unique situation-second degree, gpa not counted Forum

[wildcatmccane]

delete

[Bildungsroman]

Only classes taken before receiving your first bachelor's degree will be counted toward your LSDAS GPA.

[bk1]

Grades are only counted until your first bachelor's. After that they are not counted by LSAC. Since you already had a business degree, the classes taken afterwards even, for the anthro degree, don't count.

[09042014]

How can missing 5 A's cost you 1.3? Do you mean .13?

[wildcatmccane]

Understand that answer, but it is a poor one.
So I am getting punished for not getting the degrees at the same time, which a person who also received 2 degrees, but at the same time, accomplished the exact same thing requirements.

It even reports that I have a second degree. How in the world can I have the second degree according to lsac if my grades from up to the first degree don't have the complete accomplishment of those requirements for the second degree?

[wildcatmccane]

I have a 3.33 on my transcripts but lsac has me at 3.20. Yes = .13
I did repeat ONE class. I had a D in it and my retake was a B+.

There are no other exceptions, so I have no idea.

[bk1]

It's LSAC's policy. Why do grades from 10 years ago or for college classes taken during high school count? Because LSAC says so. Suck it up and deal with it. If you don't like it, bitch to LSAC.

[profs<3mycomments]

opposite of a unique situation

[wildcatmccane]

addendum worthy or not?

[vanwinkle]

So I am getting punished for not getting the degrees at the same time, which a person who also received 2 degrees, but at the same time, accomplished the exact same thing requirements.

LSAC doesn't see it as "punishing" you, but essentially, yes. If you had waited and gotten both degrees simultaneously then all credits leading up to both would have counted. However, because you received one degree first, the credits after you received that first bachelor's degree do not count.

It even reports that I have a second degree. How in the world can I have the second degree according to lsac if my grades from up to the first degree don't have the complete accomplishment of those requirements for the second degree?

That's not the issue; it's a policy issue to fix the UGPA at some point, and that point was chosen as the awarding of the first bachelor's degree. This prevents people from going back to school and taking more classes after they graduate just to try to drive up their LSDAS GPA.

addendum worthy or not?

A brief addendum may help, though not nearly as much as if your actual GPA were higher.

[wildcatmccane]

ah but you made a mistake.

I didn't just go back and take basket weaving to raise my GPA. I went and did undergrad work to get another undergrad degree that holds the same title as the first.

I could have just as easily taken basket weaving gotten the BS and then gotten a degree in chemistry. Would that be right to say those classes were not part of my undergrad?

Is there any protection by LSAC against people who did the same thing you described but never graduate until they have taken all the university's easy classes? no. So yes, it is punishing my GPA that I earned for another degree.

[09042014]

ah but you made a mistake.

I didn't just go back and take basket weaving to raise my GPA. I went and did undergrad work to get another undergrad degree that holds the same title as the first.

I could have just as easily taken basket weaving gotten the BS and then gotten a degree in chemistry. Would that be right to say those classes were not part of my undergrad?

There is no discretion allowed. TBH that D probably fucked your GPA more than missing those five A's did.

[hijodehombre]

Don't write an addendum, just fit it in somewhere in your PS. Profs is right. This is not a unique situation.

[vanwinkle]

ah but you made a mistake.

I didn't just go back and take basket weaving to raise my GPA. I went and did undergrad work to get another undergrad degree that holds the same title as the first.

I could have just as easily taken basket weaving gotten the BS and then gotten a degree in chemistry. Would that be right to say those classes were not part of my undergrad?

Is there any protection by LSAC against people who did the same thing you described but never graduate until they have taken all the university's easy classes? no. So yes, it is punishing my GPA that I earned for another degree.

I didn't make a mistake. I simply stated LSAC's policy, which is in place whether the classes you take after your first bachelor's lead to a second or not. Again, you're not being "punished" (punishment implies retribution for a moral wrong); you're simply dealing with a situation where a particular policy leads to less than the most favorable outcome for you personally. That's not punishment at all, it's just an unfortunate situation, but one that you have to live with.

To help you understand better... what about people who get a graduate degree? Their GPA is also excluded, and there are good reasons for this; grading in graduate programs is wildly inconsistent and can often be much harsher than in UG programs. Those whose LSDAS GPAs would be raised, however, by inclusion of graduate classes end up missing out as a result of this policy. Does that mean the policy is "punishing" them? No, not at all. It doesn't care who they are, it's just setting a clear policy and enforcing it. To do otherwise would end up having to do things on a case-by-case basis, which would create a lot of work for LSAC and probably raise their costs even more, which they'd pass on to test-takers and law school applicants.

Not only that, it reduces claims of unfairness or "punishment" by those who might get an exception or don't, because it's easier at least to understand and justify the result with a clearer and more consistent rule in place. The clear rule has its advantages, which is why they keep it.

The law, and even just law school, is full of clear policies without exceptions in places they seem fair. This is something you should get used to now.

[wildcatmccane]

I don't wont to be coming off as a dork, I know I am though.
You perfectly didn't address my question. What are the safe guards against a student taking easy classes before doing their first degree? None.

My point is it is still undergrad. Grad is a whole new field. Undergrad is undergrad. Once graduating you have to reapply to a new college. So there is direction to a degree. During your first undergrad you could just as easily milk the easy classes as after the first degree.

This all presoposes you knew the rules before hand. Is there any reason for somone to assume this rule at all if they are not aware they wish to go to law school later?

[bk1]

Life's not fair, deal with it.

[270910]

I don't wont to be coming off as a dork, I know I am though.
You perfectly didn't address my question. What are the safe guards against a student taking easy classes before doing their first degree? None.

My point is it is still undergrad. Grad is a whole new field. Undergrad is undergrad. Once graduating you have to reapply to a new college. So there is direction to a degree. During your first undergrad you could just as easily milk the easy classes as after the first degree.

This all presoposes you knew the rules before hand. Is there any reason for somone to assume this rule at all?

You're going to love law school, but nobody in law school is going to like you :-/

[wildcatmccane]

haha I am just annoyed to all hell.

The logic just does not exist for this rule. I am surprised there are so many deal with its for a degree that begins by logical testing

[merichard87]

You're arguing with a bunch of people who on the internet who do not work for LSAC. Stop wasting your time trying to prove a point. LSAC fucks a lot of people over. Move on. The 3.3 --> 3.2 was not a huge make or break situation anyway.

[vanwinkle]

I don't wont to be coming off as a dork, I know I am though.
You perfectly didn't address my question. What are the safe guards against a student taking easy classes before doing their first degree? None.

My point is it is still undergrad. Grad is a whole new field. Undergrad is undergrad. Once graduating you have to reapply to a new college. So there is direction to a degree. During your first undergrad you could just as easily milk the easy classes as after the first degree.

This all presoposes you knew the rules before hand. Is there any reason for somone to assume this rule at all?

There are no "safeguards" in place, and sure, plenty of people "game" the system by taking easy classes. But the complexity of setting up a system to check against that, to weigh relative strengths of classes, and factor them in would be daunting, and really wouldn't result in any significant advantages to LSAC or law schools. What do they gain from all that increased complexity? Besides, practically every degree plan requires you to take a minimum number of hours of upper-level course work that ensures you're not just taking simple fluff classes.

The reason I brought up the grad GPA thing is that it's related to your own argument; if they did allow undergrad classes that benefitted a GPA after the first graduate degree, why not allow grad classes that did also, if someone (somehow, and it has happened) had a higher graduate GPA than undergrad? Every time you make an exception you invite more exceptions, and the policy reasons for making an exception for the grad student would be nearly identical to yours: That by raising your GPA even with the inclusion of harder classes it indicates a better capability than your current LSDAS GPA suggests.

But you can dismiss that argument with "Grad work is grad work." So you should be able to realize how easy it is for people to dismiss your argument, as well, since it's not grad work, and there's nothing to assure anyone that it really is hard work, and besides which, who would you be assuring? LSAC? In that case you'd be asking them to develop a procedure for making exceptions, which would add complexity to the application process, which would add costs... and for what overall gain? If you have a low GPA, you can still nail the LSAT, make a good argument in your PS, and get into T14 schools, so you're not disadvantaged that severely by such a rule anyway.

You're ignoring my general point, which is this: They've chosen a simple, straightforward, and broad rule without exceptions, and while you'd gain an advantage from them having a different rule, that doesn't make the different rule better. And no, there's no reason for anyone to assume this rule, but 1) there are other reasons to assume that it's good to keep your GPA up even before you get your first bachelor's degree and 2) it's a rule you can look up if you really want to know how law school admissions works. None of it presupposes you know the rule beforehand; it just presupposes that you have to follow the rule whether you're aware of it or not, which is true for a lot of rules in life, from the criminal law all the way down to law school applications.

haha I am just annoyed to all hell.

The logic just does not exist for this rule. I am surprised there are so many deal with its for a degree that begins by logical testing

Good thing to learn before you get to law school, if you really want to succeed there: Just because you don't see the logic for a rule doesn't mean there's no logic behind it. It just means you don't understand it yet.

[270910]

I don't wont to be coming off as a dork, I know I am though.
You perfectly didn't address my question. What are the safe guards against a student taking easy classes before doing their first degree? None.

My point is it is still undergrad. Grad is a whole new field. Undergrad is undergrad. Once graduating you have to reapply to a new college. So there is direction to a degree. During your first undergrad you could just as easily milk the easy classes as after the first degree.

This all presoposes you knew the rules before hand. Is there any reason for somone to assume this rule at all?

There are no "safeguards" in place, and sure, plenty of people "game" the system by taking easy classes. But the complexity of setting up a system to check against that, to weigh relative strengths of classes, and factor them in would be daunting, and really wouldn't result in any significant advantages to LSAC or law schools. What do they gain from all that increased complexity? Besides, practically every degree plan requires you to take a minimum number of hours of upper-level course work that ensures you're not just taking simple fluff classes.

The reason I brought up the grad GPA thing is that it's related to your own argument; if they did allow undergrad classes that benefitted a GPA after the first graduate degree, why not allow grad classes that did also, if someone (somehow, and it has happened) had a higher graduate GPA than undergrad? Every time you make an exception you invite more exceptions, and the policy reasons for making an exception for the grad student would be nearly identical to yours: That by raising your GPA even with the inclusion of harder classes it indicates a better capability than your current LSDAS GPA suggests.

But you can dismiss that argument with "Grad work is grad work." So you should be able to realize how easy it is for people to dismiss your argument, as well, since it's not grad work, and there's nothing to assure anyone that it really is hard work, and besides which, who would you be assuring? LSAC? In that case you'd be asking them to develop a procedure for making exceptions, which would add complexity to the application process, which would add costs... and for what overall gain? If you have a low GPA, you can still nail the LSAT, make a good argument in your PS, and get into T14 schools, so you're not disadvantaged that severely by such a rule anyway.

You're ignoring my general point, which is this: They've chosen a simple, straightforward, and broad rule without exceptions, and while you'd gain an advantage from them having a different rule, that doesn't make the different rule better. And no, there's no reason for anyone to assume this rule, but 1) there are other reasons to assume that it's good to keep your GPA up even before you get your first bachelor's degree and 2) it's a rule you can look up if you really want to know how law school admissions works. None of it presupposes you know the rule beforehand; it just presupposes that you have to follow the rule whether you're aware of it or not, which is true for a lot of rules in life, from the criminal law all the way down to law school applications.

haha I am just annoyed to all hell.

The logic just does not exist for this rule. I am surprised there are so many deal with its for a degree that begins by logical testing

Good thing to learn before you get to law school, if you really want to succeed there: Just because you don't see the logic for a rule doesn't mean there's no logic behind it. It just means you don't understand it yet.

ITT: Vanwinkle unwittingly provides solid examples for writing answers on law school exams

[bk1]

haha I am just annoyed to all hell.

The logic just does not exist for this rule. I am surprised there are so many deal with its for a degree that begins by logical testing

What logic are you talking about?

It is a rule to smooth over what would otherwise be a nightmare, determining GPA's when collecting them from various times and schools for each person. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, first bachelor's is fine enough.

You ask for exceptions, which is dumb because LSAC cannot get into the head of the person who is taking those classes. Did this person graduate in 6 years just to up their GPA? It would be patently absurd for LSAC to try and defend a position one way or the other.

Having a rule without exceptions is the only logical thing to do.

[hijodehombre]

I don't wont to be coming off as a dork, I know I am though.
You perfectly didn't address my question. What are the safe guards against a student taking easy classes before doing their first degree? None.

My point is it is still undergrad. Grad is a whole new field. Undergrad is undergrad. Once graduating you have to reapply to a new college. So there is direction to a degree. During your first undergrad you could just as easily milk the easy classes as after the first degree.

This all presoposes you knew the rules before hand. Is there any reason for somone to assume this rule at all?

There are no "safeguards" in place, and sure, plenty of people "game" the system by taking easy classes. But the complexity of setting up a system to check against that, to weigh relative strengths of classes, and factor them in would be daunting, and really wouldn't result in any significant advantages to LSAC or law schools. What do they gain from all that increased complexity? Besides, practically every degree plan requires you to take a minimum number of hours of upper-level course work that ensures you're not just taking simple fluff classes.

The reason I brought up the grad GPA thing is that it's related to your own argument; if they did allow undergrad classes that benefitted a GPA after the first graduate degree, why not allow grad classes that did also, if someone (somehow, and it has happened) had a higher graduate GPA than undergrad? Every time you make an exception you invite more exceptions, and the policy reasons for making an exception for the grad student would be nearly identical to yours: That by raising your GPA even with the inclusion of harder classes it indicates a better capability than your current LSDAS GPA suggests.

But you can dismiss that argument with "Grad work is grad work." So you should be able to realize how easy it is for people to dismiss your argument, as well, since it's not grad work, and there's nothing to assure anyone that it really is hard work, and besides which, who would you be assuring? LSAC? In that case you'd be asking them to develop a procedure for making exceptions, which would add complexity to the application process, which would add costs... and for what overall gain? If you have a low GPA, you can still nail the LSAT, make a good argument in your PS, and get into T14 schools, so you're not disadvantaged that severely by such a rule anyway.

You're ignoring my general point, which is this: They've chosen a simple, straightforward, and broad rule without exceptions, and while you'd gain an advantage from them having a different rule, that doesn't make the different rule better. And no, there's no reason for anyone to assume this rule, but 1) there are other reasons to assume that it's good to keep your GPA up even before you get your first bachelor's degree and 2) it's a rule you can look up if you really want to know how law school admissions works. None of it presupposes you know the rule beforehand; it just presupposes that you have to follow the rule whether you're aware of it or not, which is true for a lot of rules in life, from the criminal law all the way down to law school applications.

haha I am just annoyed to all hell.

The logic just does not exist for this rule. I am surprised there are so many deal with its for a degree that begins by logical testing

Good thing to learn before you get to law school, if you really want to succeed there: Just because you don't see the logic for a rule doesn't mean there's no logic behind it. It just means you don't understand it yet.

/thread

[vanwinkle]

ITT: Vanwinkle unwittingly provides solid examples for writing answers on law school exams

To be honest, I think arguing on TLS is what led to me doing so well on law exams.

[bk1]

/thread

I'm pretty sure that could have been appended to the first response and yet somehow here we are two dozen posts later...