Is there really a difference between a 4.1 and a 4.0? Forum

[cardstrong5]

Because both GPAs are above the 75th percentile for all law schools, does it really help someone to have a 4.1 or 4.15 as opposed to a 4.0?
Thanks!

[dixon02]

Because both GPAs are above the 75th percentile for all law schools, does it really help someone to have a 4.1 or 4.15 as opposed to a 4.0?
Thanks!

Maybe at Stanford and Yale. Maybe.

[abc12345675]

Because both GPAs are above the 75th percentile for all law schools, does it really help someone to have a 4.1 or 4.15 as opposed to a 4.0?
Thanks!

Maybe at Stanford and Yale. Maybe.

I never understood how this is fair, since many college (including mine) don't give A+ grades. So the max is 4.0. Seems like LSAC should cap it there too to make sure everyone is on a leveler playing field.

[TheZoid]

Because both GPAs are above the 75th percentile for all law schools, does it really help someone to have a 4.1 or 4.15 as opposed to a 4.0?
Thanks!

Maybe at Stanford and Yale. Maybe.

I never understood how this is fair, since many college (including mine) don't give A+ grades. So the max is 4.0. Seems like LSAC should cap it there too to make sure everyone is on a leveler playing field.

Don't the schools see a grade distribution from your undergrad though? So presumably they would see if no one gets A+'s. Either way, I really can't imagine that it matters. If we're splitting hairs between above-median at every school GPA's I would think the quality of undergrad might break a tie more than a 4.1 vs. a 4.0.

[Nova]

According to the past several cycles on LSN, yes, having a GPA above 4.0 increases your chances across the board.

4.0, 160-180: Y-34% S-35% H-56% C-55% C-57% N-74%
4.01+ 160-180: Y-42% S-47% H-69% C-67% C-60% N-80%

4.0, 170-180: Y-40% S-47% H-76% C-74% C-74% N-90%
4.01+ 170-180: Y-50% S-61% H-84% C-83% C-71% N-95%

4.0, 172-180: Y-47% S-52% H-88% C-85% C-77% N-94%
4.01+ 172-180: Y-57% S-72% H-91% C-93% C-71% N-95%

Since '03 LSAT:170 - 180 GPA: 4.0 - 4.0
http://myLSN.info/dispresults.php?usege ... d=Included

Since '03 LSAT:170 - 180 GPA: 4.01 - 4.33
http://myLSN.info/dispresults.php?usege ... d=Included

[cc.celina]

Don't the schools see a grade distribution from your undergrad though? So presumably they would see if no one gets A+'s. Either way, I really can't imagine that it matters. If we're splitting hairs between above-median at every school GPA's I would think the quality of undergrad might break a tie more than a 4.1 vs. a 4.0.

So I guess a related question would be, how much does your position within your UG matter? Would a 3.7 be viewed much more favorably at a school where the average is 3.2 rather than 3.6? Anyone got any idea?

And thanks Nova that was great

[LSATSCORES2012]

One other thing that might be helpful to check out is these graphs: --LinkRemoved--

You'll note that a lot of schools have solid LSAT cutoffs, but GPA really doesn't seem to have much of an effect.

It's not a T14, but check out American University.

Major YP, and serious LSAT cutoffs without much concern for GPA, as long as you're above a 3.0. Kinda strange, really.

[JamMasterJ]

yes there's a difference. Is it fair? probably not, but oh well. If I had had a shot at some A+s, my gpa would have probably given me a shot at H, but that's just the way it goes. It would especially help if you were the school's top gpa, so they can put a higher top on their literature

[Chucky21]

Because both GPAs are above the 75th percentile for all law schools, does it really help someone to have a 4.1 or 4.15 as opposed to a 4.0?
Thanks!

Maybe at Stanford and Yale. Maybe.

I never understood how this is fair, since many college (including mine) don't give A+ grades. So the max is 4.0. Seems like LSAC should cap it there too to make sure everyone is on a leveler playing field.

I agree. In a school with no A+ if you get an A-, there is no way to get back to the 4.0. Obviously with A+s this goal is attainable, so there is room for error. LSAC does see grade distributions for schools but we know that law school admissions is a numbers game, and the person with a 4.1 can bring up a school's numbers for rankings more than a 4.0.

[Bildungsroman]

If I had had a shot at some A+s, my gpa would have probably given me a shot at H, but that's just the way it goes.

You had a 3.5 undergrad GPA, and most people bitching about the availability of A+s have similarly prolish GPAs that indicate all the upper range availability in the world wouldn't make an impact.

[Bildungsroman]

the person with a 4.1 can bring up a school's numbers for rankings more than a 4.0.

Yeah, all those schools where the GPA 75th percentile is at or above a 4.0. Which is none of them.

[JamMasterJ]

If I had had a shot at some A+s, my gpa would have probably given me a shot at H, but that's just the way it goes.

You had a 3.5 undergrad GPA, and most people bitching about the availability of A+s have similarly prolish GPAs that indicate all the upper range availability in the world wouldn't make an impact.

Eh, I can think of a handful of classes in which I'd have likely had an A+. I think a 3.65 would have at least put me in waitlist territory at H, and would have given me a substantially better chance at Chicago. Other than that, my point was "oh well"

[facile princeps]

One other thing that might be helpful to check out is these graphs: --LinkRemoved--

Who's responsible for creating this nifty thing? It's awesome.

[Doorkeeper]

Don't the schools see a grade distribution from your undergrad though? So presumably they would see if no one gets A+'s. Either way, I really can't imagine that it matters. If we're splitting hairs between above-median at every school GPA's I would think the quality of undergrad might break a tie more than a 4.1 vs. a 4.0.

So I guess a related question would be, how much does your position within your UG matter? Would a 3.7 be viewed much more favorably at a school where the average is 3.2 rather than 3.6? Anyone got any idea?

It really doesn't matter. Kids at UChicago don't really outperform their numbers, which sucks for them...

[Nova]

One other thing that might be helpful to check out is these graphs: --LinkRemoved--

Who's responsible for creating this nifty thing? It's awesome.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 9&t=188663

[glowstix]

According to the past several cycles on LSN, yes, having a GPA above 4.0 increases your chances across the board.

4.0, 172-180: Y-47% S-52% H-88% C-85% C-77% N-94%
4.01+ 172-180: Y-57% S-72% H-91% C-93% C-71% N-95%

I wonder why that dip at Chicago.

[breadbucket]

It's the difference between ice cream with sprinkles and ice cream without sprinkles

[Tom Joad]

As somebody who paid attention to high gpa cycles, I don't think it matters much. Maybe ever so marginally. Why are you asking? That might help us understand your situation.

[CardinalLaw]

.

[Tom Joad]

As somebody who paid attention to high gpa cycles, I don't think it matters much. Maybe ever so marginally. Why are you asking? That might help us understand your situation.

Well my LSAC GPA is something in the area of 4.165. I haven't taken the LSAT yet, but I'm PT'ing in the neighborhood of around 170-171. I will be a K-JD with pretty mediocre softs (I've joined hardly any clubs, although I'm a tutor for my university and I've done a couple of unimpressive internships). Assuming mediocre LoRs, I'd like to know if I have a shot at Harvard, Columbia, NYU, or Penn.

Basically, because my softs and LoR's won't be impressive at all, will my very high GPA compensate for that? I've searched LSN repeatedly, but everyone with a 4.0+ GPA and an LSAT in the low 170s has either multiple years of work experience or has softs that are analogous to curing cancer.

So I guess the more concise question would be, given a 4.16 GPA, unimpressive softs and LoRs, what LSAT scores will I need to get into:
1. Harvard
2. Columbia
3. NYU
4. Penn

Thanks for all of your input, you all are the best.

This is my guess, assuming your softs are pure shit:
Harvard: 172 or 173
Columbia: 171
NYU: 171
Penn: 168