Law School Discussion

GW Ding

eileen2004

Re: GW Ding
« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2004, 06:59:54 AM »
I wouldn't pay too much attention to LSN, Eileen (and others).  LSN is rather skewed and doesn't give a completely accurate view of one's chances.  Eileen, for your numbers (172, 2.78), GW accepted 6 out of 22 applicants last year (~27%).  I would trust this data from LSAC much more than the self-reported and skewed data from LSN.

There's always hope...

According to GW's website, for Fall 2004 they accepted 1 out of 30 in my range.  That seems pretty grim. 

NYKnicks

Re: GW Ding
« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2004, 08:03:06 AM »
I wouldn't pay too much attention to LSN, Eileen (and others).  LSN is rather skewed and doesn't give a completely accurate view of one's chances.  Eileen, for your numbers (172, 2.78), GW accepted 6 out of 22 applicants last year (~27%).  I would trust this data from LSAC much more than the self-reported and skewed data from LSN.

There's always hope...

According to GW's website, for Fall 2004 they accepted 1 out of 30 in my range.  That seems pretty grim. 

Ah geez, guess its the same odds for :-\
Looking at their data it really seems like they don't like splits. They only take the solid people.

__

  • *****
  • 17210
  • Chowdah mmmm
    • View Profile
Re: GW Ding
« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2004, 09:09:13 AM »
I wouldn't pay too much attention to LSN, Eileen (and others).  LSN is rather skewed and doesn't give a completely accurate view of one's chances.  Eileen, for your numbers (172, 2.78), GW accepted 6 out of 22 applicants last year (~27%).  I would trust this data from LSAC much more than the self-reported and skewed data from LSN.

There's always hope...

According to GW's website, for Fall 2004 they accepted 1 out of 30 in my range.  That seems pretty grim. 

Ah geez, guess its the same odds for :-\
Looking at their data it really seems like they don't like splits. They only take the solid people.

Hrm... me too. so I guess the odds of all three of us getting in are 1 in 90.  I got my fingers crossed.

eileen2004

Re: GW Ding
« Reply #23 on: December 17, 2004, 09:39:54 AM »

Hrm... me too. so I guess the odds of all three of us getting in are 1 in 90.  I got my fingers crossed.

Nah... you're in a different GPA range.  18 out of 58 for your numbers last year.  The admit numbers are a little weird, though.  If you go down a box on the GPA/LSAT chart, there are more people getting in with my GPA and a lower LSAT score.  I wish there were breakdowns of PT vs. FT.  That would be much more useful to me.   

Gummo

Re: GW Ding
« Reply #24 on: December 17, 2004, 09:45:22 AM »
Quote

I wish there were breakdowns of PT vs. FT.  That would be much more useful to me.   
Quote

Agreed.  It would also be helpful if they split the ranges up a bit more...big difference between a 160 and a 164.

dubris

Re: GW Ding
« Reply #25 on: December 17, 2004, 04:09:42 PM »
My first Ding. Letter dated 12/10  :'(

murkydreamer

Re: GW Ding
« Reply #26 on: December 17, 2004, 04:17:09 PM »
Aww, sorry dubris  :(.  You have gotten into some nice schools though  :).

waxman

  • ****
  • 210
  • 3.54 / 160
    • View Profile
Re: GW Ding
« Reply #27 on: December 18, 2004, 10:03:59 AM »
GW ding letter came today.

Gummo

Re: GW Ding
« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2004, 10:19:05 AM »
GW ding letter came today.

I'm sorry, Waxman :(.  did you apply pt or ft?

waxman

  • ****
  • 210
  • 3.54 / 160
    • View Profile
Re: GW Ding
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2004, 11:22:52 AM »