Where should I go?

[ccorsi]

Andy,

You are the perfect example of what I am talking about.

You seem like a nice and reasonable guy - so what the heck are you doing applying to Harvard, Penn, Coulmbia, & NYU.  Clearly you aren't going to get in there nor would I - so you applying to such ridiculous reach schools is why the whole process gets bogged down.

By your theory of I have to take every possible shot - you might as well apply to every ABA school so every possible scenario is explored.

My point is - do some research determine the schools that are attainable and then apply.  this carpet bombing approach of 20+ schools is beyond ridiculous.

C2

[ilsox7]

My point is - do some research determine the schools that are attainable and then apply.  this carpet bombing approach of 20+ schools is beyond ridiculous.

I totally disagree.  For instance, my LSAT is 6 points below the median and my GPA is at or below the median at W&L, yet I still applied.  And I got on the WL.  At leastI have a fighting chance...which I would not have had if I hadn't applied.  No one can read the mind of an adcomm and know if something on their app will catch the eye of a particular school, so why not take some chances?  Having said that, what is ridiculous is applying to schools you'd have no intention to going to.  But applying to multiple reaches is actually smart.

[SleepyGuyYawn]

What bugs me is your perspective on money.  It must have cost her around two grand to apply to all those schools (app fee plus lsdas report).  That's a monumental waste of money.  It bothers me b/c it seems to just not matter to her.  But I guess if you've grown up with privilege all your life, you might think like this.

If only she'd have done some real thinking about what schools to apply to, she could have given the extra twelve hundred dollars to somebody who actually needs it.

It's just gluttony -- that's what bothers me so much.  That you can spend that kind of money without a second thought.  But I'm pretty sure you don't get it.  That's what you get when you never have to work for what you have.

[SleepyGuyYawn]

But applying to multiple reaches is actually smart.

Yes, and one more example of how people born into wealth and privilege have yet another advantage over the rest of us.

[ilsox7]

What bugs me is your perspective on money.  It must have cost her around two grand to apply to all those schools (app fee plus lsdas report).  That's a monumental waste of money.  It bothers me b/c it seems to just not matter to her.  But I guess if you've grown up with privilege all your life, you might think like this.

If only she'd have done some real thinking about what schools to apply to, she could have given the extra twelve hundred dollars to somebody who actually needs it.

It's just gluttony -- that's what bothers me so much.  That you can spend that kind of money without a second thought.  But I'm pretty sure you don't get it.  That's what you get when you never have to work for what you have.

No offense, but how people spend their money is their own business.  I would be less worried about someone dropping 2 grand on law school applications (when they will spend 150K+ total for the whole experience) than people who spend millions on luxuries.  Just because you find it a waste of money doesn't mean it is a waste to that person.  Who knows, maybe that 25th school will be the one they go to, and they will go into a great non-profit and save the world!  Then what?  Would that 2 grand still be a waste?

Again, the only crime is applying to schools which you would never go to.

[ilsox7]

Yes, and one more example of how people born into wealth and privilege have yet another advantage over the rest of us.

So because someone has the money to apply to many law schools means they have been born into wealth?  Wow, if that isn't a horribly unjustified rationalization.

EDIT: I should note that 2 of my biggest pet peeves are "rich" people who go around and flaunt it and "poor" people who go around and complain about how people spend their money. 

[VivaLaMuerte]

FWIW, when I got my LSAT score back, and it was over 10 points below my average practice score, I applied to a bunch more schools. I think I doubled the original number.

 Let's assume the OP applied to around 10-12 schools in the first place, with a certain score expected. It is not surprising that s/he might apply to 10-12 more upon learning the actual LSAT score.  With an entirely new and significantly different range in mind, doubling the amount of schools applied to makes perfect sense.  So, none of us would gasp about 10-12 schools, right?  That's roughly the recommended amount.  What makes 15 schools so much different/worse? 

[ccorsi]

1st of all, being on a waitlist is not the same as being accepted - so i take issue with your GPA/LSAT range example.  

Top tier schools are such number whores that you aren't going to get into a t14 when your numbers are significantly below their averages unless you are a URM - that is a fact.  Now you could transfer in as that doesn't effect their #s, but that is another conversation.

With that said, applying to the world is a selfish act.  You can rationalize it, and say it attempts to work around an unjust system - fine.  However, in the end - what it really accomplishes is a trickle down system that slows and makes more arduous an already lenghty process.

I mean where do we draw the line?  Everyone should apply to 100 schools?

C2

[SleepyGuyYawn]

No offense, but how people spend their money is their own business.  

I disagree.  Let's face it -- luxuries mean that you're taking more resources than you need. And if you take more than your share of the pie (the pie of resources), somebody else suffers.  Did you know that half of the world's children live in poverty?  And have the world lives on less than two dollars a day -- often with no access to modern health care (like AIDS treatment), clean water, enough food, etc.

I would be less worried about someone dropping 2 grand on law school applications (when they will spend 150K+ total for the whole experience) than people who spend millions on luxuries.  

Okay, but this is still really unnecessarily in my opinion.

Just because you find it a waste of money doesn't mean it is a waste to that person.  Who knows, maybe that 25th school will be the one they go to, and they will go into a great non-profit and save the world!  Then what?  Would that 2 grand still be a waste?

If she'd have done her research, then the 25th school would have been one she'd applied to anyways.


Again, the only crime is applying to schools which you would never go to.

What -- so if you have a 150 LSAT, then it's okay to apply to every one of the top 100 law schools?  Just because you'd go to any of them if they'd let you in?  Even though the chances that you'd get in would be microscopic?


So because someone has the money to apply to many law schools means they have been born into wealth?  Wow, if that isn't a horribly unjustified rationalization.

If you'd have read the thread, you'd know she said that her parents are paying (loaning without interest) her the money for law school and so she said that money didn't matter.

Yes, I'd say the fact that your parents can just loan you 150 grand is pretty good evidence of being pretty wealthy.  My parents couldn't manage to loan me even a couple thousand.  

EDIT: I should note that 2 of my biggest pet peeves are "rich" people who go around and flaunt it and "poor" people who go around and complain about how people spend their money.

You know what?  The poor people deserve to complain.  Because when rich people spend their money on useless luxuries, they hurt the poor people.  And don't you dare say that the poor people should just work harder.  There are plenty of farmers and people who dedicate their lives to working for non-profits and others who're poor and work very hard.

I'll complain until I'm f*cking blue in the face if I want!

[ilsox7]

1st of all, being on a waitlist is not the same as being accepted - so i take issue with your GPA/LSAT range example. 

You said that applying to schools where you numerically have no chance of getting in is selfish and stupid.  Numerically, I had no chance at W&L.  Of course being on the WL is not an acceptance, but it certainly shows that I have a chance at getting in, which refutes your statement.

As for where it should stop?  It should stop at law schools that you would not attend even if you were accepted.  Just because some people are set on a certain region, or know where they want to practice and thus choose schools based on that, does not mean EVERYONE has to follow those standards when applying.  This isn;t the applicant's fault, it's the law schools' fault.  Many law schools welcome a deluge of applications by asking for generic personal statements.  This allows them to reject more people, thus increase their selectivity, which is just stupid.  Some schools (like Loyola Chicago) forgoe the typical PS and sk specifc questions about Loyola.  If every school did this, the system would be mostly fixed.  However, unless every school did this, the ones who did would feel some pain from USNEWS.  And Godforbid they have that.