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 - skillerj
« on: December 22, 2007, 09:46:43 AM »
I want to bump this thread.
Since I got my first acceptance letter from W&M two weeks ago(with $$), I though I would get at least one more news before the holiday break.
I'm twirling my thumbs faster day by day.
But it's a bit comforting that I'm not the only one.
« on: December 13, 2007, 10:41:11 AM »
Johnny Depp - Columbia
High ROI, prestijus.
Ryan Philippe - Fordham
Just a feeling.
« on: December 13, 2007, 10:12:25 AM »
I think you have great numbers, you can definitely aim for some T14 schools. T20 would be your right fit. And a 2 or 3 T30-40 as a safety. I also think you should consider the locations too. West/East? Metropolitan or a campus town?
I have lower LSAT/GPA than you,(and, like you, I'm a native Korean) and I've applied to schools in the T20's - we'll see how it turns out.
Best of luck!
« on: October 24, 2007, 08:03:55 AM »
Another theory for the median increase - More and more people interested in the IP law apply for GWU, and the admissions became more competitive, no?
Do you think there is a good chance that the median will decrease for next year?
« on: October 23, 2007, 04:30:57 AM »
3.415 or something. But with the new medians, this seems unlikely. Speaking of these, where do you all see the new medians for GW? I've been all over their website searching for it. The applicant profile doesn't give this information.
Darn! Why did they have to raise the bar? My numbers almost exactly match the previous year's median (3.62/165). Less chance of acceptance for me...
Just hoping they'll lower this year's cycle, though not likely...
« on: October 22, 2007, 01:09:50 PM »
A non-admission-related Q:
If I remember correctly, Stanford is surrounded by the woods. Do SLS people have a life? If so, what kind?
« on: October 11, 2007, 02:26:16 AM »
163. I tried to aim for 170, but I lost confidence in the last two weeks before the test when my practice tests fell below 165. If I get below 163, I'll get a full time job and forget about law school. Retake is out of the question for me.
« on: September 15, 2007, 10:10:08 AM »
Thanks for the input everyone - I just saw the replies today.
I started out studying with LRB and Kaplan Lesson Book (a friend gave it to me after taking a course from Kaplan - she barely touched it) after a month, I only studyed by doing preptests and reviewing wrong answers.
So - there's exactly 13 days left now, and my scores are fluctuating.
I think my main problem is reading - on a good day, I can read faster with more comprehension. On other days things don't really hit my brain right - they get deflected.
I wish there was something that improves my concentration on text-reading. A thinking brain maybe? LOL
Good luck to everyone taking the LSAT this month!
« on: August 24, 2007, 08:39:35 PM »
It seems that the majority of the people studying for the LSAT in LSD is at the same time either working full time, or at least part time, or in school. Is there anyone, like me, who is going full time LSAT-prepping? I've been studying for the Sept. LSAT since May. I took a year off after graduation just to study for the LSAT. I am aiming for 170 but haven't reached it yet.
Am I overdoing it...?
Not worth it?
Just a small grumbling out of half jealousy and half frustration of the fact that some people would get great scores prepping while in school or work.
« on: April 17, 2007, 11:53:55 AM »
I realize this is late and off-topic-ish....
RIP to the people killed by this tragedy....
At times like this I wonder - is it really necessary to legalize gun possession?
There are a couple ways to answer this:
1) Yes. The constitution says so, therefore we must.
2) Yes. There is no reason not to have legalized gun possession. In fact, most violent crimes committed with a firearm are committed using black-market, unregistered weapons, no amount of legislating will take those guns away from people determined to cause trouble. You can legislate all you want, but there is a point where you have to consider that someone willing to break one law (murder) will likely have no issue with breaking another law (firearm possession).
Ultimately, you will eliminate very little crime, while taking firearms away from the majority of people who use them responsibly for recreation and self-defense.
A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England, where guns are largely banned. Not to mention murder rates and even rates of violent crime using guns are on the rise in countries with firearms restrictions.
If I want to buy a gun right now, there is a waiting period and a background check. Anyone who gets a gun legally, has hopefully been checked out as a relatively safe and responsible person. I'm not worried about that guy. I'd venture to guess that an NRA member is less likely than anyone else to shoot someone.
I don't own a gun myself, but I can't stand kneejerk politics. If you want to stop people from being shot, get rid of the black market guns, not the legally-purchased ones.
It seems that there is more random shootings/massacres like this at countries where gun possession is legalized. Black markets flourish when there is more supply for arms. It seems natural to think that there would be more "spilling" of weapons to the black market when legal arms are "stolen" or "lost".
Apparently I don't know much about how the system works, but I based my arguments by comparison between countries that legalize gun possessions and those who don't.