complete at WUSTL
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 - obbear
NW seems to be a GPA thing.I dunno. I've got a GPA around Tetris's, but I got NW. There's got to be at least a little bit of randomness in the process. I wonder if [some] schools set not only cutoffs but also a quota, if nothing else (we seem to have seen some targeted FWs already too).
Those that do: Alberta, Manitoba, UNB, Dal.
I'm not up enough on the new admission policy (the one that's supposed to be adopted for next year's cycle, and thus the one that would apply to the OP if he went back for upgrading) to know. I thought the language was unclear - that it seems possible that they're just going to use first-undergrad UGPA. I think grad school etc. is going to be a soft, but as I say I don't know about post-degree upgrading.
Still, I probably should've flagged Oz too. Good point.
And I guess in the interest of completeness, the schools with a holistic element to their admissions will consider upgrading, though it's hard to know to what extent.
The bad news is that a lot of the schools won't consider any courses done after your first undergrad degree was completed. Those that do: Alberta, Manitoba, UNB, Dal. Alberta and Dal take the last 2 years, so since it sounds like your last year was particularly rough, you might be looking at 2 full years of coursework to make yourself competitive, though a year of straight As might do depending on how bad that last year was.
If I were you, I might consider Manitoba and UNB, as they drop a number of your worst grades. Off the top of my head, I think Manitoba will drop your worst 30 credits, and UNB your worst 25%. If your GPA on Manitoba's scale after drops hits 3.6 (they're on a wonky 4.5 scale, so you should look it up), you can even go ahead and apply this year. Similarly for UNB, if you're able to hit around the mid-3s (on a 4.3 scale) with the drops.
Saskatchewan will take the best two years of your first undergrad degree, so that might work well for you too. Again, with a 162 I'd say it's worth applying if your best two years is around 3.4 or 3.5.
And since you're working now, there's always Calgary and Windsor, especially if you had extenuating circumstances that explain your low GPA and you can get some decent letters together.
It's definitely worth looking at any options you might have right now. Going back to school won't give you a whole lot more options (probably just Alberta and Dal) and obviously the opportunity cost is pretty high. Good luck!
Studying for the LSAT / Re: Anyone here do amazing on practic test but think they bombed the actual?« on: October 05, 2007, 04:25:39 PM »
A little off topic, but this was basically me in June. I was consistently practicing at X before the test, but walked out of the room thinking I was about 6-8 points under that (consistent) score. I'm not a really pessimistic person, so it was very upsetting at the time. Sure enough, when the scores came out I got...you guessed it...X.
Which is just to say that, if you were practicing under realistic conditions and consistently scoring in a narrow range, there might not be as much reason to worry as you might think right now. Good luck, folks!
Let's say all space aliens are Green. I went to Venus, and saw some Green Aliens. I reported back to earth that some aliens are green. Just so happens that some also = all in this context.
Let's see. All aliens are green, but in reporting "some aliens are green", do you take yourself to be suggesting that all aliens are green? I think you're reporting something much weaker than that.
Anyways, I know some = at least one and possibly all, yet I cannot picture "some" as meaning "all" in a sentence. That is all....
I think I see what you're after (a sentence were the most natural reading of 'some' is 'all' or at least 'nearly all'?), but you're going to have a hard time finding such an example, because 'some' (normally) conversationally implicates 'not all'. That is, very very roughly, when someone tells you 'Some aliens are green', one of the pieces of information they mean to convey to you is that not all aliens are green.
Not so in the context of an LSAT question, obviously.
« on: September 05, 2007, 01:42:41 PM »
Hey -- A few questions for those of you who got the Michigan fee waiver.
No Michigan for me, >177 June LSAT. LSDAS has created a report for me so I'm OK there.
In a town with absurdly slow mail, though, so I'm not giving up hope until Friday. (That said, I didn't get Wake.)
« on: August 27, 2007, 08:27:07 AM »
GW is barely a target school with those numbers. Unless there's substantially more to your application than numbers, don't count on any money.Judging by this, you're pretty much auto-admit at GW:
I think the OP's profile box vastly overstates the probability of admission (based on numbers alone), b/c the OP is at the very bottom of its LSAT range. And the box directly below (LSAT 160-4; same GPA) is worrying: 133/985. Admission chances seem pretty sensitive to one's precise LSAT score in this range.
LSAC's calculator puts the OP's odds at about 50/50, softs aside. That sits pretty well with the profile data, and with vaplaugh's assessment, assuming non-URM for the moment.