UMN or Vandy? Forum

[arklaw13]

I agree with your overall point, but I'd add that while OP underperformed most of his perspective classmates in undergrad, he outperformed most of them on the LSAT, which is from what I understand the better predictor anyway.

I agree that LSAT is the better predictor generally. The difference between the median and 25th and 75th percentile GPA is probably not as good of a predictor as 25th to 75th LSAT. However, we're talking about what is likely to be one of the lowest GPAs in OP's entering class, wherever he decides to enroll (if he does in fact enroll). In my opinion, a GPA that low shows either a real lack of work ethic or serious underlying personal issues that need to be resolved before OP does anything that requires as much of a commitment as law school. His LSAT score probably shows that he is capable of doing well in law school, but his undergrad track record would suggest that he probably won't.

[vinnnyvincenzo]

I agree with your overall point, but I'd add that while OP underperformed most of his perspective classmates in undergrad, he outperformed most of them on the LSAT, which is from what I understand the better predictor anyway.

I agree that LSAT is the better predictor generally. The difference between the median and 25th and 75th percentile GPA is probably not as good of a predictor as 25th to 75th LSAT. However, we're talking about what is likely to be one of the lowest GPAs in OP's entering class, wherever he decides to enroll (if he does in fact enroll). In my opinion, a GPA that low shows either a real lack of work ethic or serious underlying personal issues that need to be resolved before OP does anything that requires as much of a commitment as law school. His LSAT score probably shows that he is capable of doing well in law school, but his undergrad track record would suggest that he probably won't.

Dude, UGPA provides literally zero indication of law school success. Law school isn't as hard, in terms of commitment at least, as you seem to have made it out to be. Like how much commitment do you think it really is? Participation doesn't matter. Reading for class doesn't really matter (I literally did better in classes I didn't read a single case than those I read every single one). I think going to class, taking notes and putting in like 3-4 good hard weeks of studying toward the backend of the semester is all you really need. Even for the laziest among us I don't think that is too much to do. If it is, then that person is probably too lazy to ever be good at anything.

[Synch]

I agree with your overall point, but I'd add that while OP underperformed most of his perspective classmates in undergrad, he outperformed most of them on the LSAT, which is from what I understand the better predictor anyway.

I agree that LSAT is the better predictor generally. The difference between the median and 25th and 75th percentile GPA is probably not as good of a predictor as 25th to 75th LSAT. However, we're talking about what is likely to be one of the lowest GPAs in OP's entering class, wherever he decides to enroll (if he does in fact enroll). In my opinion, a GPA that low shows either a real lack of work ethic or serious underlying personal issues that need to be resolved before OP does anything that requires as much of a commitment as law school. His LSAT score probably shows that he is capable of doing well in law school, but his undergrad track record would suggest that he probably won't.

Dude, UGPA provides literally zero indication of law school success. Law school isn't as hard, in terms of commitment at least, as you seem to have made it out to be. Like how much commitment do you think it really is? Participation doesn't matter. Reading for class doesn't really matter (I literally did better in classes I didn't read a single case than those I read every single one). I think going to class, taking notes and putting in like 3-4 good hard weeks of studying toward the backend of the semester is all you really need. Even for the laziest among us I don't think that is too much to do. If it is, then that person is probably too lazy to ever be good at anything.

That's not accurate. LSAT is a better indicator than GPA, but GPA still has a certain amount of predictive value.

http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... -11-02.pdf

Page 13, table 3

[Synch]

For some reason, I can't get the above link to work when I pasted it. Search for "LSAT/GPA predictive of law school success" and you will see numbers.

[vinnnyvincenzo]

I agree with your overall point, but I'd add that while OP underperformed most of his perspective classmates in undergrad, he outperformed most of them on the LSAT, which is from what I understand the better predictor anyway.

I agree that LSAT is the better predictor generally. The difference between the median and 25th and 75th percentile GPA is probably not as good of a predictor as 25th to 75th LSAT. However, we're talking about what is likely to be one of the lowest GPAs in OP's entering class, wherever he decides to enroll (if he does in fact enroll). In my opinion, a GPA that low shows either a real lack of work ethic or serious underlying personal issues that need to be resolved before OP does anything that requires as much of a commitment as law school. His LSAT score probably shows that he is capable of doing well in law school, but his undergrad track record would suggest that he probably won't.

Dude, UGPA provides literally zero indication of law school success. Law school isn't as hard, in terms of commitment at least, as you seem to have made it out to be. Like how much commitment do you think it really is? Participation doesn't matter. Reading for class doesn't really matter (I literally did better in classes I didn't read a single case than those I read every single one). I think going to class, taking notes and putting in like 3-4 good hard weeks of studying toward the backend of the semester is all you really need. Even for the laziest among us I don't think that is too much to do. If it is, then that person is probably too lazy to ever be good at anything.

That's not accurate. LSAT is a better indicator than GPA, but GPA still has a certain amount of predictive value.

http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... -11-02.pdf

Page 13, table 3

I probably should clarify, might edit my comment, probably too lazy though. What I meant was that UGPA doesn't matter in predicting whether someone can do the work necessary to succeed in law school. If you have a low ugpa because you aren't smart, then yea I think you will struggle in law school no matter how hard you work. If it's because you refuse to participate in class or some other laziness but you do well on exams, I think you can still do well in law school.

Yea that link didn't work so I can't see what your referencing, just assuming you're right

[arklaw13]

I agree that LSAT is the better predictor generally. The difference between the median and 25th and 75th percentile GPA is probably not as good of a predictor as 25th to 75th LSAT. However, we're talking about what is likely to be one of the lowest GPAs in OP's entering class, wherever he decides to enroll (if he does in fact enroll). In my opinion, a GPA that low shows either a real lack of work ethic or serious underlying personal issues that need to be resolved before OP does anything that requires as much of a commitment as law school. His LSAT score probably shows that he is capable of doing well in law school, but his undergrad track record would suggest that he probably won't.

Dude, UGPA provides literally zero indication of law school success. Law school isn't as hard, in terms of commitment at least, as you seem to have made it out to be. Like how much commitment do you think it really is? Participation doesn't matter. Reading for class doesn't really matter (I literally did better in classes I didn't read a single case than those I read every single one). I think going to class, taking notes and putting in like 3-4 good hard weeks of studying toward the backend of the semester is all you really need. Even for the laziest among us I don't think that is too much to do. If it is, then that person is probably too lazy to ever be good at anything.

While we may disagree about the commitment required to do well in law school, I think we can agree about the following: however much of a commitment law school requires, undergrad requires a lot less. Unless you're in some sort of grade-curved engineering/hard science program that gives out C's like candy, there is no excuse for having below a 3.0 GPA in undergrad. I doubt I did the amount of work you mention above when I was in undergrad, and I came out with a great GPA. If OP can't get a 3.0 when the effort needed to do so is minimal, how can he expect to outperform 85% of his class when more effort will be needed, which is what he would need to do at UMN to have a good shot at biglaw. I don't think that his UPGA necessarily means that he will do poorly in law school, just that it puts a thumb on the scale in against betting three years and $100k+ that he will do really well in law school.

[vinnnyvincenzo]

I agree that LSAT is the better predictor generally. The difference between the median and 25th and 75th percentile GPA is probably not as good of a predictor as 25th to 75th LSAT. However, we're talking about what is likely to be one of the lowest GPAs in OP's entering class, wherever he decides to enroll (if he does in fact enroll). In my opinion, a GPA that low shows either a real lack of work ethic or serious underlying personal issues that need to be resolved before OP does anything that requires as much of a commitment as law school. His LSAT score probably shows that he is capable of doing well in law school, but his undergrad track record would suggest that he probably won't.

Dude, UGPA provides literally zero indication of law school success. Law school isn't as hard, in terms of commitment at least, as you seem to have made it out to be. Like how much commitment do you think it really is? Participation doesn't matter. Reading for class doesn't really matter (I literally did better in classes I didn't read a single case than those I read every single one). I think going to class, taking notes and putting in like 3-4 good hard weeks of studying toward the backend of the semester is all you really need. Even for the laziest among us I don't think that is too much to do. If it is, then that person is probably too lazy to ever be good at anything.

While we may disagree about the commitment required to do well in law school, I think we can agree about the following: however much of a commitment law school requires, undergrad requires a lot less. Unless you're in some sort of grade-curved engineering/hard science program that gives out C's like candy, there is no excuse for having below a 3.0 GPA in undergrad. I doubt I did the amount of work you mention above when I was in undergrad, and I came out with a great GPA. If OP can't get a 3.0 when the effort needed to do so is minimal, how can he expect to outperform 85% of his class when more effort will be needed, which is what he would need to do at UMN to have a good shot at biglaw. I don't think that his UPGA necessarily means that he will do poorly in law school, just that it puts a thumb on the scale in against betting three years and $100k+ that he will do really well in law school.

Well said. And i agree with your overall sentiment. I guess my assumption for most low gpaers is they think like I do, that they have learned from the stupidity of their laziness in UG and will now work hard in law school to make up for it, which could very well be wrong.

As to our disagreement about commitment, I was expressing my opinion of the lowest level of effort needed to do marginally well, and as you noted, to be top 15% as OP would need at UMN he/she probably needs to work much harder than I let on.

Anyway, to sum up what others have said for OP, you should probably listen to the dude who said get a job in Texas, pay off some UG debt, make some ties to the area, maybe even retake the LSAT again and try to go to UT if you want to work in that state. Neither of your choices is gonna be a) worth it or b) get you there.

[TheSpanishMain]

While we may disagree about the commitment required to do well in law school, I think we can agree about the following: however much of a commitment law school requires, undergrad requires a lot less. Unless you're in some sort of grade-curved engineering/hard science program that gives out C's like candy, there is no excuse for having below a 3.0 GPA in undergrad. I doubt I did the amount of work you mention above when I was in undergrad, and I came out with a great GPA. If OP can't get a 3.0 when the effort needed to do so is minimal, how can he expect to outperform 85% of his class when more effort will be needed, which is what he would need to do at UMN to have a good shot at biglaw. I don't think that his UPGA necessarily means that he will do poorly in law school, just that it puts a thumb on the scale in against betting three years and $100k+ that he will do really well in law school.

I agree OP shouldn't make this bet, but the reason I don't think uGPA means much (I'm not saying it means nothing, just that it's not a HUGE factor) is that there are way too many variables to consider, whereas the LSAT is pretty uniform. Colleges can have varying levels of grade inflation. It could be a military academy where people are overloaded with athletic/military responsibilities. It could be a really tough major. In the case of non-traditional students, it also diminishes in importance. You could easily have someone who has natural aptitude who partied a little too much in college and coasted to some Bs and Cs, but who by their mid to late twenties has matured and is more disciplined. There are just so many things to factor in.

[arklaw13]

I agree OP shouldn't make this bet, but the reason I don't think uGPA means much (I'm not saying it means nothing, just that it's not a HUGE factor) is that there are way too many variables to consider, whereas the LSAT is pretty uniform. Colleges can have varying levels of grade inflation. It could be a military academy where people are overloaded with athletic/military responsibilities. It could be a really tough major. In the case of non-traditional students, it also diminishes in importance. You could easily have someone who has natural aptitude who partied a little too much in college and coasted to some Bs and Cs, but who by their mid to late twenties has matured and is more disciplined. There are just so many things to factor in.

I agree that undergrad grades generally don't matter that much, all things considered, because of those variables. However, we're not talking about the difference between a 3.3 and a 3.8, which could easily be explained by going to Swarthmore or a military academy, or being an engineering major instead of an english major. Getting below a 3.0 is usually pretty hard if you're actually putting in the effort. If OP had a bad couple years and then got straight A's the last two years, or neglected to drop a few classes that ended up as F's, then his cumulative gpa obviously doesn't reflect his true ability/work ethic and he can disregard this whole discussion.

I also agree that for non-traditional students, undergrad stuff barely matters at all. Given the fact that OP has $100k in ug debt, though, I would hope that he is barely out of undergrad.

[elijahkalgan]

I agree OP shouldn't make this bet, but the reason I don't think uGPA means much (I'm not saying it means nothing, just that it's not a HUGE factor) is that there are way too many variables to consider, whereas the LSAT is pretty uniform. Colleges can have varying levels of grade inflation. It could be a military academy where people are overloaded with athletic/military responsibilities. It could be a really tough major. In the case of non-traditional students, it also diminishes in importance. You could easily have someone who has natural aptitude who partied a little too much in college and coasted to some Bs and Cs, but who by their mid to late twenties has matured and is more disciplined. There are just so many things to factor in.

I agree that undergrad grades generally don't matter that much, all things considered, because of those variables. However, we're not talking about the difference between a 3.3 and a 3.8, which could easily be explained by going to Swarthmore or a military academy, or being an engineering major instead of an english major. Getting below a 3.0 is usually pretty hard if you're actually putting in the effort. If OP had a bad couple years and then got straight A's the last two years, or neglected to drop a few classes that ended up as F's, then his cumulative gpa obviously doesn't reflect his true ability/work ethic and he can disregard this whole discussion.

I also agree that for non-traditional students, undergrad stuff barely matters at all. Given the fact that OP has $100k in ug debt, though, I would hope that he is barely out of undergrad.

Pretty much this, was Dean's list to start the first two semesters then had a bad few semesters (partying) then spent the last couple semesters cleaning up that mess. I'm confident that my GPA doesn't reflect my work ethic now and I'm resolved to attend law school this year, and I'm leaning towards taking UMN because of the debt issue. Plus the fact I have a successful lawyer relative as a contact makes my future job worries slightly less scary.

Thanks for the advice everyone!

[WokeUpInACar]

Pretty much this, was Dean's list to start the first two semesters then had a bad few semesters (partying) then spent the last couple semesters cleaning up that mess. I'm confident that my GPA doesn't reflect my work ethic now and I'm resolved to attend law school this year, and I'm leaning towards taking UMN because of the debt issue. Plus the fact I have a successful lawyer relative as a contact makes my future job worries slightly less scary.

Thanks for the advice everyone!

Why are you "resolved to attend law school this year?" That's just impatient, shortsighted, and outright stupid thinking overall. This decision will affect the rest of your life. You can't "waste" a year or two gaining valuable work experience and paying off debt... why exactly?

Unless your relative has explicitly offered you a job, that shouldn't make you feel any better about obtaining a legal job. How many law students do you think have friends and family members who are successful attorneys? A fucking lot. Yet 50% of law students are still graduating unemployed. Unless your relative is a hiring partner, connections will only get you an interview, and that's IF you meet the firm's qualifications otherwise.

I can't even express to you how horrible a choice it would be to attend Minnesota with no intention of ever practicing in the Midwest. Even with a full tuition scholarship, you'll still owe $150k+ in student debt by the time you're out. To pay that off, you'll need biglaw. Biglaw is quite difficult to obtain even in the areas where Minnesota has decent placement. Your chance of making $100k+ in Texas or Louisiana with a Minnesota degree is laughably poor.

[TheSpanishMain]

I'm confident that my GPA doesn't reflect my work ethic now and I'm resolved to attend law school this year

I'm sure you're a smart guy who is perfectly capable of doing well, as your LSAT score demonstrates. That's why you REALLY shouldn't be impatient and sabotage your career by going to law school on some arbitrary, self imposed deadline. You don't HAVE to go this year. If you want to be an attorney in Texas or LA, going to law school in Minnesota is incredibly stupid. Don't do it.

[atwardow]

Go get a job in Texas for 1-2 years. Pay down even just a little bit of that debt and establish residency, and then apply to UT at the very beginning of a cycle. You will almost certainly get in and pay way less for much better outcomes in your desired location.

+1