<p>aren't yale students insanely motivated and intelligent. i'm sure Georgetown attracts top notch students, but yale students are supposedly insane. </p>
<p>i mean to say that yale students are retardedly inteligent.</p>
<p>
[quote]
aren't yale students insanely motivated and intelligent. i'm sure Georgetown attracts top notch students, but yale students are supposedly insane. </p>
<p>i mean to say that yale students are retardedly inteligent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What!? The set of students who applied both to Yale and Georgetown is enormous (with some students who even turned down a Yale acceptance for Georgetown SFS or Georgetown College). Though a lot of the students here may be Yale rejects, their rejection does not mean they are intrinsically less motivated or intrinsically less "retardedly intelligent" (as oxymoronic as that may sound).</p>
<p>I am on the verge of another one of my polemics. Pleast post something a little more intelligent before I completely lose it.</p>
<p>Oh, and by the way... I am really not sure how your post is meant to refute mine: even if by some bizarre reasoning it is true, that still means that law schools take the undergraduate institution into account when making a decision. My point still stands either way.</p>
<p>Very defensive aren't we nspeds? You are grasping at straws. </p>
<p>People don't magically go from 1300-1400 SAT scores to 178 LSAT's. Though work makes a difference, a lot of what standardized tests measure is intrinsic and if you don't got it, you don't got it.</p>
<p>An example I would use as an example Richard Nixon. He got a scholarship into Harvard but even then could not attend because his parents could not afford it. There are plenty of people like that around universities across the nation who did better but chose to go to lesser-ranked schools for a variety of reasons. I would take a very informed guess that it is these students who are coming to Harvard and Yale Law from "no-name" schools for the most part.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Very defensive aren't we nspeds? You are grasping at straws.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you... though you have no evidence to substantiate the latter claim. As usual.</p>
<p>
[quote]
An example I would use as an example Richard Nixon.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A very good example since... well... everyone is Richard Nixon.</p>
<p>Now wait a minute...</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would take a very informed guess
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uhhh... the notion of 'informed' when associated with your name only taints the former, and does nothing for the latter.</p>
<p>Oh, and if you have forgotten, and I think you have, guesses do not add up for much when compared to the numbers. Just to invoke the trite line for which you seem to have a singular propensity: numbers don't lie.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People don't magically go from 1300-1400 SAT scores to 178 LSAT's. Though work makes a difference, a lot of what standardized tests measure is intrinsic and if you don't got it, you don't got it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i'm really sorry -- i doubt this will convince you, but maybe for those others reading-- but this is just not correct. (and i say this as someone who went to No-Name U with a 1300 SAT and scored much better on the LSAT's, attended YLS and met many other grads from lesser known u's who had NOT turned down ivies in order to attend their lesser known u's.)</p>
<p>i have to keep going back to my personal experience and that of fellow classmates when i have to conclude that the pool of future HYS law grads has not been pre-determined when they were 17 year olds in hs applying to college.</p>
<p>i completely disagree with "a lot of what standardized tests measure is intrinsic." if taken to mean you cannot change your score much by studying, then that simply does not agree with a lot of anecdotal evidence. people raise their scores all the time by studying, though i haven't gone through seeing my peers study for the LSAT yet, just SAT. for most there is a ceiling that is below the perfect mark, but that does not mean the test measures intrinsic ability.</p>
<p>In my experience, its fairly intrinsic. there is certain range for improvement. but that range is definitely limited. if everyone could study and receive high scores, they would. </p>
<p>tons of high school students with high gpa's and intense studys habits receive poor SAT scores. </p>
<p>In fact, I think most standardized test makers intentionally design the test to limit improvement from studying.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my experience, its fairly intrinsic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? I scored a 164 my freshman year, and a 180 last August. I am now a junior. That is a pretty wide range of "intrinsic ability" ;).</p>
<p>There is definitely some intrinsic ability involved, but not to the extent one thinks it is. If you have at least an IQ of a 130, it is just a matter of honing those analytical thinking skills. I know many students who would make for great mathematicians, but do not care enough to try for it.</p>
<p>Edit: Something tells me that I should not have mentioned my highest practice score. At any rate, I will probably score significantly lower on the actual exam. So no worries.</p>