« on: October 28, 2005, 01:14:31 PM »
Honestly I think you should have no trouble getting into all the schools you listed, and should apply to UCLA too.
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 - HK
« on: October 27, 2005, 01:26:29 AM »
But US News only knows the LSAT score of two people in the class, the 25th %ile and the 75th %ile. After that, schools have a lot of wiggle room. If your average is above the 25th and your highest is below the 75th, then the score a school chooses to consider for you has no bearing on how US News calculates its rankings. Beyond that, there are plenty of reasons why schools might adopt a highest-is-best policy, especially if the highest is the most recent. I'm actually surprised more haven't.
I think if all schools adopted the "highest is best" policy we would see everyone taking the LSAT 2-3 times.
I think it's impossible to say that soft factors don't matter. I am sure that law schools with 15 percent admission rates probably get a lot more than 15 percent of of applicants who are within their 25-75 percentile range. If you look at the George washington U. website it's obvious that better numbers give you a better chance, but people with lower number get in while people with higher numbers get rejected.
If you have 3 people with similar numbers, how do you decide? I think if you fall between the 25-75 percentile of what the school plans on taking then soft factors will make the difference.
« on: October 23, 2005, 11:18:36 AM »
I guess i call myself a splitter too.
I have a 3.39(lsac) and a 166. I am hoping for USC or Vanderbilt.
My GPA is a 3.74 without my horrible second year, which I wrote about in my addendum. Let's all hope for the best!
« on: October 23, 2005, 11:08:58 AM »
I don't think a 3.2 from Yale and a 3.2 from a "no name" are the same, but I think a 3.3 or 3.4 from the "no name" will defnitely be better.
As someone here previously stated, they care about their numbers and the way it will look in rankings. US news doesn't take the undergrad. institution into account.
Also, I am sure the reason why a lot of top UG schools are represented at top law schools has to with the fact that students from those schools have typically worked hard scored well on the SAT, and continued that in college and on the LSAT.
Basically, I think the undergrad. institution will be considered as a minor factor after Numbers, and extra curricular..
« on: October 23, 2005, 09:02:10 AM »
I took the accelerated class at Princeton Review. My first diagnostic was a 150, and i scored 166 on the real LSAT. I can't complain with a 16 pt. increase. On the other hand, after taking their course i didn't use most of the techniques they taught me. I think the course just motivated me to start studying at the right time.
I think if you need someone to tell you to study, a course is good, otherwise i don't think it helps.
« on: October 23, 2005, 08:58:03 AM »
I would guess it depends on how much you move up. If you move to a 164, i don't think its worth it, but if you are confident you can get a 168 or above, i think its worth it.
I am in a similar situation. I was getting about 169-172 on the practice tests, but would up with a 166. I missed 7 on that first section because of stress.