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 - dsds3581
« on: February 26, 2004, 04:26:25 PM »
Okay...here's what I've found/remembered:
I remembered finding this information through the Deloggio Achievement Program site a few years ago and vaguely remembered something about Boalt. So I went back to that site and, sure enough, Boalt is the school that started this. The chart either used to be on Deloggio's site or Boalt's site...however, now I don't see it on either. But it's called the Berkeley System--some schools do it, some don't and some do it differently than Boalt does (like, I know I remember reading that Penn allegedly adds .2 to the GPA from certain schools...some schools also do it even for "grade inflation" schools).
So check this site:http://www.deloggio.com/homepage/faq/academic/college.htm
A few things on this site: I wouldn't say all schools view your grades as worthless if your school's mean is a 3.2+, especially if your school is top 20. Also, in Montauk's book "How To Get Into the Top Law Schools" the "feeder" schools to Columbia (and probably many other top law schools) are listed as (in order from the most to the least) Yale, Columbia, Harvard, Brown, Penn, Stanford, Berkeley, Dartmouth, Princeton, Cornell, Michigan, UT-Austin, UCLA, NYU, Duke, UVA, Brigham Young, Barnard, Emory, Wellesley, Georgetown, Northwestern, Rice and Smith. I'm pretty sure a lot of these schools have means above 3.2 (Emory's is a 3.3, for example). I think if your school is one of these schools, then you probably get a boost in admissions at most schools (as Deloggio indicates feeder schools do). They will probably look more at how well students with your GPA from your undergraduate school have done at their law school.
« on: February 26, 2004, 02:56:25 PM »
I remember all top 20s getting a GPA boost (I attended a top 20, so I know I looked closely at that)...I'm not sure, but I think it's about .2 GPA points...I'm going to do a search and see if I can find the site this info was on. If I find it, I will post it.
« on: February 26, 2004, 02:52:13 PM »
I've been wondering myself...of course, it's based almost totally on numbers, so that's one thing. The main thing I've been wondering about is where do they get URMs are to add 3-6 points to their LSAT. I've also been wondering why it looks easier to get into Columbia than NYU...and into Stanford than Harvard and Yale, according to the spreadsheet and my numbers (is NYU more GPA-heavy?). They also don't have anything on the spreadsheet concerning adding or deducting points to the GPA in relation to what undergrad you attended (which I've seen lists of which schools get what before online) or any of the other wild cards that affect index #. Checking the spreadsheet against lawschoolnumbers.com, you can see it's not TOTALLY accurate (Stanford has been rejecting people who have gotten into H and Y quite a bit, it seems, this year)...but it still seems pretty good, though, for giving you an idea, as long as you're a pretty regular applicant. I think I can now see why people have been getting into schools ranked higher than Georgetown and Boalt (although I knew Boalt was GPA-heavier than the other schools but didn't know why people were getting into schools like Michigan, Penn and UVA but getting waitlisted or rejected at G-Town).
« on: February 25, 2004, 04:57:51 PM »
I've heard similar things as to what that attorney told you, both from students and attorneys. But as Nathanielmark stated, there are still attorneys who didn't attend 1st or 2nd-tier schools who are doing fine! Even the attorneys who have expressed their frustration that firms seem to favor those students who either attend high-ranking schools or who rank high in their class and have advised me to go to the best school I can are doing well.
I do think it's a bit risky, though, to go to a lower-tier school, especially in this job economy because students from higher-tier schools probably have more of an advantage now than ever.
However, I think it also depends on where you live. For instance, I live in an area where there aren't really that many high-ranking law schools and where not a lot of people go away to high-ranking law schools and come back to work...which means the firms around here will be hiring the graduates from these area schools, mainly.
I'd advise you to go to the best school you can get into, afford and attend (in that is it in a convenient locale) and to make the best grades you can.
« on: February 24, 2004, 08:30:46 PM »
Hmmm...well, I feel that, with your stats, you should still be able to get into a first-tier school...I'm just not sure about the ones you applied to (GW and Emory). The only school of these schools I know anything about is Emory, and that's only because I went there undergrad...Emory's admissions are getting tougher. From what I remember being told by an Emory admissions office (Janet Balej, I believe, is her name), they don't really care for LSAT scores under 160 (though, with a 159 and a 3.87 GPA, I still wouldn't count you out). Still, Emory is definitely raising their standards a lot in terms of who they accept and numbers...and had you applied a few years ago, I would have felt better about your chances there...all I can offer is that I wouldn't be surprised either way (if you get in or if you get rejected).
Looking at USNews, you're in the range for the other schools you applied to (GPA above the 75th, even)...even Cardozo (and getting rejected there doesn't make your chances at Emory look too good)...so it really sucks that they waitlisted you. But, hopefully, you can get into Temple, American and/or Brooklyn. The fact that you haven't heard yet might be good, if these schools have already rejected people (but, then, I think Emory sends out acceptances before rejections).
« on: February 24, 2004, 05:10:11 PM »
I am in TN...I just tried it again for the third time, and it's not working now...so...I think I was right--the server just keeps going down on the site.
It's definitely a cool little spreadsheet, though. I saved it on my lap top when I got it to come up, luckily...so keep trying it every now and again and download it to your computer when you finally get it to work.
« on: February 24, 2004, 02:08:08 PM »
Works for me now, too...didn't work the first time I tried it, so I suspect server problems. You do need to have Excel, though.
« on: February 22, 2004, 11:35:53 PM »
I mainly agree with Lamie, though I wouldn't go so far as to say "all" who apply to the top 5 schools have near-perfect scores/GPA (SO many people throw in apps to these schools just for the hell of it, some with lower numbers apply because they really do want to attend, and then just about everyone with top numbers applies).
You know that with HYS, there's never going to be someone who can predict your chances...though I'd say you have the best shot at Harvard since they accept more people/have a bigger class than Yale and Stanford. Stanford seems to really just be rejecting all kinds of outstanding students this year, from looking at lawschoolnumbers.com (if you're just going to go on numbers, which as Lamie said, is not a wise thing to do with the top 5 schools). Some students have gotten into both Harvard and Yale and rejected at Stanford. And, though your LSAT score is bomb for just about any school, your GPA is closer to the 25th percentile for Yale (though I don't know what school you got that GPA from). It's not a bad GPA at all (Harvard's 25th is about the same as Yale's, and Stanford's is lower than both of theirs...all of their 25th's are lower than your GPA, from looking at USNews), but with the fact that Yale has the lowest acceptance rate and a small class size...again, I'd say out of HYS, you have the most realistic shot at Harvard.
With NYU and Columbia, I'd be surprised if you didn't get in--I think you will, unless something is really wrong with something else in your application. I'm kind of surprised you haven't heard from any of these schools yet...when did you apply?
« on: February 20, 2004, 04:32:45 PM »
Lovin1L, that's not what I got from Kslaw's post, personally. I don't think most people see the LSAT as an "end all/be all" to performance in law school and being an attorney, but I do think a lot of people disregard or lessen the signifance/purpose of the LSAT and resent the exam--I saw this as being more like what Kslaw is saying, pointing out the role of the LSAT, and I basically agree.
I think the LSAT measures a bit more than simply your performance on it, though I'm sure it doesn't tell the complete--or even half--the story of performance in law school. I do, at least, see a relationship between the skills needed on the LSAT and the skills needed in being an attorney...and, from the help I've received in studying for the LSAT from current law students, some skills needed in law school. One law student helped me a little with the LR section by showing me something a professor taught at her law school, which she feels, had she known when she was taking the LSAT, could have helped her on the LR section. No, I'm not yet in law school, so I couldn't entirely know--fair enough. But, like you said, we're just discussing opinions. We're not claiming to know anything.
And, not to be mean, but it's a little funny that you're in law school and telling someone that they don't know what they are talking about simply because they aren't in law school, yet are making leaps about what someone is saying--the kind of interpretive leaps that, it seems, someone who is in law school would know a little bit better than to make. Kslaw wasn't just talking about the LSAT and law school--but that the test-taking doesn't just end with the LSAT and that, later on, more will be at stake based on tests (such as whether or not you'll even be able to practice law). Bottom line, one of these days, there's going to be a test you're going to HAVE to do well on.
And I dislike standardized tests, too, and see the biases--I feel that my SAT scores had little to do with how I did in college--but the one thing I do like about the LSAT is that I see it as being one of the few standardized tests that has more than a little relevance to the program you're trying to get into (but doesn't necessarily say that you'll do well or you won't, but logical/critical/analytical skills are there). It's an opinion--I might, in fact, find differently when I enter law school.
In terms of the biases of the LSAT mentioned by Fungoking...you know, I think just about every part of the admissions process is biased. People focus on the biases of the LSAT the most, though. But even Fungoking mentioned how the GPA is biased, without outright stating so, by showing how it can be affected by other things...such as did you have to work through college. And I, personally, have more of a problem with GPA than the LSAT, in terms of biases. Some law schools reward students who went to top undergraduate schools and punish students who went to lower-ranked schools in the index number, when it could easily be that the student from the lower-ranked undergraduate with a 4.0 truly is just as good as the student from the higher-ranked one with a 3.75 but just simply couldn't afford to go to that higher-ranked school or got a scholarship to the lower-ranked one. I feel like the legal profession is a one in which the doors to it are more open to students who have "more" than the ones with "less" because students with "more" CAN take prep courses, CAN go to the top undergraduate schools, CAN afford law school...and where you go to undergrad can affect to ease of your major and GPA (a lot of people feel that lower-ranked schools are easier, but what about "grade inflation" at those top undergraduateschools that are overly-represented in the number of students they send to top law schools??), taking a prep course can affect your LSAT score...I mean, people advise "take a prep course" as if everyone can do it--they can't. I can go on and on, but the point is that there are biases everywhere in the admissions process!
Finally--I actually don't see anything wrong with taking a prep course, if you can. The LSAT is not a test of innate ability. This is a test that most people basically learn, as long as the ability to learn it is there. Some people DO go in without studying and do well--not many, though. Everyone else studies prep material. If you're going to sit there and study "Cracking the LSAT" and "10 Actual, Official LSAT Preptests"...how is that THAT much different than taking a prep course? In prep courses, they familiarize you with the test by giving you strategies and practice questions. With "Cracking the LSAT" and "10 Actual..." you're doing the same thing. All you're doing is sharpening and/or learning some skills (and, to me, not really even "learning" but mainly "sharpening" because everything I've learned about the LSAT so far were things I knew already, on some level, but just needed them pointed out)...skills that even the people who naturally do well had to learn SOMEWHERE. There's nothing wrong with learning how to do this test and learning skills that help make a successful lawyer and a successful law student.
The distinguishing factor is that there are some people who just aren't going to be able to learn these! I saw it when I took Kaplan--there were people in that class who, no matter what they were taught or how many practice problems we did, were just not "getting it." I think the only way you shouldn't have a shot at law school, if it's something you want to do, is if you just can't learn the skills needed. There's nothing wrong with "job training." But there are people--you'll try to teach them how to dance, and they'll just never get it. It's not for them! The example about the engineers Kslaw gives--same thing.
And this is speaking more to those people who score so low that they can't get into ANY law school with their score and nothing seems to help. For example, Lovin1L said his/her score "sucked," but it was obviously good enough to get into a law school, when combined with the GPA. Obviously, getting a 146 does show that someone has the ability if there are schools that accept people with that score (and quite a few do)! There are people who score 165, get into a school and have to ask someone who scored a 157 for help in class repeatedly...it might not be that this person doesn't have what it takes to be an attorney--they might just be at the wrong school...or not studying enough...whatever! And that person with the 157 could have been a person who scored higher were it not for nerves or timing issues...again, whatever! There are so many things that come into play!
« on: February 18, 2004, 11:15:19 PM »
I am also interested in getting some materials from Testmasters. Send a pm here or email to email@example.com
if anyone has any they want to sell.