Top Law Schools

Aspire wrote:

BrainsyK wrote:

AaronCarter wrote:It was uploaded in 2016

It was re-uploaded in 2016. The original from the actual UVA Law channel was uploaded in 2010.

I didn’t realize it was originally a 2010 video. Applications are down since then.

Again without data it's very hard to claim this, especially after having read these: http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/december-2017-data/ https://abovethelaw.com/2017/11/an-enti ... ald-trump/ & http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... story.html

I don't know if Black applicants are up but law school applications definitely are!

ThaBlackLord wrote:

Aspire wrote:

BrainsyK wrote:

AaronCarter wrote:It was uploaded in 2016

It was re-uploaded in 2016. The original from the actual UVA Law channel was uploaded in 2010.

I didn’t realize it was originally a 2010 video. Applications are down since then.

Again without data it's very hard to claim this, especially after having read these: http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/december-2017-data/ https://abovethelaw.com/2017/11/an-enti ... ald-trump/ & http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... story.html

I don't know if Black applicants are up but law school applications definitely are!

Applications are up as compared to the last few cycles but still down substantially from 2009-2010. Spivey said although applications are up this year they are still down 40% from peak years.

So with all this data what do you guys think is the minimum numbers an AA URM needs to safely get T13?

I'd guess about a 3.5/159 would secure T13 for an AA URM. What do you guys think?

Barack O'Drama wrote:So with all this data what do you guys think is the minimum numbers an AA URM needs to safely get T13?

I'd guess about a 3.5/159 would secure T13 for an AA URM. What do you guys think?

It's really hard to say. 3+ and 160+ should be ok I believe. It all depends on how AA have been performing recently and on how many AA apply. I've been looking for recent data and haven't found any tho

ThaBlackLord wrote:

Barack O'Drama wrote:So with all this data what do you guys think is the minimum numbers an AA URM needs to safely get T13?

I'd guess about a 3.5/159 would secure T13 for an AA URM. What do you guys think?

It's really hard to say. 3+ and 160+ should be ok I believe. It all depends on how AA have been performing recently and on how many AA apply. I've been looking for recent data and haven't found any tho

Makes sense. I'm just always curious what range of score I'll need such that getting some T13 acceptances aren't a pipe dream. Looking like a 160 is the safe zone.

This thread should be locked. It's pure bullshit.

L_William_W wrote:This thread should be locked. It's pure bullshit.

And your basis for saying this is...?

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

L_William_W wrote:This thread should be locked. It's pure bullshit.

And your basis for saying this is...?

It appears that even tho the math checks out, the actual numbers are not the way the author describes. There is a "hump" on the high end of scores. It seems absolutely not the case that only 20-30 AAs score at/above a 168. Even for the dataset he was using.

It's incredibly misleading/gives false hope.

But I guess this IS the TLS forum, this place operates on crushing dreams.

Oh, that makes perfect sense, I just think it would be better to discuss the issues with the numbers than just call for the thread to be locked.

And if you guys think there is some different way this thread should be handled I’m happy to hear about that.

where's the problem with the numbers? can someone pls explain.

Barack O'Drama wrote:where's the problem with the numbers? can someone pls explain.

OP says that only 20-30 AA get a168 or higher when in actuality it's closer to 100 or more.
Long live the false information.

Serious question: although it’s not as low as the OP suggests, that’s still a pretty low number, right? Do you think the thread is damagingly misleading about the admissions odds for high-scoring AAs?

AaronCarter wrote:

Barack O'Drama wrote:where's the problem with the numbers? can someone pls explain.

OP says that only 20-30 AA get a168 or higher when in actuality it's closer to 100 or more.
Long live the false information.

How did you work that math out? Not saying you're wrong; I'm just genuinely curious.

And even if it is 100, that's still quite low. Still, it is 3x-4x greater than projected by OP.

I'm also curious as to how this plays out. I always thought my chances of the T13 would be pretty good with my GPA and a 160+

AaronCarter wrote:

Barack O'Drama wrote:where's the problem with the numbers? can someone pls explain.

OP says that only 20-30 AA get a168 or higher when in actuality it's closer to 100 or more.
Long live the false information.

The last accurate data we have are from Alex Johnson back in 2010. Johnson said that 250ish AA scored 160+ and 150ish AA scored 170+. This pretty much meant that every AA above a 160 would be chased by T14 schools, I guess that's still the truth 8 years later

ThaBlackLord wrote:

AaronCarter wrote:

Barack O'Drama wrote:where's the problem with the numbers? can someone pls explain.

OP says that only 20-30 AA get a168 or higher when in actuality it's closer to 100 or more.
Long live the false information.

The last accurate data we have are from Alex Johnson back in 2010. Johnson said that 250ish AA scored 160+ and 150ish AA scored 170+. This pretty much meant that every AA above a 160 would be chased by T14 schools, I guess that's still the truth 8 years later

Thank you! I'm going to retake until I can get a 170+ to be safe, however. I really want Y/H/S, but I'm also very fond of NYU/Columbia/Cornell (I wanna stay in NY).

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

L_William_W wrote:This thread should be locked. It's pure bullshit.

And your basis for saying this is...?

It's an indirect insult to blacks. "Oh, black people are stupid. They can't get into law school without affirmative action. Blah blah blah..."

This thread was created for the sole purpose of denigrating blacks. It should be LOCKED.

L_William_W wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

L_William_W wrote:This thread should be locked. It's pure bullshit.

And your basis for saying this is...?

It's an indirect insult to blacks. "Oh, black people are stupid. They can't get into law school without affirmative action. Blah blah blah..."

This thread was created for the sole purpose of denigrating blacks. It should be LOCKED.

I never got that feeling from this thread. I thought it was very helpful to understand how blacks score on the LSAT compared to their white counterparts. I mean, the facts are the facts and blacks, on average, score lower than their white counterparts. I don't think pointing that out is meant to make anyone feel insulted.

Also, aren't you the dude who can't stay awake at the job your friend got you? Don't think we should be taking advice from you...

L_William_W wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

L_William_W wrote:This thread should be locked. It's pure bullshit.

And your basis for saying this is...?

It's an indirect insult to blacks. "Oh, black people are stupid. They can't get into law school without affirmative action. Blah blah blah..."

This thread was created for the sole purpose of denigrating blacks. It should be LOCKED.

I'm pretty sure it was created to provide a specific analysis of how AA's perform specifically outside of the overall URM thread. You can object to this thread but no matter where you look you can find evidence, anecdotal and backed by data, that in general there is a difference in admissions outcomes and this was an attempt to quantify that. It was created by an AA male for other AA students to understand those differences. I personally found it encouraging as my cycle outcomes thus far have been very different from what the regular TLS community might expect based on my numbers and I think that was the point.

No where does any one say anything about intelligence, affirmative action etc;....except in your post. Take it for what it is, an attempt to understand an ever evolving-process for a specific sub-set of people, it may no longer be perfectly accurate in 2018 because it is an old post but it does provide interesting information. Shutting down this thread and the opportunity for discussion that it presents isn't helpful to anyone.

L_William_W wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

L_William_W wrote:This thread should be locked. It's pure bullshit.

And your basis for saying this is...?

It's an indirect insult to blacks. "Oh, black people are stupid. They can't get into law school without affirmative action. Blah blah blah..."

This thread was created for the sole purpose of denigrating blacks. It should be LOCKED.

LOLLLLLL

L_William_W wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

L_William_W wrote:This thread should be locked. It's pure bullshit.

And your basis for saying this is...?

It's an indirect insult to blacks. "Oh, black people are stupid. They can't get into law school without affirmative action. Blah blah blah..."

This thread was created for the sole purpose of denigrating blacks. It should be LOCKED.

I’ve noticed this dude’s posts before. I was suspecting this before but now I’m pretty willing to bet he’s an anti-affirmative action troll. His posts seem to try to both confirm negative stereotypes against African Americans in the legal profession, while also discouraging and shaming/guilt-tripping African Americans from using resources, like this thread, under a guise of well-meaning and good intentions. He’s full of shit and I really hope no African Americans take his posts seriously if and when they read them, troll or not.

Troll, or not very good at RC, for sure.

Intro-gamer wrote:

L_William_W wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

L_William_W wrote:This thread should be locked. It's pure bullshit.

And your basis for saying this is...?

It's an indirect insult to blacks. "Oh, black people are stupid. They can't get into law school without affirmative action. Blah blah blah..."

This thread was created for the sole purpose of denigrating blacks. It should be LOCKED.

I’ve noticed this dude’s posts before. I was suspecting this before but now I’m pretty willing to bet he’s an anti-affirmative action troll. His posts seem to try to both confirm negative stereotypes against African Americans in the legal profession, while also discouraging and shaming/guilt-tripping African Americans from using resources, like this thread, under a guise of well-meaning and good intentions. He’s full of shit and I really hope no African Americans take his posts seriously if and when they read them, troll or not.

I'm a 32 year old black male. And as far as affirmative action is concerned, I'm neutral. Both sides have compelling arguments. IT'S AN ISSUE THAT SHOULDN'T BE DISCUSSED.

My point is that whenever there's a story in the media that pertains to African-Americans, 95% of the time it's something negative. I've been called every variation of stupid or incompetent. Our Commander-in-Chief thinks that black men are uneducated thugs, Africans live in huts, and all Haitians have HIV. I attended a mostly white and Asian high school in NYC and several teachers looked down on me because of my skin color. I dealt with the same bullshit in law school and during job hunting.

I'm tired of having to prove myself and I'm tired of being treated in a condescending manner. Unless you're black, you wouldn't understand the shit we go through on a daily basis.

Call me a troll all you want. I speak from the heart.

An issue with compelling arguments on both sides is an issue that should be discussed, not the opposite.