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 - jeffislouie
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46  48 49 50 51 52
« on: February 07, 2008, 12:17:13 AM »
There are still plenty of conservatives on here.
We just aren't the ones screaming all the time.
You are far from alone.
There does seem to be a preponderance of pinheads though.
« on: February 04, 2008, 08:01:18 PM »
you boys over at mccain hq seem scared of her.
Soft communists with socialist tendencies are scary people.
I used to be a dummycrat until they decided to focus all their energy on spreading hatred of George Bush.
I knew I made the right decision to switch when the dummycrats took over Congress after harping on how low Bush's approval rating was, then did nothing and earned themselves the lowest approval rating in the history of Congress.
I'll come back when the dummycrats stop preaching radical change and start embracing the soft, warm moderate stance that make them appealing.
'Til then, dummycrats run on soft socialism and I will work hard to defeat them in every way possible.
« on: February 01, 2008, 07:12:54 PM »
listen, forrest, there no way either side could enforce such bet--and julie not gamble irl, either.
for all your blather about censorship, you one who seem be trying shut up someone. but, by all means, feel free to sing alleged praises of--who you say, some mccain dude?
and not forget about those meds.
20 posts a day and I
I'm not trying to suppress anyone's speech but yours. And only because you are so repugnant. Plus, you hate conservatives/republicans/bush. Maybe america? Just a little?
I'm just wondering if it is possible to GET you to shut up.
I doubt it.
I broke my own rule about ignoring you.
« on: February 01, 2008, 07:02:56 PM »
julie just hoping you get back on your meds.
And I was hoping you had some guts.
Looks like we were both mistaken....
« on: February 01, 2008, 06:51:48 PM »
they both sound and look very, very good last night's debate.
republicans going get slaughtered, whether great-grandpa mccain or hairdo romney.
Then put your money where your fake mouth is:
IF the dems win (they won't) by more than a margin of 5 or 6 electoral votes, I'll stop posting and pretend I like the idea that big government solves all of our problems while embracing our soft communist overlords.
If the republican's win, or the dems win by less than a margin of 5 or 6 electoral votes, you go away and stop spreading your venomous bile...
The dems are running on soft communism/soft socialism and promising the largest tax hike in history, forced governmental interference with your health care decision making process, and stealing money from companies to pay for nonsensical, unrealistic pet projects aimed at making americans MORE reliant on government and less self-sufficient.
The dems CAN'T win.
clinton is a nasty, hated, unelectable communist and Obama is an example of what happens when you have wonderful intentions but no experience.
I know, unpopular speech - hey libs, why not try to supress my freedom of speech?
Waiting for suppression.... Commencing in 3, 2, 1.....
« on: January 31, 2008, 06:09:37 PM »
"Why take the test again hoping to get a 169 when you got a 166?"
Well, because a 169 will get me in with near certainty, the 166 may/probably won't. I don't really understand your question.
I'm confused. Earlier you said this:
"Can anyone really maintain that there is a marked difference between two points? Even LSAC can't, that's why their error margin is +/- 3 points."
Now you aren't sure why I asked the question?
enlighten me please....
« on: January 30, 2008, 10:20:17 PM »
i seriously think you are about 20 years out of date. virtually all law schools are close to 50-50 these days (berkeley is over 60% female). i really don't mean to attack you, but i'd love to see the stats of schools that are 70% male because i can't think of ANY off the top of my head (and i applied in 2006, so maybe i'm out of date?). i think it is generally accepted on this board that being a female no longer provides any AA benefit (aside from possibly making for a more interesting personal or diversity statement).
anyway, not sure what school you go to, but all the t14s seem to be pretty evenly split these days.
The university of Chicago law school is split 55/45 men to women.
Harvard is the same.
Stanford is 57/43
Gtown is 57/43
Columbia is 57/43
My school, officially, is 60/40
Granted, some schools are 51/49 or 52/48, but that still speaks to a minority advantage....
I'm not offended or upset with you challenging what I have to say either.
But I have to say that the split, while getting closer to 50/50, is by design and not at all by mistake. I still think that given the massive push for diversity in the last 10 years or so, women have an edge, no matter how slight....
« on: January 30, 2008, 10:06:40 PM »
"- I would tell them that, since it equates to two questions, perhaps the first time I inadvertently skipped over a "not" or an "except" and that's why I scored higher this time. Can anyone really maintain that there is a marked difference between two points? Even LSAC can't, that's why their error margin is +/- 3 points."
That's my point. Why take the test again hoping to get a 169 when you got a 166?
"- You possibly misread my original post and/or I wasn't clear enough. You just made my point stronger. I meant that since I am a white male (not getting the proverbial "leg-up"), it puts me in a position where I am viewed as a cookie-cutter candidate, and will probably be nearly exclusively a "numbers" admit or deny"
Now I understand what you were saying. I misunderstood and thought you were saying that you had a better shot being a white male.
However, I disagree with your statement. There are no 'numbers' admits or denies. The personal statement can be the most important factor in your application.
I know for a fact mine wasn't based on my numbers, I was in the bottom 25% where I attend (and I am a white male). This is particularly true if you are smart and apply the day the window opens.
"I certainly have no reason to quarrel with you, it's just that for me, the 166 is distressing."
It's cool. And I understand your distress. Please don't think I am trivializing your points. If you thought you were going to do better (we ALL thought we were going to do better on the LSAT), you have every reason to feel some discomfort.
We aren't quarreling, at least I don't think we are....
"If I don't get into a school that can land me a reputable clerkship, I'm going to have to decide between taking a year off and re-applying, or opting for a Ph.D. instead."
With a 166, a good GPA, and a solid personal statement, any school you get into will give you that opportunity.
For instance, I know a student at Northern Illinois that is in the top 10% of his class and is clerking for a federal judge.
That's pretty solid for a t3 school.
You can get a reputable clerkship by attending virtually any school.
Good luck to you! Try not to sweat this stuff too much. Believe me when I say that once law school begins, you will have plenty to worry about....
« on: January 30, 2008, 09:59:07 PM »
um, pretty sure just being a white female offers you no advantage these days, although i concede it might give you a soft factors leg up if you can write some really intense personal statement/diversity statement about the blatant sexism you have encountered.
I can thing of at least 3 girls I know who got into law school with the same GPA and LSAT scores as guys I know who didn't get in. And, being a law student in a major city, I can attest to the fact that women are, in fact, a minority group in law school. My class is at least 60-70% male.
Take a look at the admissions statistics: law schools are primarily made up of caucasion males. Being a female is a leg up. Black and latino men also have a leg up.
Diversity policies guide admissions to some degree. Women make the student body more diverse.
And for the record, I would steer away from any reference to blatant sexism in general. Better to focus on the positive than leave the impression that you are anti-male. For the record, I would advise any black applicant to refrain from talking about blatant racism as well.
Of course, if you can effectively write about how you overcame sexism/racism without coming off as angry, jaded and/or cynical, you might have an argument.
While more and more women are becoming lawyers, they tend to be minorities. I would love to see a day when the mix was 50/50 (or better yet, 70/30 in favor of females), but until that happens, females have a slight leg up.
« on: January 30, 2008, 09:05:13 PM »
1) The adcom members I spoke to clearly stated that applicants should explain why they took the LSAT more than once and account for the score difference. They do care. If you took the test once and got a 166 and took it again and got a 168, they want to know why and why you think you scored higher. They care because they care. Most schools look at apps very carefully and want to know why you did the things you did.
2) You can believe that all you want, but you would be wrong. I met with a dean on the admission committee at Kent and she told me that the most common mistakes that result in being passed up for acceptance outside of GPA and LSAT scores involve poorly written/conveived/checked for grammatical and spelling errors personal statements. Believe it or not (clearly not in your case) MOST if not ALL schools actually give underrepresented minorities a leg up. White males don't add to the diversity of the student body and, therefore, underrepresented minorities have an advantage (in other words, someone with the same scores as you may get in because they are female and/or minorities)..
3) Academia? Well, I don't know enough about that to give an opinion. I would guess that to be a different situation.
This is from the lsac.org site:http://www.lsac.org/AboutLSAC/faqs-and-support-lsat.asp#retest
"If you believe that your test score does not reflect your true ability, you should consider taking the test again. Data show that scores for repeat test takers often rise slightly. However, be aware that your scores may drop. You should also notify law schools of any facts relevant to the interpretation of your test results, such as illness or extenuating circumstances. If there is no reason to believe that one score represents a truer estimate of an applicant’s ability, schools are advised that the average score is probably the best estimate of ability—especially if the tests were taken over short period of time. Law schools must have access to your complete test record, not just the highest score; therefore, LSAC will not honor requests for partial score reports. "
Pages: 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46  48 49 50 51 52