Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Laura Roslin

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17
My first response to all chances questions: will change your life.   :)

Re: CLS - tough to say.  170 might be a bit too low for them - they're pretty LSAT-focused.  (Look at their LSN graph - there is a pretty significant admit line at 172.)  Here are some similar applicants from last year:

It looks like you would probably be waitlisted, unfortunately.  Broadening the LSAT range to 169-171 generates similar results - the only two accepts had a second LSAT score of 172+. 

That said, you should definitely apply; LSN isn't a perfect sample by any means.  And if CLS doesn't work out, you'll still be in a great position for the schools ranked 8-14.  Good luck!

Law School Admissions / Re: June 2008 LSAT -- any fee waivers yet?
« on: August 21, 2008, 03:54:35 PM »
Duke sent a fee waiver to me, too.  But I'm not one of their Priorities.   ;) 

The criteria for the Priority Track program seem almost as random as the rest of the fee waiver process.  ???   I've stopped trying to figure it out.

Law School Admissions / Re: Duke Priority Track
« on: August 21, 2008, 02:25:50 PM »
Count your blessings.

Apparently it's Duke that doesn't want me. 

Just so your misery has company, Wall:  Duke doesn't love me either. ;D  I suspect that my sub-3.75 GPA did me in.  *shrugs* 

Law School Admissions / Re: June 2008 LSAT -- any fee waivers yet?
« on: August 20, 2008, 12:52:37 PM »
Well, at least one T14 school is doing fee waivers this year:

Georgetown (8/20) - via email

The message specifies that the fee will be automatically waived on LSDAS.  (It's not clear from the wording whether the waiver applies to paper applications, but that doesn't matter to me.)  Yay!  ;D

Also, the other day I received a postcard about the GW full-ride ED program.  No mention of a fee waiver, though.

Anyone else get anything recently?

If by undocumented you mean illegal immigrants, then I doubt you'll be able to pass the bar's ethic's review, cause you are here on illegal grounds. So no point to even going to law school. 

isn't that the same reasoning as "why eat food to keep yourself alive if you're going to die anyway?"

there are millions of reasons why people should try to improve their livelihood.

I think cheese's concern is that if you can't pass the bar due to your immigration status, you can't practice as an attorney.  If you can't practice as an attorney, will having a JD really improve your livelihood?  I suppose there are scenarios where it might, but on the whole you'd probably be better off with an MBA/MPP/other graduate degree (usually cheaper, and likely more relevant to whatever career you're pursuing.)  Yeah, you can do things with a JD besides being a lawyer...but I'm not sure why you would get a JD in this situation. 

Also, would someone in that situation have access to federal student loans?  I thought you had to have at least a green card for Staffords/PLUS? Without federal loans, paying for law school would be really hard.  Private credit markets are tight these days - getting $100k+ for tuition without being able to practice law afterwards would be quite difficult, I would think. 

IMHO, someone in that situation would really need to look hard at their reasons for pursuing a JD.  It strikes me as perhaps not the best use of three years of one's life (plus a lot of money!)  But maybe there's a rational I'm not seeing...   ???

Law School Admissions / Re: Honest question about URM
« on: August 16, 2008, 12:54:32 PM »
Hey -

Well, I'd never tell someone not to apply to their dream school, but getting into Cornell with a 161 is really tough. It's five points below their 25th percentile, and your GPA is only barely over their 75th (and given the way school numbers keep rising each year, that is a dicey situation - high GPAs are more common than high LSATs.)  If you really want Cornell, I think you have to strongly consider retaking the LSAT. 

For the purposes of law school admissions, URMs are African Americans, Native Americans, Mexican-Americans and Puerto Rican applicants.  (There is some debate about whether other Hispanic applicants get a boost - conventional wisdom says there's probably some bump, but not as much as for the groups I mentioned.)   I second your hope that we can avoid an AA debate.

If you can't retake, go ahead and apply anyway - my belief about this sort of thing is that a career without regrets is worth the $80.  The worst they can do is reject you, right?  ;D  Good luck!

Law School Admissions / Re: An epiphany
« on: August 13, 2008, 06:41:56 PM »

My yorkiepoo puppies <3  :-* <3   :-* <3


My parents have a cockapoo...I don't have any good pictures of him ATM, but he looked like a white version of your puppies when he was younger.  So cute! ;D

Re: not responding unless you can say something nice: that tends to be my rule, as well.   Otherwise, you get a TLS-style nitpick-tastic bonfire of the vanities.  Not good.  Not good at all.

To the OP:  Stay away from Kaplan - they don't have a great reputation.  Take the June 2007 diagnostic available free from LSAC's website under strictly timed conditions, determine your weaknesses, and come back for more specific advice on whether you need a course.  (LSAT rule of thumb: you'll probably need the Powerscore Logic Games Bible, if you're among the 95% of people for whom the games section is a mystery at first.)  For admissions info, head on down to  Spending quality (and quantity!) time reviewing that website will give you a good sense of what various schools are looking for.   As long as you have something to put on your resume (clubs?  work-study?  volunteering?), you'll be okay.  If you do those things, you will be ahead of many applicants.  Good luck!

Incoming 1Ls / Re: Had first lay prestige snub the other day
« on: August 11, 2008, 04:12:45 PM »
I understand the lay prestige problem.

I know people who prefer the opposite - a friend of mine did Yale undergrad and hates getting asked where he went for college.

I knew a girl just like that too! When I met her I asked where she went to school and she muttered something like "...hayward..." under her breath. I asked again and got the same muffled noise. Then I asked a third time and she confessed she went to Harvard. Pretty funny. She was from a small plains state though, and next to no one around here ends up at an Ivy League.

I am definitely one of these people.  The summer before college, my friend's SO's mom asked where I was going to school.  I muttered the name so quietly that she thought I just said "yeah."  Ever since then, my friend has always referred to my college as Yeah University.   ;D

Politics and Law-Related News / Re: A Word on Edwards
« on: August 09, 2008, 12:40:41 PM »
I agree. The bickering between Republicans and Democrats is sickining especially over personal matters. Spitzer, Larry Craig... it really is all the same. Clinton I felt was a little over the top, too... however I still feel the impeachment was right due to the purjury aspect.

The bottom line is: we should focus on the issues and stop being vultures.

Yeah, because that will happen.   ;D

Politics has always been a form of entertainment; I cannot imagine that changing in our lifetimes.  People are always going to be voyeurs about politicians' (and other celebrities') private lives.   With that known - and in particular, with the Clinton impeachment debacle in his party's recent past - I have to conclude that John Edwards was monumentally stupid and selfish, which is a good enough reason to disqualify him from further consideration for high political office. 

You're both right that the affair itself was and is the Edwards family's own beeswax.  But if this really happened in 2006...he ran. For President.  ANYWAY.  Knowing this was in the background, knowing it would come out sooner or later.  (The Enquirer was already sniffing around this story in November 2007!)  He came shockingly close to winning Iowa; if he had, he could very well have become the anti-Hillary, gotten Obama's endorsement and won the nomination.  And then this story comes out?  Look, I realize Tim's not a Democrat, so maybe this counterfactual doesn't sound so bad to you, but imagine if the parties were reversed.  It's just the height of stupidity and arrogance.  That's why this is an embarrassment, and why I have no problem with the continued focus on it.  Maybe it will scare future would-be candidates to THINK before they put their parties, and the causes they supposedly believe in, at risk. 

BTW, I'm not a particularly liberal critter.  But I have a serious knee-jerk aversion to arrogance.  And this was unforgivably arrogant.  *end rant* 

Law School Admissions / Re: LAW SCHOOL CALCULATOR- Accurate or not?
« on: August 08, 2008, 12:08:46 AM »
If the calculators are unreliable for URMs, they're completely useless for Laura.  The sample size is so small that typos are statistically significant.

9-1 at Harvard, 11-0 at Columbia, though, and similar almost everywhere else.  You never can tell with splitters, and particularly not splitters with 180s, but I'd definitely trade my GPA for her LSAT score. 

"Thanks, courteous Wall: Jove shield thee well for this!"

But seriously - I'd make that swap any day.  Truly.  You're a lock everywhere but Yale and Stanford.   You're going to have T6es carting bags of scholarship money to your house.  I am...not, so much.   ;D   I remain unmoved from my position that after you hit 175+, nobody cares.

Also - I'm a splitter now?  Yikes! What is this world coming to?   :o

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17