Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - mantis

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 68
1
Where should I go next fall? / Re: UMich(18k/year) v UVa (24k/year)
« on: April 21, 2008, 11:19:35 PM »
Go to Mich.

FWIW, I'm not gay, however, having visited both last year, if I were gay, I'd rather be gay at Mich.

seconded.

2
So... super duper important question: What is everyone wearing tonight?  Are we supposed to be fancy?  Semi-Fancy?  Nice pants or dress?  Bathrobe?

3
Studying for the LSAT / Re: indicator words
« on: August 29, 2007, 11:13:54 AM »
In the first, "If the words are telling you something [let's say X, for the sake of clarity] is always followed by something else [again, Y for clarity], it's sufficient," makes it sound like it could go eitehr way.  Are you talking about X or Y?

Grammatically, "it" refers to X (or "something"), the subject of my sentence.  Y (aka "something else") was just the object of a preposition.

Yeah, I get it.  I just think it's a lot more complicated than it needed to be, that's all.

4
I want to go on the shopping tour but I may end up sitting at home waiting for my movers.  Boo.  If they come in the morning I'm in, but otherwise no.  :(

5
Studying for the LSAT / Re: indicator words
« on: August 26, 2007, 07:31:29 PM »
I think the problem is that this:

Words mean things.  If the words are telling you something is a prerequisite for something else, it's necessary. If the words are telling you something is always followed by something else, it's sufficient.

Is significantly less clear than this:

To paraphrase myself, I said if X is always followed by Y (XIAFBY), X is the sufficient element (XITSE).

My statement means this: XIAFBY --> XITSE

You said, "A sufficient condition just indicates that the necessary condition has occurred, not that it was "followed."  There are to problems with this.  The first is that a sufficient condition can also indicate a necessary condition will occur in the future (If I leave my milk on the table, it will curdle in the future).  More importantly, to raise this objection, you have to assume I meant, "X is the sufficient element only if X is always followed by Y."  XITSE --> XIAFBY

In the first, "If the words are telling you something [let's say X, for the sake of clarity] is always followed by something else [again, Y for clarity], it's sufficient," makes it sound like it could go eitehr way.  Are you talking about X or Y?  Do you mean X --> Y or Y --> X?  To me (and apparently to Warren) it felt like it could go either way.  To hear you explain it now, you illustrated a basic concept of " Sufficent --> Necessary" by putting a sufficient/necessary conditional within yet another conditional statement AND threw in "followed by" vs. "followed."  Oy.

6
Law School Applications / Re: The Official 2007-2008 Splitters Thread
« on: August 24, 2007, 12:41:47 PM »
Boalt is my #1 reach - anyone know if they like non-trads?  How have California's anti-AA laws affected their admissions process?  I know for a while many African-American students essentially boycotted the school - I wonder if the AdComm tries to compensate by offering admissions to more Latinos and NDNs.  I also read they like activist applicants - anyone have any supporting info on that, anecdotal or otherwise? 

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=offenbach

7
did you order books online, or just go to the bookstore today after getting your schedule?

A bit of both.  I got Civil Procedure, Torts and Contract Law from the Bookstore.  I got the Civil Procedure Supplement, American Courts, and Property Law books from Amazon.

how come u didn't try and see if any 2Ls were selling there books?  I got great books that way (with hardly any writing, no highlighting, etc).  i saved a lot of $$ that way.

Did you just approach people and ask?  Was there a forum or something?

I feel like I won't get there in time to get the jump on my book situation, so I ordered a few from amazon (got a great deal on my future civil procedure text...) but I figure I'll just check out the scene at the bookstore and get the rest there.  I checked barristerbooks, half, and lawbooksforless.com and most of them seemed fairly comparable in price.  I hate to run the risk of buying a used book in "good" condition online and having to deal with someone else's notes/highlighting.  We'll see...

8
Law School Applications / Re: The Official 2007-2008 Splitters Thread
« on: August 24, 2007, 01:31:24 AM »
Duke only accepted ONE person with below a 3.0? Geez....

There also doesn't seem to be nearly the amount of Northwestern love in this thread that I expected... anecdotally, they seem to be one of the most forgiving T-14 schools in regards to low GPAs, especially for applicants with a sizable amount of work experience.

Yeah.. I forgot to mention them... If you break 170 and have at least a few years distance from the GPA, you're pretty solid at NU.  I definitely would have gone if not for the other acceptances and ridiculous cost of living in Chicago.

So, essentially, there's no advantage to being URM if one's a splitter, even if that UGPA is 20 years old?

Just when I was feeling the pressure for that 170+ ease up a bit.....  :(

URM is always an advantage.  It just depends on how willing you are to settle ;)  If you're scoring in the 168 range I feel like it's not unreasonable to think you'll reach the 170s at some point, even if that means re-taking come December.  Some re-takers do fairly well...

9
Law School Applications / Re: The Official 2007-2008 Splitters Thread
« on: August 23, 2007, 07:52:51 PM »
DCB, Duke is downright hostile to splitters. You should take a look at their applicant profile.

Ok, so I concede re: Dook. I had forgotten how GPA heavy their eval process was. Perhaps PEnn is worth a longshot bid for splitters with 174+?

True story.  ;)

10
Law School Applications / Re: The Official 2007-2008 Splitters Thread
« on: August 23, 2007, 07:39:12 PM »
Good luck, splitter friends!

(Not you people with the 3.4s.  Come on now...)

I think anything over five years out of college ameliorates a low GPA.  I can think of several people who had 5+ years out and low GPAs and managed amazing cycles.  The LSAT truly is the great equalizer...

So, hypothetically, I could aim for a T14's 50th-75th %ile with my 20 year old 3.0 GPA, rather than convince myself that only a score in their top 25 %ile would get me more than a derisive chuckle before ending in the reject pile?  I'd like to think that if I "flub" it with a 168, I might still have a shot at UMich or GULC (though while the former seems to take a relatively high number of NDNs, the latter, not so many.)

If you get your LSAT at or above the 172 mark, I'd say your chances at Mich and GULC are excellent.  Splitters have fared well at both in the past.  With a 168.. I have no idea.  I was just below that mark (167) on my first shot and opted to re-take because I think there's a significant psychological gap between 16X and 17X (much as there is between 3.X and 2.X).  168 is a great score, but it's at or below the median at both, so it may not be enough.  Work experience helps, but it's still a numbers game.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 68