Do a few points on the LSAT really matter? Forum

[amkid100]

Here's a hypothetical:

The admissions committee ___[insert lower half of t14 here]____ is reviewing two applicants from selective undergrads of similar reputation. Both of these applicants fall in their 25-75 range. Who do they take?

Applicant A) 3.7, 168 (oh wait, those are my numbers, what a coincidence!)
Applicant B) 3.5, 171

Aren't these applicants virtually the same, of equal merit? Or, does the 3 point bump on the LSAT really count more than a .2 increase in GPA?

[birdlaw117]

Here's a hypothetical:

The admissions committee ___[insert lower half of t14 here]____ is reviewing two applicants from selective undergrads of similar reputation. Both of these applicants fall in their 25-75 range. Who do they take?

Applicant A) 3.7, 168 (oh wait, those are my numbers, what a coincidence!)
Applicant B) 3.5, 171

Aren't these applicants virtually the same, of equal merit? Or, does the 3 point bump on the LSAT really count more than a .2 increase in GPA?

I would vote the 171 counts for more. That said, good softs can make up that difference (although many on TLS will discount the merits of softs).

[St.Remy]

Here's a hypothetical:

The admissions committee ___[insert lower half of t14 here]____ is reviewing two applicants from selective undergrads of similar reputation. Both of these applicants fall in their 25-75 range. Who do they take?

Applicant A) 3.7, 168 (oh wait, those are my numbers, what a coincidence!)
Applicant B) 3.5, 171

Aren't these applicants virtually the same, of equal merit? Or, does the 3 point bump on the LSAT really count more than a .2 increase in GPA?

Depends on the school, but for the most part breaking 170 is more important to adcomms.

[mteevin]

ask yourself this:

if a few points on the LSAT didn't matter:

would the largest forum on TLS be the LSAT prep?

would people spend $2000+ on materials and prep classes?

would people with 3.3/175 routinely get admitted at CCN and other t14?

[per200ml]

They would take the 170+ applicant no doubt... all else being equal

[Adjudicator]

Depends on which few points, really... the general feeling is that there is a big difference between being in the 170s and not being in the 170s. So in your example, most people would probably say there is a significant difference there.

At the very high end, people keep telling me that there is not a big difference between a 175 and a 178 or something.

Statistically, there is much more space between a 165 and a 170 than there is between a 170 and a 175, and there is much more space between a 170 and a 175 than there is between a 175 and a 180.

[birdlaw117]

Plus, not all GPAs are created equal, unfortunately. The LSAT, on the other hand, is a test administered to hundreds of thousands each year. It is a more consistent indicator. I'm not going to preach about the importance of the LSAT over the GPA, nor about the correlation between those and law school success. However, I will say that the LSAT is an easier and more consistent indicator for an adcom.

[09042014]

Yes. Any GPA below 3.8 is TTT anyway.

[rayiner]

Here's a hypothetical:

The admissions committee ___[insert lower half of t14 here]____ is reviewing two applicants from selective undergrads of similar reputation. Both of these applicants fall in their 25-75 range. Who do they take?

Applicant A) 3.7, 168 (oh wait, those are my numbers, what a coincidence!)
Applicant B) 3.5, 171

Aren't these applicants virtually the same, of equal merit? Or, does the 3 point bump on the LSAT really count more than a .2 increase in GPA?

Schools will almost invariably take applicant B. Neither applicant has a good shot at CCN, and only a marginal shot at Berkeley or Duke, but B will likely get several of MVPNCG while A will probably only get CG and maybe M.

[s0ph1e2007]

Here's a hypothetical:

The admissions committee ___[insert lower half of t14 here]____ is reviewing two applicants from selective undergrads of similar reputation. Both of these applicants fall in their 25-75 range. Who do they take?

Applicant A) 3.7, 168 (oh wait, those are my numbers, what a coincidence!)
Applicant B) 3.5, 171

Aren't these applicants virtually the same, of equal merit? Or, does the 3 point bump on the LSAT really count more than a .2 increase in GPA?

Depends on the school, but for the most part breaking 170 is more important to adcomms.

TITCR

170 is so important

[Ragged]

I'd say that if you are above median at a certain school any points beyond that only matter if you are a retaker, getting more money, and if you have really low GPA, otherwise the difference is quite small. That and braggin rights.

Also what Adjudicator said is credited. The higher up you go the less it matters.

[whymeohgodno]

From LSN it's all about hitting the median.

[094320]

..

[Ragged]

Here's a hypothetical:

The admissions committee ___[insert lower half of t14 here]____ is reviewing two applicants from selective undergrads of similar reputation. Both of these applicants fall in their 25-75 range. Who do they take?

Applicant A) 3.7, 168 (oh wait, those are my numbers, what a coincidence!)
Applicant B) 3.5, 171

Aren't these applicants virtually the same, of equal merit? Or, does the 3 point bump on the LSAT really count more than a .2 increase in GPA?

Depends on the median. Those LSAT scores dance around the median at a lot of lower T14s. Both have pretty weak shots in general.

I like your avatar. Really shows your general attitude.

[maxm2764]

A few points absolutely matter.

Especially if you're talking about the difference between, say, a 158 and a 162. The latter opens up a lot more doors and it's just 4 points away. The same is true for a 168 and a 172. Huge, huge difference IMHO.

[094320]

..

[Balliol2012]

I always had a question about this. Because schools/LSAC say that there are 3 points +/- standard deviation or whatever for the LSAT score. So, for example, they don't recommend you retake the test if you don't think you would score more than 3 points better. It just doesn't really make sense to me. If you score a 167, your range is 164-170, meaning the 164 is in your range. So you are supposedly equivalent to the 164. But the 164 has a range of 161-167. So the 161 is in the same range as the 164, and since the 164 is in the same range as the 167, the 161 is also in that range. By transitivity all scores are in the same range. So what is the point of having that +/- 3 range? It makes no sense to me. Maybe that's because I never went to high school and I don't understand basic math. Can someone explain it?

(Obviously, none of this is an argument against the idea that every point on the LSAT counts for admissions purposes.)

[gz5hc9]

GPA depends a lot on courseload, major, and school; a difference of .2 or .3 is negligible. the LSAT is one test - somebody who got 3 or 4 more correct answers than another person is not necessarily a smarter, more qualified candidate for law school - it just means he didn't have to take a sh*t during his reading comp section.

everyone on this website is absolutely ridiculous - they place so much emphasis on GPA and LSAT - probably because they have nothing else going for them.

if you were on an admissions committee, wouldn't you prefer a D1 varsity athlete/captain with great LOR's and a great resume over a bookworm with high GPA and high LSAT? Which one is going to be the better lawyer anyway...?

[whymeohgodno]

GPA depends a lot on courseload, major, and school; a difference of .2 or .3 is negligible. the LSAT is one test - somebody who got 3 or 4 more correct answers than another person is not necessarily a smarter, more qualified candidate for law school - it just means he didn't have to take a sh*t during his reading comp section.

everyone on this website is absolutely ridiculous - they place so much emphasis on GPA and LSAT - probably because they have nothing else going for them.

if you were on an admissions committee, wouldn't you prefer a D1 varsity athlete/captain with great LOR's and a great resume over a bookworm with high GPA and high LSAT? Which one is going to be the better lawyer anyway...?

The bookworm.

[094320]

..

[birdlaw117]

GPA depends a lot on courseload, major, and school; a difference of .2 or .3 is negligible. the LSAT is one test - somebody who got 3 or 4 more correct answers than another person is not necessarily a smarter, more qualified candidate for law school - it just means he didn't have to take a sh*t during his reading comp section.

everyone on this website is absolutely ridiculous - they place so much emphasis on GPA and LSAT - probably because they have nothing else going for them.

if you were on an admissions committee, wouldn't you prefer a D1 varsity athlete/captain with great LOR's and a great resume over a bookworm with high GPA and high LSAT? Which one is going to be the better lawyer anyway...?

Coming from a D1 Athlete with a high LSAT, I hope you're right. However, I am not going to assume playing a sport will get my extra cred. I'm going to just try to kill my personal statement and hope for the best. Besides, D1 Athletes have time commitments, but so do people who work throughout undergrad.

[Adjudicator]

GPA depends a lot on courseload, major, and school; a difference of .2 or .3 is negligible. the LSAT is one test - somebody who got 3 or 4 more correct answers than another person is not necessarily a smarter, more qualified candidate for law school - it just means he didn't have to take a sh*t during his reading comp section.

everyone on this website is absolutely ridiculous - they place so much emphasis on GPA and LSAT - probably because they have nothing else going for them.

if you were on an admissions committee, wouldn't you prefer a D1 varsity athlete/captain with great LOR's and a great resume over a bookworm with high GPA and high LSAT? Which one is going to be the better lawyer anyway...?

lol. How naive.

[whymeohgodno]

GPA depends a lot on courseload, major, and school; a difference of .2 or .3 is negligible. the LSAT is one test - somebody who got 3 or 4 more correct answers than another person is not necessarily a smarter, more qualified candidate for law school - it just means he didn't have to take a sh*t during his reading comp section.

everyone on this website is absolutely ridiculous - they place so much emphasis on GPA and LSAT - probably because they have nothing else going for them.

if you were on an admissions committee, wouldn't you prefer a D1 varsity athlete/captain with great LOR's and a great resume over a bookworm with high GPA and high LSAT? Which one is going to be the better lawyer anyway...?

lol. How naive.

I have to admit my softs are pretty weak lol.

[Patriot1208]

GPA depends a lot on courseload, major, and school; a difference of .2 or .3 is negligible. the LSAT is one test - somebody who got 3 or 4 more correct answers than another person is not necessarily a smarter, more qualified candidate for law school - it just means he didn't have to take a sh*t during his reading comp section.

everyone on this website is absolutely ridiculous - they place so much emphasis on GPA and LSAT - probably because they have nothing else going for them.

if you were on an admissions committee, wouldn't you prefer a D1 varsity athlete/captain with great LOR's and a great resume over a bookworm with high GPA and high LSAT? Which one is going to be the better lawyer anyway...?

Believe me, I wish you were right, because then I would be t10 lock. Unfortunately, I realize the truth, which is that my 169 is one point below what I need for the t10. Doesn't matter what else is going on, I am one question away from getting into my target schools.

[gz5hc9]

it is absurd to think that a 169 keeps you out and a 170 would get you in - you must be brainwashed by all the nerds on this website.

my buddy got into UVA, Texas, and Berkeley with a 166 last year because he had good softs. not a phd, mba or anything crazy - just good WE and good LOR's.

If you see anyone on this website with a 169+ and a 3.7+ say they got rejected from a school ranked lower than 10th, it means they have a terrible resume, their UG sucks, and/or their LOR's left something to be desired.