a great school, so I'm not bitter--I'm just stating the obvious.

Just cuz Berkeley whores itself out for different crap doesn't make it any less of a whore.

It's all a business. They take our money and numbers, make us jump through a bunch of silly hoops, and we (ideally) get a piece of paper that allows us to get a job in return. If you care about the love of learning or education or whatever then I would choose a different field.

I'm all for the love of learning and education and all that stuff btw, I'm not hating.

[BigZuck]

Basically I'm saying don't hate the player, hate the game (US News). If we could just get rid of the stupid ratings system I'm sure schools would be happy to accept whoever they felt like.

[liammial]

I'm sorry, but this is an absolute joke if it's true. A one point increase (which is literally ONE QUESTION on the LSAT) is the difference between having a great chance and having little chance at [X] school? How does that make any sense? Guess right on one 50/50 question and you're into NYU; guess wrong and you're out?

That's how admissions tests and medians work...If you get things right, you get better results. This is a problem? A school with a 170 median is helped by a student with a 171, and hurt by a student with a 169... It's a fine line, but there has to be a line somewhere...

I know how medians work. My point is that law schools have an obligation to accept the most capable and interesting class possible. A one point difference says nothing whatsoever about these criteria. I never said a 168 and a 169 should be viewed as the same; they should be viewed as different by an EXTREMELY MARGINAL amount, which, according to this website, is not the case. A place like NYU, one of the very best law schools in the country, is using single point differences in relation to their median LSAT score as a crucial metric in admissions? That is clearly ridiculous. It makes you respect a school like Berkeley or Stanford a hell of a lot more.

FWIW I've only gotten one decision back and it was an acceptance to a great school, so I'm not bitter--I'm just stating the obvious.

Just cuz Berkeley whores itself out for different crap doesn't make it any less of a whore.

It's all a business. They take our money and numbers, make us jump through a bunch of silly hoops, and we (ideally) get a piece of paper that allows us to get a job in return. If you care about the love of learning or education or whatever then I would choose a different field.

I'm all for the love of learning and education and all that stuff btw, I'm not hating.

Well, GPA is at least built over four years, not in a single day. And Berkeley isn't "whoring itself out for other crap." It actually cares about the personal statement/unique characteristics.

Sorry for hijacking this thread.

[BigZuck]

LSAT prep should be built over months. Also, law school is a series of important tests. I think it's fine to have the LSAT be a major part of the process, especially considering that you can retake it as many times as you want.

Also, Berkeley law is a well-run business. You're buying what they're selling you. And that's fine.

[062914123]

.

[Dr. Review]

Well, GPA is at least built over four years, not in a single day.

It also conveys no universal standard, as even different programs at the same school can have wildly different median GPAs. Further, some programs are intrinsically easier than others. In addition, the coursework which is measured by GPA varies greatly from that which is required for law school course work. In many ways, GPA can still tell you very little about an applicant. Law schools use it as ONE metric, and not the ONLY metric, for a reason.

The LSAT's usefulness is debatable and controversial. Having finished law school, I can tell you that the one thing it does tell an admissions office is your ability to throw everything you've got at one test, and to perform up to a certain standard on that test. Law school grades are almost entirely based on this sort of a metric. I won't argue the substance of the test, but I will say that this aspect is useful.

As with the LSAT, sometimes 1-2 points on a law school exam can turn a great grade into a just OK grade.

Again, the process is the process, and it sucks... but that's how it's done, and it is done that way for a reason.

[timbs4339]

Well, GPA is at least built over four years, not in a single day.

It also conveys no universal standard, as even different programs at the same school can have wildly different median GPAs. Further, some programs are intrinsically easier than others. In addition, the coursework which is measured by GPA varies greatly from that which is required for law school course work. In many ways, GPA can still tell you very little about an applicant. Law schools use it as ONE metric, and not the ONLY metric, for a reason.

The LSAT's usefulness is debatable and controversial. Having finished law school, I can tell you that the one thing it does tell an admissions office is your ability to throw everything you've got at one test, and to perform up to a certain standard on that test. Law school grades are almost entirely based on this sort of a metric. I won't argue the substance of the test, but I will say that this aspect is useful.

As with the LSAT, sometimes 1-2 points on a law school exam can turn a great grade into a just OK grade.

Again, the process is the process, and it sucks... but that's how it's done, and it is done that way for a reason.

This. If you want to be in this profession, you have to get used to this kind of crap. Hell, all nine SC Justices come from three schools, and it's only three because Ginsburg transferred to CLS for personal reasons. Of course there's some amazing jurist from a state school that would make a great SCOTUS judge, but that's just not how this profession plays.

Talk to your law school professors. If they are candid, they will tell you it's extremely difficult to tell the difference between an A- or a B+ or B exam,. But those distinctions are hugely important for getting high paying jobs.

Often these debates just become "whatever I did well at obviously is best at measuring how good a lawyer I'll be, and that should be the preferred metric." None of the metrics are that great. Hell, the idea of using both LSAT/GPA is ridiculous since there are so many other things that go into being a good lawyer that are not academic or intellectual in nature.

[BigZuck]

Well, GPA is at least built over four years, not in a single day.

It also conveys no universal standard, as even different programs at the same school can have wildly different median GPAs. Further, some programs are intrinsically easier than others. In addition, the coursework which is measured by GPA varies greatly from that which is required for law school course work. In many ways, GPA can still tell you very little about an applicant. Law schools use it as ONE metric, and not the ONLY metric, for a reason.

The LSAT's usefulness is debatable and controversial. Having finished law school, I can tell you that the one thing it does tell an admissions office is your ability to throw everything you've got at one test, and to perform up to a certain standard on that test. Law school grades are almost entirely based on this sort of a metric. I won't argue the substance of the test, but I will say that this aspect is useful.

As with the LSAT, sometimes 1-2 points on a law school exam can turn a great grade into a just OK grade.

Again, the process is the process, and it sucks... but that's how it's done, and it is done that way for a reason.

This. If you want to be in this profession, you have to get used to this kind of crap. Hell, all nine SC Justices come from three schools, and it's only three because Ginsburg transferred to CLS for personal reasons. Of course there's some amazing jurist from a state school that would make a great SCOTUS judge, but that's just not how this profession plays.

Talk to your law school professors. If they are candid, they will tell you it's extremely difficult to tell the difference between an A- or a B+ or B exam,. But those distinctions are hugely important for getting high paying jobs.

Often these debates just become "whatever I did well at obviously is best at measuring how good a lawyer I'll be, and that should be the preferred metric." None of the metrics are that great. Hell, the idea of using both LSAT/GPA is ridiculous since there are so many other things that go into being a good lawyer that are not academic or intellectual in nature.

Yeah, it just sounds like your typical reverse splitter sour grapes crap.

If you're a reverse splitter and you really want to stick it to everyone just get an LSAT to match the GPA and go to Harvard or something. That'll show all the splitter proles who have to go to NU or UVA because they can't do anything about their set in stone GPA. You'll laugh all the way to the bank while they have to work hard to do well enough in school to actually pay off their student loan debt.

Just acknowledge that the game is what it is. Then play it.

[timbs4339]

My point is that law schools have an obligation to accept the most capable and interesting class possible. A one point difference says nothing whatsoever about these criteria.

One more thing since this thread is already wildly out of control- this is boomer propaganda pulled from the Big Book of Speeches to Give at College Events. Law schools want to get the highest qualified class for USNWR purposes while spending the least amount of money on scholarships. It's like a used car dealership. You should go in thinking the same way.

[liammial]

The LSAT is based off months of prep, but in the end the test is a single day. Law school exams may be similar in that a couple of points make a huge difference, but that's fine because you take 100 tests in law school, so it isn't a ridiculously insignificant sample size.

How exactly am I buying what Berkeley's selling? They're objectively less stats-based than the other schools. They have a longer personal statement. They're in the top 10 despite caring more about factors that actually matter.

GPA varies by major and school, yes. But law schools should know by now the difficulty of different majors and schools. Most schools publish median grades on their transcripts, which law schools have access to.

[BigZuck]

The LSAT is based off months of prep, but in the end the test is a single day. Law school exams may be similar in that a couple of points make a huge difference, but that's fine because you take 100 tests in law school, so it isn't a ridiculously insignificant sample size.

How exactly am I buying what Berkeley's selling? They're objectively less stats-based than the other schools. They have a longer personal statement. They're in the top 10 despite caring more about factors that actually matter.

GPA varies by major and school, yes. But law schools should know by now the difficulty of different majors and schools. Most schools publish median grades on their transcripts, which law schools have available to them.

If you think that you take 100 tests in law school then I honestly can't help you discern what is reality and what is not.

[Gooner91]

The LSAT is based off months of prep, but in the end the test is a single day. Law school exams may be similar in that a couple of points make a huge difference, but that's fine because you take 100 tests in law school, so it isn't a ridiculously insignificant sample size.

How exactly am I buying what Berkeley's selling? They're objectively less stats-based than the other schools. They have a longer personal statement. They're in the top 10 despite caring more about factors that actually matter.

GPA varies by major and school, yes. But law schools should know by now the difficulty of different majors and schools. Most schools publish median grades on their transcripts, which law schools have available to them.

Why does having a longer personal statement make them less stat based? Being able to write concisely is a non stat based factor. What objective factors prove your statement to be true?

[timbs4339]

The LSAT is based off months of prep, but in the end the test is a single day. Law school exams may be similar in that a couple of points make a huge difference, but that's fine because you take 100 tests in law school, so it isn't a ridiculously insignificant sample size.

How exactly am I buying what Berkeley's selling? They're objectively less stats-based than the other schools. They have a longer personal statement. They're in the top 10 despite caring more about factors that actually matter.

GPA varies by major and school, yes. But law schools should know by now the difficulty of different majors and schools. Most schools publish median grades on their transcripts, which law schools have available to them.

Nope.

[Clearly]

The LSAT is based off months of prep, but in the end the test is a single day. Law school exams may be similar in that a couple of points make a huge difference, but that's fine because you take 100 tests in law school, so it isn't a ridiculously insignificant sample size.

How exactly am I buying what Berkeley's selling? They're objectively less stats-based than the other schools. They have a longer personal statement. They're in the top 10 despite caring more about factors that actually matter.

GPA varies by major and school, yes. But law schools should know by now the difficulty of different majors and schools. Most schools publish median grades on their transcripts, which law schools have access to.

The lsat is the ONLY objectively fair standard in the entire process, and you discredit it? Think about it, grade inflation, hard majors, rich parents
...
Every person takes the same lsat at the same time in the whole country, you sit in that desk,I'll sit in this desk, and let's see who's better...why on earth is this not fair?

[liammial]

If you think that you take 100 tests in law school then I honestly can't help you discern what is reality and what is not.

Obviously I was exaggerating to prove a point. If you have no argument other than to nitpick then I guess I'm right?

Why does having a longer personal statement make them less stat based? Being able to write concisely is a non stat based factor. What objective factors prove your statement to be true?

Their admissions process is far less predictable based on stats than other schools' are.

Nope.

So...you can't actually refute anything I said?

The lsat is the ONLY objectively fair standard in the entire process, and you discredit it? Think about it, grade inflation, hard majors, rich parents

I don't discredit it. It definitely should matter. But a single point difference should not be the difference between having a great chance and having a poor chance, and I don't know why anyone in their right mind would argue the other way. How does the LSAT account for rich parents? lol

Law schools can account for different colleges' grading and difficult majors. Just open the transcript and look at the median grade. Law schools know the academic reputation of 99% of the schools and 100% of the majors they are getting applicants from.

Every person takes the same lsat at the same time in the whole country, you sit in that desk,I'll sit in this desk, and let's see who's better...why on earth is this not fair?

Because it's (basically) a one shot deal? Because it doesn't necessarily accurately measure one's ability to study law?

The LSAT should matter the same as, if not less than, the SAT mattered for undergraduate admissions: ~30%, with no guarantees in either direction (great score or bad score). It actually should matter even less, since a high school's academic reputation is far less known than a college's.

[AjaxontheTrack]

Law schools can account for different colleges' grading and difficult majors. Just open the transcript and look at the median grade

Sorry to drive this post even further off-topic, but do law schools see median GPAs for each major or at least each college within a university? Or do they just see an average GPA for the whole university? If it's the latter, then adcomms wouldn't know how much to compensate for a more difficult major anyway.

[EzraFitz]

Law schools can account for different colleges' grading and difficult majors. Just open the transcript and look at the median grade. Law schools know the academic reputation of 99% of the schools and 100% of the majors they are getting applicants from.

Until law schools stop caring about rankings and actually do look at the majors and median grades for them, this point is moot. Knowing the reputation of an engineering major vs. an underwater basketweaving major is all well and good, but actually letting it affect their decision is a complete other point.

Sorry to drive this post even further off-topic, but do law schools see median GPAs for each major or at least each college within a university? Or do they just see an average GPA for the whole university? If it's the latter, then adcomms wouldn't know how much to compensate for a more difficult major anyway.

They could, but don't.

[liammial]

Law schools can account for different colleges' grading and difficult majors. Just open the transcript and look at the median grade. Law schools know the academic reputation of 99% of the schools and 100% of the majors they are getting applicants from.

Until law schools stop caring about rankings and actually do look at the majors and median grades for them, this point is moot. Knowing the reputation of an engineering major vs. an underwater basketweaving major is all well and good, but actually letting it affect their decision is a complete other point.

Sorry to drive this post even further off-topic, but do law schools see median GPAs for each major or at least each college within a university? Or do they just see an average GPA for the whole university? If it's the latter, then adcomms wouldn't know how much to compensate for a more difficult major anyway.

They could, but don't.

The debate is not over whether it does happen, but whether it should. And I do think it does happen, even if it's not as prevalent as it should be. At my college, which is a top 10 undergraduate school, students end up doing a lot better in law school admissions than their stats would suggest.

[BigZuck]

At most schools you take one test per class and your entire grade is based on it. So you take about 20 tests total in law school. And they are all much less fair than the LSAT. Sometimes your teacher doesn't teach you anything and you have to teach the subject to yourself. Sometimes they teach you lots of stuff but test you on something that you barely covered in class. And then of course you can't take the test whenever you're ready, nor can you retake it as many times as you want.

The field of law has a bunch of tests associated with it. And the slim margins of the LSAT are only unfair insofar as law schools have to be concerned about rankings because people care about them even though they are meaningless. Finally, Berkeley is selling the same crap, just in a different package that appeals to certain people. Deal with it.

[jbagelboy]

At most schools you take one test per class and your entire grade is based on it. So you take about 20 tests total in law school. And they are all much less fair than the LSAT. Sometimes your teacher doesn't teach you anything and you have to teach the subject to yourself. Sometimes they teach you lots of stuff but test you on something that you barely covered in class. And then of course you can't take the test whenever you're ready, nor can you retake it as many times as you want.

The field of law has a bunch of tests associated with it. And the slim margins of the LSAT are only unfair insofar as law schools have to be concerned about rankings because people care about them even though they are meaningless. Finally, Berkeley is selling the same crap, just in a different package that appeals to certain people. Deal with it.

Well said