Anyone else here from sunny Claremont, CA? What schools are you considering?
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 - moonpie
« on: February 16, 2006, 04:36:02 AM »
I don't know about anyone else, but i'm getting really sick of this question. Unless you're coming in to enhance an established career path, i'm not sure how you're supposed to answer this question. I may just tell people 'international' so they'll be impressed, and anyone actually going to law school will think i am a dipstick
This is priceless. Not only is A) Today My Birthday, B) Valentine's Day, C) It is exceedingly likely that G-town is sending me their ding/deferral today. I wonder if they'll pull off the triple crown of ruining my day?
USC requested my LSDAS report 11/27. Last week I got a letter from them, dated the 13th, that they had received my application and would tell me when it went complete. What gives? Shouldn't it have gone complete like, last week?
« on: December 14, 2005, 05:03:43 AM »
I'm not sure I understand how the LSAT works. Raw scores are averaged on internal scales and then put into a percentage on the basis of a curve. Why do people care about the difficulty of their test? The relative distribution of correct answers is important, not your raw score. When people hope for an easy or hard test, are they hoping for a test that's easy for them and hard for everyone else?
Assuming my higher aspirations don't pan out, I could well be looking at a choice between GW and USC.
What's the consensus on choosing between the two? Geography is a toss-up. People rant about USC's alumni network, but have seen zero evidence of this...Should $ be the biggest concern?
The short answer: nothing. But I was obsessing about my slim chances of getting into UCLA. Looking at their most recent attending class profile data, I'd be middle of the pack. But all that means, predicatbly, is that the people that go are at the lower end of the admitted pool than those that are accepted.
Looking at LSAC, the UCLA report says that 149/439 was the acceptance rate for the 3.5-3.74/165-169 matrix. So that would place me at about a 33% chance of admission. Yet Lawschoolstat's slightly older numbers put me at a 55%. What methodology are they using that produces such weird results? A similar look at USC reveals a 73% chance from the LSAC index, but a 65% chance off of LSS. Some of the effect must be due to the way the spectrum of values go; that box contains someone who's a 3.5/165 competing against a 3.74/169. Yet i'm unclear why it would overstate my odds of admission to UCLA and understate them at USC. You'd think schools would be reporting data differently to make their numbers look uniformly inflated.
Less interestingly: 33% of that group ends up distinguishing themselves somehow--but how? I haven't been to a forum and have only read Ivey's book so maybe someone that has can discuss this for me. Do adcomms tend to have some sort of ranking preference for the non-numerical indicators when they try to figure out which applicants should get in? Does the LOR trump the PS?
On a related note, i'm still wondering why people feel so much better with addenda (like i have for my grades) If the motivating factor for using a heavily numeric system is to make US News happy, then it won't do any good. All you're doing is explaining to the school why you have subpar numbers. Those numbers are still the ones being reported to US News, unless I missed some mechanism where they adjust the school's rank on the basis of well-written addenda they receive.