Page 2 of 2

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 11:57 am
by Dr. Strangelove
clintonius wrote:
Dr. Strangelove wrote:
MrKappus wrote:I'm not sure what makes you think a 3.0 will get you into (school/25 percentile):

Harvard/3.76
Columbia/3.6
NYU/3.57
Chicago/3.63
Penn/3.57
UVA/3.54
Mich/3.55
Cornell/3.5
Duke/3.6
UCLA/3.57

...but good luck. NU seems to be the only T14 that would even consider an applicant w/ your GPA.


Look at LSN, buddy. 8)
Also blatant anti-GULC trolling-if your whole argument is based on 25th percentiles..
But with that said, thanks for wishing me luck, :D

Just to humor you, I did check LSN for these schools. The only ones that show *any* acceptances below 3.1 are UVA, Mich, Cornell and UCLA. Even then the number of those acceptances is vanishingly small and not a single one has an LSAT below 170. Really, I don't think anybody here is trying to be a downer -- you just really should look at your options a bit more realistically.


I understand. I'm not saying I'm going to get into CCN or anything like that- I just think it might be worth it to apply..
That's why I'm doing everything I can to get a really high LSAT. :wink:
A 2.9/180 got into Penn, Georgetown, Cornell, Virginia, and Northwestern a while back but I think he had quite a few years of WE...
Also keep in mind I have one more year of grades left- it may not be a 2.8 forever..

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 11:58 am
by 09042014
Dr. Strangelove wrote:
clintonius wrote:
Dr. Strangelove wrote:
MrKappus wrote:I'm not sure what makes you think a 3.0 will get you into (school/25 percentile):

Harvard/3.76
Columbia/3.6
NYU/3.57
Chicago/3.63
Penn/3.57
UVA/3.54
Mich/3.55
Cornell/3.5
Duke/3.6
UCLA/3.57

...but good luck. NU seems to be the only T14 that would even consider an applicant w/ your GPA.


Look at LSN, buddy. 8)
Also blatant anti-GULC trolling-if your whole argument is based on 25th percentiles..
But with that said, thanks for wishing me luck, :D

Just to humor you, I did check LSN for these schools. The only ones that show *any* acceptances below 3.1 are UVA, Mich, Cornell and UCLA. Even then the number of those acceptances is vanishingly small and not a single one has an LSAT below 170. Really, I don't think anybody here is trying to be a downer -- you just really should look at your options a bit more realistically.


I understand. I'm not saying I'm going to get into CCN or anything like that- I just think it might be worth it to apply..
That's why I'm doing everything I can to get a really high LSAT. :wink:


I applied, only because I fee waviers and it cost 12 dollars. I wouldn't pay their app fees. You aren't getting in. They WL hundreds of better candidates.

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 12:00 pm
by romothesavior
Dr. Strangelove wrote:
clintonius wrote:
Dr. Strangelove wrote:
MrKappus wrote:I'm not sure what makes you think a 3.0 will get you into (school/25 percentile):

Harvard/3.76
Columbia/3.6
NYU/3.57
Chicago/3.63
Penn/3.57
UVA/3.54
Mich/3.55
Cornell/3.5
Duke/3.6
UCLA/3.57

...but good luck. NU seems to be the only T14 that would even consider an applicant w/ your GPA.


Look at LSN, buddy. 8)
Also blatant anti-GULC trolling-if your whole argument is based on 25th percentiles..
But with that said, thanks for wishing me luck, :D

Just to humor you, I did check LSN for these schools. The only ones that show *any* acceptances below 3.1 are UVA, Mich, Cornell and UCLA. Even then the number of those acceptances is vanishingly small and not a single one has an LSAT below 170. Really, I don't think anybody here is trying to be a downer -- you just really should look at your options a bit more realistically.


I understand. I'm not saying I'm going to get into CCN or anything like that- I just think it might be worth it to apply..
That's why I'm doing everything I can to get a really high LSAT. :wink:
A 2.9/180 got into Penn, Georgetown, Cornell, Virginia, and Northwestern a while back but I think he had quite a few years of WE...
Also keep in mind I have one more year of grades left- it may not be a 2.8 forever..


If you have lots of time and a fee waiver, then apply. If you are going to spend hundreds to apply to schools that are auto-reject and waste all that time applying, you are making a mistake.

A 170/sub-3.0 URM is likely a near auto-reject at many of the schools you've listed. Your chances almost zero.

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 12:06 pm
by Dr. Strangelove
These are all really good points- cuts down my list a lot. (Unless I get fee waivers- I really don't have the money to spend on so many law schools..)
I guess I just have to hope for the best on the LSAT and that LSAT correlates with law school grades near 100%.. (which would mean I can transfer to a higher school after 1L).

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:37 pm
by MrKappus
Dr. Strangelove wrote:
MrKappus wrote:I'm not sure what makes you think a 3.0 will get you into (school/25 percentile):

Harvard/3.76
Columbia/3.6
NYU/3.57
Chicago/3.63
Penn/3.57
UVA/3.54
Mich/3.55
Cornell/3.5
Duke/3.6
UCLA/3.57

...but good luck. NU seems to be the only T14 that would even consider an applicant w/ your GPA.


Look at LSN, buddy. 8)
Also blatant anti-GULC trolling-if your whole argument is based on 25th percentiles..
But with that said, thanks for wishing me luck, :D


Haha it wasn't anti-GULC trolling at all. I thought 3.42 was at least marginally closer to 3.0 than the ones I listed.

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 1:53 pm
by Barolo
No, not good.

You've assembled a long list of schools to which you have no chance of being accepted. I'm sorry. The last schools you list are realistic. Keep these and pick a few reaches using, you know, reason and evidence. This doesn't make you a bad person or consign you to a life of failure, but be realistic. Crystal ball says that in about 10 months you will be starting the "worst cycle EVER" threads and bemoan the fact that you're not in anywhere. This is all about the numbers and your GPA has screwed you (yes, I'm being kind by using passive voice). Like the other reasonable people have said, pick splitter friendly schools, apply early, and enjoy great success with handsome schollys at really good (but non-T14) schools.

Reality sucks; brace yourself.

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 2:03 pm
by Barolo
Also, don't count on your ability to transfer.

Silver lining: there are a bunch of really good schools with very alluring cultures that aren't T-14. Focus on geography and fit. Let your potentially awesome LSAT score you a killer scholly to minimize downside risk.

Prospects are only bleak because you're trying to take home the 10 when you've got 9's throwing themselves at you.

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 3:13 pm
by 09042014
Barolo wrote:Also, don't count on your ability to transfer.

Silver lining: there are a bunch of really good schools with very alluring cultures that aren't T-14. Focus on geography and fit. Let your potentially awesome LSAT score you a killer scholly to minimize downside risk.

Prospects are only bleak because you're trying to take home the 10 when you've got 9's throwing themselves at you.


LOL at WUSTL, UIUC and Minn being 9's. Maybe 3's with a wicked case of the clap.

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 3:15 pm
by Barolo
Desert Fox wrote:
Barolo wrote:Also, don't count on your ability to transfer.

Silver lining: there are a bunch of really good schools with very alluring cultures that aren't T-14. Focus on geography and fit. Let your potentially awesome LSAT score you a killer scholly to minimize downside risk.

Prospects are only bleak because you're trying to take home the 10 when you've got 9's throwing themselves at you.


LOL at WUSTL, UIUC and Minn being 9's. Maybe 3's with a wicked case of the clap.


I was either being nice -- or recognizing that the 20th out of 200 schools is at about the 90th percentile. Granted everything sucks at the bottom of the list.

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:11 pm
by flyingpanda
Barolo wrote:
I was either being nice -- or recognizing that the 20th out of 200 schools is at about the 90th percentile. Granted everything sucks at the bottom of the list.


If he gets 170+ he has a chance at some of the schools in the middle of his list. See my LSN profile, kthxbai.

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:34 pm
by sumus romani
I think that the advice to apply to NU is great. Even if you aren't in their ideal demographic, you will be a good numbers match with a decent LSAT (170).

Also, several people have suggested to you that you should add some safeties. This may very well be a mistake. Bascially, in any economy in my opinion, law applicants should do an cost/benefit analysis to decide how low he or she is willing to go at sticker, given the c/b analysis and his or her goals in life. That applicant should apply only at the minimum and above--and not go to law school if not admitted to one on that list. No matter what law applicants will tell you, there is always the alternative of getting a bad job in business of some sort and working one's way up (especially since so few are informed about what being an attorney is really like).

Pre-Law advisors misguide tens of thousands of students each year by telling them to, first, decide whether they want to go to law school, and second, if 'yes' then to apply to reaches, targets and safeties. This, to my mind is terrible advice and results in the lemming slaughter we see every year (15,000 law graduates not employed in law each year). I would encourage you to find the minimum before just adding safeties to round out the list.

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:36 pm
by Dr. Strangelove
Barolo wrote:Also, don't count on your ability to transfer.

Silver lining: there are a bunch of really good schools with very alluring cultures that aren't T-14. Focus on geography and fit. Let your potentially awesome LSAT score you a killer scholly to minimize downside risk.

Prospects are only bleak because you're trying to take home the 10 when you've got 9's throwing themselves at you.


Thanks, this is definitely something to think about!
It seems like that "9" schools still place people in big law- it's just a little harder but not impossible.
A killer scholly would take off a lot of pressure to go into big law.

I've done a little research- still makes sense in my case to apply to Northwestern. Some WE-less people did get in with similar stats or were at the very least waitlisted rather than rejected.

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:43 pm
by forty-two
sumus romani wrote:I think that the advice to apply to NU is great. Even if you aren't in their ideal demographic, you will be a good numbers match with a decent LSAT (170).

Also, several people have suggested to you that you should add some safeties. This may very well be a mistake. Bascially, in any economy in my opinion, law applicants should do an cost/benefit analysis to decide how low he or she is willing to go at sticker, given the c/b analysis and his or her goals in life. That applicant should apply only at the minimum and above--and not go to law school if not admitted to one on that list. No matter what law applicants will tell you, there is always the alternative of getting a bad job in business of some sort and working one's way up (especially since so few are informed about what being an attorney is really like).

Pre-Law advisors misguide tens of thousands of students each year by telling them to, first, decide whether they want to go to law school, and second, if 'yes' then to apply to reaches, targets and safeties. This, to my mind is terrible advice and results in the lemming slaughter we see every year (15,000 law graduates not employed in law each year). I would encourage you to find the minimum before just adding safeties to round out the list.


I get what you're saying about not paying sticker at certain schools, but adding safeties could get OP scholarships that he could possibly leverage to get money from other schools on his list. Maybe I'm just more debt averse than most, but I don't see anything wrong with applying to a few safeties.

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:53 pm
by Dr. Strangelove
My new list (contingent on LSAT score..)

Yale: NO
Harvard: NO
Stanford: NO
Columbia: NO
Chicago: NO
NYU: 177
UC-Berkeley: 178 (if Boalt really weighs GPA significantly more than LSAT- then no!)
Penn: 175 (might still apply ED with lower score..)
Michigan: 173 (might still apply ED with lower score..)
UVA: 174 (might still apply ED with lower score..)
Duke: 177
Northwestern: 172
Cornell: 170
Georgetown: 172
UCLA: 174
UT-Austin: 171
Vanderbilt: 171
USC: 169
Wash U: 166
George Washington: 168
Illinois: 162
Boston University: 169
Emory: 168
Minnesota: 165
Notre Dame: 167
Fordham: 167

I don't think I'd apply anywhere lower than that. These aren't scores I think I need to get in but rather scores where it still makes sense to send an application in given a ~3.0 GPA.

I'm gonna have to buckle down next semester (thankfully am not taking any ridiculously difficult math classes), having a GPA higher than what I have now is important.

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:59 pm
by NayBoer
Dude, seriously. Just get a job, ED to Penn or UVA and go if you get in. Otherwise, ED to NU with a year or two of WE.

Also, Harvard is a waste. Multiple people with your numbers overshot and tried to get H/CCN and are now shut out of the T14. You have a better shot at getting into NU without WE than getting into H with less than a 3.5 or CCN with less than 3.3.

ED to Penn or UVA with 3+ and 171+ is a decent shot. Shooting higher will just waste a cycle.

Also, you are out at almost all those schools if you aren't a 3.0 (or damned close).

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2010 5:21 pm
by clintonius
Also agree that an ED somewhere is your best shot, and definitely don't waste your cash on an app to Berkeley.

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:24 pm
by Dr. Strangelove
Just as a note, from introspection, if I ended up with anything less than a 175 on the LSAT (I doubt I scored anything that high on this test- it was hard... :( )- I'll probably not apply to law school next year or at the very least not go into the application process with the expectation that I'm going to law school.

I've had enough people (at home) tell me that they think it would be absolutely retarded if I went to a law school that wasn't at the very top.

I'll probably be getting my Masters in Accounting (my accounting GPA is a 4.0- too bad Dook doesn't have an accounting major) or getting a job in the finance sector and apply ED to NU (of course, retaking the LSAT if it's below 170 but even if it's a 170- I don't want to retake it right now.)

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:01 am
by rftdd888
guy has a 2.8 GPA (below average student) and is banking on killing senior year AND destroying the LSAT just to have an outside shot at a top 20 school.

lower your expectations. if you wanted to get in those schools you should've worked harder in undergrad. get a 3.0 (really hard for you right now but you can try) and try to kill the lsat -- some school around 40 should take you.

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:53 am
by rv11
This thread is exactly why people should shut up and not inquire about their chances until they have a score in hand.

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:58 am
by romothesavior
rv11 wrote:This thread is exactly why people should shut up and not inquire about their chances until they have a score in hand.


(+1 * 1,000,000,000) ^ 10

Re: Revised List of Law Schools- Good?

Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 12:01 pm
by 09042014
Dr. Strangelove wrote:Just as a note, from introspection, if I ended up with anything less than a 175 on the LSAT (I doubt I scored anything that high on this test- it was hard... :( )- I'll probably not apply to law school next year or at the very least not go into the application process with the expectation that I'm going to law school.

I've had enough people (at home) tell me that they think it would be absolutely retarded if I went to a law school that wasn't at the very top.

I'll probably be getting my Masters in Accounting (my accounting GPA is a 4.0- too bad Dook doesn't have an accounting major) or getting a job in the finance sector and apply ED to NU (of course, retaking the LSAT if it's below 170 but even if it's a 170- I don't want to retake it right now.)


Can you just dick around for another year to get the 150 hours for Accounting and take the CPA exam? That way those 30 hours count for LSAC GPA?