should I even bother applying to NYU/Columbia? Forum

[sibley]

New York is tied with another city for my top law school location. I've applied to Cardozo, Fordham, Brooklyn. My GPA's a nice big chunk under their 25ths and my lsat's at about their 25ths. 3.34/170 - gpa addendum for mono (3.4 if you cut out that semester), pretty strong softs - worked in immigration office at school for 3 years & summers (worked with visas and also helped plan orientation programs), classes with university prezes/former law school deans (one wrote a LOR for me), appointed to university committee, several exec board positions in school groups, non-urm diversity statement. Now working at a large (very well known, but failing) company.

NYU and Columbia... is there even a point in my applying?

Thanks!

[Helmholtz]

You have really no chance of getting in, but if you want to spend the $150+ on app fees then knock yourself out.

[jcunni5]

You have really no chance of getting in, but if you want to spend the $150+ on app fees then knock yourself out.

+1

[sibley]

And what about this...

if by some miracle I managed to get in... would I even be able to hold my own? And get a job after I graduate with what I assume would be poorly ranking stats?

[Helmholtz]

And what about this...

if by some miracle I managed to get in... would I even be able to hold my own? And get a job after I graduate with what I assume would be poorly ranking stats?

If CLS/NYU lets you one, it thinks you deserve to be there, that's all you need. Numbers are far from a perfect correlation. Most people go to the best school they get into, just think of your classmates as a bunch of Harvard rejects.

[BenJ]

Supposedly, LSAT rather than GPA is the strongest indicator of law school performance. The main factor holding you back is your GPA; a 170 is below median for NYU and Columbia but certainly not a bar to admission on its own--it's above 25th percentile at NYU and at 25th percentile for Columbia. It's hard to say whether you would be able to hold your own, but maybe.

[02082010]

Both are TTTs. I wouldn't bother.

[CoaltoNewCastle]

Have you tried getting fee waivers from them? They may give them to you, either because you have a shot at getting in or because they want to reject you.

[Mr. Pablo]

Somebody has to be at the bottom of the class.

edit: by which I mean that you are amongst some of the brightest people in law school and that even at the bottom of NYU, you are still heads above most others.

[aguyingeorgia]

Some of Ken's best advice: Better to try than to always wonder, "What if?"

[rw2264]

not to totally steal OP's thunder, but i went to columbia and we have similar numbers (3.35/170), though i have less impressive softs. also a non-URM with a diversity statement (first generation college student). should i apply to columbia? i know for a fact they like to take their own students back.

[ihatelaw]

just apply. i dont think you "no chance to get in," in fact, i personally know two people with numbers similar to yours that were accepted in Penn and Columbia. You'd be surprised what a good personal statement could do for you.

Most likely you won't get in, but if you want to go there its worth the shot.

[Ragged]

I would say it depends on two things:

1) Can you get fees waived?

2) Do you have outstanding softs?

If the answer to either of those questions is yes then do it. It both answer are no don't bother.

[Helmholtz]

i know for a fact they like to take their own students back.

Really? I've heard varying things on that. I think last year there was somebody on this board who was a Columbia UG. Got rejected at CLS, but accepted into HLS, which is where she ended up going.

I would give you the same advice that I gave to the OP. Chances are really slim but as long as you've got the money around and paying for CLS isn't going to keep you from applying to a school better suited to your numbers, then go for it.

[02082010]

Both are TTTs. I wouldn't bother.

Do people just completely ignore me when it comes to CLS/NYU threads?

[rw2264]

i know for a fact they like to take their own students back.

Really? I've heard varying things on that. I think last year there was somebody on this board who was a Columbia UG. Got rejected at CLS, but accepted into HLS, which is where she ended up going.

I would give you the same advice that I gave to the OP. Chances are really slim but as long as you've got the money around and paying for CLS isn't going to keep you from applying to a school better suited to your numbers, then go for it.

from grad students i know. and i saw someone on this board with a 3.5/161 who got waitlisted at CLS, and he/she went to [strike]CLS[/strike] CC.

i am poor, maybe i'll email them for a fee waiver.

[kurama20]

Supposedly, LSAT rather than GPA is the strongest indicator of law school performance. The main factor holding you back is your GPA; a 170 is below median for NYU and Columbia but certainly not a bar to admission on its own--it's above 25th percentile at NYU and at 25th percentile for Columbia. It's hard to say whether you would be able to hold your own, but maybe.

This is a bit ridiculous. The LSAT isn't meant to be some dead on predictor of ability; even hinting that a score in the 98th percentile shows signs that a person may not be able to "hack it" in any law school is a bit extreme and naive. For God'sake had he got 3 more questions right he would be at NYU's 75th.

[booboo]

Supposedly, LSAT rather than GPA is the strongest indicator of law school performance. The main factor holding you back is your GPA; a 170 is below median for NYU and Columbia but certainly not a bar to admission on its own--it's above 25th percentile at NYU and at 25th percentile for Columbia. It's hard to say whether you would be able to hold your own, but maybe.

This is a bit ridiculous. The LSAT isn't meant to be some dead on predictor of ability; even hinting that a score in the 98th percentile shows signs that a person may not be able to "hack it" in any law school is a bit extreme and naive. For God'sake had he got 3 more questions right he would be at NYU's 75th.

To think of it as just three questions is naive. Especially for number driven process of law school.

[kurama20]

Supposedly, LSAT rather than GPA is the strongest indicator of law school performance. The main factor holding you back is your GPA; a 170 is below median for NYU and Columbia but certainly not a bar to admission on its own--it's above 25th percentile at NYU and at 25th percentile for Columbia. It's hard to say whether you would be able to hold your own, but maybe.

This is a bit ridiculous. The LSAT isn't meant to be some dead on predictor of ability; even hinting that a score in the 98th percentile shows signs that a person may not be able to "hack it" in any law school is a bit extreme and naive. For God'sake had he got 3 more questions right he would be at NYU's 75th.

To think of it as just three questions is naive. Especially for number driven process of law school.

You completely and totally missed the point. No shit it is a huge difference for admissions--we were talking about it's validity in predicting actual law school performance. LSAC says themselves that 3 point swings are insignificant in determining one's ability. Now unless LSAC doesn't understand their own test, I'm pretty sure they are right. Hell anyone who's taken a ton of LSAT's can tell you how much your scores can fluctuate when you are in the 170s. The day of the week and the temp in the room can determine whether one gets a 170 or a 173.

[gahthelaw]

Both are TTTs. I wouldn't bother.

Do people just completely ignore me when it comes to CLS/NYU threads?

mostly. but if you can convince everyone else on this board to not apply / withdraw their apps, i'm behind you 100%

[BenJ]

Supposedly, LSAT rather than GPA is the strongest indicator of law school performance. The main factor holding you back is your GPA; a 170 is below median for NYU and Columbia but certainly not a bar to admission on its own--it's above 25th percentile at NYU and at 25th percentile for Columbia. It's hard to say whether you would be able to hold your own, but maybe.

This is a bit ridiculous. The LSAT isn't meant to be some dead on predictor of ability; even hinting that a score in the 98th percentile shows signs that a person may not be able to "hack it" in any law school is a bit extreme and naive. For God'sake had he got 3 more questions right he would be at NYU's 75th.

To think of it as just three questions is naive. Especially for number driven process of law school.

You completely and totally missed the point. No shit it is a huge difference for admissions--we were talking about it's validity in predicting actual law school performance. LSAC says themselves that 3 point swings are insignificant in determining one's ability. Now unless LSAC doesn't understand their own test, I'm pretty sure they are right. Hell anyone who's taken a ton of LSAT's can tell you how much your scores can fluctuate when you are in the 170s. The day of the week and the temp in the room can determine whether one gets a 170 or a 173.

That was kind of my point. If LSAT predicts law school performance better than GPA, he'd have a shot at doing well at NYU and Columbia. He might perform like a 173, in which case he'd do well, or he might perform like 167, in which case he'd do very poorly. Or he might perform like a 170, in which case he'd be below average.

That's assuming the LSAT does predict law school GPA very well; law schools certainly think it does, which is why they care about the LSAT at all. If it were horrible at predicting your abilities in law school, no one would use it for admissions, either, because 180s might flunk out of Cooley and 150s might flourish at Yale.

[kazu]

If you have the $150, I say go for it... just so you know you've tried. Also because I would kill to go to NYU or Columbia, we have the same LSAT score

[booboo]

Supposedly, LSAT rather than GPA is the strongest indicator of law school performance. The main factor holding you back is your GPA; a 170 is below median for NYU and Columbia but certainly not a bar to admission on its own--it's above 25th percentile at NYU and at 25th percentile for Columbia. It's hard to say whether you would be able to hold your own, but maybe.

This is a bit ridiculous. The LSAT isn't meant to be some dead on predictor of ability; even hinting that a score in the 98th percentile shows signs that a person may not be able to "hack it" in any law school is a bit extreme and naive. For God'sake had he got 3 more questions right he would be at NYU's 75th.

To think of it as just three questions is naive. Especially for number driven process of law school.

You completely and totally missed the point. No shit it is a huge difference for admissions--we were talking about it's validity in predicting actual law school performance. LSAC says themselves that 3 point swings are insignificant in determining one's ability. Now unless LSAC doesn't understand their own test, I'm pretty sure they are right. Hell anyone who's taken a ton of LSAT's can tell you how much your scores can fluctuate when you are in the 170s. The day of the week and the temp in the room can determine whether one gets a 170 or a 173.

Yes, yes I did. Though I would like to mention there is a significant difference between getting a 170 and having that 6 point range of uncertainty with a 170 has the middle, versus a 173 as the middle value. Scoring three more points does alter the range. Sorry for confusing your point earlier, though.

[jackgrf]

very little shot at getting in, but i'd pay to apply

[nematoad]

very little shot at getting in, but i'd pay to apply

+1