High GPA / Extremely low LSAT Forum

[ZGr88n]

see this why I'm glad the LSAT is 60 to 80% of the admission package.

not to rain on your parade, but >3.80 at a state school in a fairly easy major shouldn't be treated the same as a 3.0 at a t25 undergraduate program in chemistry, physics, biology, ect.

not all undergraduates schools are equal

how do i know this? well i transferred around myself and saw how easier one school can be compared to another. it's black vs. white in most cases.

if you got a 150 on the LSAT and have that high of a GPA obviously the law school admissions counselors know what kind of undergraduate institution you attended.

I currently have a >3.80 GPA and I will be graduating with full honors at a state school. My major is Political Science.
TL;DR: >3.80 Full honors GPA, 150 LSAT...messed up

So anybody with a high GPA should get an LSAT score above a 150 (with minimal/no study time), or else they went to a crappy undergrad, correct?

[rebexness]

see this why I'm glad the LSAT is 60 to 80% of the admission package.

not to rain on your parade, but >3.80 at a state school in a fairly easy major shouldn't be treated the same as a 3.0 at a t25 undergraduate program in chemistry, physics, biology, ect.

wrong wrong wrong.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Also, our friend Sam is ignoring the fact that people can study for the LSAT and improve their score. It's not like the 150 is an infallible indicator of someone's abilities.

[patogordo]

if you got a 3.0 ugpa you didn't try hard enough. even in a "hard major" at a "t25" lol.

[SFrost]

Considering that many schools in the "T25" (I didn't know anyone said that) have been accused of grade inflation, I'm not sure the point is very well thought out.

I know a community college professor who limits his classes to 5% A. Just something to keep in mind.

[Sam_Spade]

not exactly true. you go to one of the top chemistry, physics institutions in the country (i.e. a good indicator is what their specific graduate program is nationally ranked). you can study your ass off and easily still get under a 3.0 . Easily. Again I'll say it...Easily. this might be hard for you to get your head around as it sounds as though you majored in a humanity.

This isn't even worthy of discussion with somebody like you unless you've walked a mile in those shoes. You see somebody like you doesn't understand that chemistry and physics programs are NOT all equal at the undergraduate or graduate level. Nothing spells this out more than when a kid with B's and C's takes summer school at another institution and receives a string of A's across the board at that institution. again been there done that.

you get into a situation where come your junior year you way over your head and there's really nothing you can do. the chemistry classes at MIT, Cal Berkley, North Carolina, CalTech will flunk you so fast it will make your head spin. graduate students who TA on stipend will tell you they have meetings with the instructors where they don't want the class averages on ANYTHING to be above 70%. They will nitpick and fuck with everyone until the grades are below the 70% average.

then you look at somebodies GPA and they have B's, C's and D's in physics and chemistry courses (their major courses) yet in their electives such as POLITICAL SCIENCE, HISTORY, ect. they have splew of A's.

You quickly see that not all majors are equal and CERTAINLY not all UNDERGRATE INSTITUTIONS are equal. especially in terms of expecations, degree of difficultly and legitimacy.

i just started studying for the LSAT three weeks ago; took my first diagnostic under timed conditions and got a 157 with no preparation or studying. i do a lot of reading but imho the test seems far easier, in terms of getting your around, than the gmat -which i also did extremely well on.

if you got a 3.0 ugpa you didn't try hard enough. even in a "hard major" at a "t25" lol.

[Winston1984]

not exactly true. you go to one of the top chemistry, physics institutions in the country (i.e. a good indicator is what their specific graduate program is nationally ranked). you can study your ass off and easily still get under a 3.0 . Easily. Again I'll say it...Easily. this might be hard for you to get your head around as it sounds as though you majored in a humanity.

This isn't even worthy of discussion with somebody like you unless you've walked a mile in those shoes. You see somebody like you doesn't understand that chemistry and physics programs are NOT all equal at the undergraduate or graduate level. Nothing spells this out more than when a kid with B's and C's takes summer school at another institution and receives a string of A's across the board at that institution. again been there done that.

you get into a situation where come your junior year you way over your head and there's really nothing you can do. the chemistry classes at MIT, Cal Berkley, North Carolina, CalTech will flunk you so fast it will make your head spin. graduate students who TA on stipend will tell you they have meetings with the instructors where they don't want the class averages on ANYTHING to be above 70%. They will nitpick and fuck with everyone until the grades are below the 70% average.

then you look at somebodies GPA and they have B's, C's and D's in physics and chemistry courses (their major courses) yet in their electives such as POLITICAL SCIENCE, HISTORY, ect. they have splew of A's.

You quickly see that not all majors are equal and CERTAINLY not all UNDERGRATE INSTITUTIONS are equal. especially in terms of expecations, degree of difficultly and legitimacy.

i just started studying for the LSAT three weeks ago; took my first diagnostic under timed conditions and got a 157 with no preparation or studying. i do a lot of reading but imho the test seems far easier, in terms of getting your around, than the gmat -which i also did extremely well on.

if you got a 3.0 ugpa you didn't try hard enough. even in a "hard major" at a "t25" lol.

You are a bad poster, and you should feel bad.

[Sam_Spade]

the OP post doesn't make any sense to begin with. they admitted to putting no time in. common sense says somebody with that low of LSAT should know they are going to need a retake.

isn't LG the most notoriously tricky section on the test; at least early on in one's studies?

see this why I'm glad the LSAT is 60 to 80% of the admission package.

not to rain on your parade, but >3.80 at a state school in a fairly easy major shouldn't be treated the same as a 3.0 at a t25 undergraduate program in chemistry, physics, biology, ect.

not all undergraduates schools are equal

how do i know this? well i transferred around myself and saw how easier one school can be compared to another. it's black vs. white in most cases.

if you got a 150 on the LSAT and have that high of a GPA obviously the law school admissions counselors know what kind of undergraduate institution you attended.

I currently have a >3.80 GPA and I will be graduating with full honors at a state school. My major is Political Science.
TL;DR: >3.80 Full honors GPA, 150 LSAT...messed up

So anybody with a high GPA should get an LSAT score above a 150 (with minimal/no study time), or else they went to a crappy undergrad, correct?

[bjsesq]

if you got a 150 on the LSAT and have that high of a GPA obviously the law school admissions counselors know what kind of undergraduate institution you attended.

Grade inflation is high everywhere, especially the ivy league schools. Many of those students get low LSATs. WTF are you even talking about?

[Nova]

not exactly true. you go to one of the top chemistry, physics institutions in the country (i.e. a good indicator is what their specific graduate program is nationally ranked). you can study your ass off and easily still get under a 3.0 . Easily. Again I'll say it...Easily. this might be hard for you to get your head around as it sounds as though you majored in a humanity.

bitch about this somewhere else

not in a thread about one specific persons circumstances

[Sam_Spade]

not bitching about anything.

you're the crybaby because you don't like the facts. facts are facts; just like you don't compare apples to oranges. btw crybaby recess ends in 30 mintues. you need to be out of the sandbox by 5 pm.

not exactly true. you go to one of the top chemistry, physics institutions in the country (i.e. a good indicator is what their specific graduate program is nationally ranked). you can study your ass off and easily still get under a 3.0 . Easily. Again I'll say it...Easily. this might be hard for you to get your head around as it sounds as though you majored in a humanity.

bitch about this somewhere else

not in a thread about one specific persons circumstances

[Sam_Spade]

the premise of your statement is flawed. you said "everywhere". if "everybody" "everywhere" inflates grades, then according to you "grade inflation" balances itself out since "everyone" that is "everybody" is doing it (which for the record i do NOT believe they are).

top tier undergraduate institutions are ranked accordingly as such and for good reason. You cannot compare a 3.8 at Oklahoma to a 3.8 at MIT or CalTech. Common sense should tell you this, hence all the more reason top law schools put so much weight on the LSAT.

if you got a 150 on the LSAT and have that high of a GPA obviously the law school admissions counselors know what kind of undergraduate institution you attended.

Grade inflation is high everywhere, especially the ivy league schools. Many of those students get low LSATs. WTF are you even talking about?

[retaking23]

Sam_Spade, take your right hand, place it palm down in front of you, and smack yourself across the face for me. k, thanks bye

Also, OP: retake and enjoy t25, t14, or t6 heaven depending on your efforts

[rebexness]

the premise of your statement is flawed. you said "everywhere". if "everybody" "everywhere" inflates grades, then according to you "grade inflation" balances itself out since "everyone" that is "everybody" is doing it (which for the record i do NOT believe they are).

top tier undergraduate institutions are ranked accordingly as such and for good reason. You cannot compare a 3.8 at Oklahoma to a 3.8 at MIT or CalTech. Common sense should tell you this, hence all the more reason top law schools put so much weight on the LSAT.

3.8/3.8 sure.

3.8/3.0 no.

You seem mad about your choice in major. Maybe you should have gotten a 4.0 in one of those dumb humanities degrees, since they are so easy.

[EricHosmer]

the premise of your statement is flawed. you said "everywhere". if "everybody" "everywhere" inflates grades, then according to you "grade inflation" balances itself out since "everyone" that is "everybody" is doing it (which for the record i do NOT believe they are).

top tier undergraduate institutions are ranked accordingly as such and for good reason. You cannot compare a 3.8 at Oklahoma to a 3.8 at MIT or CalTech. Common sense should tell you this, hence all the more reason top law schools put so much weight on the LSAT.

if you got a 150 on the LSAT and have that high of a GPA obviously the law school admissions counselors know what kind of undergraduate institution you attended.

Grade inflation is high everywhere, especially the ivy league schools. Many of those students get low LSATs. WTF are you even talking about?

Yeah, you're right. Applying generalities to specific situations doesn't always hold true......... do you see how that applies to this situation and your dismissal of a 3.8 at Oklahoma? Have you actually taken those classes at Oklahoma to know how easy or hard they are? I wouldn't argue that it's hard to get a 3.8 at Cal Tech or MIT, but that doesn't mean it's easy to get a 3.8 in the same major at all lower ranked schools. Just because it was easier for you at a certain lower ranked school than a top 25 (this exists?) doesn't mean it holds true for every lower ranked school. Also, we have no way of measuring the difference in terms of points on gpa even if it is harder at certain schools.

[midwest17]

Is 12 posts enough for a BOW ban?

[Sam_Spade]

if the person with a 3.0 from CalTech gets a higher LSAT score (which if you're betting the over/under they should); YES they trump the 3.8 at a state school.

the premise of your statement is flawed. you said "everywhere". if "everybody" "everywhere" inflates grades, then according to you "grade inflation" balances itself out since "everyone" that is "everybody" is doing it (which for the record i do NOT believe they are).

top tier undergraduate institutions are ranked accordingly as such and for good reason. You cannot compare a 3.8 at Oklahoma to a 3.8 at MIT or CalTech. Common sense should tell you this, hence all the more reason top law schools put so much weight on the LSAT.

3.8/3.8 sure.

3.8/3.0 no.

You seem mad about your choice in major. Maybe you should have gotten a 4.0 in one of those dumb humanities degrees, since they are so easy.

[PotenC]

.

[ElliotNessquire]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ou's law school fairly well respected in the midwest? Why not just attend there?

[rebexness]

if the person with a 3.0 from CalTech gets a higher LSAT score (which if you're betting the over/under they should); YES they trump the 3.8 at a state school.

the premise of your statement is flawed. you said "everywhere". if "everybody" "everywhere" inflates grades, then according to you "grade inflation" balances itself out since "everyone" that is "everybody" is doing it (which for the record i do NOT believe they are).

top tier undergraduate institutions are ranked accordingly as such and for good reason. You cannot compare a 3.8 at Oklahoma to a 3.8 at MIT or CalTech. Common sense should tell you this, hence all the more reason top law schools put so much weight on the LSAT.

3.8/3.8 sure.

3.8/3.0 no.

You seem mad about your choice in major. Maybe you should have gotten a 4.0 in one of those dumb humanities degrees, since they are so easy.

Except LSAT core has only a teensy correlation with 1L performance.

[Sam_Spade]

'tis is true.

pretty easy to decipher though. you look at the average gpa of the major at that school and then compare it to the applicants gpa.

for example scotty goes to CalTech where the average undergraduate GPA is a 2.5 (which in all reality it's right around there). Scotty has a 3.0 GPA. There 400 undergraduate Chem majors. This tells you that's he's pretty damn smart and the school is pretty fucking hard. Especially if it is a very distinguished school.

On the other hand Frank goes to Wooster College and has a 3.8 GPA in English where the average is a 3.5 and there are 400 majors. This should tell that the school major is easy and that Frank is majoring in something that's easy.

the premise of your statement is flawed. you said "everywhere". if "everybody" "everywhere" inflates grades, then according to you "grade inflation" balances itself out since "everyone" that is "everybody" is doing it (which for the record i do NOT believe they are).

top tier undergraduate institutions are ranked accordingly as such and for good reason. You cannot compare a 3.8 at Oklahoma to a 3.8 at MIT or CalTech. Common sense should tell you this, hence all the more reason top law schools put so much weight on the LSAT.

if you got a 150 on the LSAT and have that high of a GPA obviously the law school admissions counselors know what kind of undergraduate institution you attended.

Grade inflation is high everywhere, especially the ivy league schools. Many of those students get low LSATs. WTF are you even talking about?

Yeah, you're right. Applying generalities to specific situations doesn't always hold true......... do you see how that applies to this situation and your dismissal of a 3.8 at Oklahoma? Have you actually taken those classes at Oklahoma to know how easy or hard they are? I wouldn't argue that it's hard to get a 3.8 at Cal Tech or MIT, but that doesn't mean it's easy to get a 3.8 in the same major at all lower ranked schools. Just because it was easier for you at a certain lower ranked school than a top 25 (this exists?) doesn't mean it holds true for every lower ranked school. Also, we have no way of measuring the difference in terms of points on gpa even if it is harder at certain schools.

[rebexness]

'tis is true.

pretty easy to decipher though. you look at the average gpa of the major at that school and then compare it to the applicants gpa.

for example scotty goes to CalTech where the average undergraduate GPA is a 2.5 (which in all reality it's right around there). Scotty has a 3.0 GPA. There 400 undergraduate Chem majors. This tells you that's he's pretty damn smart and the school is pretty fucking hard. Especially if it is a very distinguished school.

On the other hand Frank goes to Wooster College and has a 3.8 GPA in English where the average is a 3.5 and there are 400 majors. This should tell that the school major is easy and that Frank is majoring in something that's easy.

Frank is above avg. Scotty is above avg. Awesome. Doesn't mean Frank is any less smart than Scotty, or than Franks major is easier.

[a.sleepyhead]

Somebody's still upset about failing orgo (or freshman bio). 3.8 ≠ 3.0 for admissions, even if we're talking TTT vs Pton.

Also re: the MIT stuff, people don't have super low GPAs. Average frat/sorority member has a 4.4/5

[JazzieShizzle]

Sam_Spade, why don't you use quotes the same way everyone else does?

[A. Nony Mouse]

As noted earlier, this discussion is entirely unhelpful to the OP, who has the GPA from the school that he has, and doesn't deserve to get insulted for that GPA by someone who resents the way law schools handle GPAs, so everyone please drop the subject.