To mention or not to mention Forum

[DearCan]

My UGPA is just under 3.0. I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning that my GPA in my majors combined is .516 higher than my cumulative. My GPA in one of my majors alone is .671 higher than my cumulative. I have been told I should briefly mention this by a pre-law adviser at my UG institution, but thought I would call upon some TLS wisdom in coming to a decision.

[MrAnon]

It doesn't matter. Everyone's major GPA is higher than their overall GPA because unsurprisingly people perform better in classes they like. People always want to show this off--"Look I did better in classes that suit me but not so well in classes that bore me." Do you really want to point that out? Life isn't full of majors you get to choose. In any event the admissions committee is fully capable of reading your application and interpreting your transcript without guidance from you. They've done it many thousands of times already. Pre-law advisors simply recite what they read. They've never been through the law school applications process.

Being that you did not do well in required courses I would seriously reconsider law school. None of your 1L classes will be remotely interesting. They are about the dryest material known to man. If you thought that required course in music appreciation or computer science in undergrad was bad, well, both will look like party compared to next year. Plus the classes will be curved to boot. There was really nothing stopping you from making A's in college but in law school only so many people can make them.

[DearCan]

It doesn't matter. Everyone's major GPA is higher than their overall GPA because unsurprisingly people perform better in classes they like. The admissions committee is fully capable of reading your application and interpreting your transcript without guidance from you. They've done it many thousands of times already. Pre-law advisors simply recite what they read. They've never been through the law school applications process.

Being that you did not do well in required courses I would seriously reconsider law school. None of your 1L classes will be remotely interesting. They are about the dryest material known to man. If you thought that required course in music appreciation or computer science in undergrad was bad, well, both will look like party compared to next year.

I actually did well in my required courses, it was mostly electives that brought me down. I made some bad choices and I'll pay for it certainly, but I really don't like being told to "reconsider" something I'm dedicated to, particularly since I didn't pose the question "should I go to law school". I've got some nice distance from undergrad and professional work experience. What one did in undergrad doesn't define them forever. It may bear on what schools I get into, but certainly not my work ethic.

[DearCan]

It doesn't matter. Everyone's major GPA is higher than their overall GPA because unsurprisingly people perform better in classes they like. People always want to show this off--"Look I did better in classes that suit me but not so well in classes that bore me." Do you really want to point that out? Life isn't full of majors you get to choose. In any event the admissions committee is fully capable of reading your application and interpreting your transcript without guidance from you. They've done it many thousands of times already. Pre-law advisors simply recite what they read. They've never been through the law school applications process.

Being that you did not do well in required courses I would seriously reconsider law school. None of your 1L classes will be remotely interesting. They are about the dryest material known to man. If you thought that required course in music appreciation or computer science in undergrad was bad, well, both will look like party compared to next year. Plus the classes will be curved to boot. There was really nothing stopping you from making A's in college but in law school only so many people can make them.

Haha, why do you keep editing what starting off as good advice just to be insulting? That's two edits I've counted so far. From the little information given in my original post you're working up quite the whirlwind of ad hominem attacks with little to no foundation. Bad day?

[JJDancer]

On your resume you can list major GPA if it's really a big difference like 3.0 lsdas vs. 3.5 major or 3.5 --> 4. 0

[DearCan]

On your resume you can list major GPA if it's really a big difference like 3.0 lsdas vs. 3.5 major or 3.5 --> 4. 0

That is actually a fantastic idea. Thank you.

[Grizz]

Go ahead and mention it. It won't hurt. But it probably won't help either.

[Sandro]

My gpa is just under 3 and while obviously I did bad my first 2 years, my last 2 years grades are better. But I feel like trying to say oh look, i did better blah blah blah would be better suited by my LOR's. Either way adcom probably wouldn't care either way.

[masochist]

Just to be helpful, I'll get the other cliched and unhelpful TLS responses out of the way.

1) go to Yale
2) Harvard is better than Yale. Go there instead.
3) Retake the LSAT
4) Some school you are considering is a TTT
5) Nobody is going to be employed

IMO, pointing out the major GPA certainly couldn't hurt.

[robotclubmember]

My UGPA is just under 3.0. I'm wondering if it's worth mentioning that my GPA in my majors combined is .516 higher than my cumulative. My GPA in one of my majors alone is .671 higher than my cumulative. I have been told I should briefly mention this by a pre-law adviser at my UG institution, but thought I would call upon some TLS wisdom in coming to a decision.

Yeah, point it out on your resume.

Another note. Having seen your "totally forgot" thread, and then this thread... I think it reinforces the idea you should say you learned something from your drinking offenses. Two drinking-related offenses and a sub-3.0 GPA won't necessarily take you out of the running at some reasonable schools if you a strong LSAT to compensate. Your work experience is noted, though it only accounts for about 10% of your application packet I'd estimate.

To put it in perspective, the weighting for items in your applications are more or less like this: 35% LSAT, 35% GPA, 30% PS, LOR's, and softs (including work experience). This will vary school to school. Timing and residency are also factors, but a bit more variable. Perhaps you feel you shouldn't be judged forever on your undergrad record, and that's true for other post-grad programs, but law school is really numbers-driven. WE gives you a marginal advantage unless it's spectacular, considering a lot of other applicants have their own portfolio of softs and WE.

Unless you feel your current employment prospects are really that dismal that you need to tuck into a law school, I would re-evaluate going. I understand that you didn't ask for an opinion on this, but it is a tough job market. For real.

Some people say the sky is falling. That's not necessarily true for Tier 1 schools. But the employment prospects outside of Tier 1, particularly T14, are bleak to say the least. Expect placement rates well under 50% upon graduation at a majority of schools that aren't Tier 1. Perhaps even <25% at a majority of <Tier 1. Money ain't so great either. Just offering a perspective. The field is saturated.

[2014]

My major GPA is worse. I hate my major haha

[DearCan]

What is with people telling me not to go to law school? I've done my research, I know there is risk involved. Not entirely sure why this is even coming up considering my OP doesn't even hint that I'm reserved about my decision.

[robotclubmember]

Well hey, that's what matters the most. A lot of people hide from the real world inside of a law school because they don't really know what they want after getting an undergrad history major. As long as you know what you want, all the power to you. And write a good personal statement!

[Grizz]

To put it in perspective, the weighting for items in your applications are more or less like this: 35% LSAT, 35% GPA, 30% PS, LOR's, and softs (including work experience).

LOL NO

[flyingpanda]

To put it in perspective, the weighting for items in your applications are more or less like this: 35% LSAT, 35% GPA, 30% PS, LOR's, and softs (including work experience).

LOL NO

Robot srsly... you need to stop talking about things you don't have much knowledge about. You're giving out really bad advice (this thread and the UVA ed one).

[MrAnon]

I'd like to add that while your time in undergrad does not define you, it certainly is a good indication of how you perform in an academic institution. It is extremely difficult to earn better grades in law school than one did in undergrad. It is true that formerly C students in undergrad will be B students in law school, but B students are the bottom of the class. If you have had success in the working world since undergrad then why not stay there instead of heading back into a school?

Also you should know that the entire 2nd and 3rd year of law school is full of electives.

[robotclubmember]

To put it in perspective, the weighting for items in your applications are more or less like this: 35% LSAT, 35% GPA, 30% PS, LOR's, and softs (including work experience).

LOL NO

Robot srsly... you need to stop talking about things you don't have much knowledge about. You're giving out really bad advice (this thread and the UVA ed one).

The average person in the UVA ED thread getting in was with LSATs of 170, 171, 172, whatever, and GPA's that were typically 3.25 and up. 170 3.0 is still precarious, especially considering he hadn't already applied. UVA overadmitted last year and had to defer some of the admitted applicants (offering them scholly money) to the Class of 2014 as well. Don't expect that there will be the same level of admissions success as last year, even if at the very beginning of the cycle it looks that way. If anything that should tell you admissions will tighten up more as the cycle progress, that's just math. Same number of seats as last year, but several dozen seats already occupied by deferred students. If lots of people are getting offers early, it will tighten up, and he hasn't already applied. I really don't think it's a solid lock like you guys seem sure of, but hey, what do I know.

As for this thread, I know the LSAT is considered more important than the GPA. But either will sink you if you fall out of the right range. But it does vary. I think everyone here can agree that some schools like Berkeley, Yale, Stanford, really demand high GPA's, while you can get away with the same kind of LSAT that could get you into CCN or even T7-T14 in many cases. Some schools really cut breaks for splitters with high LSAT's. It's true outside of T14 as well. I'm just curious how you would weight it. If you're going to criticize a man's advice, at least give him the correct numbers so he knows not to repeat his mistakes (even though I think you guys are insane, lol).

[DearCan]

I'd like to add that while your time in undergrad does not define you, it certainly is a good indication of how you perform in an academic institution. It is extremely difficult to earn better grades in law school than one did in undergrad. It is true that formerly C students in undergrad will be B students in law school, but B students are the bottom of the class. If you have had success in the working world since undergrad then why not stay there instead of heading back into a school?

Also you should know that the entire 2nd and 3rd year of law school is full of electives.

I don't really know what to say to you, to be perfectly honest. Do you dissuade everyone with a GPA below 3.0 from attending law school? I took the years off SPECIFICALLY because I want to succeed in law school. And I'm not a C student. I have 3 C's on my UG transcript. Feel free to interpret that however you want you. The fact is, you're covering me in this blanket generalization that anyone with a UGPA below 3.0 will not succeed in law school. If you're currently in law school you should know better than that. Less than stellar UG record =/= bottom 10% in LS. You have no basis on which to assume WHY I have a low GPA. From your comments it looks like you're assuming that I struggled in all my coursework and barely scraped by.

[DearCan]

To put it in perspective, the weighting for items in your applications are more or less like this: 35% LSAT, 35% GPA, 30% PS, LOR's, and softs (including work experience).

LOL NO

Robot srsly... you need to stop talking about things you don't have much knowledge about. You're giving out really bad advice (this thread and the UVA ed one).

The average person in the UVA ED thread getting in was with LSATs of 170, 171, 172, whatever, and GPA's that were typically 3.25 and up. 170 3.0 is still precarious, especially considering he hadn't already applied. UVA overadmitted last year and had to defer some of the admitted applicants (offering them scholly money) to the Class of 2014 as well. Don't expect that there will be the same level of admissions success as last year, even if at the very beginning of the cycle it looks that way. If anything that should tell you admissions will tighten up more as the cycle progress, that's just math. Same number of seats as last year, but several dozen seats already occupied by deferred students. If lots of people are getting offers early, it will tighten up, and he hasn't already applied. I really don't think it's a solid lock like you guys seem sure of, but hey, what do I know.

As for this thread, I know the LSAT is considered more important than the GPA. But either will sink you if you fall out of the right range. But it does vary. I think everyone here can agree that some schools like Berkeley, Yale, Stanford, really demand high GPA's, while you can get away with the same kind of LSAT that could get you into CCN or even T7-T14 in many cases. Some schools really cut breaks for splitters with high LSAT's. It's true outside of T14 as well. I'm just curious how you would weight it. If you're going to criticize a man's advice, at least give him the correct numbers so he knows not to repeat his mistakes (even though I think you guys are insane, lol).

I'm shooting for NU if this helps. Taking the LSAT Oct. 9th. PTs are in the 170s, highest 176. I'm applying ED and have my on campus interview next month. With a 172+ I have a shot. Without it, I'll go to a regional school.

[robotclubmember]

I'm shooting for NU if this helps. Taking the LSAT Oct. 9th. PTs are in the 170s, highest 176. I'm applying ED and have my on campus interview next month. With a 172+ I have a shot. Without it, I'll go to a regional school.

NU is the obvious and smart choice for someone with work experience. LSN numbers bear out that with a 173 ~ 174, your GPA shouldn't hold you back from having a good chance. Originally I stated that work experience could maybe be roughly weighted to like 10% of your application packet. Scratch that since we're talking NU.

[Pip]

It doesn't matter. Everyone's major GPA is higher than their overall GPA because unsurprisingly people perform better in classes they like. The admissions committee is fully capable of reading your application and interpreting your transcript without guidance from you. They've done it many thousands of times already. Pre-law advisors simply recite what they read. They've never been through the law school applications process.

Being that you did not do well in required courses I would seriously reconsider law school. None of your 1L classes will be remotely interesting. They are about the dryest material known to man. If you thought that required course in music appreciation or computer science in undergrad was bad, well, both will look like party compared to next year.

I actually did well in my required courses, it was mostly electives that brought me down. I made some bad choices and I'll pay for it certainly, but I really don't like being told to "reconsider" something I'm dedicated to, particularly since I didn't pose the question "should I go to law school". I've got some nice distance from undergrad and professional work experience. What one did in undergrad doesn't define them forever. It may bear on what schools I get into, but certainly not my work ethic.

Unfortunately for you and many others, undergrad DOES define them forever. You party too hard in undergrad and scrape by just barely getting out... well that GPA is going to be hanging around your neck FOREVER. Now the fact is you could get into a law school, I could probably fill out an application for my cat and get him into some law schools. So I wont tell you that you've managed to keep yourself from going to law school, because you haven't. You have pretty much eliminated yourself from going to a top law school. So then you need to ask yourself what you want to get from law school... if you are aspiring to a high paying job in a big firm, you can pretty much write that off as a dream... if you simply want to be a lawyer for your own fulfillment, well that can still be done. You probably wont make lots of money may end making very little for quite some time, but if that if your dream is to simply be a lawyer, well that dream is still alive.

So there, nothing insulting I hope, just some cold hard facts. The unfortunate thing with top law schools is that the admissions staff are basically lazy. They use GPA and LSAT scores to cut down on their work load. In a perfect world the admissions staff would bring everyone that wanted in their school in for a formal interview, would conduct their own testing of what that law school felt was most telling for their students... but that ain't the case.

[mst]

Either put it on the resume or have a recommendation letter bring it up. It's not worth an addendum, it will just be annoying.

[psteele99]

I listed my major GPA on both my resume and in my personal statement because it was a bit higher than my overall - - I actually didn't do GREAT in a couple of classes because, being 19 and on daddy's dime... didn't care as much as I should have. Such is life! Good luck to you!

[robotclubmember]

I listed my major GPA on both my resume and in my personal statement because it was a bit higher than my overall - - I actually didn't do GREAT in a couple of classes because, being 19 and on daddy's dime... didn't care as much as I should have. Such is life! Good luck to you!

DearCan, I'd leave your GPA out of your personal statement. Put it on your resume, no addendum, trust the adcomm's to give your transcript a critical read and evaluate it fairly within the context of your personal statement and other admissions factors.

/thread

[CanadianWolf]

It would be interesting to know your target law schools & LSAT because your GPA is going to cause difficulties at most tier one law schools since your undergraduate institution does not have a reputation for tough grading. Are you considering Tier Two law schools ?