Messages - gillesthegreat
First of all, never, ever, ever refer to it as "Mount" Tremblant. It is Mont, and the locals would be offended. I would also suggest that, as an American, you display a modicum of shame on behalf of your government, regardless of whether or not you support/endorse them. This will make your experience much more easier.
Now, for the actual skiing. It is one of the largest skiable areas in North America, though not the highest elevation. It is however much better than just about anything you can find in VT, and the resort aspect of it adds immeasurable cachet. Ok, it's a little tacky (like Disneyworld / cardboard villages). And be ready to shell out the big $$, especially during christmas time. Just be aware that off-mountain accomodations will be much more reasonably priced.
Also noteworthy: it gets cold up there. No ... really: damn cold. Not USA cold, Quebec cold. Case and point: my brother is nuts, certifiable. He actually skied at get this ... -75C (including wind chill). That translates to -101 F. Only one run, but still. And this is the absolute record I've heard, and only once. And in late Jan early Feb, which is the coldest period. For Christmas, you could easily get -20C, and you should certainly not count on anything warmer than -10C. If you're going with kids, this counts.
And finally, I suggest ditching the family one evening to patronize the fine "Faucon Bleu", the local stripper joint.
The question calls for a candid answer. It is possible to increase 30 points, but it is not plausible. If it were only a question of studying, the test would have no predictive value of a person's general ability; it would rather be a measure of how much studying you put in.
That said, study hard and hope for the best. Good luck!
google search for the terms "law school rankning" will yield other rankings and/or raw data on admissions. You should also read the ABA statement on school rankings (also found with google).
Thanks for the reply. Let me clarify the meaning of independence. Of all the students that are applying to let us say Penn with my numbers, about 85% will be rejected. This rejection is based on certain factors other than LSAT and GPA, obviously. The correspondent number at Cornell is about 78%. Are the no-explicit factors that lead to rejection from Penn the same that would lead to rejection from Cornell? If there were no such factors, and Cornell and Penn (or any other school) just pick 17% at random from this pool of people with my numbers, than, it would be independent. If however they are all considering the same non-explicit factors, then, the events are not independent, since I might have factors that will always make me part of the 17% (or part of the 85%). Is it clearer this way?
And as for my overall chances, I think they might be better: Ph.D. Berkeley, chairman of the board of undergraduate student government, president of one of the largest campus radios, student member of the administration board of the College of Arts and Sciences, foreign national with native language other than English ... if all of this counts for nothing at all, I give up.
I'm considering applying exclusively to T14 with somewhat modest numbers: GPA 3.37 (from a school where averages are usually C+ or B-) and LSAT 167 (which I will retake in October for a likely average score of 169 or 170). Working strictly with the number I have now, and ignoring all other factors (Ph.D, among other factors), I looked at probabilities of admission for T14. I used this simple calculation
[1 - P (accept Yale)] * [1 - P (accept Harvard)] * ...
This gives the joint probability of being denied by all T14. Does the assumpetion of independence of probability hold here? Opinions?
P.S. I get a 13% chance of rejection by all. I can cross off Y, H and S from the list and still get the same result to the 4th decimal.
Answer C does weaken the argument since longer driving distances mean more exposure to risk. If I drive a 100 miles and you drive 50 miles, I should have twice the risk of accident you do. Longer driving distances for similar driving abilities would produce more accidents.
Answer D), however, does not explain away the phenomenon. "Teenagers have more severe accidents" can very well be conceived as part of the argument. Why are they having worse accidents? ... because they are bad drivers. It actually supports the argument. D is your answer.
« on: August 17, 2005, 10:32:58 PM »
For the records, USF is not ranked 150. Last year, it was 96, and one can only presume that they are now just a shade under 100, something like 100-110.
Now for your question, it actually depends on what you want to do. Unless you want to do maritime law (or have a penchant for the Jesuit thing), you should probably attend Hastings. Just look at the websites of the top firm in the city (the only ones BTW who would even consider your degree from USF). MOFO has only 3 from USF, and all of them are not exactly run of the mill students. Hastings grads however do get real jobs, in and beyond SF. Go for it, you won't regret it. Having attended the info session for USF last year, if they're representative at all of the entire student body, I would guess you deserve better.
Well, the logistic regression they use takes into consideration two and only two factors: GPA and LSAT. One would almost be tempted to belive that thaty actually read your personal statement ... or that maybe, just maybe, they look at your UG institution. Somehow, I don't feel a 3.9 from Chico State is better than a 3.6 from Berkeley (notorious for the much more conservative grades compared to inflated Ivy's).