Top Law Schools

Hey guys,

I was a February test taker, and did pretty well on the exam (175+), but all my applications were late as a result. As of now only UCLA has come through with an offer (50% off tuition). All other schools have wait-listed or rejected me. Given my experience last cycle, I'm not anticipating any other school coming through with an acceptance let alone an offer that would match UCLA's. But that's besides the point...

Worst case scenario how bad of a deal is this really considering the alternative of waiting to apply early for a third cycle ? I'm a non-traditional student (older than most), so the thought of waiting another year doesn't sit too well with me. But I really did love everything about UCLA, I live and want to continue to live and work in Southern California.

That would mean 120K total debt for COA, and I have 50K from my undergrad.

I want to go into LA big law, or medium law, then maybe transfer to in house counsel-but plans can change.

What's your GPA?

UCLA is TCR for your goals but not at that COA. Unless you have a sub 3.0 GPA you should sit out a cycle.

you have to reapply, ucla at that price is a terrible option given your numbers

Npret wrote:What's your GPA?

3.68

Reapply and it's not even a decision to think about

Reapply next year and this is what you'll be looking at (assuming you're not URM)
http://mylsn.info/p1xszd/
Enjoy CCN and possibly H.

definitely reapply

I can understand you don't want to wait, but honestly, 3.68 with 175+ screams redo. Apply in Nov and you'd at least get full from UCLA if you don't get yield-protected. You'd also get Stanford (or have a strong shot) which I think is a much better result than your current situation.

100% wait.

Not only should you wait for a better school, you should wait for the fact that a better school could very likely throw you more money than UCLA currently is throwing. Look at yourself against the UCLA clientele and think about what an incredible value they would be getting in getting you to attend at 50% cost. You're worth way more than that in today's law school market.

KunAgnis wrote:I can understand you don't want to wait, but honestly, 3.68 with 175+ screams redo. Apply in Nov and you'd at least get full from UCLA if you don't get yield-protected. You'd also get Stanford (or have a strong shot) which I think is a much better result than your current situation.

Unfortunately this GPA is probably too low. On the other hand Berkeley with money is on the table.

You need to reapply. You also need to be sure that everything about your application is flawless. There might be other issues than just being late because those numbers should have gotten you more admissions.

AJordan wrote:Not only should you wait for a better school, you should wait for the fact that a better school could very likely throw you more money than UCLA currently is throwing. Look at yourself against the UCLA clientele and think about what an incredible value they would be getting in getting you to attend at 50% cost. You're worth way more than that in today's law school market.

This might even happen this cycle if you hang in there, so don't withdraw from any waitlists. See how things go for you.

Mootmath wrote:Hey guys,

I was a February test taker, and did pretty well on the exam (175+), but all my applications were late as a result. As of now only UCLA has come through with an offer (50% off tuition). All other schools have wait-listed or rejected me. Given my experience last cycle, I'm not anticipating any other school coming through with an acceptance let alone an offer that would match UCLA's. But that's besides the point...

Worst case scenario how bad of a deal is this really considering the alternative of waiting to apply early for a third cycle ? I'm a non-traditional student (older than most), so the thought of waiting another year doesn't sit too well with me. But I really did love everything about UCLA, I live and want to continue to live and work in Southern California.

That would mean 120K total debt for COA, and I have 50K from my undergrad.

I want to go into LA big law, or medium law, then maybe transfer to in house counsel-but plans can change.

I have been experiencing the same problem. I applied in Feb. and only got UCLA at half tuition. That said, I am thinking you might have more than one flaw (which is lateness) in your apps. The lower T13 should have been your "safeties," and they should accept you no matter what.

melmelcoolj wrote:

Mootmath wrote:Hey guys,

I was a February test taker, and did pretty well on the exam (175+), but all my applications were late as a result. As of now only UCLA has come through with an offer (50% off tuition). All other schools have wait-listed or rejected me. Given my experience last cycle, I'm not anticipating any other school coming through with an acceptance let alone an offer that would match UCLA's. But that's besides the point...

Worst case scenario how bad of a deal is this really considering the alternative of waiting to apply early for a third cycle ? I'm a non-traditional student (older than most), so the thought of waiting another year doesn't sit too well with me. But I really did love everything about UCLA, I live and want to continue to live and work in Southern California.

That would mean 120K total debt for COA, and I have 50K from my undergrad.

I want to go into LA big law, or medium law, then maybe transfer to in house counsel-but plans can change.

I have been experiencing the same problem. I applied in Feb. and only got UCLA at half tuition. That said, I am thinking you might have more than one flaw (which is lateness) in your apps. The lower T13 should have been your "safeties," and they should accept you no matter what.

I just want to point out how wrong you are about no matter what statement. You could have a 4.0 and a 180 and still be auto-dinged. Maybe op lied on his application? Maybe op didn't disclose a dui where he killed a family. These are extreme examples but who knows anything about op? Maybe one of his reviewers actually think op was a terrible student and said that in a letter. That could prove dispositive over perfect numbers. So no, numbers don't guarantee you anything, but makes stuff more likely. The advice here is simple, op underperformed his numbers. Two possible reasons, probably working together: 1- late app, and 2- something shitty in his application. Op, spend all summer reworking your app and applying first day apps are open.

grades?? wrote:

melmelcoolj wrote:

Mootmath wrote:Hey guys,

I was a February test taker, and did pretty well on the exam (175+), but all my applications were late as a result. As of now only UCLA has come through with an offer (50% off tuition). All other schools have wait-listed or rejected me. Given my experience last cycle, I'm not anticipating any other school coming through with an acceptance let alone an offer that would match UCLA's. But that's besides the point...

Worst case scenario how bad of a deal is this really considering the alternative of waiting to apply early for a third cycle ? I'm a non-traditional student (older than most), so the thought of waiting another year doesn't sit too well with me. But I really did love everything about UCLA, I live and want to continue to live and work in Southern California.

That would mean 120K total debt for COA, and I have 50K from my undergrad.

I want to go into LA big law, or medium law, then maybe transfer to in house counsel-but plans can change.

I have been experiencing the same problem. I applied in Feb. and only got UCLA at half tuition. That said, I am thinking you might have more than one flaw (which is lateness) in your apps. The lower T13 should have been your "safeties," and they should accept you no matter what.

I just want to point out how wrong you are about no matter what statement. You could have a 4.0 and a 180 and still be auto-dinged. Maybe op lied on his application? Maybe op didn't disclose a dui where he killed a family. These are extreme examples but who knows anything about op? Maybe one of his reviewers actually think op was a terrible student and said that in a letter. That could prove dispositive over perfect numbers. So no, numbers don't guarantee you anything, but makes stuff more likely. The advice here is simple, op underperformed his numbers. Two possible reasons, probably working together: 1- late app, and 2- something shitty in his application. Op, spend all summer reworking your app and applying first day apps are open.

Yes, I entirely agree with you. I meant: assuming OP is a "normal" student with normal recommenders, the lower T13 should have accepted him "no matter what." So I am alluding to the fact that there must be something else that is unsettling in his Apps. It could be something like bad grammar, a bad recommender, or even C&F issues.

Absolutely wait. Do not accept.

You will also 100% for sure end up surprised with other offers off of the waitlist likely with money -- but with your numbers, assuming there isn't something wrong with the rest of your package, you should have lots of great options, likely with some full rides.

Mootmath wrote:

Npret wrote:What's your GPA?

3.68

yeah I'm a nontrad with your gpa and a lower lsat score than your new one - if you apply in october/ november and blanket the t-15, assuming your personal statement and recommendations are in order you're going to have a bunch of good schools to choose from, some with significant $$. unless you're ucla ride or die I'd thank them nicely for the offer and reapply EARLY.

Mootmath wrote:Given my experience last cycle, I'm not anticipating any other school coming through with an acceptance let alone an offer that would match UCLA's. But that's besides the point...

You applied last cycle too? Why does your experience make you think a 3.68/175+ would not net you any acceptances from any school better than UCLA?

Did you just not even apply to T13 schools? This post smells like flame to me.

PeanutsNJam wrote:

Mootmath wrote:Given my experience last cycle, I'm not anticipating any other school coming through with an acceptance let alone an offer that would match UCLA's. But that's besides the point...

You applied last cycle too? Why does your experience make you think a 3.68/175+ would not net you any acceptances from any school better than UCLA?

Did you just not even apply to T13 schools? This post smells like flame to me.

I had mid 160s and my apps were late last year as well. Last year I was in the same situation, except only offer I had was Loyola. I applied to a lot of T-13 schools.

http://mylsn.info/nvsob6/

How is this even a question?

Mootmath wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:

Mootmath wrote:Given my experience last cycle, I'm not anticipating any other school coming through with an acceptance let alone an offer that would match UCLA's. But that's besides the point...

You applied last cycle too? Why does your experience make you think a 3.68/175+ would not net you any acceptances from any school better than UCLA?

Did you just not even apply to T13 schools? This post smells like flame to me.

I had mid 160s and my apps were late last year as well. Last year I was in the same situation, except only offer I had was Loyola. I applied to a lot of T-13 schools.

Okay is there something preventing you from applying on time? You have not played this well at all...twice.

Rigo wrote:

Mootmath wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:

Mootmath wrote:Given my experience last cycle, I'm not anticipating any other school coming through with an acceptance let alone an offer that would match UCLA's. But that's besides the point...

You applied last cycle too? Why does your experience make you think a 3.68/175+ would not net you any acceptances from any school better than UCLA?

Did you just not even apply to T13 schools? This post smells like flame to me.

I had mid 160s and my apps were late last year as well. Last year I was in the same situation, except only offer I had was Loyola. I applied to a lot of T-13 schools.

Okay is there something preventing you from applying on time? You have not played this well at all...twice.

You should have someone look over your application.

At the very least ask UCLA for $30K more. You're way out of their league so they should at least pay more for you.