Fewer than a hundred 180 scores each year. The LSAT isn’t the SAT.Anonymous wrote:None of that matters. What matters is that she have a 4.0 gpa, a 180 LSAT and take a few years off in between to do some kind of work that makes her a little different than the other thousands of perfect scores they’ll get. Having that unique job in South Dakota or in the military or peace corps would help too. And there’s still no guarantee.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DC is pre-law and wants to do biglaw like everyone else. She needs to go to a top law school, so this choice really matters for her.
Currently her Ed choices are:
Claremont McKenna (I know don’t laugh, but she’s hell bent that this is the right place “for her”)
Amherst (many questions marks on this one)
And Dartmouth (to me, this is the right answer).
If the goal is Yale/Columbia Law, which is the right choice?
For your 16 or 17 year old rising senior? Have you lost your mind? Please let her find her own way. It will be fine.
Anonymous wrote:DC is pre-law and wants to do biglaw like everyone else. She needs to go to a top law school, so this choice really matters for her.
Currently her Ed choices are:
Claremont McKenna (I know don’t laugh, but she’s hell bent that this is the right place “for her”)
Amherst (many questions marks on this one)
And Dartmouth (to me, this is the right answer).
If the goal is Yale/Columbia Law, which is the right choice?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most of these people don’t know what they are talking about. I’m an Amherst grad that got into HLS, YLS and Columbia Law. I see resumes all the time for hiring and the Amherst grads do very well at law school admits particularly for HLS and YLS — it’s as close as you come to a feeder for those two schools.
Of course Dartmouth is fine too but a small school like Amherst its easier to get to know the r professors and develop real leadership skills.
But I also think it’s ridiculous for a teen to be aiming for Big Law. It’s a step short of saying that your career goal is to be the Hunger Games tribute. I mean, lots of us end up there but the idea of it being a goal when you are just 16 is so sad.
Don't see much actual analysis but just bias from this comment. Sure, Dartmouth is a university, but it is really small and has more resources, so you can achieve all that you can do at Amherst and more. More students means more invested in clubs and activities and more leadership experiences. This would make more sense for UC Berkeley where things are bursting at the seams, but Dartmouth is honestly not that far off from being a liberal arts college. Dartmouth is an undergraduate college by all intents and purposes.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:None of that matters. What matters is that she have a 4.0 gpa, a 180 LSAT and take a few years off in between to do some kind of work that makes her a little different than the other thousands of perfect scores they’ll get. Having that unique job in South Dakota or in the military or peace corps would help too. And there’s still no guarantee.
DEI destroying our law schools. No longer the smartest law applicant, but what odd jobs you worked to compensate for being too stupid to get in from undergrad. Just sad.
Anonymous wrote:Most of these people don’t know what they are talking about. I’m an Amherst grad that got into HLS, YLS and Columbia Law. I see resumes all the time for hiring and the Amherst grads do very well at law school admits particularly for HLS and YLS — it’s as close as you come to a feeder for those two schools.
Of course Dartmouth is fine too but a small school like Amherst its easier to get to know the r professors and develop real leadership skills.
But I also think it’s ridiculous for a teen to be aiming for Big Law. It’s a step short of saying that your career goal is to be the Hunger Games tribute. I mean, lots of us end up there but the idea of it being a goal when you are just 16 is so sad.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:None of that matters. What matters is that she have a 4.0 gpa, a 180 LSAT and take a few years off in between to do some kind of work that makes her a little different than the other thousands of perfect scores they’ll get. Having that unique job in South Dakota or in the military or peace corps would help too. And there’s still no guarantee.
DEI destroying our law schools. No longer the smartest law applicant, but what odd jobs you worked to compensate for being too stupid to get in from undergrad. Just sad.
Did you miss where I said have a 4.0 and a 180 LSAT too? If she wants Columbia or Yale, she needs to be perfect AND somehow different. Even if that just means being a South Dakota resident.
These are only the requirements for "overrepresented" students who are succeeding, while others get to skip the line. A system only created, so we can population "balance" the law schools. Just sad.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:None of that matters. What matters is that she have a 4.0 gpa, a 180 LSAT and take a few years off in between to do some kind of work that makes her a little different than the other thousands of perfect scores they’ll get. Having that unique job in South Dakota or in the military or peace corps would help too. And there’s still no guarantee.
DEI destroying our law schools. No longer the smartest law applicant, but what odd jobs you worked to compensate for being too stupid to get in from undergrad. Just sad.
Did you miss where I said have a 4.0 and a 180 LSAT too? If she wants Columbia or Yale, she needs to be perfect AND somehow different. Even if that just means being a South Dakota resident.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:None of that matters. What matters is that she have a 4.0 gpa, a 180 LSAT and take a few years off in between to do some kind of work that makes her a little different than the other thousands of perfect scores they’ll get. Having that unique job in South Dakota or in the military or peace corps would help too. And there’s still no guarantee.
DEI destroying our law schools. No longer the smartest law applicant, but what odd jobs you worked to compensate for being too stupid to get in from undergrad. Just sad.
Anonymous wrote:None of that matters. What matters is that she have a 4.0 gpa, a 180 LSAT and take a few years off in between to do some kind of work that makes her a little different than the other thousands of perfect scores they’ll get. Having that unique job in South Dakota or in the military or peace corps would help too. And there’s still no guarantee.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:DC is pre-law and wants to do biglaw like everyone else. She needs to go to a top law school, so this choice really matters for her.
Currently her Ed choices are:
Claremont McKenna (I know don’t laugh, but she’s hell bent that this is the right place “for her”)
Amherst (many questions marks on this one)
And Dartmouth (to me, this is the right answer).
If the goal is Yale/Columbia Law, which is the right choice?
This has to be a joke. Aren't you embarrassed to have a kid aspiring to Biglaw? No, not everyone does. columbia law grad here.