Total Members Voted: 24
Eh it's the internet. Most of those xoxoers are probably not like that in real life. They use the internet as an opporutnity to be a troll. I doubt they are thinking about her after they sign off and go back to their lives.
Quote from: Victor on March 03, 2005, 04:36:20 PMWho is this Jennaye person?A white woman who, prior to getting accepted to Boalt with a 160/3.7, made statements to the effect that the only way low-LSAT applicants get into top schools is through AA.
Who is this Jennaye person?
Quote from: lil_token on March 03, 2005, 04:47:40 PMQuote from: Victor on March 03, 2005, 04:36:20 PMWho is this Jennaye person?A white woman who, prior to getting accepted to Boalt with a 160/3.7, made statements to the effect that the only way low-LSAT applicants get into top schools is through AA.Come on now, you're completely misrepresenting what I said. Please cite the entry where I said this. Thanks.(oh, and that was a 3.87, not 3.7)
I looked at numbers for Boalt and UCLA, and saw that a small pool of applicants with my numbers were admitted. So, I began to wonder who those people were. Were they people with outstanding LORs? Were they people who wrote addendums to explain their LSAT score? Were they all HYS grads? Were they URMs? I just chose the URMs explanation because it seemed like a likely explanation.
So I've been looking over the GPA/LSAT charts of applicants/acceptances (for Berkeley and UCLA, specifically) and despite my crappy LSAT score (160), some people in my LSAT/GPA range (3.84 GPA) and even those below my LSAT range were in fact accepted to each school. (about 15% with my stats, in fact).Are those who were accepted all URMs?Why would they accept people with lower LSAT scores while rejecting people with 170+? I'd like to think it's because they've got outstanding recommendations, extracurriculars, and academic honors (like I do) but I'm still not holding out hope.
Page created in 0.874 seconds with 21 queries.