I just left that section in from my normal work resume. It's not taking up a lot of real estate and they can just glaze over it if they don't care. On the off chance they do understand, maybe it sounds sufficiently impressive to give you a small bump.

@ said:

Still, HYS separate themselves for so many reasons, a bunch of which I have detailed but you have provided no response to.

Like I said above, I don't have the time to keep arguing and responding to each individual point would have taken time (especially for me to verify certain points I would have made, etc).

@ said:

Mitchell, if you were accepted to Yale with no scholarship and Columbia with a full-ride, which would you choose? I'm genuinely curious.

To sort of swing this back on topic, I actually am looking to go into public interest and currently have Harvard as an option and am waiting to hear back about two different full ride scholarships at MVP/CCN. The full ride would allow me to pursue a joint degree that would be incredibly helpful for my career plans, so I will be taking the money if I get the opportunity.

In your hypothetical and removing the potential joint degree from the equation, I'd take Columbia without hesitation. I'm not a 100% sure I don't want to try for BigLaw right out of school for 3-5 years so I can bank a decent amount of retirement money and allow compound interest to do its thing while I work in the public sector. Plus, it's not always easy to land a prestigious public interest job right out of school as they can be competitive and they don't have the resources to train new graduates. So this would grant the most flexibility and provide the most financial security.

Not to mention, maybe I decide during 2L that I'd like to try for a clerkship or something, I know that at least Stanford doesn't allow the use of their LRAP for clerkships unless you start Public Interest work after two years. So again, taking out loans will limit your options post-graduation, even at HYS.

@ said:

Of course, everyone has their opinion! It's hardly about prestige for me, though prestige is definitely the factor for some. I will concede that if your actual goal is Big Law, AND you have zero interest in public service, AND you have no problem busting your ass harder than the majority of your classmates, then T-6 with a full scholarship is worth some consideration. Mainly, though, I think the aversion some people have to HYS is shortsighted.

I have a friend at MVP right now that got multiple prestigious internship offers this year in the public/government sector. He would be considered median in his class. You are definitely over blowing the situation at slightly lower ranked schools. If we are talking T20 instead, maybe your advice makes some sense, but even there you can find great outcomes from the top 30-50% of the class. And 80% of students getting into BigLaw/FedClerk from Columbia is hardly you having to bust your ass harder than the majority of classmates. My advice to everyone would be to take a trip over to LawSchoolTransparency and read through the employment disclosure data before making a decision.

@ said:

I think you're missing the point. Big Law is not always just about getting your foot in the door. It's also the case that not all Big Law firms are created equal.

I don't really have the time to keep arguing this, but this view you have of always choosing HYS regardless of the finances is in direct opposition to the advice given by current BigLaw lawyers, consultants like Spivey, etc. It is not always the best decision. Everyone should do their research and understand what they are getting and not chase prestige because they think that's how the world works. There are certain outcomes that make more sense for HYS (firm in your public interest goals and know you'll be taking advantage of an LRAP or the more exclusive outcomes like wanting to get into academia/be a supreme court clerk), but it's not always the best choice. In my opinion, if you can reach your goals without taking on debt, that should always be preferred.

@ said:

Career opportunities are better at the top 3.

BigLaw/FedClerk outcomes for HYS:

H: 75.9%

Y: 72.9%

S: 74.8%

BigLaw/FedClerk outcomes for CCN/MVP:

Ch: 78.1%

Co: 82.5%

N: 74.4%

M: 66.4%

V: 77.0%

P: 77.1%

If my goal is BigLaw, why would I pay $150k+interest (or in my case $300k+interest) to go to HYS instead of taking a full ride to CCN/MVP when your outcome is essentially the same/in some cases better.

@ said:

HYS does need-based aid. If your finances are so grim, HYS will help you out.

Need based isn't guaranteed, nor will it cover the full tuition + COL even if you qualify. Your parents financials are taken into account unless you are 29+, even if they aren't going to contribute.

ETA: Also, not being able to afford $300k COA without substantial loans does not equate to a grim financial situation. According to Harvard I think the average student leaves with something like $160k of debt.

@ said:

If you are accepted to HYS, you should go to HYS. There are exceptions to this rule but not many. Financial circumstance should not count as an exception for the vast majority of applicants.

Whoa now, your financial circumstances should most definitely be taken into account. As well as your career goals. If you are going into public interest and can take advantage of HYS's LRAPs, then it makes sense to think HYS, but if you are shooting for BigLaw, take the money. The placement of CCN/MVP is not substantially worse than HYS and not having $300k of debt for the same outcome is objectively the better choice.

I would say even if you are shooting for public interest, you should really consider the full ride unless you are positive of that career path. Taking the money leaves you with the most flexibility. If you take out loans for HYS and end up hating public interest for whatever reason, switching means giving up the LRAP and being saddled with debt for 10 years.

Improved!! Upset about some dumb mistakes but it didn't cost me too much.

Oh god, it's already happening!? Why couldn't I have stayed away until my email came!?

@ said:

Why does it take so long for a scantron to be graded any way? Don't GRE test takers get immediate results or is that just a misconception on my end?

They get an immediate estimation of their score because the test is taken on a computer. Your official score doesn't come for another week or two. The estimate is pretty accurate though (usually only off by one if anything). Grading scantrons is a huge logistical task, especially in the case of the LSAT where they have to scan and upload a lot of documents alongside just getting the score. They likely can do this faster but have never really had a reason to try since they were the only game in town. Hopefully the GRE forces them to rethink how they grade things so they can get scores back faster (even if you can't check what you missed for a few weeks after).

@ said:

I’m drowning myself in Taco Bell and Video games tonight...since I quit drinking it’s my only alternative! Good luckkkkk ahhh

I'm with you on this no drinking train right now, it really is difficult to find alternative coping methods when you're not used to it, but the piano and Pysch reruns are getting my through :-p

@ said:

@ said:

@, look!!!! Oh my God. I predicted this!!!! lol

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/comment/96356

Jan 3 is the official date, but PowerScore predicts the Grey Day will be January 2. And I'm still hoping it's Dec 22. lol

Holy Moly! I can’t believe this. Feeling a bit panicky! What if it’s just like last time? :(

Then you'll take again! More experienced and ready to go than before.

@ said:

Also: I, too, am excited to see that WUSTL is nearer to Clayton/University City, which is quite separate from STL. I was very apprehensive over living in STL since the crime rates are off the hook (and this coming from a native of a city with a top 10 crime rate in the US), but the area around WUSTL seems nice enough.

As someone who grew up in St. Louis, you have to be very careful when reading city wide crime statistics. East St. Louis often gets roped into the reports when it probably shouldn't (it's across the river in Illinois). On top of that, Clayton/University City is probably the richest/safest area in the county. So I really don't think anyone should reject WashU out of fear of crime.

@ said:

@ said:

I believe that all complaints must be received within 6 days of the test for LSAC to do anything about it.

I submitted and they're now offering this letter for law schools to see. Not sure if it's helpful?

If the letter doesn't change your score for rankings purposes (maybe it allows the school to exclude you from their reported numbers?), it's unlikely to matter a whole lot unless it's between you and someone with a similar score. So I assume the letter would act as a soft on your application, but this is just me hypothesizing since a lot of admissions is numbers driven.

I've also been getting a steady 4-5 "visitors" a week on LinkedIn since I started applying. Before then I'd maybe get 4-5 a year and most of those were family members :-p

I searched myself just to see what else might show up. Low and behold my senior design notebook is still online... Had to read the whole thing over to make sure I didn't say anything awful.

@ said:

Where do I assume causation exactly?

I'm going to check out after addressing this (I'm sure to no one's displeasure):

Correlation: the population of accommodated testers getting more time also have slightly higher average scores

Causation: for the population of accommodated testers the (substitute 'a' if you'd like, doesn't matter) reason they have slightly higher average scores is because they get more time

@ said:

However the second part is a bit of a strawman. I'm not blaming anyone for the outcomes of my applications (didn't even bring that up). I was merely pointing out that there is data that might indicate there is an underlying problem.

That's fair. Though I don't think it's too large a leap to think the reason you are so attached to this particular answer is because you are worried about how this all will affect your chances at admittance/scholarship, and that's why you are ignoring the clear correlation/causation trap you've entered into. The report clearly states the need for caution due to self-selection and that it does not pretend to report cause. Your answer relies on one interpretation without any evidence as to why it's more likely than the others. But I apologize for attributing motive to you.

Again, maybe that report does show some slight advantage. Or maybe it shows that LSAC needs to do a better job of advertising the accommodations to a certain group of people who aren't currently using them. Or maybe it shows that their accommodation process is still too cumbersome and thus only those most likely to score high will follow through.

My reason for attacking your argument despite your hedging ("might indicate", "possible that", etc), is that just wildly speculating reasons can cause damage itself. Again with voter fraud. People speculate that voter fraud is possible. Sure, it's possible, but that doesn't mean it's happening. People start worrying about voter fraud. Voter fraud laws are passed to quell the fear. Those laws disenfranchise voters and cause actual harm despite solving a problem that only existed in people's heads.

Had you just said, "there is this report that shows a difference we wouldn't expect from representative samples. We should probably look into this further to see if we can figure out a cause," I wouldn't have minded. What you did instead was say, "there is a difference and this could be because of X. This whole system is unjust and we are just making it worse," and implied that something needs to change to fix your hypothetical problem. All while relying on stereotypes about lawyers as further evidence you must be right.

@ said:

@ said:

Ugh... knowing that I didn’t score my ultimate potential, feeling more and more like I might delay a cycle. :(

Yeah I'm delaying too :( I have a high GPA and low ish score so I decided to take it again in Feb and apply once the 2019 app opens next September. Which will be easy because I already compiled my entire application...

Now this is a good comment! So a plausible reason for the increase in scores at the beginning of this period very well might be because of people thinking like you. They all decided to hold off on applying until the very beginning of the next cycle when their opportunities for admittance/scholarship money would be at their highest. It'll be interesting to see how the numbers all shake out by the end of this cycle and if the increase holds or if it starts to taper off.

@ said:

To start, we know from a 2012 LSAC report on accommodations that people with extra time accommodations tend to have higher scores than the rest of the population. In other words, extra time does appear to give even those with documented disabilities a quantifiable advantage over the normal testing population. This fact is also true for accommodated extra time repeat test takers, who also show higher increases than average test takers. Note this is for individuals who take the test twice, both times with extra time.

Let's take a look at that report

From that report:

Accommodated/Extra Time test takers tended to have slightly higher LSAT scores than the standard test-taking population, while Accommodated/Standard Time test takers tended to have lower LSAT scores than the standard test-taking population.

You are reading way too much into this sentence from the report. They tend to score slightly higher. This would make sense. Why would someone go through the trouble of requesting accommodations if they knew they were just going to score on the lower end even with more time. The larger the time accommodation's impact on your score the more likely you are to request and actually go through taking the test.

Also from that report:

Test takers who tested twice under Accommodated/Extra Time testing conditions exhibited slightly higher score gains on average than is typically observed for the standard test-taking population, while those who switched from standard to Accommodated/Extra Time testing conditions exhibited very high score gains on average.

Again, this would make sense if the population in question have the ability to be higher scorers as speculated above. Having extra time doesn't mean they are immune from first time nerves like everyone else. So if you take a population of people who have the ability to score higher than average and give them a second chance, it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to have slightly higher gains than the average on a repeat take.

Wouldn't it also make sense that people who take studying for the lsat more seriously will also be more aware of accommodation opportunities and thus more likely to take advantage if they need them?

You are falling into a common logical trap, seeing a correlation and assuming causation because you can talk yourself into a believable scenario. That report itself even states it's not making any attempt to claim what you do. It is complete conjecture as are all my explanations above!

And again, from the report:

Note that the trends presented in this report are purely descriptive in nature. While trends with regard to the accommodated test-taking population have been described and compared to the standard test-taking population, the explanation of the underlying causes of any differences observed is beyond the scope of this report.

The point is there exist a lot of possible explanations for those numbers, so don't believe one just because that explanation gives you someone to blame other than yourself for your eventual outcomes in applying (which at this point in the cycle could still be really good!).

Link to the report for anyone else who wants to take a gander

LSAC Report

I believe they say in their admittance material that they will send out information about interviews and such for scholarships toward the end of December. So probably best to sit tight until then.

@ said:

@ said:

can anyone confirm if LR section with a question about 7pm and 6pm was real?

Agreed, anyone know if this is real or experimental?

Real

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

I'm not dissing on people with disabilities... only the ones who fake it. And anxiety can be very fake-able...don't you think. I'm 100% behind honest disability suffering testers to get accommodations.

Ooof, ok...Let's dive into this type of comment/argument with a timely analogy, sexual assault. One of the most common attacks on people claiming to have been assaulted is that it's so easy for anyone to just say they've been assaulted since in most instances is nigh impossible to prove one way or the other. Because of that those being accused have long used the defense, they are just faking it to attack me (this can be clearly seen in the Roy Moore scandal playing out right now). This has, unfortunately, proved quite a successful strategy leading to an environment where people don't come forward for fear of not being believed and opening themselves up to attack all over again.

In this instance, claiming that anxiety is something that is easily "fake-able" produces the potential for a similar environment. Creating a social stigma associated with anxiety accommodations means that people with legitimate disabilities might not seek them out for fear of being labeled a "faker" by an admissions committee (or by their friends/future classmates). This means that they are being punished for something they cannot control because some people might possibly abuse the only recourse they have to level the playing field.

You say you are 100% behind honest disability suffering testers getting accommodations, and yet you just made fun of a girl you've never met and assumed her faking her disability (or need for accommodation) because the one she claimed is potentially "fake-able". Don't you see how that's not ok and potentially damaging to everyone that shares that disability?

You didn't address the point -- that it's an easily fakable disability. You argued that that type of argument produces a social stigma, which may or may not be true, but isn't it possible that that argument is both valid AND produces a social stigma? I don't mean to be pedantic, but it's not as simple an issue as you seem to believe.

I would argue that it's not actually that fake able when diagnosed by a professional. Again, an anxiety disorder is not something people who don't suffer one can really understand well enough to fake (proven by the misconception that leads people to dismissing it as a real issue because they too get anxious about things in normal anxiety producing situations). The truth will out, as it were, but this doesn't matter.

As @ so smartly put it above, this is like voter fraud. It doesn't matter if it's fake able or not. You are trying to solve a problem with no evidence of its existence. Worse yet, trying to argue that a solution to another actual problem might need altering due to your hypothetical. Stop worrying about what others might be doing and start worrying about what you should be doing. That or ask LSAC if you can do research into whether or not people are abusing the system. If they are concerned maybe they'll even fund your study with all our application fees.

I went in with a few ideas I liked, and thought were impressive, but always ended up at a dead end trying to force one of those topics. So I switched to just thinking up a bunch of ideas and for each if after 10-15 minutes nothing was coming to me, I switched to a new topic. Eventually one hit.

It was completely random and not something I would have thought interesting beforehand, but because I was clearly in to the idea, it read really well.

@ said:

I'm not dissing on people with disabilities... only the ones who fake it. And anxiety can be very fake-able...don't you think. I'm 100% behind honest disability suffering testers to get accommodations.

Ooof, ok...Let's dive into this type of comment/argument with a timely analogy, sexual assault. One of the most common attacks on people claiming to have been assaulted is that it's so easy for anyone to just say they've been assaulted since in most instances is nigh impossible to prove one way or the other. Because of that those being accused have long used the defense, they are just faking it to attack me (this can be clearly seen in the Roy Moore scandal playing out right now). This has, unfortunately, proved quite a successful strategy leading to an environment where people don't come forward for fear of not being believed and opening themselves up to attack all over again.

In this instance, claiming that anxiety is something that is easily "fake-able" produces the potential for a similar environment. Creating a social stigma associated with anxiety accommodations means that people with legitimate disabilities might not seek them out for fear of being labeled a "faker" by an admissions committee (or by their friends/future classmates). This means that they are being punished for something they cannot control because some people might possibly abuse the only recourse they have to level the playing field.

You say you are 100% behind honest disability suffering testers getting accommodations, and yet you just made fun of a girl you've never met and assumed her faking her disability (or need for accommodation) because the one she claimed is potentially "fake-able". Don't you see how that's not ok and potentially damaging to everyone that shares that disability?

@ said:

Hey I think we commented about twitter at the same time, haha. So do you know, would we go grey hours before that, or soon before? Or it varies??

It varies. Everyone goes grey at the same time and then the decisions come in waves over the next few hours. People usually go grey around 3-5pm eastern (but as someone mentioned above, they broke with tradition in December and released around noon, but I think the reason was to make sure scores were out before normal closing time before a long holiday)