170/3.4: Lets see what you think Forum

[beachbum]

Hey everyone, thought I would finally make one of these threads to gauge what you all think of my chances. Scored a 170 on the June LSAT, have a 3.40 GPA (w/ upward trend), and otherwise average softs. Non-URM. My app list is as follows:

Michigan
Virginia
Duke
Cornell
GULC
UCLA
Texas
Vandy
USC
WUSTL
Illinois
Minnesota
William & Mary

As it stands now, I'm a little hesitant to ED anywhere- but I have a month or so (waiting on a LOR) to change my mind. I'm still in undergrad, so I'm hoping to raise my GPA to ~3.48 this semester. Thanks a lot guys, I appreciate it.

[dissonance1848]

GPA trend has no value. If you are 3.48/170, then here are my guesses.

UT, USC, and UCLA like high GPAs. You will have problems getting in, probably WL or reject.

Vandy you are WL or reject.

Cornell, maybe, but more to WL than accept.
GULC, maybe, but like Cornell.
Duke, reject.
Michigan, reject.
UVA chance, with ED only though.

Other schools you are in.

[Patriot1208]

GPA trend has no value. If you are 3.48/170, then here are my guesses.

UT, USC, and UCLA like high GPAs. You will have problems getting in, probably WL or reject.

Vandy you are WL or reject.

Cornell, maybe, but more to WL than accept.
GULC, maybe, but like Cornell.
Duke, reject.
Michigan, reject.
UVA chance, with ED only though.

Other schools you are in.

Duke, UVA, and Michigan probably all have a chance at with ED. This according to LSN. So it's your decision on whether to ED to one of these or let it play out and maybe be left out of the t14 altogether.

[beachbum]

Thanks for the responses. So if I'm to ED (which might just be the best course of action), it looks like my best bets are Duke, UVA, and Michigan. Of these three, the school I'm most enthusiastic about (by far) is Duke. So what are your feelings on Duke ED: good call or waste of time?

[Grizz]

Vandy you're probably WL/in. Though it's hard to say for this cycle because they raised their LSAT medians.

[im_blue]

Thanks for the responses. So if I'm to ED (which might just be the best course of action), it looks like my best bets are Duke, UVA, and Michigan. Of these three, the school I'm most enthusiastic about (by far) is Duke. So what are your feelings on Duke ED: good call or waste of time?

If that's your favorite, then by all means ED there. Your LSAT is at their median, and an ED would probably get you in. But keep in mind that you'll likely pay sticker and can't compare scholarship offers.

[dissonance1848]

Duke likes high GPAs. You have the best chance EDing to either UVA (which has a serious lean towards ED folks with real interest), or Gtown. UVA and Gtown are willing to take hits on GPA for decent LSATs. Cornell might have lower LSAT numbers, but they want more balance which hurts you. Also, while Michigan claims to love LSAT to GPA, if you look at their numbers, they want more balance too.

The other poster is right about Vandy; you are most likely in or WL, not reject.

[beachbum]

bump. Appreciate the advice as I contemplate where (if at all) to ED.

[hefox]

I think you would be in at WUSTL, Illinios, Minn, and W&M.

Everything else is a touch of a stretch, but hell-go for it! Also, have you considered George Washington? You would be in there as well, I have a friend who is there and she got in with a 167 and 3.3. You could possibly (and i empasize the possibly) get some scholly money there and its in the rank range on your list.

[Patriot1208]

The three profiles below are the only three on LSN I found that had similar numbers and listed ED. It looks like everyone around your numbers that didn't ED got waitlisted or dinged. But you likely stand a good chance getting in ED. From anecdotal evidence Virginia might be a little more likely, but not that much. But I think at either with ED you stand a better then 60% chance of getting in.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/jj55
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/wildbillkj
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/knows11

[beachbum]

The three profiles below are the only three on LSN I found that had similar numbers and listed ED. It looks like everyone around your numbers that didn't ED got waitlisted or dinged. But you likely stand a good chance getting in ED. From anecdotal evidence Virginia might be a little more likely, but not that much. But I think at either with ED you stand a better then 60% chance of getting in.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/jj55
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/wildbillkj
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/knows11

Awesome, thanks a lot. Everyone tells me that EDing is the best thing a splitter can do, and out of my ED options I really prefer Duke. Still, it's a big financial commitment- but I imagine it'll be the best call in the long run.

[123xalady]

GPA trend has no value. If you are 3.48/170, then here are my guesses.

UT, USC, and UCLA like high GPAs. You will have problems getting in, probably WL or reject.

Vandy you are WL or reject.

Cornell, maybe, but more to WL than accept.
GULC, maybe, but like Cornell.
Duke, reject.
Michigan, reject.
UVA chance, with ED only though.

Other schools you are in.

Don't take what people say in these forums as gospel. Admissions people do indeed take GPA trend into consideration, why do you think LSAC breaks down the 4 year GPA progression in the academic summary?

if you're on the ball with personal statement, essays etc., and you apply oct-ish, then i think you a very decent shot at any of these schools. I see most favorable results from Cornell, Mich and UVA.

[dissonance1848]

Someone in another thread said they got reject at Michigan witha 3.8/172. Now, maybe they had poor LORs plus everything else bad, but if otherwise, you would need a ED with Michigan to maybe have a chance.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

Someone in another thread said they got reject at Michigan witha 3.8/172. Now, maybe they had poor LORs plus everything else bad, but if otherwise, you would need a ED with Michigan to maybe have a chance.

Michigan gave out a lot of weird waitlists and rejects to candidates with higher numbers. A lot of people were saying yield protect played a big role. You can't look at one example (or even a few) of a 3.8/172 getting rejected at michigan and take that as the norm.

That said, OP's best chance at T10 is probably ED at UVA. Like has been mentioned, Duke likes GPA, Northwestern likes work experience, and Michigan isn't as splitter friendly as UVA.

OP should apply MVP through WUSTL at the very least. And consider adding a few schools in the 20-30 range.

Don't take what people say in these forums as gospel. Admissions people do indeed take GPA trend into consideration, why do you think LSAC breaks down the 4 year GPA progression in the academic summary?

I had a very strong upward trend and I'm pretty sure it had little to no effect on my admissions. Cases will vary, but I think it's the minority of people who get any discernible boost from an upward trend (and usually those are very low GPA's or those who have good reasons for the earlier low grades).

[123xalady]

Someone in another thread said they got reject at Michigan witha 3.8/172. Now, maybe they had poor LORs plus everything else bad, but if otherwise, you would need a ED with Michigan to maybe have a chance.

Michigan gave out a lot of weird waitlists and rejects to candidates with higher numbers. A lot of people were saying yield protect played a big role. You can't look at one example (or even a few) of a 3.8/172 getting rejected at michigan and take that as the norm.

That said, OP's best chance at T10 is probably ED at UVA. Like has been mentioned, Duke likes GPA, Northwestern likes work experience, and Michigan isn't as splitter friendly as UVA.

OP should apply MVP through WUSTL at the very least. And consider adding a few schools in the 20-30 range.

Don't take what people say in these forums as gospel. Admissions people do indeed take GPA trend into consideration, why do you think LSAC breaks down the 4 year GPA progression in the academic summary?

I had a very strong upward trend and I'm pretty sure it had little to no effect on my admissions. Cases will vary, but I think it's the minority of people who get any discernible boost from an upward trend (and usually those are very low GPA's or those who have good reasons for the earlier low grades).

pointless to keep debating this- but you have no idea what effect your GPA trend had on your cycle. According to anna ivey (former dean of U chicago law), admissions people look at trend, as well as course selection.

[Grizz]

pointless to keep debating this- but you have no idea what effect your GPA trend had on your cycle. According to anna ivey (former dean of U chicago law), admissions people look at trend, as well as course selection.

If the aggregate data of LSN is any indicator, at the vast majority of schools, it probably won't have any effect, if at all.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

pointless to keep debating this- but you have no idea what effect your GPA trend had on your cycle. According to anna ivey (former dean of U chicago law), admissions people look at trend, as well as course selection.

I may not have complete or final knowledge when it comes to GPA trends, but to say I have no idea is to discount my experience along with the experience of many, many others. Upward trends are typically most important in the following circumstances:
1) Someone with around a 3.0 or lower can show that he know "gets it", if in the final few semesters he consistently held a high GPA.
2) Someone writing an addendum about a problem that had a significant affect on their grades can show that the problem has been fixed and it will not be present for law school (e.g. clinical depression caused very low grades for a certain period of time, now since taking appropriate meds GPA has been consistently high)

Everything else being equal, a candidate with an upward trend looks better than a candidate with the exact opposite (or just inconsistent grades). But the thing is, everything is never going to be equal. Having an upward trend is typically too minor of a soft to have a significant impact on its own. I doubt Anna Ivey would disagree with that.

[beachbum]

pointless to keep debating this- but you have no idea what effect your GPA trend had on your cycle. According to anna ivey (former dean of U chicago law), admissions people look at trend, as well as course selection.

I may not have complete or final knowledge when it comes to GPA trends, but to say I have no idea is to discount my experience along with the experience of many, many others. Upward trends are typically most important in the following circumstances:
1) Someone with around a 3.0 or lower can show that he know "gets it", if in the final few semesters he consistently held a high GPA.
2) Someone writing an addendum about a problem that had a significant affect on their grades can show that the problem has been fixed and it will not be present for law school (e.g. clinical depression caused very low grades for a certain period of time, now since taking appropriate meds GPA has been consistently high)

Everything else being equal, a candidate with an upward trend looks better than a candidate with the exact opposite (or just inconsistent grades). But the thing is, everything is never going to be equal. Having an upward trend is typically too minor of a soft to have a significant impact on its own. I doubt Anna Ivey would disagree with that.

But I thought I was a special snowflake.

Seriously though- to add something to the conversation- I do think I'm going to ED to Duke. And since my GPA is substantially below their median (and their 25%ile), I'll take any positives I can get. I checked LSN and noticed that those with numbers around mine who EDed last cycle received a mixture of waitlists and accepts. So my hope is that the upward trend helps to distinguish me from other, similar ED applicants.

[whymeohgodno]

Good luck. You should get into one of the t14, but cycles can be weird.

One of my friends with 2 years WE after graduating with a 170 and a 3.5 GPA got rejected from all of the t14. It surprised me a bit.

[beachbum]

Good luck. You should get into one of the t14, but cycles can be weird.

One of my friends with 2 years WE after graduating with a 170 and a 3.5 GPA got rejected from all of the t14. It surprised me a bit.

Did he/she ED anywhere? Those numbers sound like a lock for UVA and NU.

[whymeohgodno]

Good luck. You should get into one of the t14, but cycles can be weird.

One of my friends with 2 years WE after graduating with a 170 and a 3.5 GPA got rejected from all of the t14. It surprised me a bit.

Did he/she ED anywhere? Those numbers sound like a lock for UVA and NU.

He didn't ED anywhere. That may be why.

[123xalady]

pointless to keep debating this- but you have no idea what effect your GPA trend had on your cycle. According to anna ivey (former dean of U chicago law), admissions people look at trend, as well as course selection.

I may not have complete or final knowledge when it comes to GPA trends, but to say I have no idea is to discount my experience along with the experience of many, many others. Upward trends are typically most important in the following circumstances:
1) Someone with around a 3.0 or lower can show that he know "gets it", if in the final few semesters he consistently held a high GPA.
2) Someone writing an addendum about a problem that had a significant affect on their grades can show that the problem has been fixed and it will not be present for law school (e.g. clinical depression caused very low grades for a certain period of time, now since taking appropriate meds GPA has been consistently high)

Everything else being equal, a candidate with an upward trend looks better than a candidate with the exact opposite (or just inconsistent grades). But the thing is, everything is never going to be equal. Having an upward trend is typically too minor of a soft to have a significant impact on its own. I doubt Anna Ivey would disagree with that.

i try not to get pulled into fatuous little skirmishes on these forums, but i'd like to point out that you've effectively just agreed with me. Also, I don't know where you found the "3.0 or lower" threshold- i would think an upward trend would signal the same, important "gets it" message for any middling GPA.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

pointless to keep debating this- but you have no idea what effect your GPA trend had on your cycle. According to anna ivey (former dean of U chicago law), admissions people look at trend, as well as course selection.

I may not have complete or final knowledge when it comes to GPA trends, but to say I have no idea is to discount my experience along with the experience of many, many others. Upward trends are typically most important in the following circumstances:
1) Someone with around a 3.0 or lower can show that he know "gets it", if in the final few semesters he consistently held a high GPA.
2) Someone writing an addendum about a problem that had a significant affect on their grades can show that the problem has been fixed and it will not be present for law school (e.g. clinical depression caused very low grades for a certain period of time, now since taking appropriate meds GPA has been consistently high)

Everything else being equal, a candidate with an upward trend looks better than a candidate with the exact opposite (or just inconsistent grades). But the thing is, everything is never going to be equal. Having an upward trend is typically too minor of a soft to have a significant impact on its own. I doubt Anna Ivey would disagree with that.

i try not to get pulled into fatuous little skirmishes on these forums, but i'd like to point out that you've effectively just agreed with me. Also, I don't know where you found the "3.0 or lower" threshold- i would think an upward trend would signal the same, important "gets it" message for any middling GPA.

My point is that an upward trend has very little effect, if any, for the average applicant. Your point seemed to imply that it can and does. And the reason the 3.0 lower threshold is there is because it's a sign that the person is less of an academic risk for a school wanting to take a big splitter. A 3.5 with a 170+ will be most likely accepted, upward trend or no, at schools 20-30. A person with a very low GPA will have to rely more on trying to come across as someone who can perform academically, it just took a while for him to do so. Even in low GPA cases, upward trend can have little to no effect since many schools have pretty noticeable cut-offs and many schools (I'm looking at your WUSTL) don't care about what narrative you craft as long as you have the LSAT score.

In any case, the take away from this for you and others reading this should be that while an upward trend can count as a soft-- in an application process where softs are very de-emphasized, having an upward trend is a weaker soft to have. Once you get past URM, military experience, good WE, strong PS, and any other strong softs, the rest rarely matter.

[merichard87]

You need more safeties based on GPA and not LSAT.

[plenipotentiary]

Michigan gave out a lot of weird waitlists and rejects to candidates with higher numbers. A lot of people were saying yield protect played a big role. You can't look at one example (or even a few) of a 3.8/172 getting rejected at michigan and take that as the norm.

That said, OP's best chance at T10 is probably ED at UVA. Like has been mentioned, Duke likes GPA, Northwestern likes work experience, and Michigan isn't as splitter friendly as UVA.

OP should apply MVP through WUSTL at the very least. And consider adding a few schools in the 20-30 range.

Seems to me that Mich is actually very splitter friendly, even compared to UVA.

On LSN, there were only 5 splitters (I'm defining that as GPA below 3.5, LSAT above 170) that got money from UVA last cycle: two were URMs (black male), and one had a 179 LSAT and 5 years in the Marines. On the other hand, Michigan gave 17 splitter scholarships, most of which were around $50k, and many of which went to seemingly unremarkable white guys.