For a friend: Fulbright, good GPA ok LSAT Forum

[custom_concern]

http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... AC4837.pdf

Over 200. There arent enough URMs to be all 200.

Math fail, logic fail.

Just because USC has 100 URMs and admitted 200+ sub 162s does not tell you anything about the other ~100 sub 162 admits. They could have all been URMs that chose other schools, or as you suggest then could have been non-URMs.

You just can't draw a conclusion from these data.

+1.

[conn09]

Just because USC has 100 URMs and admitted 200+ sub 162s does not tell you anything about the other ~100 sub 162 admits. They could have all been URMs that chose other schools, or as you suggest then could have been non-URMs.

You just can't draw a conclusion from these data.

So isn't it better that we air on the side of caution and call it inconclusive, rather than making the broad sweeping statement that "only URMs get into T20s with below a 164?" I wouldn't have said anything had u said majority or significant majority. But when you say all I feel like you really discount the number of white people who also get into these schools with number that low.

[conn09]

http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... AC4837.pdf

Over 200. There arent enough URMs to be all 200.

Math fail, logic fail.

Just because USC has 100 URMs and admitted 200+ sub 162s does not tell you anything about the other ~100 sub 162 admits. They could have all been URMs that chose other schools, or as you suggest then could have been non-URMs.

You just can't draw a conclusion from these data.

+1.

So his intial evidence of 1 on LSN trumps data striaght from LSAC. You really think that all 200 of those people are URMs? Remember he said all, not me.

[General Tso]

I have no problem revising my statement. The vast majority of people who get into T20s with 162 or lower on the LSAT are URM. Feel better?

LSN is really the only thing we have to go on here, and it supports my statement. LSN represents probably around 10-15% of the applicant pool, and it is probably skewed toward high stat applicants and away from URM/lower stat applicants.

[conn09]

I have no problem revising my statement. The vast majority of people who get into T20s with 162 or lower on the LSAT are URM. Feel better?

LSN is really the only thing we have to go on here, and it supports my statement. LSN represents probably around 10-15% of the applicant pool, and it is probably skewed toward high stat applicants and away from URM/lower stat applicants.

Yes, espically about the bolded part. But, I do hope you see my issue with the reliance on LSN. The odds aren't great for getting in, but that 200 number has got to be a hell of a lot more encouraging for an applicant than 3.

[General Tso]

Just tell your friend to apply to as many T20 as she wants. She probably won't get into many but at least she won't have to say she didn't try. I recommend that she look into schools ranked 20-40 and find some more realistic targets that she would like to attend. She will end up at a great law school regardless.

[TheJudge]

I have no problem revising my statement. The vast majority of people who get into T20s with 162 or lower on the LSAT are URM. Feel better?

LSN is really the only thing we have to go on here, and it supports my statement. LSN represents probably around 10-15% of the applicant pool, and it is probably skewed toward high stat applicants and away from URM/lower stat applicants.

Yes, espically about the bolded part. But, I do hope you see my issue with the reliance on LSN. The odds aren't great for getting in, but that 200 number has got to be a hell of a lot more encouraging for an applicant than 3.

Well, the odds of your friend getting into a T20 w/o URM status are really slim, like 1% maybe. As someone who has experienced this myself, the LSAT is the one factor that decides where you get in. If your friend would be very disappointed with not getting into a T20, then retaking the LSAT is the only way to go for. Otherwise, there is a high probability approaching 1 that she will go to a respectable, but regional school outside the T20-25.

[custom_concern]

http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... AC4837.pdf

Over 200. There arent enough URMs to be all 200.

Math fail, logic fail.

Just because USC has 100 URMs and admitted 200+ sub 162s does not tell you anything about the other ~100 sub 162 admits. They could have all been URMs that chose other schools, or as you suggest then could have been non-URMs.

You just can't draw a conclusion from these data.

+1.

So his intial evidence of 1 on LSN trumps data striaght from LSAC. You really think that all 200 of those people are URMs? Remember he said all, not me.

No, I never said I agree with his statement that only URMs get into T20s with LSAT < 162. I am simply agreeing with his (correct) statement that you drew a completely unwarranted conclusion from the data. Nothing trumps LSAC data. But that data is for admitted students, not for matriculating students. So you made a statistics error and a logic error. That's all.

[Nom Sawyer]

I have no problem revising my statement. The vast majority of people who get into T20s with 162 or lower on the LSAT are URM. Feel better?

LSN is really the only thing we have to go on here, and it supports my statement. LSN represents probably around 10-15% of the applicant pool, and it is probably skewed toward high stat applicants and away from URM/lower stat applicants.

Yes, espically about the bolded part. But, I do hope you see my issue with the reliance on LSN. The odds aren't great for getting in, but that 200 number has got to be a hell of a lot more encouraging for an applicant than 3.

Well, the odds of your friend getting into a T20 w/o URM status are really slim, like 1% maybe. As someone who has experienced this myself, the LSAT is the one factor that decides where you get in. If your friend would be very disappointed with not getting into a T20, then retaking the LSAT is the only way to go for. Otherwise, there is a high probability approaching 1 that she will go to a respectable, but regional school outside the T20-25.

While I know the importance of the LSAT is crucial in admissions is there really no exceptions?? I know about all the normal cases but if someone has a 3.9 GPA, Fulbright, and that other unmentioned fellowship but paired with a 162 is the best she can get into outside of T20?

That just seems a little extreme to me as clearly its been shown that she can perform at a very high academic level... I think one of the problems here (huge conjecture from her Chinese ethnicity) is the possibility that she was born outside of the US and may not have as strong verbal skills. It is extremely hard to make up for this weakness if English is not your native language & with 3/4 sections of the LSAT depending on advanced reading skills she might just not be able to score high... Do Law Schools just not acknowledge this large flaw in the predictive powers of a LSAT score??

[Mr. Fancy]

Asian Female
3.9 from a Top 10 Undergrad
162 LSAT
Fulbright, and another giant big post grad fellowship

I told her to blanket the top 20 and throw in some CA schools

But specifially

Harvard
Berkeley
NYU
Hastings
Davis
UCLA
BC
BU

With Berkeley being her top choice

Unless she is willing to retake, Hastings and Davis are are the only schools that she has a better chance than not of being accepted.

[conn09]

I have no problem revising my statement. The vast majority of people who get into T20s with 162 or lower on the LSAT are URM. Feel better?

LSN is really the only thing we have to go on here, and it supports my statement. LSN represents probably around 10-15% of the applicant pool, and it is probably skewed toward high stat applicants and away from URM/lower stat applicants.

Yes, espically about the bolded part. But, I do hope you see my issue with the reliance on LSN. The odds aren't great for getting in, but that 200 number has got to be a hell of a lot more encouraging for an applicant than 3.

Well, the odds of your friend getting into a T20 w/o URM status are really slim, like 1% maybe. As someone who has experienced this myself, the LSAT is the one factor that decides where you get in. If your friend would be very disappointed with not getting into a T20, then retaking the LSAT is the only way to go for. Otherwise, there is a high probability approaching 1 that she will go to a respectable, but regional school outside the T20-25.

While I know the importance of the LSAT is crucial in admissions is there really no exceptions?? I know about all the normal cases but if someone has a 3.9 GPA, Fulbright, and that other unmentioned fellowship but paired with a 162 is the best she can get into outside of T20?

That just seems a little extreme to me as clearly its been shown that she can perform at a very high academic level... I think one of the problems here (huge conjecture from her Chinese ethnicity) is the possibility that she was born outside of the US and may not have as strong verbal skills. It is extremely hard to make up for this weakness if English is not your native language & with 3/4 sections of the LSAT depending on advanced reading skills she might just not be able to score high... Do Law Schools just not acknowledge this large flaw in the predictive powers of a LSAT score??

Shes not Chineese and shes been here since childhood.

[Nom Sawyer]

oops I mean Asian not Chinese... hmm then why does she refuse to take the LSAT again? I mean with that list of accomplishments she should be able to score a lot higher

[custom_concern]

I have no problem revising my statement. The vast majority of people who get into T20s with 162 or lower on the LSAT are URM. Feel better?

LSN is really the only thing we have to go on here, and it supports my statement. LSN represents probably around 10-15% of the applicant pool, and it is probably skewed toward high stat applicants and away from URM/lower stat applicants.

Yes, espically about the bolded part. But, I do hope you see my issue with the reliance on LSN. The odds aren't great for getting in, but that 200 number has got to be a hell of a lot more encouraging for an applicant than 3.

Well, the odds of your friend getting into a T20 w/o URM status are really slim, like 1% maybe. As someone who has experienced this myself, the LSAT is the one factor that decides where you get in. If your friend would be very disappointed with not getting into a T20, then retaking the LSAT is the only way to go for. Otherwise, there is a high probability approaching 1 that she will go to a respectable, but regional school outside the T20-25.

While I know the importance of the LSAT is crucial in admissions is there really no exceptions?? I know about all the normal cases but if someone has a 3.9 GPA, Fulbright, and that other unmentioned fellowship but paired with a 162 is the best she can get into outside of T20?

That just seems a little extreme to me as clearly its been shown that she can perform at a very high academic level... I think one of the problems here (huge conjecture from her Chinese ethnicity) is the possibility that she was born outside of the US and may not have as strong verbal skills. It is extremely hard to make up for this weakness if English is not your native language & with 3/4 sections of the LSAT depending on advanced reading skills she might just not be able to score high... Do Law Schools just not acknowledge this large flaw in the predictive powers of a LSAT score??

Law schools also depend on donations from alumni, and so have a vested interest in their success as lawyers (not to mention job placement and bar passage rate stats, which figure into rankings). If OP's friend's English is holding her back on the LSAT, what's to say the same won't be true on the bar exam? And, while I am a lowly 0L who can't say for certain, it seems to me that strong verbal skills are necessary for the kind of success T14 schools hope for (or expect) from their grads. So why should English proficiency NOT be considered an important factor in LS admissions?

[conn09]

oops I mean Asian not Chinese... hmm then why does she refuse to take the LSAT again? I mean with that list of accomplishments she should be able to score a lot higher

She hates logic games.

[doyleoil]

oops I mean Asian not Chinese... hmm then why does she refuse to take the LSAT again? I mean with that list of accomplishments she should be able to score a lot higher

She hates logic games.

she needs to learn to love them - easiest section to improve

[custom_concern]

oops I mean Asian not Chinese... hmm then why does she refuse to take the LSAT again? I mean with that list of accomplishments she should be able to score a lot higher

She hates logic games.

But logic games can be learned! Easiest section to improve on! She should do every released logic game 5 times then retake, if she is serious about law school. Anyone w/ a 3.9 at a T10 UG can ace LG if they put the time in. Clearly she has the smarts.

[legends159]

sounds like she doesn't care enough about law school to take the LSAT a little bit more seriously. She obviously had to have had a good SAT or ACT score to get into a top 10 UG so she's no dummy.

[Mr. Fancy]

sounds like she doesn't care enough about law school to take the LSAT a little bit more seriously.

TITCR

[observationalist]

Asian Female
3.9 from a Top 10 Undergrad
162 LSAT
Fulbright, and another giant big post grad fellowship

I told her to blanket the top 20 and throw in some CA schools

But specifially

Harvard
Berkeley
NYU
Hastings
Davis
UCLA
BC
BU

With Berkeley being her top choice

Tell her to apply to the T10 and Vanderbilt

A Fulbright is a very strong soft, though it might come down to where she went and what she did (research project in Germany, for example, probably carries more weight than teaching English in Thailand because of the increased competition). We had just one scholar in last year's class, out of 190 or so students. I'm actually staying with three former Fulbrights in India... the director of our Social Justice Program is a legal scholar on development issues in India and also handles the Fulbright LLM program. A school like Vandy would probably throw $$ her way, with the very top schools giving her a serious look. Her gpa is above just about everyone's 75th which means her numbers are a wash everywhere. The primary consideration will be how her scholarship and essay stacks up compared to the Rhodes scholars out there deciding to go to law school.

[custom_concern]

Asian Female
3.9 from a Top 10 Undergrad
162 LSAT
Fulbright, and another giant big post grad fellowship

I told her to blanket the top 20 and throw in some CA schools

But specifially

Harvard
Berkeley
NYU
Hastings
Davis
UCLA
BC
BU

With Berkeley being her top choice

Tell her to apply to the T10 and Vanderbilt

A Fulbright is a very strong soft, though it might come down to where she went and what she did (research project in Germany, for example, probably carries more weight than teaching English in Thailand because of the increased competition). We had just one scholar in last year's class, out of 190 or so students. I'm actually staying with three former Fulbrights in India... the director of our Social Justice Program is a legal scholar on development issues in India and also handles the Fulbright LLM program. A school like Vandy would probably throw $$ her way, with the very top schools giving her a serious look. Her gpa is above just about everyone's 75th which means her numbers are a wash everywhere. The primary consideration will be how her scholarship and essay stacks up compared to the Rhodes scholars out there deciding to go to law school.

I understand that a Fulbright is a strong soft, but if you are suggesting she apply only to the T10 and your school -- and if you're not ONLY kidding/trolling -- then I think this is very bad, very dangerous advice.

[uknowme]

Here is UCLA

http://ucla.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats

Only 3 admits below 164, 2 of them are URM and the other 1 is a non-URM guy from TLS...I know he has come from significant economic hardship.

http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... AC4837.pdf

Over 200. There arent enough URMs to be all 200.

Looking at the last census (circa 1650) there weren't 200 minorities in the whole United Colonies.

[samsonyte16]

Was this other unnamed fellowship a Watson? As another poster mentioned, Fulbrights come in different flavors, some of which are more prestigious than others. Winning a research grant to the UK is incredibly difficult and not far behind Rhodes and Marshall whereas teaching English in Thailand is still nice, but nowhere near as valuable as a full grant.

I think your friend has received a lot of good advice in this thread. Depending on how impressive her resume is overall, she most likely does have a shot at Berkeley. If she blankets the Top 14, she will likely end up with a ton of waitlists from schools who would rather not reject an otherwise impressive candidate but don't want to eat her numbers. She might sneak into a school ranked 15-20, and looks strong at BU and BC. I know this probably isn't what she wants to hear, but it is how the system works.

[FlightoftheEarls]

Tell her to apply to the T10 and Vanderbilt

A Fulbright is a very strong soft, though it might come down to where she went and what she did (research project in Germany, for example, probably carries more weight than teaching English in Thailand because of the increased competition). We had just one scholar in last year's class, out of 190 or so students. I'm actually staying with three former Fulbrights in India... the director of our Social Justice Program is a legal scholar on development issues in India and also handles the Fulbright LLM program. A school like Vandy would probably throw $$ her way, with the very top schools giving her a serious look. Her gpa is above just about everyone's 75th which means her numbers are a wash everywhere. The primary consideration will be how her scholarship and essay stacks up compared to the Rhodes scholars out there deciding to go to law school.

I understand that a Fulbright is a strong soft, but if you are suggesting she apply only to the T10 and your school -- and if you're not ONLY kidding/trolling -- then I think this is very bad, very dangerous advice.

You don't know Observationalist, but he is kidding. Well, probably about 56% kidding. He is a very strong advocate for Vanderbilt and has a wealth of great information about the school he attends. He also has a bias (with good reason), acknowledges that bias, and jokes about it on occasion (as seen here).

He is also dead on about the Fulbright's strength depending on where it is. Some Fulbright scholarship applicants are relatively unchallenged in their applications, depending on the location. Some (like in most European countries, esp. the UK) are nearly impossible and incredibly prestigious.

While I know the importance of the LSAT is crucial in admissions is there really no exceptions?? I know about all the normal cases but if someone has a 3.9 GPA, Fulbright, and that other unmentioned fellowship but paired with a 162 is the best she can get into outside of T20?

That just seems a little extreme to me as clearly its been shown that she can perform at a very high academic level... I think one of the problems here (huge conjecture from her Chinese ethnicity) is the possibility that she was born outside of the US and may not have as strong verbal skills. It is extremely hard to make up for this weakness if English is not your native language & with 3/4 sections of the LSAT depending on advanced reading skills she might just not be able to score high... Do Law Schools just not acknowledge this large flaw in the predictive powers of a LSAT score??

She has accomplished a lot, but how does an adcom view that when they compare another applicant who took the same test as her and was able to outperform her 85th percentile (that's a guess) with a performance in the 98th percentile? If that is the only objective measure between the two, the adcom can't help but wonder how well the 98th percentile candidate would have performed at the same tasks. Whether that is right or wrong, do you see the issue?

As for part two, how is that a flaw in the predictive powers of the LSAT score? The LSAT has a lot of flaws, granted, but I don't think this is one of them. Law school is taught in English, and law in the United States is conducted almost exclusively in English, whether we like it or not. It isn't going to get any easier once she has her nightly readings in law school, nor any easier when she is preparing documents once she is a practicing attorney.

[270910]

I'd say begin applying around Vanderbilt and work your way south. Your probably wasting money applying to the T10, though it might be worth the gamble at the lower T14 and T20.

People have this serious misconception about Berkeley that you can get in as long as you have a decent GPA. a 3.9+ 166 would still struggle to get in. They might put more weight on the GPA, but it's nowhere near as much as people assume without looking carefully at the data.

[k_unl]

yeah I was just going to post this:

http://www.cies.org/schlr_directories/u ... r_name.htm

list of 2008-2009 winners. The list is very very long

only award that are game changers are Rhodes (best); Marshall (close second); Truman (distant third).

You're looking at the one for professors and such. I assume she's a fulbright US student: http://us.fulbrightonline.org/home.html

The Fulbright U.S. Student Program offers fellowships for U.S. graduating college seniors, graduate students, young professionals and artists to study abroad for one academic year. In academic year 2008-2009, more than 1,500 Americans are studying abroad with either full or partial support from the Fulbright Program.

from here: --LinkRemoved--

With 1,500, it's even less exclusive than the 800 number thrown around earlier.