ABC and Twhat,
This post wasn't meant to be a challenge or to posit my "superiority." I was trying to present as much evidence as possible so you could give me reliable feedback. Some people think U of Chicago is just another state school. But, yes, I'll probably be retaking.
Heartbreaker:
I appreciate your assessment. However, while many Master's programs provide funds to support future and present PhD. programs, that fact alone does not mean that they are disregarded. If that were the case, so many people out of my program would not have received full fellowships to doctoral programs at Princeton, Berkeley, Harvard etc and other schools that typically accept 10 out of 300 applicants a year. Also, at many schools, the social sciences are integral to the study of law.
Tasha:
No offense, but I don't believe one word of your sweeping statement, "law schools don't care one bit about your master's." The amount of research and analysis it required is the very skill that law schools are trying to predict. Does that mean I will get in? No. But it doesn't suggest that it's meaningless. There are many law professors who teach in social sciences- economics, philosophy, etc (think Martha Nussbaum)- and would know that is an impressive feat, since Chicago is the birthplace of American political science. Also, how is it that many top schools deny people who score in the high 170's, and that the book written by the former admissions dean at Harvard claimed that the LSAT could mean little for certain applicants, compared to others who do not have other factors in their favor?
Nealric- Thanks, I will study more. The rest of you need to expand your perspective and see admissions as some combination of a "holistic process." I am trying to understand that holism, not your monolithic, impetuous theories.