New ABA Data

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
Birdman
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 12:37 am

New ABA Data

Postby Birdman » Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:41 pm

The most current admissions data is now up on LSAC's aba data website. New color too, now in blue.

User avatar
mec30
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 3:24 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby mec30 » Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:46 pm


User avatar
im_blue
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:53 am

Re: New ABA Data

Postby im_blue » Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:47 pm

"Selectivity" Ranking by Median LSAT, then Median GPA (160+):
USNWR Rank, Law School, GPA, LSAT, Class Size

Top 14
1. Yale University 3.82 3.90 3.96 170 173 176 214
2. Harvard University 3.76 3.89 3.96 171 173 176 559
4. Columbia University 3.60 3.72 3.81 170 172 175 397
5. University of Chicago 3.63 3.76 3.84 169 171 173 191
6. New York University 3.57 3.72 3.86 169 171 173 450
3. Stanford University 3.77 3.88 3.97 167 170 172 170
10. University of Virginia 3.54 3.85 3.92 165 170 171 368
7. University of Pennsylvania 3.57 3.82 3.90 166 170 171 255
11. Northwestern University 3.40 3.72 3.81 166 170 172 271
14. Georgetown University 3.42 3.68 3.81 168 170 172 463
11. Duke University 3.60 3.76 3.84 167 169 171 228
9. University of Michigan 3.55 3.70 3.84 167 169 170 371
7. University of California – Berkeley 3.68 3.83 3.95 165 168 170 292
13. Cornell University 3.48 3.63 3.80 165 167 168 205

Top 16
15. University of California – Los Angeles 3.57 3.75 3.88 164 168 169 320
17. Vanderbilt University 3.50 3.71 3.86 164 168 169 195

Top 21
20. George Washington University 3.45 3.77 3.86 163 167 168 456
15. University of Texas 3.54 3.71 3.87 164 167 168 379
19. Washington University in St. Louis 3.30 3.70 3.80 161 167 168 261
22. University of Minnesota 3.30 3.64 3.85 160 167 168 213
18. University of Southern California 3.47 3.60 3.71 165 167 167 215

Top 28
21. University of Illinois 3.20 3.80 3.90 160 166 167 232
22. Boston University 3.50 3.70 3.83 164 166 167 271
34. Fordham University 3.44 3.64 3.77 164 166 167 318
14. Georgetown University (Part Time) 3.42 3.62 3.78 163 166 168 127
22. University of Notre Dame 3.36 3.60 3.74 163 166 167 186
22. Emory University 3.37 3.57 3.68 165 166 167 248
28. Boston College 3.34 3.53 3.68 163 166 167 264
34. Washington and Lee University 3.28 3.53 3.78 160 166 167 135

Top 29
28. College of William and Mary 3.42 3.66 3.77 161 165 166 209
20. George Washington University (Part Time) 3.16 3.53 3.83 162 165 167 50

Top 35
38. University of Alabama 3.42 3.77 3.91 160 164 166 164
48. Southern Methodist University 3.30 3.76 3.87 158 164 165 178
28. University of Georgia 3.40 3.70 3.80 161 164 165 241
27. Indiana University Bloomington 3.26 3.70 3.83 156 164 165 220
52. Cardozo (Yeshiva University) 3.39 3.60 3.75 161 164 166 268
42. University of California – Hastings 3.39 3.58 3.71 161 164 165 469

Top 42
42. Brigham Young University 3.52 3.74 3.85 160 163 165 147
38. University of Colorado 3.42 3.68 3.78 160 163 165 166
34. University of Washington 3.47 3.66 3.80 160 163 166 181
42. George Mason University 3.20 3.65 3.83 158 163 165 190
28. University of California – Davis 3.23 3.51 3.72 160 163 165 213
67. Brooklyn Law School 3.26 3.47 3.64 160 163 164 406
34. Fordham University (Part Time) 3.28 3.42 3.66 161 163 165 158
48. American University 3.14 3.39 3.59 158 163 164 385

Top 52
34. Ohio State University 3.49 3.64 3.81 158 162 164 225
52. Pepperdine University 3.43 3.61 3.79 160 162 163 230
48. Tulane University 3.34 3.60 3.75 160 162 164 284
38. Wake Forest University 3.20 3.60 3.70 160 162 164 154
28. University of Wisconsin 3.31 3.60 3.76 156 162 163 278
28. University of North Carolina 3.43 3.58 3.73 157 162 164 262
48. University of Maryland 3.29 3.50 3.67 161 162 167 226
67. Villanova University 3.17 3.44 3.63 160 162 163 255
54. University of Connecticut 3.22 3.43 3.59 160 162 163 120
60. University of Houston 3.08 3.37 3.63 160 162 164 205

Top 64
42. George Mason University (Part Time) 3.25 3.72 3.81 157 161 163 56
47. University of Florida 3.42 3.69 3.85 158 161 163 307
26. University of Iowa 3.43 3.61 3.81 158 161 164 195
38. Arizona State University 3.34 3.60 3.78 158 161 163 184
60. Georgia State University 3.20 3.60 3.80 159 161 162 168
80. Chicago Kent (Illinois Institute of Tech.) 3.21 3.53 3.69 157 161 163 246
80. Rutgers University – Camden 3.21 3.53 3.70 159 161 162 227
64. Lewis & Clark 3.21 3.52 3.72 158 161 164 176
42. University of Arizona 3.34 3.51 3.71 159 161 163 155
86. University of Richmond 3.19 3.48 3.63 159 161 163 149
72. St. John’s University 3.16 3.48 3.70 156 161 163 231
72. Temple University 3.11 3.41 3.61 160 161 163 239
86. Northeastern University 3.20 3.40 3.63 155 161 163 214
48. American University (Part Time) 3.06 3.28 3.52 159 161 162 96

Top 74
64. Baylor University 3.40 3.62 3.80 156 160 162 197
42. University of Utah 3.41 3.60 3.76 156 160 163 129
52. Cardozo (Yeshiva University) (Part Time) 3.28 3.56 3.71 158 160 161 102
60. University of Tennessee 3.28 3.55 3.77 157 160 161 158
56. Loyola Marymount University 3.33 3.54 3.68 157 160 163 339
54. Florida State University 3.23 3.53 3.74 159 160 162 244
78. Loyola University Chicago 3.29 3.50 3.62 158 160 162 203
72. Seton Hall University 3.21 3.48 3.68 158 160 161 240
56. University of San Diego 3.24 3.46 3.60 158 160 162 281
Drexel University 3.09 3.42 3.70 156 160 163 156
80. Rutgers University – Camden (Part Time) 3.05 3.41 3.70 157 160 161 41
93. Santa Clara University 3.11 3.39 3.61 157 160 161 235
60. University of Houston (Part Time) 3.02 3.28 3.54 156 160 161 51

imbored25
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:58 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby imbored25 » Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:25 pm

http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... AC4342.pdf

16 ppl with 3.5+ and 175-180 applied and all got rejected
who the f*ck does hastings think they are??

User avatar
mec30
Posts: 158
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 3:24 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby mec30 » Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:29 pm

I wouldn't admit them either if they couldn't put a decent sentence together, and/or they have a bunch of misconduct or other flaws on their record.

User avatar
D-ROCCA
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby D-ROCCA » Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:30 pm

imbored25 wrote:http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchResults/SchoolPage_PDFs/LSAC_LawSchoolDescription/LSAC4342.pdf

16 ppl with 3.5+ and 175-180 applied and all got rejected
who the f*ck does hastings think they are??


YP

sumus romani
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:04 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby sumus romani » Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:51 pm

D-ROCCA wrote:
imbored25 wrote:http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchResults/SchoolPage_PDFs/LSAC_LawSchoolDescription/LSAC4342.pdf

16 ppl with 3.5+ and 175-180 applied and all got rejected
who the f*ck does hastings think they are??


YP



There is no such thing as YP, but something somewhat similar is going on. Before you show me some stupid chart from LSN, remember that there are lots of reasons for mediocre schools, and even some good schools, to waitlist and then later reject top candidates (because of futility of offering scholarships, etc.). But none of this amounts to waitlist->rejection for the purposes of protecting yield.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby 09042014 » Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:57 pm

sumus romani wrote:
D-ROCCA wrote:
imbored25 wrote:http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchResults/SchoolPage_PDFs/LSAC_LawSchoolDescription/LSAC4342.pdf

16 ppl with 3.5+ and 175-180 applied and all got rejected
who the f*ck does hastings think they are??


YP



There is no such thing as YP, but something somewhat similar is going on. Before you show me some stupid chart from LSN, remember that there are lots of reasons for mediocre schools, and even some good schools, to waitlist and then later reject top candidates (because of futility of offering scholarships, etc.). But none of this amounts to waitlist->rejection for the purposes of protecting yield.


You start off by denying YP exists, then in the bolded go on to explain YP as the cause, just in different terms.

sumus romani
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:04 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby sumus romani » Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:05 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
sumus romani wrote:
D-ROCCA wrote:
imbored25 wrote:http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchResults/SchoolPage_PDFs/LSAC_LawSchoolDescription/LSAC4342.pdf

16 ppl with 3.5+ and 175-180 applied and all got rejected
who the f*ck does hastings think they are??


YP



There is no such thing as YP, but something somewhat similar is going on. Before you show me some stupid chart from LSN, remember that there are lots of reasons for mediocre schools, and even some good schools, to waitlist and then later reject top candidates (because of futility of offering scholarships, etc.). But none of this amounts to waitlist->rejection for the purposes of protecting yield.


You start off by denying YP exists, then in the bolded go on to explain YP as the cause, just in different terms.



Ha ha! But if 'yield protect' is defined as 'waitlisting/denying for purposes of protecting yield', then indeed the reason I give above is not yield protect, but something which mimics it. If even full ride scholarships are futile, then the applicant is not waitlisted/denied for the purposes of protecting yield, either directly or indirectly. HTH :lol:

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby 09042014 » Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:06 pm

sumus romani wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
sumus romani wrote:



There is no such thing as YP, but something somewhat similar is going on. Before you show me some stupid chart from LSN, remember that there are lots of reasons for mediocre schools, and even some good schools, to waitlist and then later reject top candidates (because of futility of offering scholarships, etc.). But none of this amounts to waitlist->rejection for the purposes of protecting yield.


You start off by denying YP exists, then in the bolded go on to explain YP as the cause, just in different terms.



Ha ha! But if 'yield protect' is defined as 'waitlisting/denying for purposes of protecting yield', then indeed the reason I give above is not yield protect, but something which mimics it. If even full ride scholarships are futile, then the applicant is not waitlisted/denied for the purposes of protecting yield, either directly or indirectly. HTH :lol:


Why does a school care if it offers a futile scholarship? Because it hurts their yield.

sumus romani
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:04 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby sumus romani » Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:14 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
sumus romani wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
sumus romani wrote:



There is no such thing as YP, but something somewhat similar is going on. Before you show me some stupid chart from LSN, remember that there are lots of reasons for mediocre schools, and even some good schools, to waitlist and then later reject top candidates (because of futility of offering scholarships, etc.). But none of this amounts to waitlist->rejection for the purposes of protecting yield.


You start off by denying YP exists, then in the bolded go on to explain YP as the cause, just in different terms.



Ha ha! But if 'yield protect' is defined as 'waitlisting/denying for purposes of protecting yield', then indeed the reason I give above is not yield protect, but something which mimics it. If even full ride scholarships are futile, then the applicant is not waitlisted/denied for the purposes of protecting yield, either directly or indirectly. HTH :lol:


Why does a school care if it offers a futile scholarship? Because it hurts their yield.



First of all, yield is not used in the USNews rankings, nor any other rankings that I know of. And while it is important for applicants to take it into account, it is not as though a high yield will help in the rankings.

I think that it is much more complicated than you are suggesting. The adcoms have no idea who of those very top students would accept full rides, so they offer to someone more likely to accept (but who is still above both medians). Also, they cannot just accept and then offer full rides to all of those applicants above both medians, because a disaster could follow if all of the applicants took the school up on the offers (a rare occurrence, for sure, but the results would be terrible for the school). Notice how the schools give out roughly the same number of full rides year after year, etc.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby 09042014 » Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:17 pm

sumus romani wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
sumus romani wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
You start off by denying YP exists, then in the bolded go on to explain YP as the cause, just in different terms.



Ha ha! But if 'yield protect' is defined as 'waitlisting/denying for purposes of protecting yield', then indeed the reason I give above is not yield protect, but something which mimics it. If even full ride scholarships are futile, then the applicant is not waitlisted/denied for the purposes of protecting yield, either directly or indirectly. HTH :lol:


Why does a school care if it offers a futile scholarship? Because it hurts their yield.



First of all, yield is not used in the USNews rankings, nor any other rankings that I know of. And while it is important for applicants to take it into account, it is not as though a high yield will help in the rankings.

I think that it is much more complicated than you are suggesting. The adcoms have no idea who of those very top students would accept full rides, so they offer to someone more likely to accept (but who is still above both medians). Also, they cannot just accept and then offer full rides to all of those applicants above both medians, because a disaster could follow if all of the applicants took the school up on the offers (a rare occurrence, for sure, but the results would be terrible for the school). Notice how the schools give out roughly the same number of full rides year after year, etc.


Acceptance rate is a factor in USNews. It's probably the main reason UVA separated itself from NU and Duke this year

And no, the adcoms aren't worried about everyone accepting their scholarships. They already massively over promise. They do have a general idea how many will take and how many will turn down.

User avatar
Cleareyes
Posts: 408
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:59 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby Cleareyes » Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:20 pm

sumus romani wrote:
First of all, yield is not used in the USNews rankings, nor any other rankings that I know of. And while it is important for applicants to take it into account, it is not as though a high yield will help in the rankings.

I think that it is much more complicated than you are suggesting. The adcoms have no idea who of those very top students would accept full rides, so they offer to someone more likely to accept (but who is still above both medians). Also, they cannot just accept and then offer full rides to all of those applicants above both medians, because a disaster could follow if all of the applicants took the school up on the offers (a rare occurrence, for sure, but the results would be terrible for the school). Notice how the schools give out roughly the same number of full rides year after year, etc.


Why not accept and offer no scholarship then, and let the person either A) try to bargain for a scholarship or B) attend at sticker?

What's your explanation for waitlist/rejection instead of acceptance w/no scholarship if not for YP?

sumus romani
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:04 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby sumus romani » Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:23 pm

[/quote]
Acceptance rate is a factor in USNews. It's probably the main reason UVA separated itself from NU and Duke this year

And no, the adcoms aren't worried about everyone accepting their scholarships. They already massively over promise. They do have a general idea how many will take and how many will turn down.[/quote]

If the reason they reject the top of the top students is to increase acceptance rate, then what we have is AP, not YP.

Secondly, I admit that I am speculating quite a bit here, but I think is that those very top applicants (such as the ones at Hastings) are especially hard to predict and wait until the last minute to accept (if indeed they do accept). If they turn down the school, that is a wasted full-ride offer. Part of this is that I just see no reason to YP, given that it is not in the rankings. I am a cynic in law admissions, and I think it almost entirely comes down to numbers. But the adcoms have to offer their scholarships very carefully to get those numbers, merit and so-called need-aid. They can over-commit, for sure, but they cannot over-over-commit.

sumus romani
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:04 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby sumus romani » Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:27 pm

Cleareyes wrote:
sumus romani wrote:
First of all, yield is not used in the USNews rankings, nor any other rankings that I know of. And while it is important for applicants to take it into account, it is not as though a high yield will help in the rankings.

I think that it is much more complicated than you are suggesting. The adcoms have no idea who of those very top students would accept full rides, so they offer to someone more likely to accept (but who is still above both medians). Also, they cannot just accept and then offer full rides to all of those applicants above both medians, because a disaster could follow if all of the applicants took the school up on the offers (a rare occurrence, for sure, but the results would be terrible for the school). Notice how the schools give out roughly the same number of full rides year after year, etc.


Why not accept and offer no scholarship then, and let the person either A) try to bargain for a scholarship or B) attend at sticker?

What's your explanation for waitlist/rejection instead of acceptance w/no scholarship if not for YP?



With regard to accepting and then no-offering on scholarships, this is just a worthless practice, since there is no way that those top students will attend. Better to protect admissions percentages. So again, we are left with AP, not YP.

Also with regard to accepting and then no-offering, by waitlisting, the applicant can indeed seek out the adcoms, beg for admissions, then bargain for a scholarship or attend at sticker. But the applicants don't do this, evidently, at least at Hastings the year in question.

Again, I understand that I am speculating a lot here, but I hate to see 'YP' thrown around so carelessly.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby 09042014 » Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:28 pm

sumus romani wrote:
If the reason they reject the top of the top students is to increase acceptance rate, then what we have is AP, not YP.

Secondly, I admit that I am speculating quite a bit here, but I think is that those very top applicants (such as the ones at Hastings) are especially hard to predict and wait until the last minute to accept (if indeed they do accept). If they turn down the school, that is a wasted full-ride offer. Part of this is that I just see no reason to YP, given that it is not in the rankings. I am a cynic in law admissions, and I think it almost entirely comes down to numbers. But the adcoms have to offer their scholarships very carefully to get those numbers, merit and so-called need-aid. They can over-commit, for sure, but they cannot over-over-commit.


AP is inversely related to yield. A higher yield rate lowers acceptance rate.

User avatar
D-ROCCA
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby D-ROCCA » Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:30 pm

sumus romani wrote:They can over-commit, for sure, but they cannot over-over-commit.


Can you explain what you mean here? You might be on to something...
And there was much care put forth in my original assertion of YP :lol:

sumus romani
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:04 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby sumus romani » Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:41 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
sumus romani wrote:
If the reason they reject the top of the top students is to increase acceptance rate, then what we have is AP, not YP.

Secondly, I admit that I am speculating quite a bit here, but I think is that those very top applicants (such as the ones at Hastings) are especially hard to predict and wait until the last minute to accept (if indeed they do accept). If they turn down the school, that is a wasted full-ride offer. Part of this is that I just see no reason to YP, given that it is not in the rankings. I am a cynic in law admissions, and I think it almost entirely comes down to numbers. But the adcoms have to offer their scholarships very carefully to get those numbers, merit and so-called need-aid. They can over-commit, for sure, but they cannot over-over-commit.


AP is inversely related to yield. A higher yield rate lowers acceptance rate.



Suppose what you say is true for the moment. What we have is still best characterized as waitlist/rejection for the purpose of protecting acceptance rate. Presumably, what we are looking for is an explanation of the motive of adcoms, not the intermediate step, if you catch my drift. So, if they say that the real reason for waitlist/rejecting these students is because accepting them will ultimately hurt their acceptance rate, then it is better to characterize it at AP, not YP.

sumus romani
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:04 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby sumus romani » Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:47 pm

D-ROCCA wrote:
sumus romani wrote:They can over-commit, for sure, but they cannot over-over-commit.


Can you explain what you mean here? You might be on to something...
And there was much care put forth in my original assertion of YP :lol:



I just mean that the schools have a strong motive to offer to those whom they believe are likely to help their numbers and most likely to accept. They must have some standard number of offers they give each year, given their number of scholarships. It is a simple formula. They cannot go above this number of offers, because if everyone accepts, then they are screwed. They understand that, and offer to those who will likely help them and who are most likely to accept them. If they offer to those who will not accept, but reject them at the last minute, then that is a wasted offer, so to speak (since by the deadline, those above both medians might fully commit somewhere else). This problem for adcoms has been increasingly difficult over the past decade or two, as students are increasingly portable, and apply to yet more and more schools.

Also, I didn't mean to give you a hard time about the original YP claim. I see it all the time on TLS. It is just something I've thought about for a long time.

User avatar
D-ROCCA
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby D-ROCCA » Sun Jun 20, 2010 7:10 pm

No offense taken, you may have a pretty valid point. I, like you, have a pretty pessimistic view about law school admissions. The concept of YP just seems to make sense to me here. I'm not sure these people are the ones that wait until the last minute to make a decision, I think they're the ones that turn a lesser school down right away because they already got into better schools.

sumus romani
Posts: 565
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:04 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby sumus romani » Sun Jun 20, 2010 7:14 pm

D-ROCCA wrote:No offense taken, you may have a pretty valid point. I, like you, have a pretty pessimistic view about law school admissions. The concept of YP just seems to make sense to me here. I'm not sure these people are the ones that wait until the last minute to make a decision, I think they're the ones that turn a lesser school down right away because they already got into better schools.



And instead, I see those very top applicants being waitlist/rejected at Hastings for a cluster of reasons, with YP only figuring in a small part--insofar as it pertains indirectly to AP (after all, we are talking about between 17-150 of Hastings' 6,200 applicants). I think that it has to do mostly with the extreme unpredictability/futility of those very top applicants for scholarship purposes.

One thing was can agree on though is that very top applicants are throwing away their money in applying to Hastings.

User avatar
D. H2Oman
Posts: 7469
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:47 am

Re: New ABA Data

Postby D. H2Oman » Sun Jun 20, 2010 7:17 pm

sumus romani wrote:One thing was can agree on though is that very top applicants are throwing away their money in applying to Hastings.



175+/3.5+ would be throwing their money away by applying at Hastings even if they were getting accepted and offered full rides.

User avatar
D-ROCCA
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby D-ROCCA » Sun Jun 20, 2010 7:19 pm

D-ROCCA wrote:One thing was can agree on though is that very top applicants are throwing away their money in applying to Hastings.


You're damn right.

User avatar
im_blue
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:53 am

Re: New ABA Data

Postby im_blue » Sun Jun 20, 2010 7:25 pm

D. H2Oman wrote:
sumus romani wrote:One thing was can agree on though is that very top applicants are throwing away their money in applying to Hastings.



175+/3.5+ would be throwing their money away by applying at Hastings even if they were getting accepted and offered full rides.

The sad thing is that I would wager that some of them are so dead set on living in CA that they would seriously consider Hastings over T14's, after getting rejected from Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, and USC.

User avatar
D-ROCCA
Posts: 324
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: New ABA Data

Postby D-ROCCA » Sun Jun 20, 2010 7:28 pm

175+ and 3.5+ rejected from UCLA and USC?




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: phelpsy, SolRs and 8 guests