Thomas M. Cooley Vs. Nova Southeastern AAMPLE program

[nealric]

This is a flame...guessing usually gets you further than a 138
 

Perhaps it is, but not because of the score. Statistically, a 138 should be no more rare than a 162. You just hear from the 162 types much more often.

[LawDog3]

This is a flame...guessing usually gets you further than a 138
 

Perhaps it is, but not because of the score. Statistically, a 138 should be no more rare than a 162. You just hear from the 162 types much more often.

Agreed. And many of these "162 types" are lying...point-blank! I have yet to meet a person in real life who scored below 160. It is statistically impossible that they're all telling the truth. Only 20% of examinees score above 160, and if you're around examinees frequently, only one in four should be saying they scored above the mark. This rule excludes top-25 law schools, of course.

[nealric]

And many of these "162 types" are lying...point-blank! I have yet to meet a person in real life who scored below 160. It is statistically impossible that they're all telling the truth.

Perhaps the social circles you run in are populated by high scorers. Those who attend elite colleges probably don't come across many low scorers.

[Ninja1]

This is a flame...guessing usually gets you further than a 138
 

Perhaps it is, but not because of the score. Statistically, a 138 should be no more rare than a 162. You just hear from the 162 types much more often.

And many of these "162 types" are lying...point-blank! ...

I've met at least 3 people that I know with 100% certainty lied about their scores. One said she got a 160 something, took the LSAT again, said she got a 160 something again, and it turned out she got a 148 and a 152. She now attends the worst school in her state, which has about 5 schools.

Another had pretty much the same pattern going, but she was a lot funnier and was telling everyone that she was getting all of these full rides from everywhere, but the one she was considering the most was... wait for it... Princeton. And she was serious. Anyway, after spending a few months informing people about the fact Princeton hasn't had a law school in over 100 years and telling them to ask her about Princeton and getting the excited feedback from them about how she was really talking it up, I think she figured it out, because then we stopped hearing about Princeton and it became a three way race between NYU, CU, and Syracuse, all offering full rides... The last time I talked to her, she told me she was going to Syracuse for a year than transferring to CU.

And the last one was a guy that was telling everyone he was scoring between 169-172 (it varied depending on who you asked), and he was AA, but he kept taking LSAT prep classes and kept retaking the LSAT. He would generally tell people Chicago was giving him a full ride, but that he wasn't taking it because his wife died and he was starting an orphanage (seriously, and near as I can tell, his wife is still alive) or that the police kept hassling him because he was black and they thought he was a Gangster Disciple because of his tattoos, and now Chicago was stalling him.

People habitually lie about their LSAT scores. I suspect they lie about their grades too, but that's a little harder to see hard evidence of.

[Contract2008]

Moreover, like Vermont and Suffolk can be T2, Chicago-Kent, Loyola (L.A.), Brooklyn Law, Temple, and, to a lesser degree, Miami, are top-30 in the minds of some experts.

Is this another joke of yours?

[LawDog3]

Moreover, like Vermont and Suffolk can be T2, Chicago-Kent, Loyola (L.A.), Brooklyn Law, Temple, and, to a lesser degree, Miami, are top-30 in the minds of some experts.

Is this another joke of yours?

No...might be another joke of those rankers...I don't rank schools. Talk to Vault.com or Lawdragon...or Princeton Review...or Susan Estrich at USC. Don't shoot the messenger.

[LawDog3]

And many of these "162 types" are lying...point-blank! I have yet to meet a person in real life who scored below 160. It is statistically impossible that they're all telling the truth.

Perhaps the social circles you run in are populated by high scorers. Those who attend elite colleges probably don't come across many low scorers.

Touche'. I did come from a school with lots of high scorers who actually got admitted to even better law schools. I went to the University of Washington, and many of my peers are going everywhere from Harvard to Vanderbilt and in-between. Funny thing is, the most popular LSAT coach teaches/taught 1/3 to 1/2 of these people, esp. since Princeton Review is gone, most ppl know Kaplan sucks and Testmasters has no Seattle office.

Ninja-1, that's funny. If they put in as much time actually preparing and doing their research...let alone studying during undergrad, they'd have those rides they keep talking about. "Princeton Law School"...LMAO. That dummy hadn't even checked the rankings.

"CU"? That's Colorado University, right? lol. Columbia Law School is CLS (but I know what you mean) and U-Chicago has no acronym that I know of. 'Cuse, NYU and CLS? Who can't make that choice? 'Cuse is off the list, no diss on 'Cuse. I asked one of my undergrad TA's what schools she had gotten into, and she told me...I'll never forget how she worded this, Well, "'it' came down to" Berkeley and Seattle-U, and I just chose to go to SU b/c they gave me a scholarship."

It's hella sad to listen to someone lie like that to your face and you can just tell they feel bad about it, esp. a teacher who's supposed to be respected. And she lied w/o actually lying. I mean, what does "'it' came down to" mean? Her ambiguity gave her away, and the fact that she was a teacher meant that she knew outright that she would have chosen Berkeley if she'd had the option. She was going into academia, for cryin' outloud; her goal was to be a college or law prof!  

[Ninja1]

And many of these "162 types" are lying...point-blank! I have yet to meet a person in real life who scored below 160. It is statistically impossible that they're all telling the truth.

Perhaps the social circles you run in are populated by high scorers. Those who attend elite colleges probably don't come across many low scorers.

Touche'. I did come from a school with lots of high scorers who actually got admitted to even better law schools. I went to the University of Washington, and many of my peers are going everywhere from Harvard to Vanderbilt and in-between. Funny thing is, the most popular LSAT coach teaches/taught 1/3 to 1/2 of these people, esp. since Princeton Review is gone, most ppl know Kaplan sucks and Testmasters has no Seattle office.

Ninja-1, that's funny. If they put in as much time actually preparing and doing their research...let alone studying during undergrad, they'd have those rides they keep talking about. "Princeton Law School"...LMAO. That dummy hadn't even checked the rankings.

"CU"? That's Colorado University, right? lol. Columbia Law School is CLS (but I know what you mean) and U-Chicago has no acronym that I know of. 'Cuse, NYU and CLS? Who can't make that choice? 'Cuse is off the list, no diss on 'Cuse. I asked one of my undergrad TA's what schools she had gotten into, and she told me...I'll never forget how she worded this, Well, "'it' came down to" Berkeley and Seattle-U, and I just chose to go to SU b/c they gave me a scholarship."

It's hella sad to listen to someone lie like that to your face and you can just tell they feel bad about it, esp. a teacher who's supposed to be respected. And she lied w/o actually lying. I mean, what does "'it' came down to" mean? Her ambiguity gave her away, and the fact that she was a teacher meant that she knew outright that she would have chosen Berkeley had she had the option. She was going into academia, for cryin' outloud; her goal was to be a college or law prof! She must have thought I was really stupid. But she gave me a 3.8/4.0 in her undergrad law class, so that couldn't be it, either.    

They were pretty funny, and they were all habitual liars.

The Princeton one was the best though, her stories were so ridiculous, you just couldn't help but mock her. And every week, they would contain some new element that made them even more absurd. At least the one was only lying about her scores, and the guy was at least somewhat consistent in his lies, even if they were over the top. The girl lied about almost everything (law school and non-law school related), was really inconsistent, and clearly did no research before jumping into her tales.

CU = Colorado. So yeah, she was saying it was between NYU, CU, and Syracuse, and they were all giving her full rides. She told us about 10 other places that were giving her full rides (including a few in England). I'm pretty sure she was just trying to name drop anywhere she'd heard of that sounded even sort of prestigious, causing things like Princeton and the Syracuse-NYU comparison.

Also, a few people that took the LSAT with the Princeton girl said she burned through her LSAT and sat there for the last 5 or 10 minutes in each section. I feel like even if you could get through all of the reading and answer all of the questions that quickly, you'd still go back and check over your answers until time was called.

[LawDog3]

And many of these "162 types" are lying...point-blank! I have yet to meet a person in real life who scored below 160. It is statistically impossible that they're all telling the truth.

Perhaps the social circles you run in are populated by high scorers. Those who attend elite colleges probably don't come across many low scorers.

Touche'. I did come from a school with lots of high scorers who actually got admitted to even better law schools. I went to the University of Washington, and many of my peers are going everywhere from Harvard to Vanderbilt and in-between. Funny thing is, the most popular LSAT coach teaches/taught 1/3 to 1/2 of these people, esp. since Princeton Review is gone, most ppl know Kaplan sucks and Testmasters has no Seattle office.

Ninja-1, that's funny. If they put in as much time actually preparing and doing their research...let alone studying during undergrad, they'd have those rides they keep talking about. "Princeton Law School"...LMAO. That dummy hadn't even checked the rankings.

"CU"? That's Colorado University, right? lol. Columbia Law School is CLS (but I know what you mean) and U-Chicago has no acronym that I know of. 'Cuse, NYU and CLS? Who can't make that choice? 'Cuse is off the list, no diss on 'Cuse. I asked one of my undergrad TA's what schools she had gotten into, and she told me...I'll never forget how she worded this, Well, "'it' came down to" Berkeley and Seattle-U, and I just chose to go to SU b/c they gave me a scholarship."

It's hella sad to listen to someone lie like that to your face and you can just tell they feel bad about it, esp. a teacher who's supposed to be respected. And she lied w/o actually lying. I mean, what does "'it' came down to" mean? Her ambiguity gave her away, and the fact that she was a teacher meant that she knew outright that she would have chosen Berkeley had she had the option. She was going into academia, for cryin' outloud; her goal was to be a college or law prof! She must have thought I was really stupid. But she gave me a 3.8/4.0 in her undergrad law class, so that couldn't be it, either.    

Also, a few people that took the LSAT with the Princeton girl said she burned through her LSAT and sat there for the last 5 or 10 minutes in each section. I feel like even if you could get through all of the reading and answer all of the questions that quickly, you'd still go back and check over your answers until time was called.

Now that's interesting. Those other test-takers should have been so deep in concentration, they wouldn't have known. I can't tell who finishes before me when I take an exam, I am too concentrated.

Still, only a small percentage of LSAT test-takers get over 160, and most of the time, people should be quoting lower scores. I have heard a lot of scores, and maybe 10 people total have ever admitted scoring below 160. I remember exactly who they were, and they still got into good schools. But, so many 165's+ and the like? That doesn't ring true. I had a guy say he got a 170 and cancelled it...which tells me he probably hadn't even taken the LSAT. If he had, he would have known that a cancelled exam is not part of the curve and, thus, cannot be scored. And even if it could, the examinee is not allowed to see it.

[Ninja1]

And many of these "162 types" are lying...point-blank! I have yet to meet a person in real life who scored below 160. It is statistically impossible that they're all telling the truth.

Perhaps the social circles you run in are populated by high scorers. Those who attend elite colleges probably don't come across many low scorers.

Touche'. I did come from a school with lots of high scorers who actually got admitted to even better law schools. I went to the University of Washington, and many of my peers are going everywhere from Harvard to Vanderbilt and in-between. Funny thing is, the most popular LSAT coach teaches/taught 1/3 to 1/2 of these people, esp. since Princeton Review is gone, most ppl know Kaplan sucks and Testmasters has no Seattle office.

Ninja-1, that's funny. If they put in as much time actually preparing and doing their research...let alone studying during undergrad, they'd have those rides they keep talking about. "Princeton Law School"...LMAO. That dummy hadn't even checked the rankings.

"CU"? That's Colorado University, right? lol. Columbia Law School is CLS (but I know what you mean) and U-Chicago has no acronym that I know of. 'Cuse, NYU and CLS? Who can't make that choice? 'Cuse is off the list, no diss on 'Cuse. I asked one of my undergrad TA's what schools she had gotten into, and she told me...I'll never forget how she worded this, Well, "'it' came down to" Berkeley and Seattle-U, and I just chose to go to SU b/c they gave me a scholarship."

It's hella sad to listen to someone lie like that to your face and you can just tell they feel bad about it, esp. a teacher who's supposed to be respected. And she lied w/o actually lying. I mean, what does "'it' came down to" mean? Her ambiguity gave her away, and the fact that she was a teacher meant that she knew outright that she would have chosen Berkeley had she had the option. She was going into academia, for cryin' outloud; her goal was to be a college or law prof! She must have thought I was really stupid. But she gave me a 3.8/4.0 in her undergrad law class, so that couldn't be it, either.    

Also, a few people that took the LSAT with the Princeton girl said she burned through her LSAT and sat there for the last 5 or 10 minutes in each section. I feel like even if you could get through all of the reading and answer all of the questions that quickly, you'd still go back and check over your answers until time was called.

Now that's interesting. Those other test-takers should have been so deep in concentration, they wouldn't have known. I can't tell who finishes before me when I take an exam, I am too concentrated.

Still, only a small percentage of LSAT test-takers get over 160, and most of the time, people should be quoting lower scores. I have heard a lot of scores, and maybe 10 people total have ever admitted scoring below 160. I remember exactly who they were, and they still got into good schools. But, so many 165's+ and the like? That doesn't ring true. I had a guy say he got a 170 and cancelled it...which tells me he probably hadn't even taken the LSAT. If he had, he would have known that a cancelled exam is not part of the curve and, thus, cannot be scored. And even if it could, the examinee is not allowed to see it.

And that's how I usually catch the LSAT liars, by hooking them on procedural discrepancies.

As for the LSAT, I think you'd notice if someone was sitting there for 5 minutes doing nothing, even if you were working your ass off. Subconscious mind and ninja vision and *&^%.

I also know a guy that lied about getting into Texas (he didn't know what a personal statement was) and is now going into the Army as an enlisted man, even though he has a BA.