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.
Topics - Da5id
« on: April 27, 2007, 12:17:41 AM »
A few days ago GULC offered me a significant scholarship, $30k/year for all three years with no strings whatsoever.
I was elated and still am, but now I'm realizing that this leaves me with a slight dilemma. They want a decision on the scholarship by 5 pm EST, next Friday. If I accept the scholarship...
"I understand that, in accepting this award, I am committing to enroll at the Law Center and will withdraw my applications and decline any offers of admission from other law schools."
I like GULC, and would be thrilled to go there at this kind of discount (of my four acceptances this money makes GULC a no-brainer choice). On the other hand, I am on the waitlist at Penn and NYU, on hold at Columbia (at least, as of tuesday), and still waiting to hear from Cornell. All four are closer to home and closer to my girlfriend (particularly the NY state schools).
I have some reason to think that I might get decent need-grants (possibly in the 30-60k range, given offers made by other schools), though I don't want to count on it.
I'm not going to turn down money in hand from a T-14 for wait-list odds, not a chance. I'm assuming that it would be reasonable to contact Columbia and Cornell and let them know that I am still interested, while politely requesting a decision before next Friday, if possible (the real tough situation would be if I got into one/some but was unable to discover what, if any, need aid they were offering before the Friday dead line).
I'm also assuming that it would be far less reasonable to contact NYU and Penn (the wait-list schools) requesting the same.
(I realize that this is, all in all, a great problem to have... but it's still a problem.)
« on: January 17, 2007, 11:16:50 AM »
I got my applications in just after Christmas, so I have a long wait ahead of me.
I did not apply to dual-degree programs, but I'm interested in applying to such programs during my L1 year.
My GRE scores were 740 verbal, 800 quantitative.
Should I send this new information to the law schools to which I applied? Or is it too peripheral to warrant a letter?
« on: December 25, 2006, 11:13:54 PM »
Several applications, including Northwestern's and Penn's, ask whether you are applying for financial aid. These applications say that if you check "yes" you should complete FAFSA and other financial aid forms.
For these schools, are the financial aid forms necessary to send in your application and go complete? Or merely necessary to receive financial aid?
Getting my parents to get their financial information together is always an arduous process, and I'd rather do that in January and February and send my applications in now than have to wait until everything is assembled before applying.
« on: July 01, 2006, 03:43:03 PM »
No, this isn't a flamebait thread.
I've been around for awhile and have posted a few times before, but now I finally have a real good concrete idea of what my app will look like, and I wanted advice on narrowing down my list of schools/what sort of expectations seem realistic.
I have a 178 LSAT score, and my LSDAS GPA should be ~3.2 when all is said and done. I struggled badly throughout college, lots of Ws (without prejudice, thankfully), took lots of time off, and finally got treated for psych stuff which made all the difference for me. Senior year (after a year+ off) was a very heavily overloaded 4.0, with some very high end courses in there. I should get one great rec from a prof who will fight tooth and nail for me, and at least two more pretty good ones from profs who know me well. I have no extracurriculars to speak of.
My "possible targets" list has looked like this, in rough order of generic rank...
Western New England School of Law
I've considered Northwestern, Michigan, and Chi since it might make sense to apply to a lot of T-14s, and since Mich and NW seem more likely than most to consider an unusual application (if LSNs grid is any indication). On the other hand I'm very much a northeast person and would tend to prefer to stay in the area.
I'm interested in schools with good clerkship/path to judiciary opportunities (if I can get in), schools with good job prospects in the Mass/CT area, and in graduating from law school with as little debt as possible (obviously it's liable to be a tradeoff there).
I'm still in the process of doing my due diligence before I start to pare this list down, but more or less I'm looking for a reality check on either end of the spectrum. Is HY just a donation? Are WNESL and VT unnecessary as safeties? Etc.
In regards to the T-5 I feel like the GPA may just be too much to overcome, but I also feel like it'll be very obvious to them that I've legitimately turned things around, and that they could accept me with a lot of confidence in what I'll do going forward.
« on: June 29, 2006, 04:58:27 PM »
I'm just gonna take a deep breath.
It's at the point where I'll practically have a tough time being happy with ANY score, after all this angst. That's a bit of a shame. Once this day had the potential to be like Christmas.
It is what it is. Within a few hours a lot of us are going to be talking about retakes, screaming for joy, bellowing in agony but not to the point of retaking, or just feeling let down.
Good luck everyone.
« on: June 29, 2006, 04:51:54 PM »
Is there ever a discernable pattern to who recieves their scores earlier and who recieves their scores later? Geographical? Test center #s? Alphabetical? Completely random?
Anyone have any idea?
This is mostly just curiousity as it'll all be academic in a few hours.
« on: June 07, 2006, 05:41:38 PM »
Anyone have strong ones either way?
Personally I'd hate to do two LGs, wouldn't mind two RCs, and would definitely prefer three LRs to any of the other options.
« on: June 07, 2006, 05:40:35 PM »
I know there are a few other people on this board who, like me, are feeling pretty good about LG but still have some wild swings. Some sections I cruise on fairly smoothly-- but sometimes I get a really nasty game that eats up something like 10-12 minutes and throws the rest of my LG section into crisis mode, or forces me to half-ass some answers--- and in LG< half-assing answers tends to bite me a LOT when I do it.
I feel reasonably confident that I should be OK for test day, but I do worry that I might hit a really nasty game that I would misdiagram or have trouble wading through.
If so an attractive option would be to cancel my score afterwards, since I'll definitely know if I hit a painful game. The one question is.... do schools want an addendum for a cancelled score? If so, is "I simply thought I could do much better" anything close to an acceptable excuse?
« on: June 04, 2006, 03:32:13 PM »
EDIT: Dang. LGB claims this game was not an ID templates game. Just a Grouping: defined-fixed, unbalanced: overloaded type.
I realized towards the end that I'd been failing to consider a few rules that were in my diagram mostly (like L not being on team 2), and maybe it was just failing to properly use those rules and inferences that sank me. But my setup had only 7 not-rules and no write ins or split possibilities listed--- due to the disappearing variable I was unable to determine that any one slot was restricted enough to do so, though there were several variables that only had three "homes" (two real slots and the dead slot). It just feels like it was too many inferences to keep track of with my setup the way it was, even despite the mistakes I made. So if there weren't templates, there must have been a better way to setup.
Any advice, or suggestions would be very, very much appreciated.
I'm more stumped than I've been on any other game. The game in question is the 4th in the passage, p. 129 of "10 More official LSATs".
The game (Jugglers into Teams) involves 7 variables slotted into 6 slots in two groups with three specific positions common to each group. I've been improving a lot on my setup and I recognized quickly that a template would make this game a lot easier.... but after doing my main diagram I didn't see a natural template split, so I bulled ahead and got brutalized. I'm down to 6-9 minutes per game, and this one took me 18:30, since I wasn't going to let myself guess or empty bubble any right now. Only five questions too.
Without templates each question required applying a whole bunch of non-userfriendly rules while trying to consider the possibilities based on which variable was "dead". This sucker woulda been easy if it wasn't underfunded, as the dead variable really made "braining it" a nightmare. The rules interacted in all kinds of ways that would be "built in" if I could do templates, but were brutal to keep track of without.
When I botch a setup I go back and look at the game fresh, timing myself again. For once I really couldn't come up with a much better setup off the bat.
This has GOT to be a template game, otherwise it's just sadistic. Yet as I said, none of the rules seemed to suggest a split that would be feasible to diagram out in 2 or 3 temps AND would nail things down enough that it would result in much smoother sailing. I must be wrong. Any help?
« on: June 01, 2006, 06:19:33 PM »
I'm curious if anyone else feels like there are occasionally really witchy single sections to some of these tests.
I just recently did test #33, Dec 2000, and I actually had time problems on the RC section-- I'm a wicked fast reader and I normally finish with ~10 minutes to spare unless I really linger a ton.
It was a 28 question section, the reading passages seemed a notch denser than usual to me, and a LOT of the questions were a little more "edgewise" than usual. I got more wrong than I normally do and definitely had an unusually rough ride.
I can remember at least one games section I've particularly loathed and a few LRs that had a higher number of nasty questions than normal (every LR seems to have 1 or 2 that are really tough/annoying, but a few have 3 or 4 or 5).
I'm curious if anyone out there feels similarly about any particular section--- I'd like to particularly try a few of the roughest sections from the last 15 years on a just-in-case basis as we lead up to the test.... plus it's nice to gripe.