Top Law Schools

Hey guys, so here is my situation. I was put on the waitlist for boston college, gave the lsat in june (3rd time) and scored a 166 (my gpa is 3.3 - chemical engineering), and got a call from BC saying that I just got off the waitlist. I am interested in patent law, and eventually would like to practice in california. do you guys think I should take the BC offer, or should I get on the applications merry-go-round this fall?

I think you are lucky to have got into BC w/ your numbers. I'd just go. BC is a somewhat portable degree, obviously not the best. Your only other option would be UC- Davis, which is probably the same in cost as BC, but places far better in California. Congrats on BC!

.

Based on the scant information shared in your post, waiting a year might be the better option if you are certain that you want to practice in California. If you think that living & working in research laden Boston/Cambridge area is an option, then go to Boston College.

I agree that you did well to get into BC, but I think for CA you need to get into a CA school.

If you want the Northeast, go to BC. Great placement stats in the V100 firms.
If you want Cali, go to USC/UCLA. Great placement stats in Cali.

It would help to know why you applied to Boston College if you want to live in California. Also, what were your other two LSAT scores & to which other law school did you apply and what were the results ? My reason for asking is that your initial post in this thread suggests that the LSAT score of 166 may be your highest, if not, than your other application results may indicate overall weakness or strength of your application.

thanks for the posts guys. sorry for the scant information provided, i actually just received the phone call so I was a bit flabbergasted. i applied to davis and hastings this cycle and was rejected, and i was thinking of applying to davis and irvine next cycle. i probably wouldn't mind practicing in boston, its just i prefer california. The reason I applied to BC was that I was interested in intellectual property law and I though it might be somewhat portable to california judging from their oci stats. so from what i see there are two viewpoints. one that the bc degree is somewhat portable, and two, to practice in california i need davis or irvine which place way higher than bc. keep it coming guys, i really appreciate your two cents. This will help me make my final decision, which I have to make really soon, because they said I have to put down a $1000 seat deposit in 5 days .

@CanadianWolf: My other two scores were 161 and 163, and my application history is here: http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/rodewan

Should you decide not to go to BC, you need to figure out why you were rejected from Davis and Hastings, and make sure it doesn't happen again. Did you apply late, did someone write you a terrible hateful LOR, or did you write a bad PS.
If you think you are good in all those departments, and there was no flaws in your applications, then you should go to BC. I'd probably go to BC anyway, but I am just blinded by my love of the NE. California's economy is the crapper and their public schools are likely to suffer, also.

I can't offer any strong recommendations other than to try lawschoolpredictor.com and enter your highest LSAT score of 166 with multiple GPAs such as 3.3 (your actual GPA), 3.4, 3.5 & 3.6 assuming some law schools may give your GPA a bump up due to the difficulty of your major. Seems as if UC-Davis may be a realistic option.
Others factors concern need for financial aid/merit money which is more likely with a 166 LSAT than with a 163 score, and what you plan to do for a year.
Call Boston College & inform them of your new score & ask if any money is available. Check to see if any of your target schools average multiple LSAT scores to see if the 166 really gives you a significant boost.

P.S. I find it amusing that an above poster recommending that you reapply is currently on BC's waitlist.

.

I agree. I just thought that it was interesting to note. I didn't mean to imply--even though I did--that your recommendation was motivated by selfish interests. Please accept my apology.

@deadhipsters: that is a good idea. im fairly sure though that my recommenders gave me pretty solid lors. i also used one standard ps for all of my applications so I'm guessing that wasn't the culprit either. In hindsight, perhaps a 163 just wasn't enough to give me a good enough shot at that time. its true california's economy isn't doing so well, I should probably consider that.

@canadianwolf: i appreciate your input. I did try putting in the numbers you mentioned on lsp, it seems with a 3.5 a 166 is a strong consider at both boston college and davis. scrolling through law school numbers i see some people with a 166 and a ~3.4/5 gpa getting aid and some others that don't. aid at davis would probably be out of the question. I would probably get in, but not knowing what made them reject me this time sort of scares me. just informed bc of the new score, we'll see if they give me money, that would def make for an easier decision. and thanks for your honesty emorystud .

Reapply to Cali schools. Retake if you think you can do better.

Unless your application this year will be fundamentally different I wouldn't expect a different reply from Davis next year. If you do reapply, you should include one or two safety schools in CA where you would be a shoo in (you have a good shot at Irvine but it doesn't seem guaranteed).
That said if you do go to BC you can definitely come back to CA once you've spent a couple years working on the east coast.

calbears619 wrote: That said if you do go to BC you can definitely come back to CA once you've spent a couple years working on the east coast.

If OP ends up working on East Coast, he/she will probably stay their for a while.

It's too much to lose business contacts, network, any clients generated, etc.