The smart people that underachieved -- what did you do? Forum

[splitmuch]

Retaking doesn't mean that much when your GPA is low. If you score 169+, there is little value to retaking since HYSCCN will always be out.

What are you even talking about?

He was talking about hypothetically killing the LSAT. I was trying to imply in a nice way that killing the LSAT doesn't mean much when you are a splitter with a low GPA. HYSCCNB will always be out. As is probably D. He has no work experience so N is out. So basically you are fighting for ED to MVP or RD to CG. Given these options, the difference between a ~170ish LSAT and a 176+ LSAT is much smaller than you would think. In cases like that I advise against delaying a cycle to improve the LSAT and just taking a T15-20 that gives you $.

What T15-20 will he even get into besides WUSTL?

And a good LSAT and 1 yr of WE can get him NU. And I'd wager the difference between say 172 and 169 is pretty big in MVP ED (in this case really just V ED)

[Killingly]

I am a similarly smart/lazy person who coasted through my undergrad. I rested on my natural talent rather than work ethic, and it got me a 3.5 when I could have done much better.

So what did you say when you applied? What was your LSAT? Where did you get in?[/quote]

I'm applying this cycle. My point is that I feel your pain and I think a lot of people feel like they could have done "better" in their undergrad. Personally, I wouldn't even address it since you don't have a "real" excuse (learning disability, personal tragedy, etc.) to talk about. No matter how you try to explain it, you'll just come off as whiny. Basically everyone uncomfortable with their chances at a certain school because of their low gpa will be trying to convince admissions (in one way or another) that they really would perform well at X school. Keep the rest of your application as strong as possible, but just accept the gpa you earned.

[NYC Law]

Retaking doesn't mean that much when your GPA is low. If you score 169+, there is little value to retaking since HYSCCN will always be out.

What are you even talking about?

He was talking about hypothetically killing the LSAT. I was trying to imply in a nice way that killing the LSAT doesn't mean much when you are a splitter with a low GPA. HYSCCNB will always be out. As is probably D. He has no work experience so N is out. So basically you are fighting for ED to MVP or RD to CG. Given these options, the difference between a ~170ish LSAT and a 176+ LSAT is much smaller than you would think. In cases like that I advise against delaying a cycle to improve the LSAT and just taking a T15-20 that gives you $.

Why would he be delaying a cycle? When did he ever mention retaking?

[DerangedGoose]

Retaking doesn't mean that much when your GPA is low. If you score 169+, there is little value to retaking since HYSCCN will always be out.

What are you even talking about?

He was talking about hypothetically killing the LSAT. I was trying to imply in a nice way that killing the LSAT doesn't mean much when you are a splitter with a low GPA. HYSCCNB will always be out. As is probably D. He has no work experience so N is out. So basically you are fighting for ED to MVP or RD to CG. Given these options, the difference between a ~170ish LSAT and a 176+ LSAT is much smaller than you would think. In cases like that I advise against delaying a cycle to improve the LSAT and just taking a T15-20 that gives you $.

This is useful info, except the TLS dictionary doesnt have all those acronyms; could you clarify? Thanks! Also, how much money would I be likely to get from a T15-20?

[NYC Law]

Retaking doesn't mean that much when your GPA is low. If you score 169+, there is little value to retaking since HYSCCN will always be out.

What are you even talking about?

He was talking about hypothetically killing the LSAT. I was trying to imply in a nice way that killing the LSAT doesn't mean much when you are a splitter with a low GPA. HYSCCNB will always be out. As is probably D. He has no work experience so N is out. So basically you are fighting for ED to MVP or RD to CG. Given these options, the difference between a ~170ish LSAT and a 176+ LSAT is much smaller than you would think. In cases like that I advise against delaying a cycle to improve the LSAT and just taking a T15-20 that gives you $.

This is useful info, except the TLS dictionary doesnt have all those acronyms; could you clarify? Thanks! Also, how much money would I be likely to get from a T15-20?

If you get a 169+ you can get $80k+ from WUSTL or whatever it is they're giving out these days. It wouldn't be advisable to go there though if you're CA or Bust.

[splitmuch]

Retaking doesn't mean that much when your GPA is low. If you score 169+, there is little value to retaking since HYSCCN will always be out.

What are you even talking about?

He was talking about hypothetically killing the LSAT. I was trying to imply in a nice way that killing the LSAT doesn't mean much when you are a splitter with a low GPA. HYSCCNB will always be out. As is probably D. He has no work experience so N is out. So basically you are fighting for ED to MVP or RD to CG. Given these options, the difference between a ~170ish LSAT and a 176+ LSAT is much smaller than you would think. In cases like that I advise against delaying a cycle to improve the LSAT and just taking a T15-20 that gives you $.

This is useful info, except the TLS dictionary doesnt have all those acronyms; could you clarify? Thanks! Also, how much money would I be likely to get from a T15-20?

Can't know this without an actual LSAT score. Hit 169+ and this cycle you would have gotten 28K from WUSTL and been dinged everywhere else.

[bk1]

At least grades are something I have control over. I can either do well or poorly on law exams, and I doubt the institution plays a large role in it( it probably comes down to individual professors). Assuming Im ready and capable to perform, does it make more sense for me to attend a lower ranked CA school and save money on in-state tuition and living expenses, than to leave the state for a higher ranked school? How big should the ranking gap be to justify leaving? And does a top-class graduate from Southwestern enjoy relatively similar opportunities as a mid to lower range graduate from a higher ranked institution?

But you have no idea whether you are "ready and capable to perform" on law school exams, especially since you haven't actually taken any. Law school is graded on a curve so you are competing with everyone else, what makes you think you know that you can do better than others when the two stats that make up the bulk of law school admissions (GPA/LSAT) only account for 20% or so law school grades? Here's a good word of advice: 100% of law school applicants think they will be top 10%, 90% of them will be wrong.

In-state tuition doesn't exist at private law schools. It's not going to be cheaper for you to go to Southwestern just because you are a CA resident. It will be cheaper for you at lower ranked schools because they give scholarships to people with good GPA/LSAT numbers. However, those scholarships often come with stipulations that give you a 50% or less chance of keeping your scholarship. It would be cheaper at UCD/UCH/UCI/UCLA for you but those schools still cost just as much as private schools and you have no guarantee to get in there because they dislike splitters.

Yes, top 5% or better of T2's schools have similar opportunities to top 1/4 graduates of decent T1's. But as noted before, you can't guarantee you will end up in that percentile. The ranking gap depends on which schools you are referring and how much scholarship money they are giving you. You can't just put a hard and fast number on it.

[sambeber]

Retaking doesn't mean that much when your GPA is low. If you score 169+, there is little value to retaking since HYSCCN will always be out.

What are you even talking about?

He was talking about hypothetically killing the LSAT. I was trying to imply in a nice way that killing the LSAT doesn't mean much when you are a splitter with a low GPA. HYSCCNB will always be out. As is probably D. He has no work experience so N is out. So basically you are fighting for ED to MVP or RD to CG. Given these options, the difference between a ~170ish LSAT and a 176+ LSAT is much smaller than you would think. In cases like that I advise against delaying a cycle to improve the LSAT and just taking a T15-20 that gives you $.

This is useful info, except the TLS dictionary doesnt have all those acronyms; could you clarify? Thanks! Also, how much money would I be likely to get from a T15-20?

Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, Chicago, NYU, Berkeley. Duke. Northwestern. Early decision, Michigan, Virginia, Penn, regular decision, Cornell, Georgetown.

[stylishlaw]

Retaking doesn't mean that much when your GPA is low. If you score 169+, there is little value to retaking since HYSCCN will always be out.

What are you even talking about?

He was talking about hypothetically killing the LSAT. I was trying to imply in a nice way that killing the LSAT doesn't mean much when you are a splitter with a low GPA. HYSCCNB will always be out. As is probably D. He has no work experience so N is out. So basically you are fighting for ED to MVP or RD to CG. Given these options, the difference between a ~170ish LSAT and a 176+ LSAT is much smaller than you would think. In cases like that I advise against delaying a cycle to improve the LSAT and just taking a T15-20 that gives you $.

Why would he be delaying a cycle? When did he ever mention retaking?

He didn't mention either. But the title of the thread is "smart people that underachieved -- what did YOU do?", so I'm giving him my advice. Everything in this thread has been speculation so far (OP doesn't have final grades or LSAT scores). That hasn't prevented any advice from being given. Although OP hasn't even gotten a LSAT score yet, I addressed the issue of retaking because it implicitly deals with how much the LSAT is valued by admissions for splitters (which is relevant to the OP). I just mentioned retaking because if the OP were to take the LSAT but not kill it, the same advice applies.

Anyways, since the OP found my info useful I will continue to address him.

HYSCCNBD (harvard, yale, stanford, columbia, chicago, nyu, berkeley duke - schools where your GPA comes no where close to their cutoffs and a high LSAT can't fix)
MVP (michigan virginia upenn - schools where you have a chance if you apply ED, early decision, but little hope if you apply RD, regular decision)
N (northwestern, school where like >90% of their incoming class has significant work experience)
CG (cornell georgetown - schools which are more splitter friendly and where you could get in if you apply regular decision)

Other schools:
Texas
UCLA
USC
Vandy
WUSTL
GWU

If you score 169+, WUSTL will take you in and give you money. They'll also give you more money the higher you score on the LSAT. They're very formulaic about giving away money. I'd check out hourumd for that info, but you could def get >$75k

[stylishlaw]

Retaking doesn't mean that much when your GPA is low. If you score 169+, there is little value to retaking since HYSCCN will always be out.

What are you even talking about?

He was talking about hypothetically killing the LSAT. I was trying to imply in a nice way that killing the LSAT doesn't mean much when you are a splitter with a low GPA. HYSCCNB will always be out. As is probably D. He has no work experience so N is out. So basically you are fighting for ED to MVP or RD to CG. Given these options, the difference between a ~170ish LSAT and a 176+ LSAT is much smaller than you would think. In cases like that I advise against delaying a cycle to improve the LSAT and just taking a T15-20 that gives you $.

What T15-20 will he even get into besides WUSTL?

And a good LSAT and 1 yr of WE can get him NU. And I'd wager the difference between say 172 and 169 is pretty big in MVP ED (in this case really just V ED)

I also concur with everything splitmuch has said. Your best shot at money at a 15-20 school is WUSTL. But given that splitter cycles are pretty difficult to predict I would definitely recommend applying broadly. You never know where you'll get tossed a bone.

[bk1]

Your best shot at money at a 15-20 school is WUSTL.

Please, all of you stop this nonsense. Acting like the fact that WUSTL is ranked 15-20 means something when in fact it is a much more similar school to GW/BU/BC/Fordham/Illinois/ND/etc than it is to USC/UT/UCLA/Vandy.

I'm not disputing the $ thing though, just the stupid 15-20 distinction.

[NYC Law]

Your best shot at money at a 15-20 school is WUSTL.

Please, all of you stop this nonsense. Acting like the fact that WUSTL is ranked 15-20 means something when in fact it is a much more similar school to GW/BU/BC/Fordham/Illinois/ND/etc than it is to USC/UT/UCLA/Vandy.

I'm not disputing the $ thing though, just the stupid 15-20 distinction.

Yeah that's true, but it's still the most splitter friendly of the bunch which is why we were going with it.

[stylishlaw]

Your best shot at money at a 15-20 school is WUSTL.

Please, all of you stop this nonsense. Acting like the fact that WUSTL is ranked 15-20 means something when in fact it is a much more similar school to GW/BU/BC/Fordham/Illinois/ND/etc than it is to USC/UT/UCLA/Vandy.

I'm not disputing the $ thing though, just the stupid 15-20 distinction.

Well yea, this is a given. But with extreme splitter stats, WUSTL is the only school in the peer group other than Illinois which would give significant money due to how heavily they weight the LSAT.

So in that sense, $$$ at WUSTL or UIUC could be viable in comparison.

[Gizmo]

Only smart people get asked to apply to Florida Coastal, right?

[NYC Law]

Only smart people get asked to apply to Florida Coastal, right?

Are you the elusive Fatduck alt?

[JoeFish]

A concrete example:
3.35/176+
Didn't apply anywhere early decision
WL at UVA
$ at a 15-20 (NOT WUSTL)
$$$ in 21-25

[bhan87]

Disclaimer: My post will come off as blunt and possibly overly harsh, but I think you need a slight reality check.

My apologies if this belongs in the "what are my chances?" section.

I am at the end of my undergraduate career at the University of California, Irvine, and I will be finishing with around a 3.2-3.3 and a Bachelors in Business Economics, with a Russian Language minor (Im fluent).

I was one of those "smart kids" who never really studied or did homework, and just relied on test scores to lead them through. I got a 2170 on the SAT never having studied a day for it, and preliminary LSAT practice tests have placed me consistently in the 160s.

This work ethic has more or less come to screw me over. As painful as it is to know that I could have done so much better had I just applied myself a little, I know this is squarely on my shoulders and there is no one to moan to. As a result, the LSAT and a good essay are literally my only chances at getting into a good law school. I've thought for a long time, and I'm ready to apply my potential.

You're really going to draw no sympathy from the adcomms... Reading through this post, you really come off as whiny about something that is COMPLETELY within your control.

I've been considering law school, and the admissions statistics for all of the schools I am considering have been discouraging, to say the least. I would like to stay in California, and if I were to go by GPA alone, the only school in the top 100 I am reliably eligible for is Chapman, which has very poor employment statistics. According to calculators, even with 170+ LSAT scores, my odds of getting into UCLA dont exceed 30%.

I know I'm a smart person, I know I can be a good lawyer, and my mode of thinking makes me suited to doing well in law school. Obviously, one should not assume, but if I were to achieve a 170 or above, what would be my next step in trying to convince a good school to accept me? At our last law school fair, I spoke to several admissions representatives from different schools, some for an extended time. I can tell I made a good impression, but seeing the way their face fell when I told them my GPA was extremely frustrating.

How can you assume you'll be so successful? Do you realize how much work there is in law school? As a UCI alum, I can assure you that unless you were in Bio or Engineering, getting straight A's even on minimal work is completely within the grasp of most students that get accepted.

As frustrating as it must be for academic achievers to perform poorly on standardized tests, its just as discouraging for me to have my past a continual black mark on my future. I cant be the only person that is in this boat. It seems like law schools encourage academically successful students to explain their poor test scores, but the reverse does not seem to always hold.

This black mark is something you earned on your own and is completely fair.

I'm a white male with a good, stable family. My father suffered a relatively serious hiking injury half a year ago that left him unable to work for some time, and coupled with my grandmothers failing health and medical bills, finances have been tight and stress levels have been high. This can explain my lukewarm performance as a senior, but against the stories of legitimate disadvantages that other applicants will probably field, I'm almost afraid saying these things will make it look like I'm whining.

Some people just take longer than others to get their act together. I know that applying with a strong LSAT and a weak GPA will just show me for what I was: smart and lazy. What do I do, and what do I say, to show people that I have moved past that phase of my life? How can I convince a top tier school to invest in the potential I know I have?

Thanks for your time and patience!

There are more than enough smart people in the applicant pool that law schools can more than afford to weed out the lazy ones. Your story certainly can explain lukewarm performance your senior year, but does nothing to justify consistently low grades throughout all 4 years at UCI.

That said, on a more positive note:

1. Your GPA isn't THAT bad. Staying in CA will be tough because CA schools are pretty GPA focused, but there are a number of people with your GPA that have gotten into respectable schools

2. The LSAT is something within your control NOW. So get off your ass and kill it. A 170+ might squeak you into UCLA, or at the very least give you a good shot at Davis or Hastings.

3. Your realization about your work ethic is the first step you must take in remedying the problem. No one is going to hand you a law school admission, you have to go fight for it yourself.

[SisyphusHappy]

I know the feeling, OP. My GPA is a 3.2, because I didn't study enough, and my LSAT was a 153, because I didn't answer enough questions correctly. The guy next to me was tapping his pencil! I couldn't do anything about that!

Anyway, I know I'm really smart and would be the top of my class. I just need to get into the T14. Any suggestions?

[delusional]

Is it worth it to delay graduation or take extra classes to boost my GPA? Or will that be plainly obvious when I send my transcripts in?

Contrarian viewpoint here: The same way schools don't care much about "upward trends" or what your major was, they won't see the "obvious" if you take two years of theater history at a community college to boost your GPA.

I have to say, I was similar to you although I had the advantage of a school with a very easy grading system. If I had been less lucky school-wise and applied younger, I might have applied with a 3.2 168. But I got the good GPA, and I worked a miserable job for a couple years that lit a fire under me to grow up, and I applied with a 3.87 178.

The moral of the story is, I guess, that it may be worthwhile to wait. You're not going to get a 180 because you decided to study for three weeks, like, really hardcore. Leave before you graduate, take crap courses to bump your GPA, and explore whether you can really, seriously, for the long term seriously, make the decision to go into law. THEN you'll not only have a GPA that can rise above a few of the T14 floors, but you will also do better on the LSAT.

[blehGPAgoodLSAT]

Is it worth it to delay graduation or take extra classes to boost my GPA? Or will that be plainly obvious when I send my transcripts in?

Contrarian viewpoint here: The same way schools don't care much about "upward trends" or what your major was, they won't see the "obvious" if you take two years of theater history at a community college to boost your GPA.

I have to say, I was similar to you although I had the advantage of a school with a very easy grading system. If I had been less lucky school-wise and applied younger, I might have applied with a 3.2 168. But I got the good GPA, and I worked a miserable job for a couple years that lit a fire under me to grow up, and I applied with a 3.87 178.

The moral of the story is, I guess, that it may be worthwhile to wait. You're not going to get a 180 because you decided to study for three weeks, like, really hardcore. Leave before you graduate, take crap courses to bump your GPA, and explore whether you can really, seriously, for the long term seriously, make the decision to go into law. THEN you'll not only have a GPA that can rise above a few of the T14 floors, but you will also do better on the LSAT.

Wow, that's quite a jump on your later LSAT. How long did you study for to get that kind of score increase? I understand that it won't be indicative of how long it would take me to increase by those points but I'm still interested. I'm not overly happy with my score now but I'm trying to decide if investing extra time/energy/another test on my lsac record is worth getting up to where you are.

[delusional]

Is it worth it to delay graduation or take extra classes to boost my GPA? Or will that be plainly obvious when I send my transcripts in?

Contrarian viewpoint here: The same way schools don't care much about "upward trends" or what your major was, they won't see the "obvious" if you take two years of theater history at a community college to boost your GPA.

I have to say, I was similar to you although I had the advantage of a school with a very easy grading system. If I had been less lucky school-wise and applied younger, I might have applied with a 3.2 168. But I got the good GPA, and I worked a miserable job for a couple years that lit a fire under me to grow up, and I applied with a 3.87 178.

The moral of the story is, I guess, that it may be worthwhile to wait. You're not going to get a 180 because you decided to study for three weeks, like, really hardcore. Leave before you graduate, take crap courses to bump your GPA, and explore whether you can really, seriously, for the long term seriously, make the decision to go into law. THEN you'll not only have a GPA that can rise above a few of the T14 floors, but you will also do better on the LSAT.

Wow, that's quite a jump on your later LSAT. How long did you study for to get that kind of score increase? I understand that it won't be indicative of how long it would take me to increase by those points but I'm still interested. I'm not overly happy with my score now but I'm trying to decide if investing extra time/energy/another test on my lsac record is worth getting up to where you are.

In short: studied from May till October, prolly 8 hrs a week, (I worked FT) was averaging 174 on PT, bombed October and canceled. Studied again till December, averaging 176 on PTs, got 178.

If I had decided to try for law school when it first crossed my mind at 23, or even when I finished up my degree at 28, I would have studied for a few weeks or a month, and with luck, gotten high 160s. But after going nowhere at work despite increasing ass-busting, I was finally motivated to do whatever it took.

[blehGPAgoodLSAT]

Wow, that's quite a jump on your later LSAT. How long did you study for to get that kind of score increase? I understand that it won't be indicative of how long it would take me to increase by those points but I'm still interested. I'm not overly happy with my score now but I'm trying to decide if investing extra time/energy/another test on my lsac record is worth getting up to where you are.

In short: studied from May till October, prolly 8 hrs a week, (I worked FT) was averaging 174 on PT, bombed October and canceled. Studied again till December, averaging 176 on PTs, got 178.

If I had decided to try for law school when it first crossed my mind at 23, or even when I finished up my degree at 28, I would have studied for a few weeks or a month, and with luck, gotten high 160s. But after going nowhere at work despite increasing ass-busting, I was finally motivated to do whatever it took.

Wish I had your patience... I'm 22 now and I'm pretty set on applying with a 170 lsat. However, a 178 would take my LS options to a whole new level... my job now is pretty rough as well. Wake up at 5:45 and don't get home until 9ish typically. Will seriously consider postponing and studying more. Thanks for your advice.

[DerangedGoose]

Leave before you graduate, take crap courses to bump your GPA, and explore whether you can really, seriously, for the long term seriously, make the decision to go into law. THEN you'll not only have a GPA that can rise above a few of the T14 floors, but you will also do better on the LSAT.

I pushed my graduation to september in order to take some summer school classes at UCI. Should I add in summer school at a local community college in an effort to raise my GPA? I've never heard anyone say that it is better to postpone your graduation simply to rack up elective A's. Do a lot of people do this? And if I graduate, does that mean my GPA is essentially locked in forever and any course I take afterwards will not count towards my application?

[delusional]

Leave before you graduate, take crap courses to bump your GPA, and explore whether you can really, seriously, for the long term seriously, make the decision to go into law. THEN you'll not only have a GPA that can rise above a few of the T14 floors, but you will also do better on the LSAT.

I pushed my graduation to september in order to take some summer school classes at UCI. Should I add in summer school at a local community college in an effort to raise my GPA? I've never heard anyone say that it is better to postpone your graduation simply to rack up elective A's. Do a lot of people do this? And if I graduate, does that mean my GPA is essentially locked in forever and any course I take afterwards will not count towards my application?

I can't speak for a lot of people, but I don't see why it wouldn't make sense to calculate what it would do for you. Because yes, once you graduate, your GPA is set in stone forever.

[blehGPAgoodLSAT]

Leave before you graduate, take crap courses to bump your GPA, and explore whether you can really, seriously, for the long term seriously, make the decision to go into law. THEN you'll not only have a GPA that can rise above a few of the T14 floors, but you will also do better on the LSAT.

I pushed my graduation to september in order to take some summer school classes at UCI. Should I add in summer school at a local community college in an effort to raise my GPA? I've never heard anyone say that it is better to postpone your graduation simply to rack up elective A's. Do a lot of people do this? And if I graduate, does that mean my GPA is essentially locked in forever and any course I take afterwards will not count towards my application?

I would check with UCI's policies on this. My undergrad required we take the last 30 units before graduation directly from our university so we can't inflate our GPAs but if UCI allows this, I would take advantage of it. I'm fairly sure that when you graduate, your undergrad GPA is locked in.