Top Law Schools

removed

You've waited till the absolutely last day to apply with an LSAT that is simply not high enough for someone with that GPA. I also suspect, considering you're applying this late, that your app isn't as polished as it should be nor did you take the time to do any of the optional essays other than your addendum.

Take it from someone who was in your situation the first time I applied (sub3 GPA, 160s LSAT, URM, applied on the last day, didn't do optional essays), you would be much better off if you started studying for a retake now and geared up for applying next cycle. Luckily for me, people convinced me to retake the LSAT and send in a much more polished application that netted me much better results than my first go round. You may as well keep your apps out there, but they are unlikely to get you into good enough schools at good enough prices to merit attending. Focus on retaking the LSAT, working on optional essays such as a DS, polishing your entire app, and applying early next cycle.

Thanks for the reply and input. My PS and addendum are very well done, I have been working on them since July. I understand I'm applying late but retaking is out of the question for me at this point. I am going somewhere in the fall, I just don't know where yet. My goal is to kill 1L and transfer to a better school but right now I'm wondering if I have a shot anywhere decent. Do I have a shot anywhere in the t50?

Going in with the goal of transferring is a bad idea since it has a 90% chance of failure (you need to be in the top 10% or so of your class and that has a 90% chance of not happening). Have you already taken the LSAT 3 times in the past 2 years? If not, you really should retake it. You'd be much better of putting the effort you would into getting good grades into studying for the LSAT. The risk is a lot lower (you're not spending a semester's worth of tuition on a 10% shot at good grades) and the return is likely higher (since starting at a higher ranked school and getting good grades is better than starting at a lower ranked school, getting good grades, and transferring).

vx88 wrote:Basically I blew off my undergrad. I was more focused on having a good time, however I have added a GPA addendum addressing why I blew off undergrad (legitimate personal/medical problems that have since been resolved).

This sounds like you're lying. You were focused on having a good time or there was medical reason why you didn't performed well? Maybe you decided to party because of your medical situation? Be sure to be completely honest in your application. Also with that LSAT I would think you need probably above 170+ to go anywhere worth attending. Good luck.

Anonimo wrote:

vx88 wrote:Basically I blew off my undergrad. I was more focused on having a good time, however I have added a GPA addendum addressing why I blew off undergrad (legitimate personal/medical problems that have since been resolved).

This sounds like you're lying. You were focused on having a good time or there was medical reason why you didn't performed well? Maybe you decided to party because of your medical situation? Be sure to be completely honest in your application. Also with that LSAT I would think you need probably above 170+ to go anywhere worth attending. Good luck.

+1...I was confused by the "blew off" + "focused on having a good time" language but suddenly there is a medical problem? I will say you win the prize for having the lowest GPA I have ever seen on this website after having been here for over 3 years. The good news is that once you get below a 3.0 (or a 3.5 for the schools you are asking about), it probably doesn't matter that much how far below. The super-low GPA just makes your LSAT even more important, and right now it is mediocre. Listen to bk187 - take the time to apply yourself (take all 60 available practice tests, maybe take a course, etc) and max out your LSAT. It is your only hope of netting a school that is a good choice in this economy. If you insist on applying this cycle, then at least sign up to take the test in June (spend the time between now and then studying your ass off) with the hopes of increasing your scholarship money or getting in off the WL somewhere decent when your score comes back much-improved in July.

Here is my confusion with the transfer thing (which I hear from every single 0L who is hell-bent on GOINGTOSCHOOLNEXTFALLTHANKYOUVERYMUCH): do you think anyone goes to law school who does not aspire to be in the top 10% of the class and who does not believe him/herself capable of doing that? do you think anyone expects to be in the bottom half? I think if you surveyed people entering 1L, nearly 100% would say they think they will be above median, but of course half of them fail to achieve that. How do you know that you can actually best 90% of your future classmates who you have not yet met and who scored very similarly to you on the LSAT (actually since you are a URM, many of them may have scored a lot higher, assuming you pick one of the highest-ranked school you are admitted to)?

It sounds like I am lying because you have no details whatsoever regarding the circumstances. I was very honest and thorough in my addendum. Why are you assuming that having a medical problem and having a good time are mutually exclusive? By the time fall comes I will have worked full time at a firm for over a year. I have gained experience that gives me an advantage over other 1L's. As for how big of an advantage, I don't know. I have taken the LSAT twice and after 3.5 months of studying I hit a hard plateau in the 160's. I scored below my average on test day, but it is not worth taking another year off to shoot for a 164/165. I do not see a 170 in my future, and that was very difficult for me to come to terms with. Thanks for the responses.

Clear troll, however, easy response anyway:

Don't go to law school

Even as a URM 2.08 will prevent you from getting in anywhere worthwhile, you are actually wasting your life by thinking about going to places like Wayne State. The only possible way it could be worthwhile is if you get full tuition + COL stipend and just want to do nothing for 3 years and don't mind graduating unemployable.

vx88 wrote:It sounds like I am lying because you have no details whatsoever regarding the circumstances. I was very honest and thorough in my addendum. Why are you assuming that having a medical problem and having a good time are mutually exclusive? By the time fall comes I will have worked full time at a firm for over a year. I have gained experience that gives me an advantage over other 1L's. As for how big of an advantage, I don't know. I have taken the LSAT twice and after 3.5 months of studying I hit a hard plateau in the 160's. I scored below my average on test day, but it is not worth taking another year off to shoot for a 164/165. I do not see a 170 in my future, and that was very difficult for me to come to terms with. Thanks for the responses.

Yes. Why are you refuting my statement? I never said they were mutually exclusive, which is why I specifically used the word "sounds" and later stated one possibility that maybe you focused on having a good time because of your medical condition. Still, the sentence about focusing on having a good time sounds like it was a choice. Be sure to address it well in the addendum so no member of the admission committee gets the wrong impression like we did. That's all...

It's true that If you studied the best you could during those 3.5 months then you probably reached your plateau. However, there is a big difference between 161 and 164-165.

I feel what you're going through. I scored 7 below my PT average.... twice ... It's very difficult to reach your PT average on test day. Most people score 2-3 points below their PT average.

vx88 wrote:It sounds like I am lying because you have no details whatsoever regarding the circumstances. I was very honest and thorough in my addendum. Why are you assuming that having a medical problem and having a good time are mutually exclusive? By the time fall comes I will have worked full time at a firm for over a year. I have gained experience that gives me an advantage over other 1L's. As for how big of an advantage, I don't know. I have taken the LSAT twice and after 3.5 months of studying I hit a hard plateau in the 160's. I scored below my average on test day, but it is not worth taking another year off to shoot for a 164/165. I do not see a 170 in my future, and that was very difficult for me to come to terms with. Thanks for the responses.

They aren't mutually exclusive, but a medical condition can legitimately reduce your GPA while a low GPA because you were just more focused on having a good time is obviously not legitimate. If your GPA was reduced one point because of your medical condition and then another point because you chose to have a good time rather than study, it seems wrong to imply that the entire drop was due to the medical condition.

Anyway, there is a world of difference between a 161 and a 164-5, especially for a URM because you are separating yourself from the pack as you push higher into the 160s. I will explain why. The LSAT mean for MAs (I am not using PR bc the PR distribution is very left-heavy, I think because there are lots of native Puerto Ricans who take it when English is their second language....we need data on English-speaking PRs to do this calculation) in 2010 was 147.79 with a SD of 8.82. Assuming normal distributions, this means that, for MAs, a score of 156.5 is 84th percentile while a score of 165 is 97.5th percentile. If you get up to a 165, you are better than 97.5% of all MA applicants. For Caucasians, the move from 161 to 165 (although it would be very worthwhile) would not be as special because a 165 is about 90th percentile, so there are still 10% of people out there better than you. If you didn't have such a low GPA, 165 would be T14 territory. Even for you with your GP, it is solidly T20 territory, I would guess, and if your explanation is good enough, *maybe* you will get a T14 to look past it. Basically your LSAT becomes super important when you have a bad GPA. You want an LSAT that is truly elite, and a 97.5th percentile LSAT is pretty elite.

somewhatwayward wrote:

vx88 wrote:It sounds like I am lying because you have no details whatsoever regarding the circumstances. I was very honest and thorough in my addendum. Why are you assuming that having a medical problem and having a good time are mutually exclusive? By the time fall comes I will have worked full time at a firm for over a year. I have gained experience that gives me an advantage over other 1L's. As for how big of an advantage, I don't know. I have taken the LSAT twice and after 3.5 months of studying I hit a hard plateau in the 160's. I scored below my average on test day, but it is not worth taking another year off to shoot for a 164/165. I do not see a 170 in my future, and that was very difficult for me to come to terms with. Thanks for the responses.

They aren't mutually exclusive, but a medical condition can legitimately reduce your GPA while a low GPA because you were just more focused on having a good time is obviously not legitimate. If your GPA was reduced one point because of your medical condition and then another point because you chose to have a good time rather than study, it seems wrong to imply that the entire drop was due to the medical condition.

Anyway, there is a world of difference between a 161 and a 164-5, especially for a URM because you are separating yourself from the pack as you push higher into the 160s. I will explain why. The LSAT mean for MAs (I am not using PR bc the PR distribution is very left-heavy, I think because there are lots of native Puerto Ricans who take it when English is their second language....we need data on English-speaking PRs to do this calculation) in 2010 was 147.79 with a SD of 8.82. Assuming normal distributions, this means that, for MAs, a score of 156.5 is 84th percentile while a score of 165 is 97.5th percentile. If you get up to a 165, you are better than 97.5% of all MA applicants. For Caucasians, the move from 161 to 165 (although it would be very worthwhile) would not be as special because a 165 is about 90th percentile, so there are still 10% of people out there better than you. If you didn't have such a low GPA, 165 would be T14 territory. Even for you with your GP, it is solidly T20 territory, I would guess, and if your explanation is good enough, *maybe* you will get a T14 to look past it. Basically your LSAT becomes super important when you have a bad GPA. You want an LSAT that is truly elite, and a 97.5th percentile LSAT is pretty elite.

+1 I concur on everything.

I agree with most of what was said, but I don't think any t14 will be desperate enough for an MA to overlook a 2.08 unless they have over a 170. Unless your addendum is curing cancer, I just don't see them overlooking it. Yu really need to get the Fs withdrawn if your reason is legitimate enough, otherwise I think your range is mid tier 1 and up.