Top Law Schools

The BAD
------------------------------
-GPA ( averaged out with repeated classes) is 2.3 upon graduating 10 YEARS AGO.
-20 credits of F's from various semesters (including health stuff)
-I realize that GPA is is set once your fist GPA is done.

The GOOD
---------------------------------
-My POST B.A is at 20 credits is 3.8
-Lsat is 162 to 175 practice (which is why i say 165, anticipating onb the low end)
-Been working in Courts 5+ years
-Letters of recommendation from judges and Lawyers/Court staff

1. Given my situation, without knowing more (like howl much I value justice and want to help people in need)
is it even worth applying and
2. Will I be considered, or will my GPA from 10 years ago continue to haunt me?

You need your actual LSAT results before anybody can opine. Law schools largely consider only the undergrad GPA.

It really depends on what your goal schools and/or careers are. Care to share?

That is a crazy PT range, dial it in on the higher side and you shouldn't be completely out of luck.

Something is wayyyyy off if your PT range is 162-175. I'd recommend sitting out a bit until you're comfortably testing at the 175 range.

Have you tried a retroactive withdrawal for the health stuff? It COULD be possible - doubtful, but you never know.

Play around with numbers on mylsn for 2.3/170. However unless you're an URM (and even then) you're basically out at the top schools, though you might snag a t-20-t-30 range school. You're also looking at some serious debt, if you even get in... so just make sure you REALLY want to do this before you commit 3 years and possibly your financial future.

Not sure if my previous message went through. But I'd be happy with any abandoned approved school. Already have a clientele, I just need a law degre

Lovely_Lady_in_Red wrote:Not sure if my previous message went through. But I'd be happy with any abandoned approved school. Already have a clientele, I just need a law degre

I mean... then you're fine. You'll get in plenty of places, including T1 schools with a bit of money, judging by LSN. Probably get some good money in T3, especially if they're looking to buy a "highest LSAT score among incoming 1Ls" line for the website.

But by all means try to get some retroactive withdrawals from undergrad.

If you destroy the LSAT I can't imagine you would have trouble with T1 schools, especially as a non-traditional student with a good GPA addendum.

Mike

doing some math... 20 credits of Fs for a 120 credit degree means your average, excluding the Fs, was still low (2.76). It gets even worse if you go past 120 hours.

I know this was 10 years ago but it's going to be a pretty big red flag.

That said, I think it's still very possible you could get in to a decent regional if you can actually nail the LSAT.

I have very similar stats and no problem getting in with money to T1 schools. PM me if you want specifics.

Yeah, the only thing schools will care about is your LSAT and your GPA from ten years ago. BUT, if there are legitimate medical reasons you got Fs, you may be able to petition your school to allow you to retroactively withdraw from them. You'll definitely need info from your doctor, and it's an uphill battle for sure, but it's not impossible.

.

With a 170+ and a good interview (really play up that work experience) you're probably in at Northwestern. Granted, it'll be at sticker so consider whether that's a level of debt you want to take on for law school.

mgschiet wrote:People always talk about GPA as if the only thing that matters is the number at face value. There are other factors at play when they look at your transcript. For example, how consistent were your grades? Did you have a slow start and bring your GPA up as the semesters went by? Did you start strong and finish slow? Or were you perfectly consistent from one semester to the next? If you have weak semesters where something happened in your life, an addendum explaining the circumstances will help.

And your Post-bacc numbers, while not factored into your GPA, will CERTAINLY help you. Being 10 years removed from your undergrad, it's a sign that you have matured. A well-written addendum will go a long way in overcoming your low UG GPA.

Edit: I am 6 years removed from my undergrad, and I had some similar issues. Downward trend of my GPA, incredibly POOR post-bacc GPA. I have an idea of what you're dealing with.

No

You're wrong

Where are you getting this stuff from?

.

You actually are wrong, though. Auto admit candidates at many schools actually often do get admitted in a matter of days. Schools have no incentive to reject auto deny candidates immediately.

.

mgschiet wrote:

BigZuck wrote:

mgschiet wrote:People always talk about GPA as if the only thing that matters is the number at face value. There are other factors at play when they look at your transcript. For example, how consistent were your grades? Did you have a slow start and bring your GPA up as the semesters went by? Did you start strong and finish slow? Or were you perfectly consistent from one semester to the next? If you have weak semesters where something happened in your life, an addendum explaining the circumstances will help.

And your Post-bacc numbers, while not factored into your GPA, will CERTAINLY help you. Being 10 years removed from your undergrad, it's a sign that you have matured. A well-written addendum will go a long way in overcoming your low UG GPA.

Edit: I am 6 years removed from my undergrad, and I had some similar issues. Downward trend of my GPA, incredibly POOR post-bacc GPA. I have an idea of what you're dealing with.

No

You're wrong

Where are you getting this stuff from?

Oh, I guess I'm wrong then.

If everything was so cookie-cutter, it wouldn't take more than an hour or two to receive a decision on your application.

wut

It's pretty damn cookie cutter across the board

What are you basing your claims on?

If you already have a (hopefully loaded) clientele or fairly sure that you will have when you graduate, then go to the cheapest and most convenient place. Like you said, all you need is a degree, assuming you're in a state that even requires a degree, and bar passage.

Take this for whatever it's worth: My law partner was an executive at one of the big accounting firms (E&Y, PWC, KPMG type). All he needed was a degree and bar passage. So he got a decent score (around 165) and got a free ride at a local TTT where he could still cultivate his connections. The rest is pretty much history. Our clients are now his former buddies who then lead to other clients. But note though, at first, it didn't work out as he expected. Most of those buddies had their own attorneys already. It was just luck (and partly because they trusted him previously) that a few were willing to take a risk on him.

I was in the evening program at the same TTT. Quite a few older people who just needed the degree. They had family business, company was paying for law school, had potential set of clientele, et cetera. T14-or-bust wasn't an issue. It wasn't needed.

Now the kids in the daytime program who needed jobs after graduation... well... that's a different story. And it ain't a pretty story.

.

buckiguy_sucks wrote:

pamphleteer wrote:With a 170+ and a good interview (really play up that work experience) you're probably in at Northwestern. Granted, it'll be at sticker so consider whether that's a level of debt you want to take on for law school.

http://mylsn.info/1146rc/#

Eh, maybe 170 on the dot is a tad low but even a 171/2.3 profile has 3 acceptances and 2 rejections via MyLSN. It's only gotten less competitive since some of those dings were issued though and OP would likely slightly outperform her raw numbers at NU due to significant WE.

mgschiet wrote:
On conversations with current and former deans of admission. On the experience of acquaintances who have gained admission to T14 schools despite having (relatively) low undergraduate GPAs. Two numbers (GPA and LSAT) don't tell you very much about an applicant -- particularly not a non-traditional applicant. A strong resume, good LORs, and effective addenda can get you admitted despite a poor GPA. On the flip side, a weak resume and questions about your academic record that you fail to address can get you WLed or rejected (I know that from personal experience).

Law deans are notorious for promulgating that lie. It's not true. There simply is no evidence to support that (outside of schools like Yale/Berkeley). Also, plenty of people with good LSATs and/or URM-status have gained admission to T14s in spite of mediocre to bad GPAs. That doesn't support your argument.

mgschiet wrote: Your comment fails to address the point I made. It would not (meaning ever) take more than just a quick glance at an applicant's numbers to admit them if numbers were everything. There are too many other factors at play.

It's true that there are other factors that can HURT your application (C&F). But just because the ad com doesn't NEED to take a longer glance at an application doesn't mean they won't. Honestly a computer could probably do the ad comm's job in most cases, but this is their job and they don't want to be replaced by a computer. So they take their time.

hoos89 wrote: It's true that there are other factors that can HURT your application (C&F). But just because the ad com doesn't NEED to take a longer glance at an application doesn't mean they won't. Honestly a computer could probably do the ad comm's job in most cases, but this is their job and they don't want to be replaced by a computer. So they take their time.

I wouldn't be surprised if they use computers to do the first wave of weeding out people. Something like this:

if LSAT < 160 and GPA < 3.0 and URM = No then

• flush down toilet

else

• mark for manual review

Lord help you if you believe what an adcom says.

For the vast, vast majority of schools the application process is not nearly as holistic as you think it is. Despite what they say, schools have no reason for choosing the most interesting applicants, or the applicants that they think will make the best lawyers. They have very little to no incentive to do so.

They do, however, have plenty of incentive to take (or reject) people based on the strength (or weakness) of their numbers.

Any school that will accept a 2.3/165 will accept that applicant because they want the 165/their money, not because of a GPA addendum that they wrote.

.

Those coming at this strictly from a schools best interest perspective need to take into account employability. If someone has a shit GPA from 10 years ago and has held a job, say in biotech for 10 years and wants to go into IP in that industry, there is a lot to suggest that person will be employable and it would be foolish for a school to simply push them aside, especially if they have some of the numbers.

I am waiting on 1 school, according to those websites everyone here suggests I was deny/weak consider for all of my top choices I was accepted to, so far with money and in one of the first waves after applying in January.

It has been my experience that given the right soft factors one can certainly make themselves a more attractive candidate. It may well be the case that these soft factors point towards ones employability, which will reflect well on the school. I agree that "interesting" probably wont sell it as much as "potential," but there are more signs of potential in the career field than LSAT and UGPA.

Mike