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 - Maintain FL 350
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 83
« on: July 08, 2015, 01:35:07 PM »
Relax. One F will not ruin your chances of getting into law school. Your GPA will barely be affected. A single point on the LSAT will probably have a bigger effect than a single F.
I never received a B, let alone a C, in any of my classes, but I'm terrified that this F will ruin my life.
Then be prepared for the shock of law school grades. No, seriously. Read up on it, talk to people in law school, etc. Getting A's in law school is the exception, not the norm. Grades are on curve and most people are a little shell shocked after the first semester.
I'm not saying this to be a jerk, but you sound a little overly concerned with grades and you seem to have greatly overestimated their impact on your life. It's alright, many college students do this. But, if you're this freaked out by grades then you need to understand what you're getting in to in terms of law school.
You're going to read a lot of stuff on the internet telling you that unless you graduate in the top 10% of your law school class you'll be flipping burgers, etc. It's BS, but you'll read it anyway and it seriously stresses out a lot of people. To paraphrase the great Citylaw, there is a 90% chance you won't be in the top 10%.
Undergrad is pretty easy. I know it may not seem like that now, but wait until law school. You'll see what I mean. I think it is therefore good for your emotional well being to understand how law school works before investing in it.
« on: July 07, 2015, 09:10:55 PM »
Take a look at LSAC's site, maybe they explain it. When I applied to law school in 2008 LSAC definitely weighted your GPA. Don't know if they still do. It was shown on my LSAC report as GPA/Weighted GPA.
Loki, you are correct. I don't think they weighted individual classes, I'm probably wrong about that. I think it was your GPA/Major GPA. So still, a degree in Physics would presumably get a boost over a degree in Art.
« on: July 07, 2015, 03:38:07 PM »
Getting back to the OP's original question, LSAC does weight grades according to the perceived level of difficulty of both the individual class and the institution. Thus, a grade in Astrophysics from Cal Tech is supposedly weighted more than History of Romantic Comedies at Unknown State U.
The question is, how much?
I think that a degree in Physics or Chemistry is probably taken more seriously by adcomms just because they are fairly rare. They probably stand out among the slew of English, Business, and Poly Sci degrees. But, law schools are so obsessed with rankings that a 3.5 in Nonesense Studies still probably wins over a 3.0 in Math.
« on: July 07, 2015, 01:35:50 PM »
I sort of agree. There is something to be said for being an educated person, not just a degree holder. The coolest, most interesting people are always the Renaissance types, not the percentile obsessed overachievers. You can good grades and still develop your mind.
To paraphrase the Civil War historian Shelby Foote, "I didn't make a very good student because I was more interested in learning than grades."
In law school you'll have to focus on grades, but take advantage of the broad offerings in UG.
« on: July 07, 2015, 10:21:32 AM »
I've never heard of it. As in any situation like this, "Proceed with Caution".
Try to research who is running the place, who is teaching/grading, have any grads passed the bar, etc? I would also look into where their physical plant is located (is it in the U.S.?) and accreditation (regional, DETC?).
« on: July 06, 2015, 12:13:18 PM »
You definitely have a shot with your current numbers, especially at GGU. At USF and SCU it's less likely. I'm not sure what the general probabilities are at those schools, but 151 is far enough below their medians that it's less predictable.
URM status is a wild card and makes things even less predictable. Some URM classifications get a bigger boost than others, and it may help with scholarship money. It just depends.
You can retake, but is there any reason to assume that you'll magically gain five points? Maybe, maybe not. Most people don't gain points just by repeating the exam. They have to do something new, like a prep course, more study time, etc.
This may be reason to retake. A higher LSAT score will help with scholarship money. Personally, I wouldn't spend 150-200k on any of those schools unless I was rich and it didn't matter. Not trying to be snobby, my views are just a reflection of current market realities. That kind of debt can be crippling, and the Bay Area legal market is very competitive.
As I said above, URM status can help with obtaining certain scholarships. Merit scholarship, however (which tend to be much bigger) are going to be hard to obtain with a 151.
If you can lower the cost of attendance by retaking the LSAT, well...
« on: June 30, 2015, 11:37:02 AM »
Well, to an extent I agree with you. I'm sure that Hillary would rather that the debates focus on gay marriage and abortion rather than the crappy economy and ISIS.
BUT, nobody forced Ted Cruz to say stupid stuff about the Supreme Court, or forced Abbott to say that TX govt workers can ignore the Court's ruling, or million other goofy things that Republicans can't seem to stop themselves from blabbing.
Of course Jeb Bush (for example) is going to be asked about his views on contentious issues, that's to be expected. The problem I see is that the social conservatives in his own party are preventing him from giving an honest answer. My guess is that JB probably couldn't care less about gay marriage, and would rather talk about the economy. But, if he says that, he losses the Tea Party.
« on: June 29, 2015, 11:55:56 AM »
There is an element of the Republican party that would rather lose on principle than win on compromise. If they decide to make 2016 about gay marriage and abortion, they will lose.
The amazing thing is, I wonder if they even realize how successful they could be if they simply focused on economic issues? Even CA ousted a Dem governor in favor of a socially liberal/fiscally conservative Rep. The religious fundamentalists are determined to lose for some reason.
« on: June 28, 2015, 02:12:55 PM »
The fragmentation is within the Democratic Party and "dueling progressive agendas" and in the Republican Party between civil libertarianism and establishment conservatism.
I essentially agree about the basis of the Democratic split, but I think the Republican split I far more damaging to their overall chances.
The Republican split is at least a three way between establishments (Bush), libertarians (Paul), and religious conservatives (Huckabee, Santorum, etc).
I would argue that at this point the Republicans are in a real bind, a Catch-22. Candidates can't win the nomination or the general election without the evangelicals stepping up and voting, but they're doomed with independents if they appear too evangelical themselves.
The Republicans have allowed this far right element of the party to wield too much influence for too long, and now it's biting them on the a$$.
Even though I'm a Democrat, I hope they figure it out and find a way to be nationally competitive. I don't want there to be one party rule for the next few decades. Competition is good for political parties, it helps minimize corruption. California is a one party state, and look where it got us.
« on: June 25, 2015, 02:48:15 PM »
I'm fairly active in Democratic politics (worked on a few campaigns, etc), and I can honestly say that the prevailing attitude seems to be "Let's hold our nose and vote for Hillary." Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
She simply does not generate the kind of excitement that Obama did, and I suspect that will result in lower turnout.
Pages: 1 2  4 5 6 7 8 ... 83