<p>zebes: you could try an addendum, although I don’t think a “bad headache” will do much to persuade them.</p>
<p>^^^
photos of his accordian crushed car?/ with the “bad headache.” Probably had a concussion, but, regretably, did not go with the EMT’s.</p>
<p>Zebes–
I wouldn’t go the picture route- I think that’s a bit over the top. A few sentence explaination may do the trick and bringing attention to the new grade sans headache would show that the class was re-taken with a successful outcome. </p>
<p>But one D is really going to bring his overall GPA down so much?? I would guess when all grades from 4 years is factored in, the one “D” is not going to change things that dramatically. But it can’t hurt to mention it somewhere in the application. The school/application does often give you the opportunity to address issues like that-</p>
<p>and dreamygirl- if you actually do get a 170, you should concentrate on T-30 schools. You’ll do fine. Though you could conceivably get admitted to a lower T-14 with a 3.2/170 combo, schools do seem to be prefer a higher gpa.<br>
but as other says- get your LSAT score before you waste time thinking about what schools you should apply to</p>
<p>CBB: I don’t think headache is the addendum here. I think car accident is the addendum.</p>
<p>jonri- to answer your question re: cornell’s 25%-</p>
<p>I think the bible- USNWR listed cornell’s 25% as 3.24 GPA. So it is a belief that cornell’s gpa is way lower than the rest of the T-14’s. My educated guess is that there may have been a typo and the Cornell 25% GPA should have read 3.54. That is really more in line with all the other info out there, including cornell’s website.
But I guess if USNWR says it’s a fact- then so be it!</p>
<p>was curious- so I checked ABA guide on LSAC. They also show 3.24 as Cornell’s 25%.<br>
So either- there was a big drop from previous year
ABA used numbers from USWNR
cornell site and usnwr are using figures from 2 different years
or something else ??</p>
<p>Thanks, all, for responding. He’ll keep plugging away. He’ll have what he has in the end. But he will take LSAT prep very seriously. :)</p>
<p>zebes</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Because apparently he didn’t even get seriously injured:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you would put on the addendum for this then. Does he have anxiety disorder such that being knocked a little silly from a car accident will make him nervous for a prolonged time? If that’s the case, then remember to include a prescription for that (if he’s taking medication for it) or some other medical evidence.</p>
<p>BDM: you make the LSAT out like it’s some kind of impossible thing that can’t be beaten. Truth is, it can. As much as they try to tell you there’s no pattern in questioning on the LSAT, there is. You just have to figure it out. It’s a stupid, arbitrary test like the SAT, ACT, GMAT, whatever. It can be beaten. Rote practice can make it happen. I can’t tell you how much rote practice is needed for a 180, but I can tell you that you’ll eventually get there. If you got a hold of every past LSAT for the past 50 years and got all of them right and took them all apart and put them back together, I’m sure you’ll get a very good score.</p>
<p>3.2/175+ has no trouble making it into a T14, and prolly into a T10. Heck, I know a few in the T6 (non-URMs).</p>
<p>
I don’t know about you, but I think most sane human beings find car accidents rather distressing.</p>
<hr>
<p>Studying for the LSAT helps, absolutely. But there are innate skills that it measures, not the least of which is processing speed under test conditions. There are many people who are simply not capable of getting a 180. Telling that it is purely because they’re lazy is insulting.</p>
<p>“Studying for the LSAT helps, absolutely. But there are innate skills that it measures,”</p>
<p>so it seems your innate skills limit you to a certain ceiling, but unless you practice a lot you won’t reach that ceiling anyhow. unless you put in significant effort to practice and practice correctly then your “ceiling” seems to be of little more than philosophical interest. </p>
<p>as for zebes, uh, zebes, why is it you asking all these questions and not your son? seems a bit odd</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup, absolutely. Of course there are some people whose ceiling is >175. Not all of those people need to practice a lot.</p>
<p>you’re just being obnoxious. “of course there are some people whose ceiling is >175 THEY don’t have to practice a lot”</p>
<p>ORLY? man, that’s insightful. thanks so much for taking the time to point this out.</p>