Top Law Schools

.

.

GoogleWasMyIdea wrote:

grizzlybear111 wrote:Applied to:

OSU - networking connections
Wash U - got an interview invite
UGA
Cincinnati - networking connections
IU-B
Emory
Case Western

Strong corporate work experience, 25+ hours work experience during the school year, Capitol Hill internship, graduating in may 2016 from top public uni in the state. Did a PS and a great DS.

Preference is in order. Predictions?

I don't think Wash U or Emory is gonna happen. Schools like OSU and UGA will be tough. Even if you get in, I doubt you'd get much money, if any at all. I know everyone says this on TLS, but raising that LSAT score would substantially improve your cycle. Heck, a 160 would get you acceptances and huge schollys from OSU and UGA. You'd be in prime position for Wash U and Emory as well. Look, I know you don't wanna hear this, but take some time off after undergrad and get some work experience. Then work your butt off on that LSAT retake and kill it! Aim for 180 and don't settle.

TCR. Law never gets easier. The LSAT is easier than law school, law school is easier than the bar (well sort of), both are way easier than working at a large firm everyday. If you can't take that first step and really find discipline to max out your LSAT score, then maybe this isn't the best profession. Not an attack on you. I don't know how many times you have taken the test or anything else about you really. But you're still in undergrad. Making some sacrifices now will benefit you later.

GoogleWasMyIdea wrote:

grizzlybear111 wrote:Applied to:

OSU - networking connections
Wash U - got an interview invite
UGA
Cincinnati - networking connections
IU-B
Emory
Case Western

Strong corporate work experience, 25+ hours work experience during the school year, Capitol Hill internship, graduating in may 2016 from top public uni in the state. Did a PS and a great DS.

Preference is in order. Predictions?

I don't think Wash U or Emory is gonna happen. Schools like OSU and UGA will be tough. Even if you get in, I doubt you'd get much money, if any at all. I know everyone says this on TLS, but raising that LSAT score would substantially improve your cycle. Heck, a 160 would get you acceptances and huge schollys from OSU and UGA. You'd be in prime position for Wash U and Emory as well. Look, I know you don't wanna hear this, but take some time off after undergrad and get some work experience. Then work your butt off on that LSAT retake and kill it! Aim for 180 and don't settle.

Well I've gotten into WASHU, case, UC, all with significant money. Wait listed at UGA. I'm pretty happy with my options so far, even in spite of the people on this forum who told me I wasn't good enough. Just goes to show you that not everyone on this forum is as qualified to give admissions advice as you may think.

Happy for you !

That's awesome!

.

grizzlybear111 wrote: I'm pretty happy with my options so far, even in spite of the people on this forum who told me I wasn't good enough. Just goes to show you that not everyone on this forum is as qualified to give admissions advice as you may think.

Assuming you're talking about the responses in this thread, telling you to consider retaking the LSAT is not the same as telling you you're not good enough.

Law school is going to be rough for you if you interpret every suggestion as a personal attack.

TheSpanishMain wrote:

grizzlybear111 wrote: I'm pretty happy with my options so far, even in spite of the people on this forum who told me I wasn't good enough. Just goes to show you that not everyone on this forum is as qualified to give admissions advice as you may think.

Assuming you're talking about the responses in this thread, telling you to consider retaking the LSAT is not the same as telling you you're not good enough.

Law school is going to be rough for you if you interpret every suggestion as a personal attack.

Completely agreed.

Fellow AA.

Don't go. I was accepted to Wash U and its peer institutions but no T14s. I had a 153, and a MUCH lower GPA, but decent work experience. Decided not to go, used this site & LSAT Trainer/LG Bible to retake and got into the mid 160s. I'm now at a T14 with a 3K/week paid 1L summer associate position at a reputable firm locked up.

No one here is saying you aren't good enough. Your GPA is way better than mine. With a score 160+, you'll likely have a markedly better admissions cycle than I did. Given that my undergrad transcript is abysmal and yours is not, you'll likely have many more career opportunities than I will if you attend a T14. Sure WashU may be an alright school. But in this legal market it would be much wiser to make sure you have a good job (a "good job" is pretty subjective I know, but you get the point), which is much more likely at a T14 (assuming you have decent interpersonal skills in an interview setting and don't get owned by the 1L curve).

Law school will always be there. Don't buy into the pressure of going to an okay school just because you got in and you may "want" to go to law school now.

I think the comment, "I don't think Wash U...is going to happen" is what triggered the OP's response in that manner. Google's post immediately centered negatively, and pretty much made a denial of OP's applications just based on the LSAT score, even though she listed many other factors that she (may have) believed the reader should have taken into consideration. For instance, another post (or the same one--not looking) mentioned--almost condescendingly--that OP should "get some work experience", even though she stated she had part-time work experience during UG, AND Capitol Hill work experience. Sooooo, what kind of "work experience" should she get?

This isn't downplaying the LSAT impact, nor disagreeing with her choice of schools--or the responses for that matter, but to come right out and disqualify something (without giving the impression that they read the entire post) might make one go on the defensive.

That said, OP, congratulations on your acceptances. I'm wondering if you've attempted applying at T-14 schools, or do you not favor any of them?

iamapipersson wrote:

TheSpanishMain wrote:

grizzlybear111 wrote: I'm pretty happy with my options so far, even in spite of the people on this forum who told me I wasn't good enough. Just goes to show you that not everyone on this forum is as qualified to give admissions advice as you may think.

Assuming you're talking about the responses in this thread, telling you to consider retaking the LSAT is not the same as telling you you're not good enough.

Law school is going to be rough for you if you interpret every suggestion as a personal attack.

Completely agreed.

Grizzly, I strongly believe that everyone is capable of earning at least a 158 on the LSAT. If you score at this level, this may open up other options for you. However, at the same time, WashU is a great school and you have $$$. And it looks like you are happy with your results, so if you don't want to wait another year, don't.

Also, on another note, I feel like someone should speak up on Grizzly's behalf. I don't believe Grizzly meant that others believed she was not good enough in a holistic sense, but that her stats/experiences were not good enough for admission into those schools. Either way, it's pretty obvious that she was not referring to the suggestion of taking the LSAT, but that someone explicitly stated "I don't think WashU or Emory is going to happen." This was not a suggestion, but a blanket statement. And the implication that she takes "every suggestion as a personal attack" is unfounded, especially because there is only one supposed instance of that here.

This forum can be great at some times, but often, it is the blind leading the blind. Trust your gut, and don't make a hasty decision based on the advice on some nameless stranger on the Internet (including myself haha). I'm glad you decided to apply regardless.

JazzyMac wrote:I think the comment, "I don't think Wash U...is going to happen" is what triggered the OP's response in that manner. Google's post immediately centered negatively, and pretty much made a denial of OP's applications just based on the LSAT score, even though she listed many other factors that she (may have) believed the reader should have taken into consideration. For instance, another post (or the same one--not looking) mentioned--almost condescendingly--that OP should "get some work experience", even though she stated she had part-time work experience during UG, AND Capitol Hill work experience. Sooooo, what kind of "work experience" should she get?

This isn't downplaying the LSAT impact, nor disagreeing with her choice of schools--or the responses for that matter, but to come right out and disqualify something (without giving the impression that they read the entire post) might make one go on the defensive.

That said, OP, congratulations on your acceptances. I'm wondering if you've attempted applying at T-14 schools, or do you not favor any of them?

Yes, you are right on point with why I got defensive. I think it's ignorant to disqualify me based on LSAT score when I listed a good GPA (i'm at a 3.50 now) and strong softs, and I'm URM. For Google to just say "I dont think WashU or Emory will happen" purely because of my LSAT score, caused me to get defensive. But Google and I have settled that and its in the past.

To answer your question, no, I did not apply to any T-14s because I did not think I would get significant money to attend, and I cannot afford sticker for any law school. Those are the only 2 reasons why I have chosen not to apply to T-14. Dont have any new acceptances to report. Still waiting on 3. No denials so far. Thanks for your interest in my cycle! Best of luck to you and anyone else who is reading!

pattyesq wrote:

iamapipersson wrote:

TheSpanishMain wrote:

grizzlybear111 wrote: I'm pretty happy with my options so far, even in spite of the people on this forum who told me I wasn't good enough. Just goes to show you that not everyone on this forum is as qualified to give admissions advice as you may think.

Assuming you're talking about the responses in this thread, telling you to consider retaking the LSAT is not the same as telling you you're not good enough.

Law school is going to be rough for you if you interpret every suggestion as a personal attack.

Completely agreed.

Grizzly, I strongly believe that everyone is capable of earning at least a 158 on the LSAT. If you score at this level, this may open up other options for you. However, at the same time, WashU is a great school and you have $$$. And it looks like you are happy with your results, so if you don't want to wait another year, don't.

Also, on another note, I feel like someone should speak up on Grizzly's behalf. I don't believe Grizzly meant that others believed she was not good enough in a holistic sense, but that her stats/experiences were not good enough for admission into those schools. Either way, it's pretty obvious that she was not referring to the suggestion of taking the LSAT, but that someone explicitly stated "I don't think WashU or Emory is going to happen." This was not a suggestion, but a blanket statement. And the implication that she takes "every suggestion as a personal attack" is unfounded, especially because there is only one supposed instance of that here.

This forum can be great at some times, but often, it is the blind leading the blind. Trust your gut, and don't make a hasty decision based on the advice on some nameless stranger on the Internet (including myself haha). I'm glad you decided to apply regardless.

Hey! I really appreciate your post and your speaking up on my behalf. I was starting to feel slightly alone on this forum. The blanket statement was what caused me to get defensive. Also, the personal attack thing was very unfounded, thank you for calling that out. Regardless, I will heed that advice entering law school.

I'm really happy with my cycle so far. If i took a year off and studied again, I may do better or I may do worse because I'm not in LSAT studying mode anymore. My final practice score before the LSAT was a 158, but before that I was consistently scoring 151, 152, 153. It seemed like this is just where I stack up. I studied for months. Sometimes you just are what you are. Its not accepting defeat, its just being realistic and working with what you got. I had someone PM me about a guy at a T-14 who got a 154 and is 4th in his class. I understand that this is the exception and not the rule, but if I'm happy with where I am, I hope that my fellow TLS Forum friends can be happy for me too
Best of luck to everyone!

I find this thread fascinating. Let me chime in, if only because the URM threads haven't had much juice these past few months.

1. Of course everyone is happy for you Grizzly. If you feel good about where you are, then that's an achievement to be celebrated. Shoot, none of us has a single nickel in your quarter, so go on and do your thing!

2. Grizzly explicitly asked for predictions in her OP. That's what she received, and based on the information available to the community she was asking, the feedback she received was entirely defensible. Now, if I was responding at the time, I would have qualified my guess a little about WUSTL, but I otherwise really can't find fault with what was said. mylsn tells us that 3/8 applicants within range of grizzly's profile got into WUSTL, 0/4 got into Emory, 0/2 got into OSU and 0/1 got into UGA. Clearly those are small sample sizes, but I don't see much else that is out there that could suggest better chances than what was given.

3. I think that the community will always owe it to itself to give the best advice possible and short of more detailed information, like goals in terms of work type and location (this was a big one for me...it's odd to be applying to what are true regionals in three different states [UGA, OSU/Case/Cincy, and IU-B] and two outliers [Emory and Wash U]), the best advice will often sound like the TLS groupthink. But, sometimes things are cliched because they are true, and I think I personally would be doing more harm than good by telling you that Wash U. at a 50% discount betting on it to get you back to Ohio is a good outcome (obviously, I don't know what your real situation is). To me, for someone who has Ohio goals, OSU for free has to be the best outcome each and every time, short of some really unusual circumstance.

4. I am really glad that you see the folly of the LSAT in that the LSAT doesn't measure your ability to perform in law school, it measures your ability to do the LSAT. The LSAT is simply a tool to get into law school. It has no meaning or usefulness beyond that.

fliptrip wrote:I find this thread fascinating. Let me chime in, if only because the URM threads haven't had much juice these past few months.

1. Of course everyone is happy for you Grizzly. If you feel good about where you are, then that's an achievement to be celebrated. Shoot, none of us has a single nickel in your quarter, so go on and do your thing!

2. Grizzly explicitly asked for predictions in her OP. That's what she received, and based on the information available to the community she was asking, the feedback she received was entirely defensible. Now, if I was responding at the time, I would have qualified my guess a little about WUSTL, but I otherwise really can't find fault with what was said. mylsn tells us that 3/8 applicants within range of grizzly's profile got into WUSTL, 0/4 got into Emory, 0/2 got into OSU and 0/1 got into UGA. Clearly those are small sample sizes, but I don't see much else that is out there that could suggest better chances than what was given.

3. I think that the community will always owe it to itself to give the best advice possible and short of more detailed information, like goals in terms of work type and location (this was a big one for me...it's odd to be applying to what are true regionals in three different states [UGA, OSU/Case/Cincy, and IU-B] and two outliers [Emory and Wash U]), the best advice will often sound like the TLS groupthink. But, sometimes things are cliched because they are true, and I think I personally would be doing more harm than good by telling you that Wash U. at a 50% discount betting on it to get you back to Ohio is a good outcome (obviously, I don't know what your real situation is). To me, for someone who has Ohio goals, OSU for free has to be the best outcome each and every time, short of some really unusual circumstance.

4. I am really glad that you see the folly of the LSAT in that the LSAT doesn't measure your ability to perform in law school, it measures your ability to do the LSAT. The LSAT is simply a tool to get into law school. It has no meaning or usefulness beyond that.

Disagree highly about 4.

iamapipersson wrote:
Disagree highly about 4.

Alrighty. Why?

fliptrip wrote:

iamapipersson wrote:
Disagree highly about 4.

Alrighty. Why?

There's a correlation between LSAT scores and 1L grades. It's obviously not a perfect correlation (some people below the 25th percentile will be at the top of their class, and some people above the 75th will crash and burn) but it's the best predictor available.

TheSpanishMain wrote:

fliptrip wrote:

iamapipersson wrote:
Disagree highly about 4.

Alrighty. Why?

There's a correlation between LSAT scores and 1L grades. It's obviously not a perfect correlation (some people below the 25th percentile will be at the top of their class, and some people above the 75th will crash and burn) but it's the best predictor available.

I'm very aware of the correlation between LSAT scores and 1L grades. You're understating just how imperfect that correlation is. That mean correlation coefficient is .36, which isn't overwhelming. LSAT alone is not the best predictor either. The best predictor is your LSAT combined with your UGPA.

TheSpanishMain wrote:

fliptrip wrote:

iamapipersson wrote:
Disagree highly about 4.

Alrighty. Why?

There's a correlation between LSAT scores and 1L grades. It's obviously not a perfect correlation (some people below the 25th percentile will be at the top of their class, and some people above the 75th will crash and burn) but it's the best predictor available.

That's like saying there's a correlation with people who have ears that attend law school. It's reaching at best. If LSAT was the best predictor on law school performance, then schools wouldn't accept so many scores while taking the absolute highest.

Scores affect rankings, which affect how much donors donate. It's got about as much to do with performance as being rich has to do with being eligible to be president.

JazzyMac wrote:

TheSpanishMain wrote:

fliptrip wrote:

iamapipersson wrote:
Disagree highly about 4.

Alrighty. Why?

There's a correlation between LSAT scores and 1L grades. It's obviously not a perfect correlation (some people below the 25th percentile will be at the top of their class, and some people above the 75th will crash and burn) but it's the best predictor available.

That's like saying there's a correlation with people who have ears that attend law school. It's reaching at best. If LSAT was the best predictor on law school performance, then schools wouldn't accept so many scores while taking the absolute highest.

Scores affect rankings, which affect how much donors donate. It's got about as much to do with performance as being rich has to do with being eligible to be president.

Not true. Your highest score on the LSAT is what has the predictive capacity. If it took you three tries to get that score then you still mastered those skills so that's what the predictive capacity is based on. The correlation isn't strong but it isn't super weak either. If I told you that there's a correlation between reading comprehension and Logical Reasoning skills and law school performance there would be little debate.

I think the last time the data was published, it was before USNews only took the highest score, and the studies are based on the reported scores. It may be the average. I also believe the studies were only done to see whether African American students were struggling more than other students with the same LSAT's at the same school, and the answer was no.

JazzyMac wrote: That's like saying there's a correlation with people who have ears that attend law school. It's reaching at best. If LSAT was the best predictor on law school performance, then schools wouldn't accept so many scores while taking the absolute highest.

Scores affect rankings, which affect how much donors donate. It's got about as much to do with performance as being rich has to do with being eligible to be president.

I didn't say it was a GOOD predictor, just that it's the least bad one.

The only reason applicants should care is more points = more scholarship money.

TheSpanishMain wrote:

JazzyMac wrote: That's like saying there's a correlation with people who have ears that attend law school. It's reaching at best. If LSAT was the best predictor on law school performance, then schools wouldn't accept so many scores while taking the absolute highest.

Scores affect rankings, which affect how much donors donate. It's got about as much to do with performance as being rich has to do with being eligible to be president.

I didn't say it was a GOOD predictor, just that it's the least bad one.

The only reason applicants should care is more points = more scholarship money.

The evidence actually says it's an excellent predictor if OP went to WUSTL. The LSAT is the single best predictor, and while the OVERALL predictive value is low, that fact doesn't tell the whole story. Where one person has 163 and another has a 165 there is virtually no value whatsoever. Where someone has a 152 and someone has a 165, the numbers say the 165 is a 4:1 favorite to finish ahead of the 152.

The statistic is further skewed by the fact that it's rare to see a 165 and 152 in the same school. If the LSAT were devalued in the USNews formula the overall correlation would become much higher. These facts have led to a pretty big debate on whether affirmative action benefits black students. I can post more sources, but Alex Johnson is one of the experts in this area and a very engaging speaker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c. He also points out the flaws in the data that this entire thing is based on.

I'm not saying this to intimidate OP, but it's a risk she should be aware of, and it could hopefully be helpful to other people.

Thank you guys for jumping in. We finally got something going in the URM thread.

1. jnwa, where are you getting your information that your highest LSAT score is the best predictor of your 1L grades? LSAC's own predictive validity study, which was most recently released for 2011-2012, gives us this report on correlations:



This says that the correlation between just LSAT (they did average multiple scores, but we don't know what effect that had without the data) and 1L grades (FYA) is just .36. Now that's higher than UGPA (.27) but it is lower than both LSAT and UGPA (.47).

2. jrass: Makes a lot of sense what you're saying. The 165 and 152 you bring up are great examples because they are more than a standard deviation apart. Professor Johnson kind of talked about this if I remember his lecture correctly, but I wonder just how wide that range of rough equivalence is. Like I get why a 165 is different than a 152, but how different is a 165 from a 178?