Reading this board gets you psyched out

[utaustin]

Seriously, it does. Especially the signatures with the LSAT score progression. I honestly feel better and perform better when I stay away for a few days.

To those people who are making up ridiculous scores, shame one you.

And if you have 2 weeks to go before the LSAT, only come to post/review questions.

Okay, I guess that qualifies as a rant? 

[Bisquick]

I think that for the June LSAT, many more people were practicing above 170 than actually got a 170.  There are, what 10 170's on this board?

[Matthew_24_24]

About that...but still...

There aren't 1000 posters on this board.  This board is skewed to people who score high and as a result raises the level of competition. 

I for one have benefited from it immensely.  Before I thought games sections were completely too hard, and that no one ever aced them minus someone who fluked out, and that it was okay to just do 3 games.

My attitude changed coming here.  I really compare this board (considering there is nothing similar) to a highly competitive track or swim team.  If you end up being 2nd or 3rd last in your class, you'll still be better than 90% of your competition. 

Matt

[murkydreamer]

I actually agree with Matt on this one.  Reading this board has given me a lot of helpful information.  Plus, you have to realize that a lot of people don't put NEARLY as much effort into the whole law school application process as us semi-obsessive people on LSD do .  I don't really see a point to posting my own practice scores, so I don't.  But it is somewhat inspiring to see people who have improved by a lot, whether they are in the 150s, 160s, or 170s.

[midjeep]

I get mixed feelings from these postings. Sometimes I get the motivation to take on practice problems left and right. MOST of the time I get depressed seeing everyone else's progression because I can't move out of this rut. I have a decent application so it sucks that ONE stupid test is keeping me out of law school. I guess here is MY rant....

[shanrocks]

I agree with midjeep on this one. Despite having a UGPA of 2.97, I think my application is very strong.  I am older (32), have tons of work and travel experience, and have written a kick ass personal statement and resume.

However, my LSAT practice scores are in the low 150's.  I know I can be a successful attorney.  I work in the field now and already do a lot of the work they do.  I think it is ridiculous the amount of emphasis that is placed on this f***ing test!  Honestly, if someone misses 10 more quesitons than someone else, that makes them less suited for law school??  I think the whole thing is B.S.

Just had to rant also!!

By the way midjeep, I am also applying to GMU next year.  It is my first choice.  I think it is amazing you were waitlisted there last year.  They seem to be elitist LSAT snobs.

[Matthew_24_24]

I agree with you completely on this.  I only play the LSAT game because i have to.  I think applications should be measured on the following criteria:

40% GPA (undergrad or GRAD degree)
10% difficulty of program
10% quality of undergrad institution (each school could have their own criteria here)

40% lsat OR 40% work experience, PS, LOR, essay component (separate from PS).

Whereby law schools split their entrance class into an LSAT component (100 people) and a  work experience component (100 people) and you can get in either way, with neither the LSAT affecting the work experience entrance class and vice versa.

That way, you can get a mix of all types of people with different strengths.  Shrug...might not be perfect but sounds a hell of a lot better than the system they have now.

Matt

[zxcvbnm]

I agree with you completely on this.  I only play the LSAT game because i have to.  I think applications should be measured on the following criteria:

40% GPA (undergrad or GRAD degree)
10% difficulty of program
10% quality of undergrad institution (each school could have their own criteria here)

40% lsat OR 40% work experience, PS, LOR, essay component (separate from PS).

Whereby law schools split their entrance class into an LSAT component (100 people) and a  work experience component (100 people) and you can get in either way, with neither the LSAT affecting the work experience entrance class and vice versa.

That way, you can get a mix of all types of people with different strengths.  Shrug...might not be perfect but sounds a hell of a lot better than the system they have now.

Matt

There're reasons the LSAT is weighted as heavily as it is, which I'm sure we're probably all aware of. Not only is it the single across the board measure of comparison between applicants, but it also has by far the highest correlation with success in law school. Presumably, success in law school correlates with success as a lawyer. Even if it didn't though, the actual GPA/LSAT formula they use still tells law schools which applicants are likely to do well within their own system, which is what they're after anyway. The weighting percentages aren't just picked out of the blue.

As an aside, I'd be interested to find out exactly how optimized this formula is, though, and what it's optimized for. The fact that they're using it suggests that it's the best one, but who knows? If a school admitted a class exclusively off of LSAT scores, would their 1L grades be higher or lower than those of a regular class? I suspect it would depend heavily on the school and the overall level of applicants. If Yale just took the top 200 scores it received, it would probably wind up with a fair number of extremely bright but not especially great students. A mid-tier school would probably get a better class on the whole though, eliminating a lot of the mediocre LSAT applicants who have relatively high GPA's from unimpressive places.

As for LOR's, PS, etc., the schools seem right in giving very little weight to these, turning them into formalities more than anything. The fact that you can spend several weeks and write a decent 500 word essay, or impress a teacher or two along the way, doesn't really speak to one's ability to do well in law school or as a lawyer. They're more just safeguards to make sure the school doesn't take any real screwups: if someone can't manage to get a single halfway decent LOR, there's probably something wrong with him/her.

Work experience is neither here nor there, I think. If you did a stellar job as a paralegal, logically that should help your app in a big way. But then should people who've spent the past several years doing something completely unrelated to law (say, firefighting) be penalized in comparison?

[midjeep]

Yeah, GMU weighs the LSAT more than most schools. Last year, its median was a 165 (if this is the case, I understand why I wasn't accepted off the waitlist....my score could have dropped the median score by a point). But even with its strong push for the LSAT, I think the environment of the school is perfect for me. The students are congenial but it is still competative. Either way, good luck on GMU and the LSAT. I just took the Dec 1997 LSAT and improved by 5 points, but I think the reason for the increase is the fact that the test was much easier than the ones we take today. Even though I was waitlisted at GMU, I feel like I couldn't even get into Cooley or Florida Coastal Law School (not saying that these schools are terrible).

Maybe I should buy a Dipolma frame and frame my waitlist letter. I can always say I was close.....

[Jeit]

Yes, this website is great. I've learned a lot here in less than a month. When I get closer to my LSAT (June) I'll probably post a lot more question/answer threads.