Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Vaio

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
What do you guys think my chances are at Texas and Vanderbilt? I've been thinking more and more about these schools because I would be OK with being regulated to their regions and they offer good prospects in these regions---but I would go in and at least try to get grades good enough to transfer to HYS. Obviously there are no guarantees but that might be my best shot. I've heard rumors about being a black male giving one a boost for transfer admissions--what do you guys think?

Relegated, not "regulated," man. Not to be a jackass, but some people instinctively look for this kind of thing and, needless to say, it doesn't look good.

Anyway, now that I've applied to CLS with my pitiful 3.09/167, I suppose I'll just have to play the waiting game. I know you guys think I've got a shot, but is it worth getting my hopes? This is really a dumb question, but if you actually had to quantify my shot as a black male first-generation college grad, would you say over or under 50%?

Also, since I'm signed up to retake the LSAT in December, is it inevitable that I'll be deferred pending my new score? Part of my just wants a higher score for its own sake given that I've underperformed so badly. However, since LSAC stats suggest that I'm already well within the top 1% of black male lsat scores (feel free to correct me here), it seems clear that even a 178 wouldn't make much of a difference. 

Any additional thoughts? I totally understand if you're sick my questions btw. Thanks all!

It's called a typo---I'm aware that they don't even mean the same thing.

No it's not. It's called an error. A typo involves misplacing a word here or typed an actual word but applied it incorrectly.

Why am I not surprised the guy is considered such an @sshole. That hall of fame speech was feminine hygiene product-baggery at its greatest heights.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: JUNE 2009 LSAT Vs. Previous Prep Tests
« on: September 09, 2009, 08:22:26 AM »
It could be a combination of factors and might not actually be attributed to the test itself.

Was doing post 2002 tests and finally brow into the late 160's from low 160's. Was on a one test a day schedule and next 4 preptest scores were 168, 167, 169, 170.. I wasn't able to get up in time in the morning to test before work for the 5th test and decided to test after work... big mistake. 159!

Chalked it up to fatigue from the long work day and the one test a day routine, but it scared the hell outta me.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: B4 taking the LSAT, ya might wanna read this
« on: September 08, 2009, 02:36:51 PM »
Cliff notes?

Yea that first question on this game sucked. I picked YZ then switched to XYZ. Still confused because it asked for a complete and accurate list...why didnt it just say which could be each of the office buildings falafel truck serves..adding the complete and accurate list had me second guessing myself into thinking that it wanted all possibilities. But in hindsight XYZ violates  F and P not serving same buildings. Grr!

I know this is a super old thread but I did a yahoo search and came right to this. Funny to see people who actually took that June LSAT discussing it.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: October 2004
« on: September 05, 2009, 11:50:39 AM »
Preptest 19-50 Score Analysis. Just select your test and enter your answers and it will do the rest. I think Oct O4 is PT 44:

Good question.

The flawed reasoning to be paralleled here is the idea that a goal can be achieved by putting less resources into something and MORE resources into something that would help meet the goal.

Fact1: Govt spends $500mill more on HS than CS.
Fact2: CS claims more lives than HS
Conc: Govt would save lives [less claimed lives] by spending less on HS and more on CS.
Goal: Claim less lives  - Does our conc. meet this goal with support of facts? Yes.

(B) Fact1: Musician spends more hours on G than S.
    Fact2: Gets more jobs for S than G
    Conc:  Get more jobs by spending less hours on G and more on S 
    Goal:  Get more jobs - Does our conc. meet this goal with support of facts? Yes.
(D) Fact1: Swim team spends more hours on backstroke than breaststroke
    Fact2: Breaststroke times are better than backstroke times
    Conc:  Win more meets by spending less time on backstroke & more time on breaststroke.
    Goal:  Win more meets - Does our conc. meet this goal with support of facts? No.

(D) clearly misses the point in connecting Conc. with with Fact2. Conc deals with winning races, Fact2 deals with better times. There is no stated fact that better times lead to more winned races. In Stimulus and (B) the conclusion, while flawed, is based off stated facts..

(D) would be correct if Fact2 stated that the team wins more races using the breaststroke than the backstroke.. it doesnt. It simply states that Breaststroke times are better than backstroke then jumps to the conclusion that they should spend more time focusing on breasttroke in order to win races. Never talks about winning races before in discussion of facts.



Not bad but I think I prefer Arrow's Comprehensive and FREE guide that was posted on TLS.

If you don't want to work full-time (or can't find employment) you could always volunteer. That way you have something of substance to add to the resume.

And all those humanitarian smiles pay the bills...


oh my.

your best post of the year.

what, "no RC be the hardest ever?" .. "RC on Sept test be the hardest ever?"

you're slipping.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5