Hola all I'm Mark I got a 169 in October and had around 20 apps ready to fire away as soon as I got my test results back. I'd like to share my results so far as well as some waitlist management advice. I've been obsessing about getting off the waitlist and have done a ludicrous amount of research (research sounds better than obsession).

I am what the Dean of admissions at Yale called a "super soft" aka military veteran and my ugpa was 3.42 which is notably low for t14.

Accepted with scholarship: Uga, Emory, Notre Dame

Denied: Harvard, Chicago, Cornell, Berkeley

Waitlist: UCLA, Georgetown, Northwestern, Penn, Michigan

My top choice is Northwestern and I'm doing everything in my control to get off their waitlist. Ultimately it will come down to how their class looks after their first and second deposit deadlines and what they class needs in terms of student demographic composition, and what the school's/Dean's goals are for that class (based on interviews I've listened to from Deans admissions officers etc).

Here is my waitlist advice I've gleaned from Harvard and Yale Deans, Michigan ad com officers, Harvard as com person, Michigan person, + my personal interactions with adcom.

Waitlist: do whatever the school asks in their waitlist email. Every 3-4 weeks and especially just after/before their deposit deadline write a letter of continued interest loci. You can print and handsign then upload as a PDF. Some schools don't care about loci format others may. In loci you can specify certain clinics, work programs, professors, courses that you're interested in. It really looks good if those are linked to a topic you expressed interest in in a PS or resume. Show how you love the city / want to live in the school's area. If you have a specific reason you like the school mention it. If it's your #1 pick and you would attend no matter what, say so. Be careful mentioning other competing offers - comes off as threat.

That's not exhaustive but it's a pretty good start. Best of luck!

Hey all, I've been waitlisted at NU and I feel it'll be a really good fit for me. I'm a non-traditional student with a family, military veteran, excited about NU's clinic and class offerings and I want to do as much as I can to get off their waitlist. Any advice?

howdy all, I wanted to let people know how this admissions cycle has gone for me with hopes of shedding some light for others. It's been a very wonky cycle so far. I sent in 18 applications just after Oct 23, right after I got the results for my 169. I applied to all t14 + UCLA, UGA, Emory, and Notre Dame. I was expecting with my "super" soft of being a veteran + being a splitter at a lot of schools or at least hitting their median LSAT that I'd be a shoe in (haha it's actually "shoo in") at a lot of schools, but this has not been the case.

Here are the results of this weird cycle:

Georgetown - waitlist

Notre Dame - accepted

UGA - accepted

Harvard - denied

Cornell - denied

U Penn - waitlist

Waiting still from 12 schools.

Huh? Waitlisted at #7 Penn and denied at #13 Cornell? Then waitlisted at #14 Georgetown?? Here's a link to a very helpful and anxiety-lowering video from Spivey Consulting on youtube she basically explains what's going on and it helped me to manage my stress better.

I hope this info helps some of you, I wanted to be open about my application stats and my results, hopefully other ppl will benefit from this.

Hey would anyone like to exchange PS and DS essays? I'm looking for feedback please. If so let me know!!

Hi I'd like to just exchange essays and receive feedback for my DS and perhaps an addendum as well. I'll be happy to read and review a PS / DS / addendum if someone would be willing to provide feedback on mine! Please let me know if you're interested.

Has there ever been a weakening or strengthening correct answer choice which uses the word some or many? If so which pt section and question?

I just got finished with 81.3.16 about financial incentives to conserve energy. The trap AC would have been perfect if we changed "some" to most or all, and I know this happens frequently. I was a bit shocked at the correct AC, however, and am now curious enough to see if some/many are essentially instant disqualifiers.

Hi all the purpose of this post is twofold: to teach everything I know about phenomenon hypothesis (PH) and correlation causation (CC) argument types, as well as to be a knowledge check where other people can correct me and make sure my understanding is solid. I'll start with PH, then go through CC, and then I'll show how both argument types are very similar.

In PH arguments, we have something that happens in the real world, then we offer an explanation of why that thing is the way it is. For instance, I see a bunch of seals barking. Then I see fishermen riding their boats in the harbor. I say, "It must be that seals bark whenever they see fishermen." My phenomenon is "seals bark" and my hypothesis is "they bark when they see fishermen." In lawgic, the SC would be "See fishermen" -> and the NC would be "Bark."

There are a lot of ways to strengthen PH and CC arguments and I'll explain them here: 1. A->B, 2. block B->A, 3. block C->A&B, 4. block "no relation," 5. block bad chronology, and 6. show "good consequences." 7. No cause no effect

A->B really just means "If see fishermen -> bark." This works with PH and CC arguments. How can I show that seals really do bark when they see fishermen? Show more data. a trend of more data. I don't want to see 1 more case of seals barking when they see fishermen, I want to see a lengthy trend of seals barking many times over a long period of time. I have seen at least 2-3 times where the LSAC will use a trap answer where the "strengthening" answer choice just throws in 1 more example of the hypothesis working. "You say seals bark when they see fishermen, well Joe saw a seal barking when fishermen were present." I want to see "over the last 5 years, there's an 85% chance that seals will bark whenever they see fishermen." I don't want a single corroborating example (although this does strengthen the hypothesis very, very, very slightly), I want to see a trend.

Block B->A. Let's say my argument is "When the sun shines, then my trees grow." To show that B actually causes A is a little weird in this case, but it would go like this: "My trees growing actually cause the sun to shine." If the latter case were true, then my argument that "sun shine -> trees grow" would be ruined! The causality would be flipped the other way around. The B->A style works really well for CC arguments where I'm trying to show that A is causing B; to show B->A, or block B->A can weaken / strengthen the argument.

For example - "When the sun shines, -> trees grow." To strengthen this argument I can block B->A. "It's also not the case that trees growing causes the sun to shine." I'm eliminating the possibility that my causality isn't flipped. To go back to seals, I would block the case that barking (NC) actually is the explanation for the seals to somehow be seeing fishermen (SC). "It's not the case that barking allows the seals to see fishermen."

Block C->A&B = block an alternate explanation.

What if it's the case that shrimp actually cause the seals to bark and the fishermen to appear? In that case my phenomenon hypothesis argument would be ruined. It's not the case that seeing fishermen causes seals to bark. It's something else.

I want to block this alternate explanation: "It's not the case that shrimp cause fishermen to appear and that shrimp cause seals to bark."

In a correlation causation argument, let's say "hearing about earthquakes in the news causes people to dream about earthquakes." But what if everyone was watching a movie about earthquakes, and this movie caused the dreams? We would want to strengthen our argument by blocking an answer choice that says "A recently released movie about earthquakes is known to cause people to dream about earthquakes." We can eliminate the possibility of an alternate explanation, and this strengthens our argument that actually hearing about earthquakes in the news caused dreams.

No relation / 5. bad chronology

Bad chronology goes hand in hand with "No relation" so I'll group them here. "If I study -> get 180." What if I see an independent study that says "studying has been shown to have no effect on your test results."? That would show "no relation."

Likewise, what if I said "Bob studied then he got a 180. Therefore, studying gives you a 180." Then I say "Bob started studying AFTER he got a 180." This shows bad chronology - the effect actually occurred before the alleged cause! Block this to strengthen.

Good consequences

If the phenomenon hypothesis argument is true, I want to show good consequences. If my hypothesis is true, what would happen? Let's say my hypothesis is "If seals see fishermen -> then they bark." Good consequences AC would say "Fishermen have increased in the bay 500% in the last month. Since then, sales of earplugs have increased 1000%." Fishermen are in the bay a lot more, which means seals are barking, and people don't want to listen to that so they buy earplugs.

Another example is "The city is increasing the speed limit by 30mph. Therefore there will be more car wrecks." A good consequences answer choice would say "There have been more speeding tickets since the speed limit increased."

If we take our hypothesis to be true, then make a reasonable assumption of what could happen if the hypothesis were true, we get a "good consequences" answer choice that strengthens the argument.

No cause no effect

Let's take the argument "It's sunny. Therefore my ice cream will melt." If S -> M.

If I show that there's no sun, and indeed my ice cream is not melting, this is good! I strengthen my argument.

However, if I show "Cause with no effect," or "Effect with no cause," these WEAKEN the argument. It's sunny, but my ice cream isn't melting. Or "my ice cream is melting, but it's not sunny!" These weaken.