. Forum

[tedler]

.

[Stringer Bell]

1. Hypothetically you would likely get into UVA or NU if you ED
2. 3.4 vs. 3.0 is big. If there's any way a 3.5 is possible by taking some additional online courses that would be enormous.
3. This is moot right now anyways. Study for the LSAT and get a practice test range.

[tedler]

.

[KimboSlice]

@tedler, join the club. If you have a little time to eff around, I agree w/ the previous poster hang out in undergrad awhile. I wish I would have double majored in accounting or finance, instead of working on a MBA.

[094320]

..

[AntipodeanPhil]

If you look at the graphs for the T14 on LSN, VERY few non-URM candidates are accepted with 3.0 or lower GPAs (at most 1-2 per school, at many 0). Presumably those candidates are truely special.

At 3.4 the numbers look considerably better.

You can write a GPA addendum, but it's not going to count for much, if anything. Schools claim they consider addendums, but that's mainly to increase application numbers and avoid looking heartless. This will be especially true in your case, as you don't have a good reason for your low GPA (like cancer, for example).

[09042014]

Like everyone is saying, with a 3.0 you've got a shot at UVA with an ED app. No shot at Northwestern unless you get two years of fulltime post grad work experience. You've also got a halfway decent shot at Georgetown, esp. with an ED application.

However, you should wait the year. You'll have a shot at Mich, Duke, Cornell and Penn with a 3.4. Maybe even money at Michigan. You'll also be able to get Northwestern without ED with a year of working.

[tedler]

.

[XxSpyKEx]

I am looking for an LSAT score in the 175-8 range

This thread is completely pointless. Get a LSAT score (or at least an average from PT scores) and then come back... And why are you "looking" for a 175-178? You should be "looking" for a 180. So I guess we could hypothesize your odds of getting into any given school with a 180, but realistically you aren't going to get that score (and most likely not a 175-178 either). On the other side of the spectrum, we could hypothesize your odds at any given school with a 130 LSAT (or whatever the lowest possible score is), but that exercise is meaningless as well.

[tedler]

.

[nshapkar]

I am looking for an LSAT score in the 175-8 range

This thread is completely pointless. Get a LSAT score (or at least an average from PT scores) and then come back... And why are you "looking" for a 175-178? You should be "looking" for a 180. So I guess we could hypothesize your odds of getting into any given school with a 180, but realistically you aren't going to get that score (and most likely not a 175-178 either). On the other side of the spectrum, we could hypothesize your odds at any given school with a 130 LSAT (or whatever the lowest possible score is), but that exercise is meaningless as well.

+1

[Miracle]

If you look at the graphs for the T14 on LSN, VERY few non-URM candidates are accepted with 3.0 or lower GPAs (at most 1-2 per school, at many 0). Presumably those candidates are truely special.

At 3.4 the numbers look considerably better.

You can write a GPA addendum, but it's not going to count for much, if anything. Schools claim they consider addendums, but that's mainly to increase application numbers and avoid looking heartless. This will be especially true in your case, as you don't have a good reason for your low GPA (like cancer, for example).

First of all there are "VERY" few applicants with high LSAT score, and low GPA to begin with.
Second of all LSN is not the only and most reliable predictor of law school admissions.
and lastly, people with 3.7-3.8, and 175+ LSAT get rejected or waitlisted from top law schools according to LSN very often.

[flexityflex86]

you haven't even taken a practice test yet. why do you think you'd get a 175?

Right now you don't even have a 3.0 yet, and haven't so much as taken 1 practice test, but are talking about a 175. I'd say there's about a 99% chance you never wind up going to law school as I'm not sure you have the dedication to go through the app process.

prove me wrong, but i feel very comfortable betting you never go. i'd even give you odds.

[tedler]

.

[AntipodeanPhil]

First of all there are "VERY" few applicants with high LSAT score, and low GPA to begin with.

That's true, but that doesn't make my claim any less relevant. The fact that there are so few suggests that it is very unlikely the OP is going to become one. Indeed, since the OP doesn't have an LSAT score yet, or even a reasonable prediction, it would perhaps be more helpful to look at all candidates with 3.0 GPAs. At the T14, the vast majority are rejected.

Second of all LSN is not the only and most reliable predictor of law school admissions.

There are four things people tend to use in these forums: (1) LSN; (2) LSP, or similar; (3) school-reported percentile numbers; and (4) anecdotal evidence. In this case, (2) and (3) will be almost useless, because if the OP got a high LSAT score he would be an extreme splitter. I don't have any anecdotal evidence, and even if I did, that shouldn't count more than LSN.

and lastly, people with 3.7-3.8, and 175+ LSAT get rejected or waitlisted from top law schools according to LSN very often.

What's your point - that we shouldn't make any predictions, because anyone can get rejected? There is not much that is certain about law school admissions, which is why we consider what is likely.

[JamMasterJ]

Past standardized testing is little to no indication of potential LSAT performance. Only 1/4 of it resembles the SAT in any way.

[tedler]

.

[Miracle]

First of all there are "VERY" few applicants with high LSAT score, and low GPA to begin with.

That's true, but that doesn't make my claim any less relevant. The fact that there are so few suggests that it is very unlikely the OP is going to become one. Indeed, since the OP doesn't have an LSAT score yet, or even a reasonable prediction, it would perhaps be more helpful to look at all candidates with 3.0 GPAs. At the T14, the vast majority are rejected.

Second of all LSN is not the only and most reliable predictor of law school admissions.

There are four things people tend to use in these forums: (1) LSN; (2) LSP, or similar; (3) school-reported percentile numbers; and (4) anecdotal evidence. In this case, (2) and (3) will be almost useless, because if the OP got a high LSAT score he would be an extreme splitter. I don't have any anecdotal evidence, and even if I did, that shouldn't count more than LSN.

and lastly, people with 3.7-3.8, and 175+ LSAT get rejected or waitlisted from top law schools according to LSN very often.

What's your point - that we shouldn't make any predictions, because anyone can get rejected? There is not much that is certain about law school admissions, which is why we consider what is likely.

I agree with you that he needs to get his LSAT first, however you first argument is very flawed.

Vast majority with 3.0 at T-14 are not rejected. There are very few to begin with. When you talk about majority you're talking "maybe" at most about 15-20 applicants (with respect to splitters). If you take a closer look at G-town for this cycle applicants with 3.0 GPA and 170+ on the LSAT did get in. You had five aapplicants (according to LSN) with GPA between 3.0 and 3.1, and 170+ on the lsat and all of them got in. People with GPA around 2.7-2.9 got waitlisted.

Michigan had acceptances as well, and so did other schools.

[czelede]

First of all there are "VERY" few applicants with high LSAT score, and low GPA to begin with.

That's true, but that doesn't make my claim any less relevant. The fact that there are so few suggests that it is very unlikely the OP is going to become one. Indeed, since the OP doesn't have an LSAT score yet, or even a reasonable prediction, it would perhaps be more helpful to look at all candidates with 3.0 GPAs. At the T14, the vast majority are rejected.

Second of all LSN is not the only and most reliable predictor of law school admissions.

There are four things people tend to use in these forums: (1) LSN; (2) LSP, or similar; (3) school-reported percentile numbers; and (4) anecdotal evidence. In this case, (2) and (3) will be almost useless, because if the OP got a high LSAT score he would be an extreme splitter. I don't have any anecdotal evidence, and even if I did, that shouldn't count more than LSN.

and lastly, people with 3.7-3.8, and 175+ LSAT get rejected or waitlisted from top law schools according to LSN very often.

What's your point - that we shouldn't make any predictions, because anyone can get rejected? There is not much that is certain about law school admissions, which is why we consider what is likely.

I agree with you that he needs to get his LSAT first, however you first argument is very flawed.

Vast majority with 3.0 at T-14 are not rejected. There are very few to begin with. When you talk about majority you're talking "maybe" at most about 15-20 applicants (with respect to splitters). If you take a closer look at G-town for this cycle applicants with 3.0 GPA and 170+ on the LSAT did get in. You had five aapplicants (according to LSN) with GPA between 3.0 and 3.1, and 170+ on the lsat and all of them got in. People with GPA around 2.7-2.9 got waitlisted.

Michigan had acceptances as well, and so did other schools.

The vast majority of 3.0 applicants are not splitters. I think that might be the point he/she was trying to make.

[AntipodeanPhil]

I agree with you that he needs to get his LSAT first, however you first argument is very flawed.

Vast majority with 3.0 at T-14 are not rejected. There are very few to begin with. When you talk about majority you're talking "maybe" at most about 15-20 applicants (with respect to splitters). If you take a closer look at G-town for this cycle applicants with 3.0 GPA and 170+ on the LSAT did get in. You had five aapplicants (according to LSN) with GPA between 3.0 and 3.1, and 170+ on the lsat and all of them got in. People with GPA around 2.7-2.9 got waitlisted.

Michigan had acceptances as well, and so did other schools.

What I wrote was that the vast majority of 3.0 and below candidates are rejected. At G-town, I count 1 non-URM acceptance and 30+ rejections / waitlists. Your figure of 5 acceptances includes 4 candidates between 3.0 and 3.1, which - if anything - shows why the OP should wait to apply, since even a small GPA difference seems to make big difference to one's chances (although, if you include candidates between 3.0 and 3.1, the number of rejections and waitlists also increases significantly).

I did not write that the vast majority of 3.0 / 170+ splitters were rejected, because - as you point out - there aren't many. Since the OP doesn't have an LSAT yet, and is not even in a position to make an informed guess, I think the first statistic is more helpful.

EDIT: czelede put my point more succintly. LOL. I'll stop writing now.

[helmsleyB]

That's fair, although from what I've seen many of the analytical reasoning questions seem to be condensed tests of reading comprehension.

Yes. That's similar to how the questions on a Spanish test are just tests of reading comprehension... except, y'know, in Spanish.

Kidding aside, I consider it a good thing to be unafraid of the LSAT. But if you haven't taken a diagnostic or anything (sorry if you mentioned it previously - didn't see it), then I wouldn't count on the LSAT being familiar just based on past standardized testing. I may as well ask: have you taken any practice tests/diagnostics yet?

Regarding GPA, the difference between a 3.4 and 3.0 is huge. I am a little more optimistic about your situation than some other posters, because I think a bunch of Fs followed by straight As could be considered more favorably than straight B+s... if you have very good reasons for the bad grades or at least can write a very very good GPA addendum that convinces some adcomms that the "A student" is who you are now. Like the best GPA addendum ever.

Then again, a grade trend like that can just as easily (read:almost certainly) be a huge red flag. Even with a 175+, if your GPA lingers around 3.0 I could see you getting locked out of most of the T14.
So, obvious advice: Rock the LSAT, get that GPA waaay up, and be prepared to do some serious explaining around the swing from 1.5 to 3.9

[tedler]

.

[splitmuch]

Yes. That's similar to how the questions on a Spanish test are just tests of reading comprehension... except, y'know, in Spanish.

I meant to put logical reasoning, which I think is a slightly better comparison. Derp.

Kidding aside, I consider it a good thing to be unafraid of the LSAT. But if you haven't taken a diagnostic or anything (sorry if you mentioned it previously - didn't see it), then I wouldn't count on the LSAT being familiar just based on past standardized testing. I may as well ask: have you taken any practice tests/diagnostics yet?

Regarding GPA, the difference between a 3.4 and 3.0 is huge. I am a little more optimistic about your situation than some other posters, because I think a bunch of Fs followed by straight As could be considered more favorably than straight B+s... if you have very good reasons for the bad grades or at least can write a very very good GPA addendum that convinces some adcomms that the "A student" is who you are now. Like the best GPA addendum ever.

Then again, a grade trend like that can just as easily (read:almost certainly) be a huge red flag. Even with a 175+, if your GPA lingers around 3.0 I could see you getting locked out of most of the T14.
So, obvious advice: Rock the LSAT, get that GPA waaay up, and be prepared to do some serious explaining around the swing from 1.5 to 3.9

I have not taken any diagnostic tests. However, I am not going into the LSAT convinced that my SAT scores from six years ago will guide me. I'm signed up for an intensive Testmasters course this summer, and plan on eating and breathing LSAT for the entirety of the three months leading up to the test. I'm not totally assured that I can get a 175+ or anything; I just know that's what I need for a shot at t14, and I see it as an attainable goal with the proper (rigorous) preparation. On that note, the Testmasters site sternly warns potential students against studying outside material prior to the course. Is this advice worth following, or can I get cracking on some PowerScore now?

I don't have a phenomenal excuse for my early academic woes. I went from a small private school to a university with 25,000+ students, got overwhelmed, and crawled into a shell where I resided until I failed out. There's two years between my failing out and my triumphant return, part of which I spent interning with a lobbying firm, if that helps any. Still deciding whether to structure my PS around my academic turbulence or to simply write a very succinct addendum.

Sorry for the wall of text--your serious reply is much appreciated.

As a 3.1 178 I have alot of insight I could share. Come back when you actually score 175+ and I will.

[tedler]

.

[splitmuch]

As a 3.1 178 I have alot of insight I could share. Come back when you actually score 175+ and I will.

Ha! Hopefully I'll have reason to message you a couple months down the line.

Honestly hope you do too. Good luck.