Top Law Schools

Looking to get into a school with 159 as the 25% mark...161 as median. GPA is slightly below 25% mark, but I've expressed a pretty big interest in the school - have spoken w/ deans, profs, admissions reps, and have attended law school functions. I'm several years out of undergrad with solid recommendations and a good personal statement. Anyone in the same boat?

What school? I am applying to many schools that I am at/below 25th percentile at.. So far so good, although it is a little discerning realizing how number conscious schools are. Best of luck!

Google law school scams. There are plenty of schools out there that would accept you with that score but would leave you with a mountain (maybe two mountains) of debt and if you graduate first in your class maybe a 1 in 10 shot at a job.

If your serious about this, be serious and retake LSAT. I'm sure you can improve. How/did you study last time? Are you an URM?

Well, you are not very likely to get into school where you are at or below both 25th percentiles. If you do manage to get off the WL, you probably wont get much of a scholarship. You should probably retake the LSAT. Improving your score a few points will make a huge difference. Hitting the median would significantly increase your chances, next cycle. If you dont get into your target school, DONT SETTLE!!

study hard and retake. The lsat is a learnable test, and by investing the time, you can get a good score.

mattviphky wrote:study hard and retake. The lsat is a learnable test, and by investing the time, you can get a good score.

which will lead to better school options with scholarships

Baylor ? Which law school are you targeting ? Hard to offer meaningful advice w/o more info.

Br3v wrote:Google law school scams. There are plenty of schools out there that would accept you with that score but would leave you with a mountain (maybe two mountains) of debt and if you graduate first in your class maybe a 1 in 10 shot at a job.

If your serious about this, be serious and retake LSAT. I'm sure you can improve. How/did you study last time? Are you an URM?

TITCR. 159 is bad. Sorry.

Nova wrote:Well, you are not very likely to get into school where you are at or below both 25th percentiles. If you do manage to get off the WL, you probably wont get much of a scholarship. You should probably retake the LSAT. Improving your score a few points will make a huge difference. Hitting the median would significantly increase your chances, next cycle. If you dont get into your target school, DONT SETTLE!!

You have close to a 0 chance of getting in being below both 25th percentiles, unless you are a URM.

JDYesPlease wrote:Looking to get into a school with 159 as the 25% mark...161 as median. GPA is slightly below 25% mark, but I've expressed a pretty big interest in the school - have spoken w/ deans, profs, admissions reps, and have attended law school functions. I'm several years out of undergrad with solid recommendations and a good personal statement. Anyone in the same boat?

Kind of depends on what you did in that several years out of undergrad...... Were you a Navy SEAL that was on the team that got OBL or were you flipping burgers at Micky D's?

Obviously there is a whole world of WE between the two extremes above but when you get towards the more significant then you may have a real good chance...... I was not on said SEAL team but my WE did get me in way above my numbers.... I also got waitlisted at a school where I did meat the medians.... Different AdComms will view your WE differently, go figure.....

How you pay for LS makes a difference. I got into my top two choices but the GI bill will pay for either of them 100% so money was not an issue. Getting in is only half the battle. The other half is avoiding debilitating debt and that comes down to risk management to a large extent. Risk being debt, mitigating that debt being either $$$ or getting into a school with a real chance of getting a job that allows you to pay that debt... Both being the best option....

One way or the other this far out the right answer is to study your butt off and retake it in October.... Could make a world of difference in choices and money!

JC

JCFindley wrote:

JDYesPlease wrote:Looking to get into a school with 159 as the 25% mark...161 as median. GPA is slightly below 25% mark, but I've expressed a pretty big interest in the school - have spoken w/ deans, profs, admissions reps, and have attended law school functions. I'm several years out of undergrad with solid recommendations and a good personal statement. Anyone in the same boat?

Kind of depends on what you did in that several years out of undergrad...... Were you a Navy SEAL that was on the team that got OBL or were you flipping burgers at Micky D's?

Obviously there is a whole world of WE between the two extremes above but when you get towards the more significant then you may have a real good chance...... I was not on said SEAL team but my WE did get me in way above my numbers.... I also got waitlisted at a school where I did meat the medians.... Different AdComms will view your WE differently, go figure.....

How you pay for LS makes a difference. I got into my top two choices but the GI bill will pay for either of them 100% so money was not an issue. Getting in is only half the battle. The other half is avoiding debilitating debt and that comes down to risk management to a large extent. Risk being debt, mitigating that debt being either $$$ or getting into a school with a real chance of getting a job that allows you to pay that debt... Both being the best option....

One way or the other this far out the right answer is to study your butt off and retake it in October.... Could make a world of difference in choices and money!

JC

Ha Ha! Joke in bold is funny.

I agree with all of this. Always keep a very keen eye on risk. Read this: --LinkRemoved--? ... id=1640058

Another thing, personal statement and interviewing...A personal statement is anything written in your application or emailed to the admissions office, and an interview is anything discussed verbally with the admissions office. I don't know for sure, but I don't think you can write or talk yourself above both medians, but you can at least get yourself on the waitlist. And if you're a splitter, you can write and talk your way in. Two things: First, "being on the waitlist" may mean you're on the waitlist until August and they grab you when they've run out of above-medians and splitters and someone pulls out. Second, "getting in" as a splitter may mean you're put on the waitlist, but easily get off by calling (read, "interviewing"). Of course, it's all very unpredictable and the only thing you can do is make every aspect of your application as amazing as it can be in the several months you have to put it together.

And: if you can consistently PT above your actual score, retake. But PT under actual test conditions. And pump yourself up, don't dull yourself down. Don't say "it's okay, just calm down," because it's not okay and a lot is on the line. Be as revved-up as you can while staying laser-focused and avoiding panic and you'll maximize your score, if that makes sense. As a lawyer you'll be expected to perform best when it's all on the line. In that way, "not being a good test-taker" isn't all that compelling an excuse. So I would disagree with JC there: it's not "could" make a difference, it will make a difference.

manofjustice wrote: So I would disagree with JC there: it's not "could" make a difference, it will make a difference.

We agree on that 100%. Could make a difference meaning he could score a 159 again.... Will being anything better.....

All,

Not quite sure I want to retake. I started out at a 148 and topped out in the low-mid 160s, but there was a catch. I used several practice questions from various exams, so whenever I took a full-length practice test, I would often see questions I already knew the answer to and felt that it threw off the section. Took approximately 20 PTs over the course of 4 months with a mix of LR & LG drilling for 2 hrs/night. I actually scored a 167 on a full length PT, but it was because I had seen all of the games before and magically got -0 on one LR section. Not to mention I had seen the RC section section several months prior and already knew the gist of most passages. Freak incident that I was never able to replicate, and went down to 158 afterward. I feel that 159 is an accurate gauge and a pretty good indicator of how well I would do again. Bottom line, I don't think it would be possible for me to create an effective study schedule with fresh material and non-skewed PT results.

That said, I was accepted to a decent school. My LSAT was 1 point below the median and GPA was slightly below as well. Non-URM and male so either the adcomm liked something in my application or competition was down compared to last year. Not banking on the latter though b/c the law school rose a couple spots in USN&WR. I'm seven years out of undergrad so maybe that played a factor. Was waitlisted at three schools - each with equal admissions statistics - with one WL/rejection and still on the hook at the other two. Withdrawing my apps from the other two though b/c my current school has an excellent regional reputation and is located in an area that is thriving economically with minimal competition from other schools. It also has a history of feeding students into a specific attorney training program I'm interested in. Was able to save a decent amount of coin working for the past few years (not a ton of cash but enough), so this is shaping up to be a good choice. I don't buy the argument that LSAT test-taking ability makes a good lawyer or even a good law student. Best of luck to everyone.

No one made the argument that low LSATs make you a worse lawyer. The argument was that schools that accept 159s tend to be bottom feeders with shitty employment outcomes. So yeah. Good luck though.

rad lulz wrote:No one made the argument that low LSATs make you a worse lawyer. The argument was that schools that accept 159s tend to be bottom feeders with shitty employment outcomes. So yeah. Good luck though.

Lol true. I've seen the LSAT/attorney ability argument in other forums before though but probably shouldn't have brought it to this thread. Calling these schools bottom feeders is subjective and rude, though I'll concede the shitty employment prospect aspect. People are making the same argument even coming from T14 schools though (especially in biglaw) since the billable hour model for large law firms is changing across the US. The best firms in DC don't have to hire nearly as many summer associates as before (which are generally reserved for T14 grads) b/c a lot of entry-level work is outsourced to sophisticated computer programs and overseas workers. Bottom line anyone who goes to law school - be it a regional "bottom feeder" like mine, T14, or even HYS should have a plan and know where they want to work before they go. You can always hang your own shingle and open a criminal defense or civil torts firm.

JDYesPlease wrote:

rad lulz wrote:No one made the argument that low LSATs make you a worse lawyer. The argument was that schools that accept 159s tend to be bottom feeders with shitty employment outcomes. So yeah. Good luck though.

Lol true. I've seen the LSAT/attorney ability argument in other forums before though but probably shouldn't have brought it to this thread. Calling these schools bottom feeders is subjective and rude, though I'll concede the shitty employment prospect aspect. People are making the same argument even coming from T14 schools though (especially in biglaw) since the billable hour model for large law firms is changing across the US. The best firms in DC don't have to hire nearly as many summer associates as before (which are generally reserved for T14 grads) b/c a lot of entry-level work is outsourced to sophisticated computer programs and overseas workers. Bottom line anyone who goes to law school - be it a regional "bottom feeder" like mine, T14, or even HYS should have a plan and know where they want to work before they go. You can always hang your own shingle and open a criminal defense or civil torts firm.

Well considering that you have no idea how to practice criminal law or even file/write a civil complaint after you leave law school, or have any startup capital for a business, or know how to even run a business, or have any idea how to get clients. Basically no idea how to practice law. Bc law school doesn't teach you.

rad lulz wrote:

JDYesPlease wrote:

rad lulz wrote:No one made the argument that low LSATs make you a worse lawyer. The argument was that schools that accept 159s tend to be bottom feeders with shitty employment outcomes. So yeah. Good luck though.

Lol true. I've seen the LSAT/attorney ability argument in other forums before though but probably shouldn't have brought it to this thread. Calling these schools bottom feeders is subjective and rude, though I'll concede the shitty employment prospect aspect. People are making the same argument even coming from T14 schools though (especially in biglaw) since the billable hour model for large law firms is changing across the US. The best firms in DC don't have to hire nearly as many summer associates as before (which are generally reserved for T14 grads) b/c a lot of entry-level work is outsourced to sophisticated computer programs and overseas workers. Bottom line anyone who goes to law school - be it a regional "bottom feeder" like mine, T14, or even HYS should have a plan and know where they want to work before they go. You can always hang your own shingle and open a criminal defense or civil torts firm.

Well considering that you have no idea how to practice criminal law or even file/write a civil complaint after you leave law school, or have any startup capital for a business, or know how to even run a business, or have any idea how to get clients. Basically no idea how to practice law. Bc law school doesn't teach you.

Why the hostility, friend? These are things that anyone who wants to be a lawyer will be able to find out on their own. You don't even need to be a lawyer to file a civil complaint (well, you do when you file on someone else's behalf). All you have to do is ask the clerk of court and give her a $25 check. I have a friend who just graduated from W&M part-time and was able to open her own small firm in Fairfax. You wanna know how much startup capital she needed? A grand total of...wait for it...$10K. She designed her own brochures, her own website, rents a small office in an industrial complex, and gets referrals through the internet and word of mouth. 25 years old. Only drawback is that her workweek is 80+ hours at times, though that's understandable for anyone who owns a business. Obviously this isn't the ideal lifestyle for someone who doesn't want to be a lawyer.

JDYesPlease wrote: Why the hostility, friend? These are things that anyone who wants to be a lawyer will be able to find out on their own. You don't even need to be a lawyer to file a civil complaint (well, you do when you file on someone else's behalf). All you have to do is ask the clerk of court and give her a $25 check. I have a friend who just graduated from W&M part-time and was able to open her own small firm in Fairfax. You wanna know how much startup capital she needed? A grand total of...wait for it...$10K. She designed her own brochures, her own website, rents a small office in an industrial complex, and gets referrals through the internet and word of mouth. 25 years old. Only drawback is that her workweek is 80+ hours at times, though that's understandable for anyone who owns a business. Obviously this isn't the ideal lifestyle for someone who doesn't want to be a lawyer.

No one would tell a person that graduated from an unseemly law school that they had made a shitty decision. But everyone here is harping on you because your situation is so avoidable. You haven't even gone to law school yet, and you still have opportunities to retake. It seems as though you have already resigned yourself to going to law school now, and trying like hell to make it work. But the choice is up to you. If you really feel like you cannot get any better at the lsat, and that you really must go to law school...then good luck, at least you're going in with eyes wide open.

mattviphky wrote:

JDYesPlease wrote: Why the hostility, friend? These are things that anyone who wants to be a lawyer will be able to find out on their own. You don't even need to be a lawyer to file a civil complaint (well, you do when you file on someone else's behalf). All you have to do is ask the clerk of court and give her a $25 check. I have a friend who just graduated from W&M part-time and was able to open her own small firm in Fairfax. You wanna know how much startup capital she needed? A grand total of...wait for it...$10K. She designed her own brochures, her own website, rents a small office in an industrial complex, and gets referrals through the internet and word of mouth. 25 years old. Only drawback is that her workweek is 80+ hours at times, though that's understandable for anyone who owns a business. Obviously this isn't the ideal lifestyle for someone who doesn't want to be a lawyer.

No one would tell a person that graduated from an unseemly law school that they had made a shitty decision. But everyone here is harping on you because your situation is so avoidable. You haven't even gone to law school yet, and you still have opportunities to retake. It seems as though you have already resigned yourself to going to law school now, and trying like hell to make it work. But the choice is up to you. If you really feel like you cannot get any better at the lsat, and that you really must go to law school...then good luck, at least you're going in with eyes wide open.

You know, I really appreciate this website and these forums. I just realized that they do a service to the already saturated legal community by trying to scare people out of the profession entirely. Think about it: those who are in at HYS are making the same argument to T14 matriculants who weren't accepte to HYS, saying it's not worth it b/c of the lack of opportunity provided by pedigree alone. Students at Columbia, NYU, and Penn are making the same argument to students at Georgetown. Likewise people at Georgetown say the same thing about GW and it goes on and on until you get to Cooley. I guess the question to ask is where is the cut-off? Probably difficult to say because everyone is biased by their own ability to perform on the LSAT.

the cutoff is where the expected value of your decision is negative. With a 159, if you're paying any money for law school the expected value of your decision may well be negative; that's an assessment that you need to make.

edit: you should also assess the immense increase in value that even a few points on the LSAT can provide

tfleming09 wrote:

JDYesPlease wrote:You know, I really appreciate this website and these forums. I just realized that they do a service to the already saturated legal community by trying to scare people out of the profession entirely. Think about it: those who are in at HYS are making the same argument to T14 matriculants who weren't accepte to HYS, saying it's not worth it b/c of the lack of opportunity provided by pedigree alone. Students at Columbia, NYU, and Penn are making the same argument to students at Georgetown. Likewise people at Georgetown say the same thing about GW and it goes on and on until you get to Cooley. I guess the question to ask is where is the cut-off? I guess it's difficult to say because everyone is biased by their own ability to perform on the LSAT.

lolno

So then where is the cut-off?

Show me a thread where someone at Harvard told someone at Cornell they were making a shit decision.

JDYesPlease wrote:

tfleming09 wrote:

JDYesPlease wrote:You know, I really appreciate this website and these forums. I just realized that they do a service to the already saturated legal community by trying to scare people out of the profession entirely. Think about it: those who are in at HYS are making the same argument to T14 matriculants who weren't accepte to HYS, saying it's not worth it b/c of the lack of opportunity provided by pedigree alone. Students at Columbia, NYU, and Penn are making the same argument to students at Georgetown. Likewise people at Georgetown say the same thing about GW and it goes on and on until you get to Cooley. I guess the question to ask is where is the cut-off? I guess it's difficult to say because everyone is biased by their own ability to perform on the LSAT.

lolno

So then where is the cut-off?

IMO, T14 or big scholarship at best school in region (ex: flagship state school)

tfleming09 wrote:

JDYesPlease wrote:So then where is the cut-off?

At any point where the debt you must take on to attend the school will likely not justify the outcome. But it's not as simple as just saying everything after X number is shit.

And this is just for risk/reward.

If I actually wanted a solid shot at a full time job as an actual lawyer, there about a hundred schools, at least, that I would not go to.

Lol you guys are all a feisty little bunch. Some truly great and valid points all things considered. If your skills at oration match your internet blogging abilities then maybe there's hope for the profession after all. Agree mostly w/ tFleming's comment about the cut-off:

At any point where the debt you must take on to attend the school will likely not justify the outcome. But it's not as simple as just saying everything after X number is shit.

Anyway, thanks for the morning entertainment. Can't wait to look back on this thread in five years.