I am not sure if you guys noticed this or not. But it seems that this forum is filled with people with sub-standard GPA, but yet, phenomenal LSAT scores?
Can we conclude that GPA/LSAT share no correlation? or do people with lower GPA feel more motivated to study?

Edit:
The obvious answer is the latter, but then my question is, what drove them(you) to care? What caused the shift in thinking? Because lets be honest, getting a great GPA in school is not difficult. I am sure if you guys put in the same effort your LSAT as for your school work, on a consistent basis, almost everyone here would be 3.9+ (or 3.8, w.e, not really at the heart of the message). I understand there are rare cases, that you are in one of those famous grade deflation schools/majors, but thats not really the point here.

Edit 2:
I was hoping for people to share stories on how/what that caused them to "grow up", but it has now turned into a grade inflation/deflation debate. My bad.

Edit 3:
Not intended to say people are stupid/incapable/immature because of low GPA, just wondering WHAT made you get the DRIVE to get a 170, from a mindset of just floating by. The reason I am asking is because I had a terrible GPA first year, then I realized I can do better, and the so called social scene you can miss for 3 years and come back to it, it will be still exactly the same. I am just basically curious what made YOU change, or what you think that made people change.

IDK where you've been hanging out but there are plenty of people on this forum who have great GPAs and decent LSATs.

Also, yes, people on here with crap GPAs (myself included) feel more obligated/motivated to study - that should be obvious.

The latter.

just because you fucked off in college doesn't mean you aren't smart or capable of a high LSAT.

I never made that statement, I am just curious to what drove you guys suddenly to care I suppose.

shits going to hit the fan on this one

I dont meant to start trouble, just curious.

DOESNT MATTER BRO!

Studying for the LSAT was a lot less work than getting a 3.9 would have been in my majors.

I know for myself, I realized I needed to give my all to the lsat so I could make up for my freshman year of slacking. Basically, the answer is that this test basically means the same as four years of schooling. So people with a high GPA and minimal effort given for an average lsat are basically the same as an average GPA and working your ass off for the lsat.

I think that is more rare than often, e.g., exceptions being engineering, where class average is like F, or D to C at best.

My GPA isn't terrible ( 3.8 ) but I could have easily had a 4.3 (LSDAS) GPA if I had consistently put out the effort on my school work that I did for the last month on the LSAT.

But it's much easier to focus heavily on one thing for a really short period of time than it is to focus on a lot of things, as one must with classes, over a four year period. So I would deny your premise that it is just as easy to get a high GPA as a high LSAT: in any given moment one may be exerting the same amount of effort, but the difference is that the effort necessary for a high GPA is long-term, whereas the effort for a high LSAT is short-term.

Even more, the LSAT is generally more important to admissions than GPA, so it makes sense to study a lot for it. Assuming LSAT is worth 3x as much as GPA, as some people have said, one can say that the LSAT is approxmiately 300x as much as any given exam in law school admissions.

my gpa isn't great because when I was 18-21 i gave zero fucks. people grow up.

+1.

GET FUCKED



This

Eh, I think the amount of work I put into studying for the LSAT this time around would be equivalent to the amount of work needed to get an A in 2 medium-hard classes for one semester.

Is this for real? If it was so easy, why doesn't everyone have a good GPA?

I JUST CAN'T with people

OP, there are a variety of grading systems out there. Some schools are MUCH MUCH more difficult than others. I take challenging classes at a highly grade deflated school; I would actually have to sacrifice most of my social life and recreational activities to get a consistent 3.9 at my school. I am much better off, and am more healthy and balanced, now with a 3.7 than I would be with a 3.9. This is because I value social interaction, broader intellectual growth, and exercise over a higher numerical GPA... Also the LSAT is easier for some than it is for others, my diagnostic was in the high 170s and I know a plenty of people who are naturally good standardized test-takers.

I'll back up JR's opinion with the qualification that it is easy to geta good grades in school IF you really want it. I think, at least for a majority of majors, your GPA is really just an indicator of effort. I'm probably no smarter than most of my friends at school, but I'd say I put in twice the amount of work as most of them do, if not more.

I was hoping for people to share stories on how/what that caused them to "grow up", but it has now turned into a grade inflation/deflation debate. My bad.

Well, there are more engineers on TLS than you might think. And yes, many of us are splitters.

Also, that's just not accurate. The raw scores on engineering tests are really low, but there's almost always a big curve and by the final grades 10-15% or whatever, sometimes more, will end up with A's. It's not like all engineers have 2.7 GPAs.

No curve at my school. (If everyone scored below an 80% or whatever, then the prof might make a 75% an A, but that's not technically a curve.)

Um, I'm not sure whether to fire up the ROFLcopter, sputter in disbelief, or envy the living shit out of what must have been your undergrad experience.

Aside from my wholehearted disagreement with such a sweeping generalization of a statement, you do pose a good question. Of course, the people who had less-than-stellar ugrad GPAs (whether through lack of effort or matriculation in a school or program that doesn't toss out A's just for showing up and doing the work) are definitely more inclined to bust their asses on the LSAT. A lot of us only firmly decide to pursue law school after graduation, at which point our LSAT scores are the only significant variable we can actually do something to improve. And, of course, busting one's ass for a few months is much more manageable than doing the same for four solid years, as you suggested we should have done. Comparing the effort and approach of studying for the LSAT to that of studying in college is beyond apples-and-oranges. It's like apples-and-goddamn Klingons. (I'm not even going to touch on the glaringly obvious issue of people who had to work during college or faced any of life's other myriad complications that would have made all-day, every-day studying impracticable.)

So, short answer: yes, people with low(er) GPAs probably do tend to pull out all the stops on the LSAT for the simple fact that they must, if a top law school is what they're after. Asking what "drove them to care", and thereby implying that they gave zero fucks about anything before the LSAT, is both utterly inane and the height of douchebaggery. (I'm sure that wasn't your intention, but still. I didn't intend to sprain my ankle this morning, but I'm sitting here in pain all the same.)

Hope that helps answer your question.