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 - Googler

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18
1
Law School Applications / Re: 3.56 170-176
« on: June 23, 2006, 02:19:31 AM »

here's a non-URM http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=trstn007

This is the guy I was referring to with serious connections.  He claims to have uncles who are professors at both Harvard and Yale.  I think this may be a flame anyway. 

I'd be willing to bet that this trstn007 guy is a flame.

I don't doubt that having close family members who are professors can get someone in with lower numbers.  It's more that he posted in his profile that "If you don't get into one of these schools, you shouldn't go to law school at all" or some nonsense.

2
Law School Applications / Re: 3.56 170-176
« on: June 23, 2006, 01:09:22 AM »
You do have a shot at Harvard with a 176, especially if you have a major or if you went to a college that is known for low GPAs, and you have good soft factors. But it's a low shot. Maybe a 2 out of 10.

With a 170, all these schools are reaches. Maybe G*town, maybe Penn.


Not if this cycle is indicative of a new trend in their admissions.

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/search_schools.php?action=search&school_code=0008&lsat1=&lsat2=&fee_waiver=0&status=0&gpa_lsdas1=2.0&gpa_lsdas2=3.6&attending=0&cycle=3&gpa_degree1=&gpa_degree2=&withdrawn=0&program=1&index1=&index2=&state=0&application_type=0&scholarship1=&scholarship2=&sex=0&multiple_lsat=0&urm=0&x=25&y=8&international=0

Out of everyone accepted with below the 3.6, all are URM's, except for two, one of which is clearly a flame (151, 2.0), and the other which is either a flame or the guy has serious connections.

Obviously, LSN may not be perfectly representative of the applicant pool in general, but the fact that there are people with below the 3.6 who got the Toby call and were subsequently rejected says something. 



Yep.

Are you agreeing with him or me?

You.

Ok.  I just figure people shouldn't waste their money if they have 0 chance of getting in.

3
Law School Applications / Re: 3.56 170-176
« on: June 23, 2006, 12:29:05 AM »


Not if this cycle is indicative of a new trend in their admissions.

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/search_schools.php?action=search&school_code=0008&lsat1=&lsat2=&fee_waiver=0&status=0&gpa_lsdas1=2.0&gpa_lsdas2=3.6&attending=0&cycle=3&gpa_degree1=&gpa_degree2=&withdrawn=0&program=1&index1=&index2=&state=0&application_type=0&scholarship1=&scholarship2=&sex=0&multiple_lsat=0&urm=0&x=25&y=8&international=0

Out of everyone accepted with below the 3.6, all are URM's, except for two, one of which is clearly a flame (151, 2.0), and the other which is either a flame or the guy has serious connections.

Obviously, LSN may not be perfectly representative of the applicant pool in general, but the fact that there are people with below the 3.6 who got the Toby call and were subsequently rejected says something. 



here's a non-URM http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=trstn007

This is the guy I was referring to with serious connections.  He claims to have uncles who are professors at both Harvard and Yale.  I think this may be a flame anyway. 

4
Law School Applications / Re: 3.56 170-176
« on: June 22, 2006, 11:59:31 PM »
You do have a shot at Harvard with a 176, especially if you have a major or if you went to a college that is known for low GPAs, and you have good soft factors. But it's a low shot. Maybe a 2 out of 10.

With a 170, all these schools are reaches. Maybe G*town, maybe Penn.


Not if this cycle is indicative of a new trend in their admissions.

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/search_schools.php?action=search&school_code=0008&lsat1=&lsat2=&fee_waiver=0&status=0&gpa_lsdas1=2.0&gpa_lsdas2=3.6&attending=0&cycle=3&gpa_degree1=&gpa_degree2=&withdrawn=0&program=1&index1=&index2=&state=0&application_type=0&scholarship1=&scholarship2=&sex=0&multiple_lsat=0&urm=0&x=25&y=8&international=0

Out of everyone accepted with below the 3.6, all are URM's, except for two, one of which is clearly a flame (151, 2.0), and the other which is either a flame or the guy has serious connections.

Obviously, LSN may not be perfectly representative of the applicant pool in general, but the fact that there are people with below the 3.6 who got the Toby call and were subsequently rejected says something. 



Yep.

Are you agreeing with him or me?

5
Law School Applications / Re: Ethical question about a LOR
« on: June 22, 2006, 10:10:44 PM »
Not your post.

I understood (and agreed) with your post.

oh ok. 

6
Law School Applications / Re: Ethical question about a LOR
« on: June 22, 2006, 10:08:33 PM »
I don't have a clue what the hell any of that even means, but to talk about this like some pressing ethical dilemma is ridiculous and a total occurance of 0L, lets-think-about-everything-like-we're-Atticus-Finchism.

Some girl wants a LOR.  HD thinks she doesn't deserve one.  That's her choice.  It's not certain the girl definitely does not deserve to study in a certain field beacuse HD holds that opinion, as though this girl committed a murder and HD can't figure out whether or not to turn her in  ::)

If the girl's a screwup and you don't like her, just tell her you think someone could write her a better LOR (which you've already said you're going to do).   
 

What didn't you understand in my post? 

If someone is dishonest, I wouldn't recommend then for law school or business school either. 

7
Law School Applications / Re: Ethical question about a LOR
« on: June 22, 2006, 09:49:58 PM »
It seems that this person was a bad employee, information that wasn't disclosed originally.

Goolger raises a good point. 

How does being a bad employee translate to being wrong to study in a particular field?



I hadn't read that post yet.  I agree, if someone is bad at her job and/or unethical, I wouldn't write a recommendation either.

I just wanted to make sure it wasn't one of those cases where "I think you'd be very good in business, but I won't recommend you for an MBA because I think you should get a ph.D and stay in academia."  THAT is unethical. 

8
Law School Applications / Re: Ethical question about a LOR
« on: June 22, 2006, 09:34:26 PM »
I had a former employee ask me for a letter of recommendation for an internship today. While I've written letters before, I've never been asked for one by a student I think has no business being in her field of study. I can't in good conscience write the student a good letter of recommendation. My question is: Would it be better to write her a mediocre letter of recommendation, or tell her that I don't want to write one at all? Her app is aparently due in a few days, so I need to respond soon.

Do you have a legitimate reason for thinking she has no business in that field of study?

9
Law School Applications / Re: Call from Harvard
« on: June 22, 2006, 06:47:09 PM »
I agree, that a high GPA in engineering IN ADDITION to a high LSAT score probably is a good indicator of good work ethic and a high level of intelligence.  However, your 3.93 in engineering (which you obviously had to work hard for) didn't appear to be weighed any higher than a 3.95 in sociology.

Before anyone says I don't know what I'm talking about, bear in mind that I attended a state school for my freshman year and took a course at a local 4 year college over that winter.  A lot of these schools are jokes.  Your post seems to imply that a 3.9+ indicates hard work everywhere.  It simply isn't true.  The classes I took at my first school, ESPECIALLY english, criminal justice, psychology, economics were all easy and didn't require a lot of work.  I didn't have to work hard to get an A in them.  The computer science courses I took, while somewhat more difficult, didn't require more than a few multi-hour projects and studying for the midterm/final. 

Judging all GPA's on the same plane is simply ridiculous. 

I wasn't disagreeing with you on the point that not all GPAs are equal, and that some majors and schools are harder than others (although I think a 3.8+ anywhere is pretty impressive).  I was disagreeing with you on the idea of making the LSAT even more important, and putting less emphasis on GPA.

P.S.  I graduated with a 3.95 NOT a 3.93 ;)  :P

My mistake :)

I would like for them to put more emphasis on GPA if and ONLY if they are going to try to standardize it (like Southside proposed).  If they are going to judge them all equally (as they seem to do), I'd rather them put even more weight on LSAT, as it's the only standardized part of the process. 

why do you have such disdain for all disciplines that aren't math or science? to treat all gpa's earned in english, sociology, etc. as if they were meaningless compared with those earned in other majors would certainly not be a fair alternative to expecting students to select classes they could perform very well in.

law schools do receive your rank in the class, and your school's average lsat score -- so while that's not factored into your lsac gpa, it is a way of standardizing or contextualizing your grades.

I don't have such a disdain at all.  I was not a math/science major.  However, I do realize that the grading curves tend to be much lower in those classes, and thus, it is not fair to not adjust them. 

And yes, law schools do receive your rank in the class, and the school's average LSAT, but they don't do anything with them.  As I said, these things only serve to break a tie.  They'd take a 4.0 from a school where the average LSAT is a 146 over a 3.5 where the school's average LSAT is a 166.  That's just the way it is. 

10
Law School Applications / Re: Call from Harvard
« on: June 22, 2006, 05:10:39 PM »
am i the only one who doesn't think the gpa system is quite so unfair? i would much rather there be a lot of weight on gpa than a lot of weight on the lsat. you work hard for 4 years for your gpa, but the lsat was only a measure of how you did in one 4-hour span of time, and a lot of variables render it an inaccurate measure for some people.

granted, i think the fact that gpa distributions are far from standard is a big hindrance to their fair evaluation. but i definitely don't agree that this would be fixed by expecting humanities majors to have flawless gpas while science majors can get away with low b averages. even the professors in one department can vary greatly, and if one student chooses to take a more demanding class over an easier one in their major, that would make the generalizations about some "bs" majors less accurate. perhaps reporting the average grade for each class, rather than for the entire department, would be better.

i understand that some majors, and schools, are more demanding than others. but that doesn't mean a 4.0 in english is something any old idiot can get at every school, and it doesn't mean more weight needs to be given to the already extremely weighty lsat.

this attitude about "joke" majors pisses me off, because i took my classes seriously and don't think i should have to have a 3.8 in engineering, too, to prove i'm worthy of acceptance at top schools.

I agree - I spent four years working on my GPA, pulling all nighters fairly regularly, and doing problem sets into the night at least a few days most weeks.  I gave up plenty of nights out and weekends to keep my GPA up.  OTOH, I spent 2.5 weeks in the summer studying for the LSAT, and never past 7 p.m. at that.  I can live with the fact that none of that matters, and it was probably those few hours I spent on the LSAT that got me into top schools rather then the thousands of hours I spent on my GPA, but it doesn't mean that I agree with the fact that 180/3.0 > 170.3.9



I believe you just unknowingly reinforced my point :)

I agree, that a high GPA in engineering IN ADDITION to a high LSAT score probably is a good indicator of good work ethic and a high level of intelligence.  However, your 3.93 in engineering (which you obviously had to work hard for) didn't appear to be weighed any higher than a 3.95 in sociology.

Before anyone says I don't know what I'm talking about, bear in mind that I attended a state school for my freshman year and took a course at a local 4 year college over that winter.  A lot of these schools are jokes.  Your post seems to imply that a 3.9+ indicates hard work everywhere.  It simply isn't true.  The classes I took at my first school, ESPECIALLY english, criminal justice, psychology, economics were all easy and didn't require a lot of work.  I didn't have to work hard to get an A in them.  The computer science courses I took, while somewhat more difficult, didn't require more than a few multi-hour projects and studying for the midterm/final. 

Judging all GPA's on the same plane is simply ridiculous. 

I wasn't disagreeing with you on the point that not all GPAs are equal, and that some majors and schools are harder than others (although I think a 3.8+ anywhere is pretty impressive).  I was disagreeing with you on the idea of making the LSAT even more important, and putting less emphasis on GPA.

P.S.  I graduated with a 3.95 NOT a 3.93 ;)  :P

My mistake :)

I would like for them to put more emphasis on GPA if and ONLY if they are going to try to standardize it (like Southside proposed).  If they are going to judge them all equally (as they seem to do), I'd rather them put even more weight on LSAT, as it's the only standardized part of the process. 

That's ridiculous. Environments aren't standardized.

They're a hell of a lot more standard than GPA's ever will be.

That's not the point. You advocated placing more emphasis on the LSAT. I disagreed with that proposition. The LSAT is already over relied upon in Law school admissions.

I don't necessarily see a problem with weighing standardized tests a lot.  I think the colleges should put more emphasis on SAT.  I've seen too many crappy high schools out there.  Also, I just don't think there's an alternative unless the law schools are willing to standardize GPA's. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 18