June 2017 Waiters Thread- Grayday! -9 curve. GL all Forum

[heyduchess]

What do y'all think?

Did this test favor those who are bad at LG?

I think the opposite. People who are bad at LG can usually rely on a curve that gives them some leeway. So if someone still didn't perform to the "easier" LG section and instead performed at their LG average, then they couldn't rely on a curve to save them.

Ehh I'm not sure I agree. This LG was suuuuuuper easy, so much so that even people who struggle with LG should have had not much trouble with it. Overall it was just a brutal curve. Anything below -10 just leaves so little room for error.

I think the key to this test was how good you were at LR. Turns out RC really wasn't that bad (except the psych passage), and games were simple, so LR I think was the defining factor for lots of people. So, if you're good at LR, but bad at LG, this was probably a good test for you. If you're great at LG and bad at LR, probably a bummer.

Yet I still somehow went -3 on LG. It was my WORST SECTION and I usually go -0. THE FRUSTRATIOOON

[Future Ex-Engineer]

What do y'all think?

Did this test favor those who are bad at LG?

I think the opposite. People who are bad at LG can usually rely on a curve that gives them some leeway. So if someone still didn't perform to the "easier" LG section and instead performed at their LG average, then they couldn't rely on a curve to save them.

Ehh I'm not sure I agree. This LG was suuuuuuper easy, so much so that even people who struggle with LG should have had not much trouble with it. Overall it was just a brutal curve. Anything below -10 just leaves so little room for error.

I think the key to this test was how good you were at LR. Turns out RC really wasn't that bad (except the psych passage), and games were simple, so LR I think was the defining factor for lots of people. So, if you're good at LR, but bad at LG, this was probably a good test for you. If you're great at LG and bad at LR, probably a bummer.

Yet I still somehow went -3 on LG. It was my WORST SECTION and I usually go -0. THE FRUSTRATIOOON

Same. I missed two random questions. No idea how. Average over last 15 tests of -0.1 per LG section. Whatever. 171/3.98 gets me great results

[heyduchess]

Same. I missed two random questions. No idea how. Average over last 15 tests of -0.1 per LG section. Whatever. 171/3.98 gets me great results

How do you have a 3.98!?!?! You'd have to get all A's and one A- all school!

uuuuuugh. If I could go back in time and not go to my undergrad... I remember one time, I got the highest grade in my class and my professor pulled me to the side and congratulated me and was like "That gets you an A-!" Like wut? No it doesn't. A curve says I get an A. a;ldskfja;lsdkfj *ends rant*

[DorkothyParker]

Still no score for me. Foolish. Should have waited till after the test to apply for fee waiver/sign up for CAS.

I read the delay can be a week, but hard to find info.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Same. I missed two random questions. No idea how. Average over last 15 tests of -0.1 per LG section. Whatever. 171/3.98 gets me great results

How do you have a 3.98!?!?! You'd have to get all A's and one A- all school!

uuuuuugh. If I could go back in time and not go to my undergrad... I remember one time, I got the highest grade in my class and my professor pulled me to the side and congratulated me and was like "That gets you an A-!" Like wut? No it doesn't. A curve says I get an A. a;ldskfja;lsdkfj *ends rant*

Lots of hard work haha. We didn't have A+/- scale, so actually I got all A's and one B. on a two hour class. it was the last class of undergrad. it was a team-graded project course. we did not get to pick our own teams. i got hosed. only a little bitter about effing tim and patrick ruining it

[Slippin' Jimmy]

The June study group thread got to 168 pages...I will never forgive you guys for doing this to me.

Anyway, if anyone who isn't retaking has PTs 72-80, I may be willing to take those off your hands for you if the price is right. Holler at me!

I have them but they're marked up a fair bit. Still interested? Also have superprep II that has PT C2 marked up but nothing else.

[heyduchess]

The June study group thread got to 168 pages...I will never forgive you guys for doing this to me.

Anyway, if anyone who isn't retaking has PTs 72-80, I may be willing to take those off your hands for you if the price is right. Holler at me!

I have them but they're marked up a fair bit. Still interested? Also have superprep II that has PT C2 marked up but nothing else.

I might take these.... PM'ing you.

[Slippin' Jimmy]

The June study group thread got to 168 pages...I will never forgive you guys for doing this to me.

Anyway, if anyone who isn't retaking has PTs 72-80, I may be willing to take those off your hands for you if the price is right. Holler at me!

I have them but they're marked up a fair bit. Still interested? Also have superprep II that has PT C2 marked up but nothing else.

I might take these.... PM'ing you.

Also looking to sell my 180 watch, its in good condition and worked really well for the test. If anyone is interested PM me!

[181plz]

Where about in Milwaukee? I live on the north side

you mean the east side or the legit north side?

I live with my parents in stallis for the summer but I go to school at a uw.

Well I've been all over. My Fiancé and I just moved from 90th and Lynx "legit north side" to whitefish bay.

[MediocreAtBest]

The June study group thread got to 168 pages...I will never forgive you guys for doing this to me.

Anyway, if anyone who isn't retaking has PTs 72-80, I may be willing to take those off your hands for you if the price is right. Holler at me!

I have them but they're marked up a fair bit. Still interested? Also have superprep II that has PT C2 marked up but nothing else.

I've got it figured out! Duchess, they're all yours! Thank you, everyone is super helpful.

[calmike]

What do y'all think?

Did this test favor those who are bad at LG?

I think the opposite. People who are bad at LG can usually rely on a curve that gives them some leeway. So if someone still didn't perform to the "easier" LG section and instead performed at their LG average, then they couldn't rely on a curve to save them.

Ehh I'm not sure I agree. This LG was suuuuuuper easy, so much so that even people who struggle with LG should have had not much trouble with it. Overall it was just a brutal curve. Anything below -10 just leaves so little room for error.

I think the key to this test was how good you were at LR. Turns out RC really wasn't that bad (except the psych passage), and games were simple, so LR I think was the defining factor for lots of people. So, if you're good at LR, but bad at LG, this was probably a good test for you. If you're great at LG and bad at LR, probably a bummer.

This is on point to what I'm arguing. I'm bad at LR and great at LG. I'll probably retake this September to get an LSAT that posts more to my strengths.

[pghpens]

Am I crazy/ungrateful/etc. for planning on retaking a 173? It was my first time taking the test, and my PT average was high 170s. -2 RC, -1 LR1, -1 LG, -2 LR2. That CURVE.

I have a high 3.9x and want H

[principalagent]

This is on point to what I'm arguing. I'm bad at LR and great at LG. I'll probably retake this September to get an LSAT that posts more to my strengths.

I see what you're both saying. I also was good at LG (usually -0/-1) and (relatively) bad at LR (averaged about -3 per section and maybe -7 overall), but got kinda lucky/focused more and kept it -5 overall. Maybe that's why I thought it was worse for people who are bad at LG rather than LR. I knew I could count on not missing LG on this exam and thus had some wiggle room for error in LR even on a tough curve.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Am I crazy/ungrateful/etc. for planning on retaking a 173? It was my first time taking the test, and my PT average was high 170s. -2 RC, -1 LR1, -1 LG, -2 LR2. That CURVE.

I have a high 3.9x and want H

yeah, retaking here would make you look dumb.

173/3.9X is basically a shoe-in for H.

[pghpens]

Am I crazy/ungrateful/etc. for planning on retaking a 173? It was my first time taking the test, and my PT average was high 170s. -2 RC, -1 LR1, -1 LG, -2 LR2. That CURVE.

I have a high 3.9x and want H

yeah, retaking here would make you look dumb.

173/3.9X is basically a shoe-in for H.

Is it? I would feel a lot more confident with a 175 vs. a 173...

[MercW07]

Am I crazy/ungrateful/etc. for planning on retaking a 173? It was my first time taking the test, and my PT average was high 170s. -2 RC, -1 LR1, -1 LG, -2 LR2. That CURVE.

I have a high 3.9x and want H

Man this is really though....your numbers give you a real strong shot of getting into H, and unless you have absolutely nonexistent softs, Id say you're good, but when it comes to a school like H you never can really be too sure. If you're consistently PTing in the high 170s and this is only your first take Id say go for the retake.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Am I crazy/ungrateful/etc. for planning on retaking a 173? It was my first time taking the test, and my PT average was high 170s. -2 RC, -1 LR1, -1 LG, -2 LR2. That CURVE.

I have a high 3.9x and want H

yeah, retaking here would make you look dumb.

173/3.9X is basically a shoe-in for H.

Is it? I would feel a lot more confident with a 175 vs. a 173...

With those numbers you 1) are at or above both medians, and 2) should be almost guaranteed an interview, so unless you're cripplingly awkward or the least interesting person in the world, you should be just fine.

[dm1683]

Am I crazy/ungrateful/etc. for planning on retaking a 173? It was my first time taking the test, and my PT average was high 170s. -2 RC, -1 LR1, -1 LG, -2 LR2. That CURVE.

I have a high 3.9x and want H

yeah, retaking here would make you look dumb.

173/3.9X is basically a shoe-in for H.

Is it? I would feel a lot more confident with a 175 vs. a 173...

With those numbers you 1) are at or above both medians, and 2) should be almost guaranteed an interview, so unless you're cripplingly awkward or the least interesting person in the world, you should be just fine.

Yep I agree with above posters. 3.9/173 is pretty much guaranteed at H. \

If you just want biglaw tho I would skip hys all together and take the cash at CCN.

[rowdy]

Am I crazy/ungrateful/etc. for planning on retaking a 173? It was my first time taking the test, and my PT average was high 170s. -2 RC, -1 LR1, -1 LG, -2 LR2. That CURVE.

I have a high 3.9x and want H

yeah, retaking here would make you look dumb.

173/3.9X is basically a shoe-in for H.

Is it? I would feel a lot more confident with a 175 vs. a 173...

With those numbers you 1) are at or above both medians, and 2) should be almost guaranteed an interview, so unless you're cripplingly awkward or the least interesting person in the world, you should be just fine.

Yep I agree with above posters. 3.9/173 is pretty much guaranteed at H. \

If you just want biglaw tho I would skip hys all together and take the cash at CCN.

Try to get a Ruby, that's maybe the best outcome period unless you want a unicorn job.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Try to get a Ruby, that's maybe the best outcome period unless you want a unicorn job.

To be fair, is a Ruby really that much better than a Mordecai/Dillard/Darrow? Chicago is wayyyy more expensive COL than AA/Charlottesville/Durham, and the fed clerking rate at MVD is really quite exceptional.

Obviously it's better than a Vanderbilt or Hamilton simply because it has a stipend (since fulls at CCN are comparable), and NYC is expensive as hell to live in. Just not sure what is so much better about a Rubenstein that everyone says it's objectively the best outcome?

[Alexandros]

.

[rowdy]

Try to get a Ruby, that's maybe the best outcome period unless you want a unicorn job.

To be fair, is a Ruby really that much better than a Mordecai/Dillard/Darrow? Chicago is wayyyy more expensive COL than AA/Charlottesville/Durham, and the fed clerking rate at MVD is really quite exceptional.

Obviously it's better than a Vanderbilt or Hamilton simply because it has a stipend (since fulls at CCN are comparable), and NYC is expensive as hell to live in. Just not sure what is so much better about a Rubenstein that everyone says it's objectively the best outcome?

It depends on regional preferences at some point. And if you want a (slim) chance at Academia without going to HYS, Chicago is the only other T14 where that could be realistic.

But I'd cut off my left hand for any of the above.

[Future Ex-Engineer]

Try to get a Ruby, that's maybe the best outcome period unless you want a unicorn job.

To be fair, is a Ruby really that much better than a Mordecai/Dillard/Darrow? Chicago is wayyyy more expensive COL than AA/Charlottesville/Durham, and the fed clerking rate at MVD is really quite exceptional.

Obviously it's better than a Vanderbilt or Hamilton simply because it has a stipend (since fulls at CCN are comparable), and NYC is expensive as hell to live in. Just not sure what is so much better about a Rubenstein that everyone says it's objectively the best outcome?

Look up the Ruby employment stats.

Where would I find that? Google doesn't seem to be helping a whole lot here. I can't imagine the stats for either Ruby or something like Dillard being less than 95% favorable outcome right?

[Future Ex-Engineer]

anyone got the google spreadsheet links for the 2016/17 H/Y/S cycles handy?

[onecard]

I asked about a retake for 173/3.8 for Harvard and it seems the answer is yes, but the difference between 3.8 and 3.9 is substantial so may be different for your situation. The answers I got seemed to say that a retake wouldn't hurt. Thoughts?