Top Law Schools

beautyhide wrote:I wish I were in your shoes.
LSAT ....you can retake...but you can't redo your undergrad..
my undergrad GPA is TRAGIC i tell you..TRAGIC...

True... But the LSAT is also weighed more heavily than the GPA (considerably more at most schools).

It's better to be a traditional splitter 99% of the time (1% reserved for Berkeley).

Any fellow reverse splitters applying to UC Davis? Do you think I even stand a chance with my 157/3.89??

nickc8 wrote:Any fellow reverse splitters applying to UC Davis? Do you think I even stand a chance with my 157/3.89??

Unfortunately, you're just under the LSAT 25th %. But, as you already know, your GPA is crazy high and it keeps you in the running.

Unfortunately (again), the median LSAT for Davis last year was 163.

You might get a W/L, but a straight-up admit is pretty unlikely...

.

To everyone ITT: Please, for the love of god, retake the lsat.

Take a year off, work an easy job and study hard.

Believe me, you don't want to touch the legal market for a while, anyways...

Before I saw the post above me, my suggestion was to rename this thread "ITT: We need to retake the LSAT"

But now:

mistergoft wrote:To everyone ITT: Please, for the love of god, retake the lsat.

Take a year off, work an easy job and study hard.

Believe me, you don't want to touch the legal market for a while, anyways...

+1

GeePee wrote:Before I saw the post above me, my suggestion was to rename this thread "ITT: We need to retake the LSAT"

But now:

mistergoft wrote:To everyone ITT: Please, for the love of god, retake the lsat.

Take a year off, work an easy job and study hard.

Believe me, you don't want to touch the legal market for a while, anyways...

+1

The assumption that anyone can retake the LSAT and score in the 98% is just ridiculous.

Outside of the TLS bubble of 170+ applicants, there is a world of people that study their asses off and don't score above a certain score, regardless of preparation.

Of course, I completely agree that you should re-take the LSAT if you had an unstructured, ineffective and misguided study regimen before the first sitting.

ViP wrote:

GeePee wrote:Before I saw the post above me, my suggestion was to rename this thread "ITT: We need to retake the LSAT"

But now:

mistergoft wrote:To everyone ITT: Please, for the love of god, retake the lsat.

Take a year off, work an easy job and study hard.

Believe me, you don't want to touch the legal market for a while, anyways...

+1

The assumption that anyone can retake the LSAT and score in the 98% is just ridiculous.

Outside of the TLS bubble of 170+ applicants, there is a world of people that study their asses off and don't score above a certain score, regardless of preparation.

Of course, I completely agree that you should re-take the LSAT if you had an unstructured, ineffective and misguided study regimen before the first sitting.

You don't need to score 170+. If you can even raise your LSAT scores to the 164-166 range, I can guarantee that you all can get yourselves into a top 30 school. You all have stellar GPA's, and since most of you need 3-5 points to get into this range, I feel like it is attainable for a good number of you. If anyone needs LSAT advice or has specific problems, PM me. I'd be happy to help and make any suggestions that I can.

GeePee wrote:

ViP wrote:

GeePee wrote:Before I saw the post above me, my suggestion was to rename this thread "ITT: We need to retake the LSAT"

But now:

mistergoft wrote:To everyone ITT: Please, for the love of god, retake the lsat.

Take a year off, work an easy job and study hard.

Believe me, you don't want to touch the legal market for a while, anyways...

+1

The assumption that anyone can retake the LSAT and score in the 98% is just ridiculous.

Outside of the TLS bubble of 170+ applicants, there is a world of people that study their asses off and don't score above a certain score, regardless of preparation.

Of course, I completely agree that you should re-take the LSAT if you had an unstructured, ineffective and misguided study regimen before the first sitting.

You don't need to score 170+. If you can even raise your LSAT scores to the 164-166 range, I can guarantee that you all can get yourselves into a top 30 school. You all have stellar GPA's, and since most of you need 3-5 points to get into this range, I feel like it is attainable for a good number of you. If anyone needs LSAT advice or has specific problems, PM me. I'd be happy to help and make any suggestions that I can.

Oh, sure. I definitely agree that those reverse-splitters with LSAT scores within striking distance of the range you've provided should strongly consider a 2nd sitting. Unfortunately, there are plenty of applicants with stellar GPAs and LSATs in the mid/low 150s. Those people can definitely score considerably higher, but if they have already studied hard and effectively (good books, good classes, test-like conditions) and are prone to nervous breakdowns, there's little hope.

This may sound harsh but people with study skills which don't lend themselves to learning new material, and are prone to nervous breakdowns are probably not equipped with the skills to be great lawyers. The law is not for everyone. Jobs are high-stress, and the bar exam is far harder than the LSAT itself.

However, it is likely that with a new perspective on study skills and preparation and a hardened sense of confidence and ability, these people can learn the skills that are supposed to be tested by and spawned from the LSAT. Good luck to everyone trying to get to this point.

3.975/160.... and about to head overseas for two years with the Peace Corps. I'm hoping to go to William and Mary. Anyone here have experience testing overseas in remote countries?

I belong here. 3.8/160

Applying to SMU, OU, UC Davis and UC Hastings now.

Retaking the LSAT and applying to UT, BU and others after.. that is if I improve my score.

I belong here but I'm signed up to retake and hope that I will score higher than my PT average than lower than it hahahah.

4.0/ 163

I deserve to be here too....

LSAT 154, GPA: 3.7

Really want to go home to Chicago to study law...DePaul/Loyola/Kent...any shot???

hey guys,



and let me tell you, the difference is phenomenal, it's huge.

Everyone ITT should be sending apps to:

GPA > 3.80; non-URM; LSAT < 164
(1) WUSTL
(2) Illinois

BTW, listen to GeePee and Veritas.

164/3.85

I'm less of a reverse splitter and more of a shitty applicant.

hypermeganet wrote:164/3.85

I'm less of a reverse splitter and more of a shitty applicant.

When you start receiving merit-based fee waivers from top schools due to your index, and you laugh because your LSAT score doesn't even break the 25th %, you know you're a reverse splitter.

Granted, some reverse-splitters are clearly far more extreme than others. One reverse splitter can end up at a top 20 school, while another will happily settle at a tier-3 school.

ViP wrote:

hypermeganet wrote:164/3.85

I'm less of a reverse splitter and more of a shitty applicant.

When you start receiving merit-based fee waivers from top schools due to your index, and you laugh because your LSAT score doesn't even break the 25th %, you know you're a reverse splitter.

Granted, some reverse-splitters are clearly far more extreme than others. One reverse splitter can end up at a top 20 school, while another will happily settle at a tier-3 school.

haha - case in point ME

164 - 3.98, waivers at duke and UVA :/ then georgia, then nothing...

woe is me...

bighead715 wrote:

ViP wrote:

hypermeganet wrote:164/3.85

I'm less of a reverse splitter and more of a shitty applicant.

When you start receiving merit-based fee waivers from top schools due to your index, and you laugh because your LSAT score doesn't even break the 25th %, you know you're a reverse splitter.

Granted, some reverse-splitters are clearly far more extreme than others. One reverse splitter can end up at a top 20 school, while another will happily settle at a tier-3 school.

haha - case in point ME

164 - 3.98, waivers at duke and UVA :/ then georgia, then nothing...

woe is me...

You can actually get into UVA. Especially if you ED.

GeePee wrote: You can actually get into UVA. Especially if you ED.

unfortunately, i spent my ED on michigan...Regular decision at UVA last week...im very confused though, zearfoss (mich admissions dean) sent an invitation underlining the word "love" in the context of viewing my application, hand-signed it, and wrote on the side "Congratulations on your flawless performance at Wayne!!"....I thought perhaps maybe a good sign, but people insist that my 164 blows and I have no shot there...

I don't meet your requirements, but I have a 3.61/155.

3.61 is a high GPA for the schools I'm applying to (T2-T4), so I qualify for "reverse-splitter" status.

Actually, 155 is high for a lot of the T4 schools I'm applying to too, so I'm really only a splitter for most of the T2 schools I'm applying to.

Threw in a few T1 schools + UVA in case the admissions council misreads something like my LSAT score and admits me

I'm glad to see that I am not the only one in this situation. After many years off from earning a BA and an MA and teaching for 7 years, I decided on a whim to finally fufill my dream of going to law school. So, I guess you'd conider me a non-traditional applicant and I qualify as an URM. I have a 3.8 GPA undergrad, 4.0 GPA graduate, but a 152 LSAT. That was me going in cold, as I have no money for a prep course and sadly my time is kind of limited to due to my current job. I'm sure I'll get into the T4s in my area, but are there any Top 100s that I should consider?

NYStateofMind1979 wrote:I'm glad to see that I am not the only one in this situation. After many years off from earning a BA and an MA and teaching for 7 years, I decided on a whim to finally fufill my dream of going to law school. So, I guess you'd conider me a non-traditional applicant and I qualify as an URM. I have a 3.8 GPA undergrad, 4.0 GPA graduate, but a 152 LSAT. That was me going in cold, as I have no money for a prep course and sadly my time is kind of limited to due to my current job. I'm sure I'll get into the T4s in my area, but are there any Top 100s that I should consider?

Given huge disparity in long run outcomes between T4s and much better schools, you are making a terrible mistake by going to law school after only taking the LSAT cold. A few years after graduation, you are really going to regret that you only had limited time in 2009 to prepare for the LSAT. Don't waste the stellar GPA.

rondemarino wrote:

NYStateofMind1979 wrote:I'm glad to see that I am not the only one in this situation. After many years off from earning a BA and an MA and teaching for 7 years, I decided on a whim to finally fufill my dream of going to law school. So, I guess you'd conider me a non-traditional applicant and I qualify as an URM. I have a 3.8 GPA undergrad, 4.0 GPA graduate, but a 152 LSAT. That was me going in cold, as I have no money for a prep course and sadly my time is kind of limited to due to my current job. I'm sure I'll get into the T4s in my area, but are there any Top 100s that I should consider?

Given huge disparity in long run outcomes between T4s and much better schools, you are making a terrible mistake by going to law school after only taking the LSAT cold. A few years after graduation, you are really going to regret that you only had limited time in 2009 to prepare for the LSAT. Don't waste the stellar GPA.

Do you think that I can possibly overcome the low LSAT and prep in time for December? My issue with September is that a) I was rattled by the poorly organized test center and b) I never finished each section as I ran out of time.