Top Law Schools

Which of Harvard, Yale, Stanford is the most friendly to high LSAT, low GPA splitters? I have a 3.58, am PTing around 177 and have some money to burn. But seriously, if I luck out and pull a 179 in October I want to throw an app to at least one of these schools. Is there one or two that would be a better shot? It looks like Stanford favors reverse splitters, so they may be out. Yale is top of the top, so maybe they're out. Should I try at Harvard? Even if I only have a 10% chance the app fee will be worth the peace of mind of knowing I couldn't get in. I just want to know at which of these schools I have the least bad shot.

Thanks in advance.

sgtgrumbles wrote:Which of Harvard, Yale, Stanford is the most friendly to high LSAT, low GPA splitters? I have a 3.58, am PTing around 177 and have some money to burn. But seriously, if I luck out and pull a 179 in October I want to throw an app to at least one of these schools. Is there one or two that would be a better shot? It looks like Stanford favors reverse splitters, so they may be out. Yale is top of the top, so maybe they're out. Should I try at Harvard? Even if I only have a 10% shot, I think the app fee will be worth the peace of mind of knowing I couldn't get in.

Thanks in advance.

Well Stanford stresses GPA, Yale stresses both, and Harvard I bet you could have a shot with a slightly lower GPA but really strong LSAT. I don't think 3.58/179 would cut it though for a non-URM; there seems to be too much emphasis placed on having 3.7+ at least. Definitely worth an app though.

dbt wrote:

sgtgrumbles wrote:Which of Harvard, Yale, Stanford is the most friendly to high LSAT, low GPA splitters? I have a 3.58, am PTing around 177 and have some money to burn. But seriously, if I luck out and pull a 179 in October I want to throw an app to at least one of these schools. Is there one or two that would be a better shot? It looks like Stanford favors reverse splitters, so they may be out. Yale is top of the top, so maybe they're out. Should I try at Harvard? Even if I only have a 10% shot, I think the app fee will be worth the peace of mind of knowing I couldn't get in.

Thanks in advance.

Well Stanford stresses GPA, Yale stresses both, and Harvard I bet you could have a shot with a slightly lower GPA but really strong LSAT. I don't think 3.58/179 would cut it though for a non-URM; there seems to be too much emphasis placed on having 3.7+ at least. Definitely worth an app though.

Yeah, and lately Harvard has been really emphasizing a 3.8+ GPA. Might as well shoot them an application though, just for peace of mind (assuming you score high in Oct. -- which isn't a guarantee).

sgtgrumbles wrote:Which of Harvard, Yale, Stanford is the most friendly to high LSAT, low GPA splitters? I have a 3.58, am PTing around 177 and have some money to burn. But seriously, if I luck out and pull a 179 in October I want to throw an app to at least one of these schools. Is there one or two that would be a better shot? It looks like Stanford favors reverse splitters, so they may be out. Yale is top of the top, so maybe they're out. Should I try at Harvard? Even if I only have a 10% shot, I think the app fee will be worth the peace of mind of knowing I couldn't get in.

Thanks in advance.

Do you have a Nobel prize? Because then the answer is Yale. If not then none of HYS is very splitter friendly. Even if you hit a perfect 180 your chances won't be great at any of them, but if you got the money then why not go for Harvard.

I best splitter case I've seen with Harvard is 3.65/7 (can't remember for sure it was the 08-09 cycle) and a 180.

..

My best guess is that Harvard offers you the best chance of admission since it is the largest of the three law schools. Yale & Stanford like strong stories/personal statements. The best advice, however, is to wait until you have an actual LSAT score in hand. If you do earn a 179, then apply to all three.

None are splitter-friendly. If you do have an amazing LSAT then might as well take a shot in the dark and app to all 3 if you're interested.

SLS took someone this year with a 3.22, so it's not out of the question, but it's highly doubtful.

With no major "softs" to speak of, Harvard seems your best shot (if only a marginal one). Take care on the application and maybe JR gives you a shot to impress him in the phone call, which could push you over the edge.

Honestly, with a 3.5+ and a 177+, I'd apply to all three if you have the $250 to spend. It can't hurt, and the rewards are possibly vast.

Kretzy wrote:Honestly, with a 3.5+ and a 177+, I'd apply to all three if you have the $250 to spend. It can't hurt, and the rewards are possibly vast.

This is basically my reasoning. The 95% of times I don't get admitted will be far outweighed, both in terms of the economic return on the $250 investment and otherwise, by the 5% of times I'm admitted.

I was expecting a lot of "No chance"-type responses, so thanks to all for the earnest help.

Don't get your hopes up too much until you get an actual LSAT. I was PTing at 175 and Knockglock was PTing at around 178. We got a 172 and 171 respectively.

Sentry wrote:Don't get your hopes up too much until you get an actual LSAT. I was PTing at 175 and Knockglock was PTing at around 178. We got a 172 and 171 respectively.

I'll toss my 178 PT average and 173 actual LSAT into that ring as well.

bk187 wrote:

Sentry wrote:Don't get your hopes up too much until you get an actual LSAT. I was PTing at 175 and Knockglock was PTing at around 178. We got a 172 and 171 respectively.

I'll toss my 178 PT average and 173 actual LSAT into that ring as well.

We should join together for a stiff round of drinks .

Knockglock wrote:We should join together for a stiff round of drinks .

Should have done that prior to the LSAT. We might have done better.

bk187 wrote:

Knockglock wrote:We should join together for a stiff round of drinks .

Should have done that prior to the LSAT. We might have done better.

No joke

.

All of you folks who scored lower than your PTs... were you able to identify the reason? I want to know what went wrong, so that I can try to avoid it in October. I'm averaging 177 in PTs and I want to score 177 on the real deal.

Adjudicator wrote:All of you folks who scored lower than your PTs... were you able to identify the reason? I want to know what went wrong, so that I can try to avoid it in October. I'm averaging 177 in PTs and I want to score 177 on the real deal.

Test day nerves. After averaging 7-8 minutes to spare per section on PT's and then taking almost the entire time on the first actual section I started to panic a bit which probably cost me a few questions.

bk187 wrote:

Adjudicator wrote:All of you folks who scored lower than your PTs... were you able to identify the reason? I want to know what went wrong, so that I can try to avoid it in October. I'm averaging 177 in PTs and I want to score 177 on the real deal.

Test day nerves. After averaging 7-8 minutes to spare per section on PT's and then taking almost the entire time on the first actual section I started to panic a bit which probably cost me a few questions.

Test day nerves/adrenaline, plus burn out that I don't think I noticed at the time taking doing 55 PT's in like ~10 weeks.

179 PT avg. 171 on the real thing. All it takes is one frickin thing to throw off your timing.

top 1% 1L year, though

Knockglock wrote:Test day nerves/adrenaline, plus burn out that I don't think I noticed at the time taking doing 55 PT's in like ~10 weeks.

Yeah I forgot about burnout as well. I took 30-40 PT's in the span of a month prior to the test, averaging 178 or so. On the last 3 before test day I got 175-172-173, I was definitely burned out and it showed on the test.

Adjudicator wrote:All of you folks who scored lower than your PTs... were you able to identify the reason? I want to know what went wrong, so that I can try to avoid it in October. I'm averaging 177 in PTs and I want to score 177 on the real deal.

Being relaxed as possible helps come test day. Don't take a PT the day or two before. Make sure you kind of feel hungry to take a test. I was averaging around 170+ and ended up with a 174.

bk187 wrote:

Knockglock wrote:Test day nerves/adrenaline, plus burn out that I don't think I noticed at the time taking doing 55 PT's in like ~10 weeks.

Yeah I forgot about burnout as well. I took 30-40 PT's in the span of a month prior to the test, averaging 178 or so. On the last 3 before test day I got 175-172-173, I was definitely burned out and it showed on the test.

I went 180-(173 an experimental test)-172-171 on the real deal. I peaked a few days too early .

None. that is why they are HYS.

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

Adjudicator wrote:All of you folks who scored lower than your PTs... were you able to identify the reason? I want to know what went wrong, so that I can try to avoid it in October. I'm averaging 177 in PTs and I want to score 177 on the real deal.

Being relaxed as possible helps come test day. Don't take a PT the day or two before. Make sure you kind of feel hungry to take a test. I was averaging around 170+ and ended up with a 174.

Thanks. Yeah, I'm so glad now that I bumped up my test date from December to October.... I would have burned out by December, or else lost my focus. I would have missed my peak. Right now I can't wait to take the test. I'm really eager. I hope I can maintain that for one more month. And grats on the 174, too... it is good to know that not everyone's score goes down on test day. I've always had nerves of steel when it comes to testing, so I'm feeling optimistic.

Anyway,

/thread derail