Deleted

[MR2Tyler]

Ok, seriously, back to this whole Mensa thing:

If the criterion for Mensa membership is top 2% of the population (http://www.us.mensa.org/join_mensa/priorevidence.php3), why is a 163 LSAT (corresponding to the top ~90% of LS applicants) acceptable?  Does this mean that the top 10% of LS applicants are equivalent to the top 2% of the population? 

I figured we were way better than that  ;-)

-Ty

[MR2Tyler]

That kind of attitude won't get you anywhere once I'm president of Mensa.

-Ty

[Lordo]

I don't mean to sound like a jerk when I say this, but the real question is why didn't you do better on the LSAT?

It is curious when this statement is made, as if everyone can get a 170 or above on the LSAT. Isn't 170 and above the 99th percentile? Therefore, isn't it a literal impossibility for more than 1% of those who take the test to score above 170? No matter how hard you study, no matter what you do, only 1/100 who take the test will get a 170. It just doesn't happen for 99 percent of us.

[InVinoVeritas]

schools say they don't have a cut-off and that soft factors matter because, your experience notwithsanding, there are successful applicants who fall outside of the a school's typical GPA/LSAT range;  their success is surely due to soft factors.  i don't think adcomms are giving anyone false hope when they say this and make their GPA/LSAT ranges available to the public.  unfortunately for you, some other applicant's soft factors have been viewed as far more impressive than yours.  it's tough to realize that maybe you're not as special as you think you are, but i don't think i'd be exaggerating when i say most of us have also been in the same position. 

that said, chin up!  if you're really unhappy with any of your options for this fall, take another stab at the process next year.  good luck!

[Cyndra]

I feel these alleged top law schools were really misleading.  They all claim to look at other "soft" factors.  I am absolutely convinced that all these schools look at is LSAT score and race.

It's easy to blame others i.e. URMs for a non-URM not getting into a top school. But face it, even if your LSAT had been better (and it's not bad, really) there are only so many spots available. Just because you applied doesn't mean that you will or should get a seat. And when you don't, it sounds really hateful of you to say that they only look at LSAT scores and race. Wherever you end up, so long as it isn't a historically black institution, look around you. Note how few black people are in your class. Then think about what you said. If all they are looking at are numbers and race, wouldn't you see a whole lot more color in your law school class? The fact is, the higher up you move, the fewer people of color you will find. Believe me, I've been the only black person in class often enough to know just how true that is.

Cheer up. The fact that someone else got in did not make you any less deserving at a shot--we all got our shot. But just because you think you should get in, or really really want it, doesn't mean it will be. It can't be for everyone. There are only 14 T14s, for example, all with room for a finite number of matriculants. Face it, we all can't get in. Be grateful for what you do have, because there is someone else at a 4th tier who'd kill to be in your shoes--or worse yet, someone with no acceptances at all.

And if you think things are stacked up so badly against you being a non-URM, don't mention your race. It's optional. Even so, there are no guarantees that you would get in. Don't be bitter. Instead be happy. For anyone who has gotten in anywhere, this is happy season. It'll take some time, but you'll be fine, and will hopefully be happy wherever you end up. Good luck to you.

[WitterUin4]

I feel these alleged top law schools were really misleading.  They all claim to look at other "soft" factors.  I am absolutely convinced that all these schools look at is LSAT score and race.

It's easy to blame others i.e. URMs for a non-URM not getting into a top school. But face it, even if your LSAT had been better (and it's not bad, really) there are only so many spots available. Just because you applied doesn't mean that you will or should get a seat. And when you don't, it sounds really hateful of you to say that they only look at LSAT scores and race. Wherever you end up, so long as it isn't a historically black institution, look around you. Note how few black people are in your class. Then think about what you said. If all they are looking at are numbers and race, wouldn't you see a whole lot more color in your law school class? The fact is, the higher up you move, the fewer people of color you will find. Believe me, I've been the only black person in class often enough to know just how true that is.

Cheer up. The fact that someone else got in did not make you any less deserving at a shot--we all got our shot. But just because you think you should get in, or really really want it, doesn't mean it will be. It can't be for everyone. There are only 14 T14s, for example, all with room for a finite number of matriculants. Face it, we all can't get in. Be grateful for what you do have, because there is someone else at a 4th tier who'd kill to be in your shoes--or worse yet, someone with no acceptances at all.

And if you think things are stacked up so badly against you being a non-URM, don't mention your race. It's optional. Even so, there are no guarantees that you would get in. Don't be bitter. Instead be happy. For anyone who has gotten in anywhere, this is happy season. It'll take some time, but you'll be fine, and will hopefully be happy wherever you end up. Good luck to you.

Couldn't have said it better. Thanks for that.

[ryanjm]

I agree that it is a numbers game. I'm not going to bash your softs like some people, but I think that you're really reaching if you think that it will boost your LSAT 5-7 points which is what it would take to be competitive with the other Ivy applicants. At the end of the day, all they're looking for is someone who has a high potential to be successful at their law school--LSAT and GPA are the greatest predictors of that. Softs are what get URMs in and what differentiate two people with very similar numbers.

[V00Jeff]

I don't mean to sound like a jerk when I say this, but the real question is why didn't you do better on the LSAT?

It is curious when this statement is made, as if everyone can get a 170 or above on the LSAT. Isn't 170 and above the 99th percentile? Therefore, isn't it a literal impossibility for more than 1% of those who take the test to score above 170? No matter how hard you study, no matter what you do, only 1/100 who take the test will get a 170. It just doesn't happen for 99 percent of us.

I love arguments like this!  They're so LSAT-ish.

Yeah, everyone can't get above a 170 on the LSAT.  I truly do believe, though, that most smart people can get above a 170 if they study their butts off.  I say this because that is what happened to me -- when I first took practice tests, I got around 160...but I studied every day for maybe 5 hours a day for a month -- and I got a 176.  I don't think that most people study this hard.  And while it might be true that some people can study this hard and still not get a 170, from everything we know about this guy (business school teacher at 21, high GPA from a great school, etc.), it sounds like he's smart enough to do it too.

But you just gotta love it when people try to point out the logical inconsistency of arguments on a discussion board like this.  This board isn't a trial, or a LSAT logical reasoning section.

[MR2Tyler]

This board isn't a trial, or a LSAT logical reasoning section.

Man, now I'm never going to get into Yale.

-Ty

[Lordo]

Yeah, everyone can't get above a 170 on the LSAT.  I truly do believe, though, that most smart people can get above a 170 if they study their butts off.  I say this because that is what happened to me

So "most smart people" can get above a 170 if they try hard enough and you base that on your own experience? LOL.

ok man whatever you say.