Top Law Schools

Regular Splitter:

Graduated UG with a 3.0-3.25, and applying to LS with a 170+ under your belt.

Reverse Splitter:

Graduated UG with a 3.8-4.0 GPA, but couldn't handle the LSAT. Applying to LS with a 158-163.

Which would you be/are you less nervous about?

Definitely regular (especially with the numbers you threw out there), LSAT scores are way more important.

vespertiliovir wrote:Definitely regular (especially with the numbers you threw out there), LSAT scores are way more important.

This isn't really an opinion question at all. You're going to do better as a regular splitter, especially with such a big difference between LSATs you're throwing out there.

I'd probably still pick the first option if the LSAT range for reverse splitter was moved up to like 162-167, especially if the LSAT is like 173+.

You do NOT want to be a reverse splitter. God have mercy.

Anyone who says reverse is a moron.

I'm exactly the first situation. 3.27, 171 (hopefully 173+ in Oct)
I'd take my situation over a 3.8, 161 any day.

There are more excuses for a bad GPA than a bad LSAT(s)

There are more high GPAs out there than high LSAT scores. This isn't even a question - you want to be a regular splitter.

rad law wrote:Anyone who says reverse is a moron.

Depends. If you're a reverse splitter, you can always retake and improve score. GPA can't be changed.

regular. dumb thread.

Regular, and it's not even close.

As an extreme normal splitter, I am tempted to say reverse. I could always just study for the test for another year and hope something clicked. Where as, I am stuck with my GPA. There is no chance at all that I can change that.

Then again, if the options as is are set in stone. I would have to say normal splitter.

Why is the range for reverse spilter only between 158-163 for lsat?

The only way I'd want to be a reverse splitter is if something terrible happened test day AND retake was an option. In your scenario? Regular splitter + NU ftw.

I'd rather be a regular splitter even assuming admissions decisions were the same.

With the way admissions works it'd be crazy to prefer to be a regular splitter.

.

vespertiliovir wrote:Definitely regular (especially with the numbers you threw out there), LSAT scores are way more important.

+1. Those numbers make this a non-question. If it were, say, 4.0 w/ upper sixties v. 3.0 w/ mid seventies this might be harder.

Yeah, this question needs to be harder. With the numbers you have now there is almost no room to debate. Unless you're shooting for a GPA loving school, and even then, those schools don't dip that far down with their LSAT medians. Try one or more of any of these options and the question would become much more interesting to consider:

a) Instead of a 3.0-3.25 for the regular splitter, make it a 2.5-2.75. (I'd still choose the regular splitter option here, assuming no other facts about the situation. But now you can argue about whether a school would go significantly below its 25th percentile just to take your at-or-above-75th percentile score.)
b) Set some parameters so people are forced to really make a choice instead of saying "well if I can..." For example, say the person in question has no work experience. Now the default "work two years and ED to NU/Cornell/Georgetown" option is stripped away.
c) The person in question is a URM. I have heard URMs get a boost to make up for their LSAT scores more than to make up than for their GPAs. So if you are a URM, you might very well argue that being a reverse splitter is actually the preferred option here because the LSAT mark is lowered for you, especially if you can just get into the 160-163 range. Now if you were a URM with a 4.0 and a 150 vs. a 2.3 and a 174...okay, then we have a quandary.

I am a URM, and frankly I wish I was looking at a 3.8 and a 160 because I think that would make my life a lot easier. I have a sub-3.0 so I'm pretty much left with NO option except 170+ or bust. I have no doubt I can hit 160, but I've already said if I make below a 165 I'm just not applying to law school, and if I make 165-169 I'm going to feel obligated to retake. If I was facing a potential reverse split, I would at least know the pressure is somewhat off (though I'd still be aiming for 170+). But for your survey I took it at face value and voted regular splitter.

..

cynthia rose wrote:Yeah, this question needs to be harder. With the numbers you have now there is almost no room to debate. Unless you're shooting for a GPA loving school, and even then, those schools don't dip that far down with their LSAT medians. Try one or more of any of these options and the question would become much more interesting to consider:

a) Instead of a 3.0-3.25 for the regular splitter, make it a 2.5-2.75. (I'd still choose the regular splitter option here, assuming no other facts about the situation. But now you can argue about whether a school would go significantly below its 25th percentile just to take your at-or-above-75th percentile score.)
b) Set some parameters so people are forced to really make a choice instead of saying "well if I can..." For example, say the person in question has no work experience. Now the default "work two years and ED to NU/Cornell/Georgetown" option is stripped away.
c) The person in question is a URM. I have heard URMs get a boost to make up for their LSAT scores more than to make up than for their GPAs. So if you are a URM, you might very well argue that being a reverse splitter is actually the preferred option here because the LSAT mark is lowered for you, especially if you can just get into the 160-163 range. Now if you were a URM with a 4.0 and a 150 vs. a 2.3 and a 174...okay, then we have a quandary.

I am a URM, and frankly I wish I was looking at a 3.8 and a 160 because I think that would make my life a lot easier. I have a sub-3.0 so I'm pretty much left with NO option except 170+ or bust. I have no doubt I can hit 160, but I've already said if I make below a 165 I'm just not applying to law school, and if I make 165-169 I'm going to feel obligated to retake. If I was facing a potential reverse split, I would at least know the pressure is somewhat off (though I'd still be aiming for 170+). But for your survey I took it at face value and voted regular splitter.

I completely agree, and it seems to be more of an issue in the West Coast, though I wonder if the perception that URM splitters wouldn't get as much of a boost as a URM reverse splitters is because there are less cases of URM splitters.

sanetruth wrote:Regular Splitter:

Graduated UG with a 3.0-3.25, and applying to LS with a 170+ under your belt.

Reverse Splitter:

Graduated UG with a 3.8-4.0 GPA, but couldn't handle the LSAT. Applying to LS with a 158-163.

Which would you be/are you less nervous about?

Most URM's are reverse splitters, so it's probably better to be a regular splitter. URM's who kick ass on the LSAT are so rare.

BTW, no adcom (even from HYS) would ever say that someone with a 158-163 "couldn't handle the LSAT". That person handled the LSAT just fine, beating out what...77-90% of all test takers?

For many, it isn't good enough for HYS, but it's nothing to sneeze at either, especially if you have a 3.8+ GPA. It's even more true if you had a tough-as-nails major and really good softs. Below 150 is a different story. We on TLS are so used to meeting up with the 170+ers that our perceptions of "good" LSAT scores get skewed. A 170 puts you in the top 2% of all test takers, which is only possible for...2% of test takers. What are everybody else, trash? Be careful.

CapHillLove wrote:Obviously the LSAT is more objective and there is range based on rigor of courses for grades, but a GPA represents 4 years of academic work, while an LSAT could be one bad day.

And, conversely, your GPA can represent four years of slackerdom, while your LSAT can represent your ability to get and keep your shit together for discrete five hour periods.

*hide face*

johnnyutah wrote:

rad law wrote:Anyone who says reverse is a moron.

Depends. If you're a reverse splitter, you can always retake and improve score. GPA can't be changed.

This is credited.

Also, if you do have a 3.8, 163 you can get full scholarships from schools in the 40+ range since you are above both medians. If you are a 175+, 3.2, full tuition is hard to come by because your GPA is still below median pretty much everywhere.

I personally wouldn't prefer to be a reverse splitter, but there are some instances where it can be an advantage.

PDaddy wrote:

sanetruth wrote:Regular Splitter:

Graduated UG with a 3.0-3.25, and applying to LS with a 170+ under your belt.

Reverse Splitter:

Graduated UG with a 3.8-4.0 GPA, but couldn't handle the LSAT. Applying to LS with a 158-163.

Which would you be/are you less nervous about?

BTW, no adcom (even from HYS) would ever say that someone with a 158-163 "couldn't handle the LSAT". That person handled the LSAT just fine, beating out what...77-90% of all test takers?

If you have a 4.0 and a 158, you absolutely couldn't handle the LSAT. It would be different if it weren't a learnable test, but if you can put in 4 years of straight As in college and can't get 165+ on the LSAT, you either couldn't handle it or didn't study hard enough.

There are very rare exceptions, but if I'm a Harvard adcomm and I see a 158/4.0, my first thought is: This person worked for four years for a great GPA and couldn't work for four months to get a better LSAT score?

.