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 - jack24
Pages: 1 ... 93 94 95 96 97  99 100 101 102 103 ... 108
« on: March 24, 2008, 06:26:53 PM »
Just a few things.
1: Law school committees may be better than I think, but I still think they need to get better.
2: Is there any good study that shows the relationship between LSAT/GPA and law school grades?
3: I don't deserve to go to a top 50 school no matter how good my soft factors are. I made my bed and now I need to sleep in it. It might be interesting to do a study of T3 schools that aren't close to cracking the top 100. Do they have a lot of examples of students with higher GPAs being rejected in favor of students with good soft factors?
4: I guess I misunderstood your point about the 25%. Sorry.
5: My goal, in reality, is to go to the best school possible. It's probably even based on getting favorable treatment for myself over others. My argument actually decreases fairness because it replaces objectivity with subjectivity. I'm mad that I have to pay out of state tuition because I only have two law schools in my state and both of them have a strong focus on GPA.
That being said, fairness isn't really my concern. I don't believe in an equal ending point, just an equal starting point. I should have done better in school, but I didn't think I needed to at the time.
« on: March 24, 2008, 05:58:21 PM »
Yeah, but say my LSAT is 164 and my GPA is 3.0.
Lets also say I apply to a school with a median LSAT of 164 and a 25% GPA of 3.4
I might think that my personal statement, resume, and LORs are so good that the committee will accept me.
If the committee rejects me based on my GPA and my soft factors don't make up for the low GPA then they should be able to do that faster than 3 or 4 months.
I got rejected on saturday to a school with a median GPA of 3.7. Why in the world did it take 3 months?
And let me answer your questions
1: What if the student was non traditional, and they got a 2.5 because they already had a job that they loved and they were going to school at night just to get a required degree. If that student then decided to go to law school, GPA isn't really that accurate of an indication of their potential. Their highest priority is work, so you should take that into more account than just a tiebreaker. (Obviously this doesn't apply to people with a high priorities in partying and drinking)
2: The 25th percentile is confusing because you really don't know how low they'll go. They should give you more information. "If your GPA is lower than 3.0, you have relatively no chance of admission unless you are a URM"
3: I don't think this would work on the top 50 schools. The applicants are all too competitive. You are an exceptional student so you may not run with the same crowd as I do. You do realize that 80% of test takers get worse than 160 on the LSAT right? Law school admissions doesn't only affect the top students.
4: Job interviews are subjective. By your reasoning, it would probably be better for Firms to hire based on grades alone, even after a few years out of school. I'm sure outside of new grads, firms use personality, potential and connections more than grades in their hiring.
« on: March 24, 2008, 05:10:25 PM »
Lets say US news decided to remove the GPA LSAT portion of their rankings.
Schools would still use GPA and LSAT to determine the strength of their applicants. Harvard would still get 10 time as many applications as the University of Montana, and the applicants to Harvard would be more competitive. The schools with the best salaries at graduation and the best placement would still attract the brightest students.
But if an Ad-com found a student with a 2.5 GPA whom they regarded to be an amazing candidate, ranking would take a back seat.
If they felt like a particular candidate would be more successful in the real world then they could use some subjective reasoning.
Would it be fair if the 2.5 student were accepted ahead of a 3.6 student who was for some reason, unimpressive? No. But it wasn't fair when they had a swim meet outside the door of where I took the lsat, and they were using a jackhammer in the next room to tear up the floor. I wouldn't have done any better, because the noise probably kept me awake, but I'm sure some die-hard library hermits were probably very distracted.
While I agree that numbers may be the most accurate in the bigger picture, I have to argue that it should be up to the particular admissions committee. If they realized that the students who do the best in their particular environment were the students with a broad list of experiences then they could make judgements to select those students.
« on: March 24, 2008, 04:59:58 PM »
What specifically would you like them to be less secretive about?
As for "the better the school, the better off I am", that (it seems to me) has less to do with ad comms and more to do with, in some order, personal egos, actual job prospects, and message boards like this one.
Why do schools take so long to reject candidates? If a school has a 90% chance of rejecting an applicant, they will still hesitate because they are too worried about their ranking. If they don't get a good crop of applicants then they want to have back-ups.
You can say that a person wants to go to a particular school because of his ego, but I think it has a lot more to do with job placement. Most people figure that higher ranked schools have more participating recruiters. I don't want to get into my top 50 school so that I can brag about which school I went to, I want to go to that school because it's the only school located in the market I want to work in. I probably won't get in because they are obsessed with getting higher GPAs. And it will still take 4 months to reject me.
« on: March 24, 2008, 03:12:35 PM »
I probably know a lot less than you about this subject, but I do know that some students are better at consistanly getting high scores on tests throughout the year.
Most law school grades are based on one nasty final test, and anyone can have a bad day once in a while.
I had a scholarship offer that was based on getting in the top 10% of my class in order to keep it beyond the first year. Most people told me that a smart person who works very very hard can almost be guaranteed a spot in the top 1/3 of the class, but that top 10% is never a sure thing.
« on: March 24, 2008, 02:59:44 PM »
I called them and they said that I'll be getting an answer in the mail this week.
Thanks for your help.
« on: March 24, 2008, 02:53:51 PM »
They have a status checker but it doesn't change after complete.
I just want to make sure it's not lost in the mail.
(I think our mailman is on crack)
« on: March 24, 2008, 02:46:45 PM »
One school i'm waiting for says on their website that they handle applications in the order they are completed. They say you should get an answer in 5-10 weeks after completion. It's been 13 weeks for me. People who went complete after me started to get acceptances and rejections a few weeks ago.
Should I call them?
If yes, then do you have any suggestions on what I should say?
« on: March 24, 2008, 02:12:12 PM »
Rejected at BYU. I knew it was coming, but it shouldn't have taken so long.
« on: March 24, 2008, 02:07:14 PM »
I understand the difficulties and I feel like the sports analogy is a very good one.
The process would end up being subjective, but it would still make a difference.
Currently the ranking system is partially based on the LSAT/GPA of admitted students. There is no way that a school can raise their rank by admitting a bunch of amazing sales people with low GPAs.
My key frustration with the process isn't necessarily that I can't go to the law school I want to go to. If I knew I was going to law school sooner, I would have had to put more attention into getting As. I'm going to a great school.
The major frustration I find is that nobody can tell me what makes a good lawyer.
Law schools mainly look at LSAT and GPA, which don't really give a good indication of your future sucess in the legal field.
Law schools will accept an applicant based on whether or not they fit in a particular box.
It would be nice if a highly ranked school just threw out all the old logic and started drafting different kinds of players. (I still wouldn't get in, but it would be interesting to see the results 10 years later)
Pages: 1 ... 93 94 95 96 97  99 100 101 102 103 ... 108