where can I get in?

[Detail]

<p>

If housecat wanted to sabotage the OP, a simple screencap mailed to the T14 law schools at the appropriate time would be extremely damaging and would virtually guarantee a rejection. Of course, it would damage him as well.

</p>

<p>For some reason I doubt CLS would go through the trouble of identifying her for saying that “her advisor told her she was a shoo in”. Saying such a thing in an interview would be damaging, but even then it wouldn’t “guarantee a rejection”.</p>

<p>Also I would be very suspect of the alleged score, given the quality of arguments she tried to make…</p>

<p>

Summerskter: Your post amused me most of all. If my memory is correct, at no time did gender become the issue of contention in this discussion. Race and gender are of course two completely distinct categories. More so the issue at hand is a statistical phenomenon, even if gender was the issue you’d merely represent a single data point. You’d be included in the expected distribution of outcomes for females, albeit likely on the far right tale. Additionally you responded to the issue raised by Housecat with an ad hominem attack. No where in your post is there a single relevant and intelligible answer or argument. Your post is nothing more than reactionary narcissistic moral indignation and outrage. Lastly I hope you realize your poor attempt at sarcasm is lost to the incredible irony of your post, hopefully your “hormone-addled brain” can figure out what I mean. I hope you learn how to construct relevant and coherent arguments before attending Columbia, you’ll find law school quite challenging otherwise.

+1</p>

[bluedevilmike]

<p>

I doubt CLS would go through the trouble of identifying her for saying that “her advisor told her she was a shoo in”.

</p>

<p>That was not my complaint about her post.</p>

<p>As you quote as well:</p>

<p>

Your post is nothing more than reactionary narcissistic moral indignation and outrage.

</p>

[housecat1234]

<p>I’m shocked that anyone actually believes what summersktr says.</p>

<p>“She” supposedly scored below a 1450 on her first SAT but scored a 174 on her first ever practice LSAT, without even knowing what type of questions the test asked.</p>

<p>How could anyone on this forum believe that? Summersktr is probably laughing at us for taking “her” (it’s probably a him) seriously.</p>

<p>Edit: According to her profile, she has a 1430 on the SAT, which she claims is higher than my 1450. I can’t believe I fell for this ■■■■■.</p>

[bluedevilmike]

<p>A cold 1430 to a cold 174 is not implausible, especially if she took a slightly older test. Really.</p>

[USMC_Jim]

<p>I’m from Homeland Security. You’re all going to have to come in for questioning about this Hijacking…</p>

[housecat1234]

<p>

A cold 1430 to a cold 174 is not implausible, especially if she took a slightly older test. Really.

</p>

<p>It’s not implausible, but it’s still very, very unlikely. Scoring higher than the average Harvard and Yale Law student without any preparation or foreknowledge about the content of the LSAT is beyond my imagination. Also, her 1430 on the SAT was a retake after significant studying.</p>

[Detail]

<p>I could have scored an easy 800 on the math and probably a 700+ on english in middle school. The SATs test you on very very basic knowledge.</p>

<p>A 174 cold is very rare though. I can see someone getting nearly everything on the LR and CR sections correct, but it would take a bonafied genius to do logic games (correctly) in under 35 mins without any preparation.</p>

[bluedevilmike]

<p>I wouldn’t even say that. Speaking as somebody who knows my own “cold” scores, I promise that it’s not a very severe jump – especially if she was taking an old LSAT.</p>

<p>Of course, if the 1430 was after significant studying, that’s a different story.</p>