. Forum

[peke]

.

[Mack.Hambleton]

1. major plays no role, all they care about is the numerical LSDAS GPA they can report

2. no, work experience matters very little in admissions

3. I guess it gives you more leeway to attend a higher ranked school, but you still probably shouldnt go anywhere at sticker

mylsn.info

[PeanutsNJam]

1. major plays no role, all they care about is the numerical LSDAS GPA they can report

2. no, work experience matters very little in admissions

3. I guess it gives you more leeway to attend a higher ranked school, but you still probably shouldnt go anywhere at sticker

mylsn.info

WE and STEM double major are worthless but UG rank matters? please.

Order of importance according to TLS is usually:

1.) LSAT
2.) URM/GPA
3.) Strong softs (CEO of billion dollar company, have MD from Harvard, etc.)
4.) WE/PS/rec letters (PS and rec especially so for YSB)
5.) Probably residence status for schools that care/Legacy
6.) How good looking you are
7.) Your favorite color
8.) Your UG alma mater

[runinthefront]

1. major plays no role, all they care about is the numerical LSDAS GPA they can report

2. no, work experience matters very little in admissions

3. I guess it gives you more leeway to attend a higher ranked school, but you still probably shouldnt go anywhere at sticker

mylsn.info

http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/applic ... -outcomes/

Our findings include the following. First, many variables help predict LGPA: (1) UGPA predicts as powerfully as LSAT, controlling for college quality and major – and among “splitters,” high-UGPA/low-LSAT is equal to the more coveted high-LSAT/low-UGPA; (2) majoring in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) or EAF (economics, finance, accounting) is akin to three extra LSAT points; (3) work experience, especially in teaching, strongly predicts success; (4) criminal/disciplinary record predicts negatively, akin to five fewer LSAT points.

Second, many variables had nonlinear effects: college quality has decreasing returns but UGPA has increasing returns, and a rising UGPA is an additional positive; and work experience of 4-9 years is the “sweet spot,” with 1-3 mildly positive, and over 10 not significant.

Third, some variables predict high LGPA variance, meaning such candidates are a heterogeneous mix of high and low performers requiring close scrutiny – most notably, those with longer work experience and, among “splitters,” those with high-UGPA/low-LSAT rather than the reverse. Fourth, many variables commonly seen as a positive had little or no effect, e.g.: public interest work; other graduate degrees; reading-intensive majors (e.g., political science or liberal arts); leadership; and military background...These findings can help schools discern which numerically similar applicants are better bets to outperform traditional predictors (e.g., LSAT).

[Mack.Hambleton]

@peanuts

The fuck are you talking about rank? I was talking about GPA. And no STEM is not going to give any kind of boost for admissions purposes.

@runinthefront

Literally what are you talking about, OP is asking about admissions

[runinthefront]

you do realize adcomms admit applicants based on their likelihood of succeeding at school or nah (i mean, after looking at lsat/ugpa)

I mean, by explicitly stating that work experience matters very little for admissions purposes, your entire post just lost a lot of credibility

significant work experience plays a role in admissions at most top schools, not just NU

STEM majors definitely seem to get a non-negligible (although not really significant) boost over liberal arts majors as well

all things equal, Duke will probably take the 3.71, 169 MicroBiology major w/ a year of work experience over the 3.74, 169 Poli Sci K-JD

but w/e

[Mack.Hambleton]

You do realize adcomms admit applicants based on their medians and not on their likelihood of success. Harvard admits way more 173 than 172s because 95% of admissions is medians.

Work experience has very little impact, it would only have an impact if you either had zero work experience or highly exceptional work experience, and still this would be minor

[Mack.Hambleton]

all things equal, Duke will probably take the 3.71, 169 MicroBiology major w/ a year of work experience over the 3.74, 169 Poli Sci K-JD

but w/e

They have no incentive to do that, and in fact have incentive to do the opposite.

[sodomojo]

majoring in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) or EAF (economics, finance, accounting) is akin to three extra LSAT points

all things equal, Duke will probably take the 3.71, 169 MicroBiology major w/ a year of work experience over the 3.74, 169 Poli Sci K-JD

+0.03 GPA ≠ +3 LSAT

[Mack.Hambleton]

majoring in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) or EAF (economics, finance, accounting) is akin to three extra LSAT points

all things equal, Duke will probably take the 3.71, 169 MicroBiology major w/ a year of work experience over the 3.74, 169 Poli Sci K-JD

+0.03 GPA ≠ +3 LSAT

The three lsat points is in reference to law school performance not admissions

[PeanutsNJam]

@ james.bungles

Yes numbers are king but you need to drop this "rest doesn't matter" schtick.

If you're above both medians, you're basically in unless you've murdered somebody. But if you're at median or are a splitter, the rest of the stuff (WE, major, PS/recs) matter quite a bit.

How else does a school decide between a 4.0/167 and a 3.3/173? Remember half the people that matriculate are at or below median. What makes them different from the other thousands of people at or below median? The "other stuff".

It's not about a 4.0/173 vs a 4.0/172, it's about a 3.4/180 vs a 3.3/174 vs a 3.9/170 etc.

This guy is close to median at few T10, and for him, his softs matter. Because not all people at median are admitted. Just look at any LSN graph along the "median line". The green and red dots are pretty intertwined, it's not a clear cut line.

[kcdc1]

Apply to Northwestern's AJD program. Get a full ride, finish school in 2 years. Be much wealthier than you would coming from any other school.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&start=25

[peke]

I always have the last option which is retake in Feb or Jun. My practice tests were generally 174-176 in strict conditions but the discrepancy is somewhat expected (after the test I was feeling more in the range 172-173). If my goal is T7, which I'm reading emphasize the 1 LSAT score more than other schools, should I consider a retake?

[PeanutsNJam]

I always have the last option which is retake in Feb or Jun. My practice tests were generally 174-176 in strict conditions but the discrepancy is somewhat expected (after the test I was feeling more in the range 172-173). If my goal is T7, which I'm reading emphasize the 1 LSAT score more than other schools, should I consider a retake?

An improvement in your score will definitely aid your chances at T7. If you can score 175+ (I think that's the 75th for HYS?), you stand a very good chance of HYS and with money at CCN. With your current 171, you're probably in at CCN but not with a lot of money.

[hill1334]

@peanuts

The fuck are you talking about rank? I was talking about GPA. And no STEM is not going to give any kind of boost for admissions purposes.

@runinthefront

Literally what are you talking about, OP is asking about admissions

Of course LSAT and GPA are the primary considerations for law schools, but I think you are going too far in suggesting that the rest of the factors that predict law school and employment outcomes matter so little. Particularly, I think work experience can boost chances of admissions, because it makes applicants more employable, and employment statistics are an input considered for the US News and World Report rankings http://www.usnews.com/education/best-gr ... s-rankings). In fact, placement success is weighed rather heavily at 20%.

Of course, LSAT and GPA are more coveted, as they are weighed more heavily (25%) and they are already realized, rather than potential, inputs into the rankings (i.e., it is less of a gamble to admit based on LSAT and GPA than employability). However, if you are going to make the argument that schools only care about US News and World Report rankings, then you can't just ignore the fact that placement success is such a big component of those rankings.

Ultimately, my point is that you are wrong that law schools have "no incentive" to admit STEM majors or individuals with work experience. Generally, other considerations won't make a huge difference for admissions because LSAT and GPA are more important and override the other considerations, not because those other considerations don't matter at all.

[BigZuck]

STEM or WE or w/e might be a solid tiebreaker but really all that matters is LSAT/GPA (and URM status and maybe super softs for the few that have them)

All that will matter for the OP is LSAT/GPA because he is not URM and does not have super softs. The WE should be helpful in the job search though at least.

[ChoboPie]

I'm calling:

In at NYU and down, and either or both of UChi + Columbia.
Maybe one of HS if your luck is good.

[Kratos]

OP why do you want to go to law school? If you have enough saved up for the first 2 years of LS, you're probably making good money, why not just stay doing what you're doing now?

[peke]

OP why do you want to go to law school? If you have enough saved up for the first 2 years of LS, you're probably making good money, why not just stay doing what you're doing now?

Trading pays pretty well straight out of college but it's not a career I want to be stuck in. Exit opportunities are limited and law school is one of the few ways to move on. I also want to leverage my engineering background a little more by going into IP or patent law. Thanks everyone for the advice! I've determined to retake the LSAT in Feb.

[amc987]

I think the STEM major can help in situations where the applicant has a slightly lower GPA than the school usually admits. There's definitely evidence of STEM majors getting a bit of a boost. Anyway, it's not like 3.83 will count against you anywhere but HYS.

I agree with the above posters: You're probably in at CCN down. Of HYS, Harvard is your best chance because of size. Your numbers suggest you won't get YS, but if you have a really compelling app, you might snag one of them.

I also wouldn't retake unless you're sure you can do significantly better. Like, your odds aren't that different with a 3.83/173 than with a 3.83/171. You'd need to get in the mid 170s for it to be worth your time. It would suck to put in a lot of effort and then get a similar/lower score (which could happen to anyone on a bad day).

[packer_22]

I also wouldn't retake unless you're sure you can do significantly better. Like, your odds aren't that different with a 3.83/173 than with a 3.83/171. You'd need to get in the mid 170s for it to be worth your time. It would suck to put in a lot of effort and then get a similar/lower score (which could happen to anyone on a bad day).

Are you sure?

171: http://mylsn.info/i5q0mj/

173: http://mylsn.info/mmrpaq/

[amc987]

I also wouldn't retake unless you're sure you can do significantly better. Like, your odds aren't that different with a 3.83/173 than with a 3.83/171. You'd need to get in the mid 170s for it to be worth your time. It would suck to put in a lot of effort and then get a similar/lower score (which could happen to anyone on a bad day).

Are you sure?

171: http://mylsn.info/i5q0mj/

173: http://mylsn.info/mmrpaq/

I think his chances are significantly better at HLS with a 173/174 according to your link (I would count 174 as a mid 170s score and therefore significantly better than a 171, but YMMV). He might get a bit more money at CCN. But I think for YS and everywhere below CCN, they're more or less the same.