Top Law Schools

post removed

Less worrying about this, more studying for your retake.

Post removed.

Please retake. I have a friend - a very smart (and overconfident) guy - who majored in engineering and decided that he wanted to do IP law his senior year of UG. He took the LSAT in Dec '13 without prep and got a 148. He's now 2L at an unranked TTTT in the Midwest. He believes that he will finish at the top of his class (he probably will) and that he will have no trouble at all finding a job paying him big bucks. ( he turned down a job starting at 80k out of UG). He doesn't understand that nobody is even going to consider interviewing him. He would've been better off taking the job, or retaking the test. Don't be that guy. After wasting 200K, he won't even be back to square one.

Berkeley's LSAT median will get there

165 is probably the lowest LSAT score you can justify even applying with. With a 3.4, it's important that you break 170.

.

Unless you've got some serious family money backing you, with a 3.4 I wouldn't even be considering law school unless you go up 20 points on the LSAT.

crumb cake wrote:165 is probably the lowest LSAT score you can justify even applying with. With a 3.4, it's important that you break 170.

Completely arbitrary number. A 168 , or a 165, etc. would be fine for this person.

Retake, even if you have to sit out a year. You'll thank yourself later. - 1L at a strong regional with a decent scholly who wishes he had retaken and gone to a better school because it's a hell of a lot easier to do better on the lsat than be at the top of your class in law school (Which if you're going to a school like Suffolk, or even BU/BC, is a must if you want a job)

You should take a step back and ask yourself why you want to go to law school. Are you going because you have nothing better to do? Are you going because your UG degree isn't getting you any jobs? Or do you have a specific law career in mind?

There's no point in going to a mediocre law school, sitting right around median, and choosing between a bunch of $40-50k jobs when you have to pay off $200k in shiny new student debt.

My advice somewhat depends on your major and why you bombed the LSAT. If you're at a 3.4 in engineering with some appreciable work experience, and you realistically know you just bombed this specific LSAT because you woke up on the wrong side of the bed, study a ton and retake the LSAT to try to get in the 160s or 170s. If you're at 3.4 in political science with nothing special on your resume, and the LSAT just seemed really hard to you, it's time to reconsider law school.

Regarding that second scenario. There are a ton of people that I know in a handful of top 50 schools that are struggling to find jobs (especially over $75k), and they had 3.8 or 3.9 GPA in poli sci or psychology or history. These are folks who scored in the 155-165 range on the LSAT, and they're at or around median at tier 1 schools. It's a tough slog for them, and it will be even tougher for the sub-3.5 humanities major with sub-median LSAT scores.

I definitely understand OP's concern and I agree that he should go HAM and do everything possible to raise his LSAT score. It's doable- on my first ever LSAT I got a 144 (an LSAC official practice test proctored by prep company) and after some prep I was able to get a 160 on the real thing. I retook it and feel even better about my score this time. The secret really is just doing a lot of full tests and timed sections.

ANYWAY a lot of the advice in this thread seems very input-based. Other than determining where you'll go to school, it doesn't seem like your UG inputs determine law school success so much. Correct me if I'm wrong?

I'll break from the pack here.

What are your goals? There are a FEW competent law schools with low LSAT specifically UNM. But some of the flagship state schools in small states have great outcomes due to have a strangle on their local markets. UNM has a higher LST Score than a large chunk of the T14 but most of these jobs are Small Law firms or Government. I personally am fine with an outcome like that I considered UNM pretty hard when I was applying but I retook and got into a better program. Had I not scored better I would be at UNM.

But you'll need to get an LSAT closer to 155. I believe 150 is the median so a 148 is a score you should retake regardless.

OP: You need to retake the LSAT. With a 3.4 GPA and an LSAT score anywhere in the 160s, you should receive significant scholarship offers to many law schools. Don't be afraid to take the LSAT for a third time if you can prepare well enough to further increase your score.

Most importantly, if you go to a non-T-15 (includes Texas) law school, do not attend unless you receive a substantial scholarship offer with no-strings attached (no stipulations beyond remain a student in good standing").

From my personal observations, the 170 or bust mantra is garbage. I work at a large firm, and many of the old timers have degrees from lower tiered schools (one partner got his degree from a school that no longer exists lol). The large majority of the new associates come from strong regional schools. While some come from the T-14, just as many slip in from the lower tiered schools. Simply put, you can be highly successful in the legal profession without going to HYS, CCN or even T-20 schools. However, this isn't to say that all lower tiered schools are equal and that it wouldn't be much more advantageous to get into a T-20/CCN/HYS ect. I agree with the other posters in regards to re-taking the LSAT. A 148 will most likely only get you accepted at a for-profit trap school (see example below). Study as hard as you can, and retake your LSAT. You will get into a much better school, which will make the process of getting a top notch job much easier.

(Example) I was recently talking to a good friend of a friend not too long ago about how she flunked out of law school. She went to the University of Charleston Law School and didn't make it past L1 year. The curves we're so steep she claimed that almost half of the class flunked out. She's in debt for a year's worth of tuition (~$39,000) with absolutely nothing to show for it, currently looking for a job. Charleston Law School's median LSAT score is 148. The sad thing is she seemed relatively bright, and it's obvious that the law school takes advantage of students like her every year. Avoid these types of institutions, and keep in mind that there's more to just getting in, especially at lower ranked schools.

Cochran wrote:From my personal observations, the 170 or bust mantra is garbage. I work at a large firm, and many of the old timers have degrees from lower tiered schools (one partner got his degree from a school that no longer exists lol). The large majority of the new associates come from strong regional schools. While some come from the T-14, just as many slip in from the lower tiered schools.

Your personal observation and anecdotes are great and everything, but we have, you know, actual data on these kinds of things (that demonstrate that what you say is untrue, generally speaking). Also it is totally irrelevant that old folks went to shit law schools and did fine: the market is entirely different today for new graduates.

Also:

JGMotorsport wrote:I'll break from the pack here.

What are your goals? There are a FEW competent law schools with low LSAT specifically UNM. But some of the flagship state schools in small states have great outcomes due to have a strangle on their local markets. UNM has a higher LST Score than a large chunk of the T14 but most of these jobs are Small Law firms or Government. I personally am fine with an outcome like that I considered UNM pretty hard when I was applying but I retook and got into a better program. Had I not scored better I would be at UNM.

But you'll need to get an LSAT closer to 155. I believe 150 is the median so a 148 is a score you should retake regardless.

Traynor Brah wrote:

Cochran wrote:From my personal observations, the 170 or bust mantra is garbage. I work at a large firm, and many of the old timers have degrees from lower tiered schools (one partner got his degree from a school that no longer exists lol). The large majority of the new associates come from strong regional schools. While some come from the T-14, just as many slip in from the lower tiered schools.

Your personal observation and anecdotes are great and everything, but we have, you know, actual data on these kinds of things (that demonstrate that what you say is untrue, generally speaking). Also it is totally irrelevant that old folks went to shit law schools and did fine: the market is entirely different today for new graduates.

Also:

JGMotorsport wrote:I'll break from the pack here.

What are your goals? There are a FEW competent law schools with low LSAT specifically UNM. But some of the flagship state schools in small states have great outcomes due to have a strangle on their local markets. UNM has a higher LST Score than a large chunk of the T14 but most of these jobs are Small Law firms or Government. I personally am fine with an outcome like that I considered UNM pretty hard when I was applying but I retook and got into a better program. Had I not scored better I would be at UNM.

But you'll need to get an LSAT closer to 155. I believe 150 is the median so a 148 is a score you should retake regardless.

I believe I'm aware of this "data" you speak of, lol. There are employment numbers from many regional schools that support what I'm saying. I never said that T-14 schools aren't more advantageous, or don't offer better employment outlooks. I'm simply saying that you can get a good job coming out of a solid regional school too, making a 170 LSAT sufficient rather than necessary for a good job.

Traynor Brah wrote:

Cochran wrote:From my personal observations, the 170 or bust mantra is garbage. I work at a large firm, and many of the old timers have degrees from lower tiered schools (one partner got his degree from a school that no longer exists lol). The large majority of the new associates come from strong regional schools. While some come from the T-14, just as many slip in from the lower tiered schools.

Your personal observation and anecdotes are great and everything, but we have, you know, actual data on these kinds of things (that demonstrate that what you say is untrue, generally speaking). Also it is totally irrelevant that old folks went to shit law schools and did fine: the market is entirely different today for new graduates.

Also:

JGMotorsport wrote:I'll break from the pack here.

What are your goals? There are a FEW competent law schools with low LSAT specifically UNM. But some of the flagship state schools in small states have great outcomes due to have a strangle on their local markets. UNM has a higher LST Score than a large chunk of the T14 but most of these jobs are Small Law firms or Government. I personally am fine with an outcome like that I considered UNM pretty hard when I was applying but I retook and got into a better program. Had I not scored better I would be at UNM.

But you'll need to get an LSAT closer to 155. I believe 150 is the median so a 148 is a score you should retake regardless.

ftfy

Traynor Brah wrote:
Also:

JGMotorsport wrote:I'll break from the pack here.

What are your goals? There are a FEW competent law schools with low LSAT specifically UNM. But some of the flagship state schools in small states have great outcomes due to have a strangle on their local markets. UNM has a higher LST Score than a large chunk of the T14 but most of these jobs are Small Law firms or Government. I personally am fine with an outcome like that I considered UNM pretty hard when I was applying but I retook and got into a better program. Had I not scored better I would be at UNM.

But you'll need to get an LSAT closer to 155. I believe 150 is the median so a 148 is a score you should retake regardless.

Good analytical skills bruh which TTT taught you them?

Dude don't you go to like Arizona State

Cochran wrote:From my personal observations, the 170 or bust mantra is garbage. I work at a large firm, and many of the old timers have degrees from lower tiered schools (one partner got his degree from a school that no longer exists lol). The large majority of the new associates come from strong regional schools. While some come from the T-14, just as many slip in from the lower tiered schools. Simply put, you can be highly successful in the legal profession without going to HYS, CCN or even T-20 schools. However, this isn't to say that all lower tiered schools are equal and that it wouldn't be much more advantageous to get into a T-20/CCN/HYS ect. I agree with the other posters in regards to re-taking the LSAT. A 148 will most likely only get you accepted at a for-profit trap school (see example below). Study as hard as you can, and retake your LSAT. You will get into a much better school, which will make the process of getting a top notch job much easier.

(Example) I was recently talking to a good friend of a friend not too long ago about how she flunked out of law school. She went to the University of Charleston Law School and didn't make it past L1 year. The curves we're so steep she claimed that almost half of the class flunked out. She's in debt for a year's worth of tuition (~$39,000) with absolutely nothing to show for it, currently looking for a job. Charleston Law School's median LSAT score is 148. The sad thing is she seemed relatively bright, and it's obvious that the law school takes advantage of students like her every year. Avoid these types of institutions, and keep in mind that there's more to just getting in, especially at lower ranked schools.

This is garbage and nonsense

Traynor Brah wrote:Dude don't you go to like Arizona State

not mirin ASU?

AnMzungu wrote:Unless you've got some serious family money backing you, with a 3.4 I wouldn't even be considering law school unless you go up 20 points on the LSAT.

Some top 40 schools will give you a full ride with a lower GPA and a low-mid-160s LSAT, but retake.

Edit: ASU is awesome.

KamronK wrote:

AnMzungu wrote:Unless you've got some serious family money backing you, with a 3.4 I wouldn't even be considering law school unless you go up 20 points on the LSAT.

Some top 40 schools will give you a full ride with a lower GPA and a low-mid-160s LSAT, but retake.

Edit: ASU is awesome.

Unless you've got a job lined up already, I wouldn't recommend those schools even with a full-ride.

AnMzungu wrote:

KamronK wrote:

AnMzungu wrote:Unless you've got some serious family money backing you, with a 3.4 I wouldn't even be considering law school unless you go up 20 points on the LSAT.

Some top 40 schools will give you a full ride with a lower GPA and a low-mid-160s LSAT, but retake.

Edit: ASU is awesome.

Unless you've got a job lined up already, I wouldn't recommend those schools even with a full-ride.

That's poor advice unless the person really doesn't know if they want to be a lawyer and they already have a decent job. If you want to practice law and know which region you'd like to practice in, there are some good opportunities out there. Especially if your alternative is a job you know you won't want to do for the rest of your life. However, that's never an excuse to settle for a lower LSAT. I personally took the test three times based on advice from this forum. It wasn't a huge benefit to me, but I know plenty of people who drastically improved their scores.

So, don't settle, understand your specific goals, check out Law School Transparency to decide if it's worth the risk, and have a real good admissions plan for negotiations.