Top Law Schools

For early decision applicants, do schools (T25) generally favor applicants with LSAT scores above median, or is it advised for those with high GPAs/low LSAT to apply ED for a better chance?

silverlake33 wrote:For early decision applicants, do schools (T25) generally favor applicants with LSAT scores above median, or is it advised for those with high GPAs/low LSAT to apply ED for a better chance?

I don't see the dichotomy: if they favor higher LSATs, then yes, it would be advised for low LSATs to ED for a better chance. And as a general rule of thumb, the LSAT is weighed more than the GPA.

MW

MysticalWheel wrote: I don't see the dichotomy: if they favor higher LSATs, then yes, it would be advised for low LSATs to ED for a better chance. And as a general rule of thumb, the LSAT is weighed more than the GPA.

MW

Thanks for your input : ) I am concerned that with a lower LSAT/higher GPA, an ED applicant would be rejected outright (whereas a retake + applying later in the cycle yields a greater chance than ED-ing with the lower score...let's say <170/3.5< vs. 170</<3.5).

silverlake33 wrote:

MysticalWheel wrote: I don't see the dichotomy: if they favor higher LSATs, then yes, it would be advised for low LSATs to ED for a better chance. And as a general rule of thumb, the LSAT is weighed more than the GPA.

MW

Thanks for your input : ) I am concerned that with a lower LSAT/higher GPA, an ED applicant would be rejected outright (whereas a retake + applying later in the cycle yields a greater chance than ED-ing with the lower score...let's say <170/3.5< vs. 170</<3.5).

It depends on how great the difference is. An EDer with 169/3.55 vs an RD 171/3.45 would probably have similar chances, but I would give the edge to the 171/3.4 applicant because of the LSAT.

MW

Depends on your numbers and the school. In general, schools are almost always more forgiving to splitters than reverse-splitters.

bk187 wrote:Depends on your numbers and the school. In general, schools are almost always more forgiving to splitters than reverse-splitters.

+1.

bk187 wrote:Depends on your numbers and the school. In general, schools are almost always more forgiving to splitters than reverse-splitters.

-1.

MysticalWheel wrote:

bk187 wrote:Depends on your numbers and the school. In general, schools are almost always more forgiving to splitters than reverse-splitters.

-1.

You disagree?

It does seem that in general, if you have to be below one median it's better to be below the GPA median than the LSAT. Of course there are exceptions and you have to take into account how big the split is/how far below the median you are, but it would appear that the rationale behind all this lies in the fact that high LSATs are more rare than high GPAs.

czelede wrote:

MysticalWheel wrote:

bk187 wrote:Depends on your numbers and the school. In general, schools are almost always more forgiving to splitters than reverse-splitters.

-1.

You disagree?

It does seem that in general, if you have to be below one median it's better to be below the GPA median than the LSAT. Of course there are exceptions and you have to take into account how big the split is/how far below the median you are, but it would appear that the rationale behind all this lies in the fact that high LSATs are more rare than high GPAs.

MW- your example was very helpful since I was thinking of cases in which the numbers are fairly close within a few points.

Czelede- also the timing in the cycle might matter...for 'late' RD applicants, by the time Feb/March rolls around, they already might have filled up the class with higher LSATs and can afford to take lower LSATs at that point, hurting late splitter applicants' chances...of course, this is only speculative and based off anecdotal evidence, but nonetheless I'm worried about it.

czelede wrote:

MysticalWheel wrote:

bk187 wrote:Depends on your numbers and the school. In general, schools are almost always more forgiving to splitters than reverse-splitters.

-1.

You disagree?

It does seem that in general, if you have to be below one median it's better to be below the GPA median than the LSAT. Of course there are exceptions and you have to take into account how big the split is/how far below the median you are, but it would appear that the rationale behind all this lies in the fact that high LSATs are more rare than high GPAs.

As so many have said before, splitters (reverse or not) are notoriously difficult to predict, despite general trends, so I think it is a bit extreme to say schools are "almost always more forgiving" towards splitters. Berkeley is one school that comes to mind that surely favors GPA over LSAT.

MW

Way to underline your own emphasis in someone else's sentence. The "almost" is there to cover places like Berkeley. Considering Berkeley is the only T14 to favor reverse splitters over regular splitters, almost always is appropriate.

Just wanted to throw my hat into the ring here.



D, DMan, Deucaliah, D-Nasty, Durrtyy D, DeucesWild, DoubleDeezy

Deuce wrote:Just wanted to throw my hat into the ring here.



D, DMan, Deucaliah, D-Nasty, Durrtyy D, DeucesWild, DoubleDeezy

Deuce wrote:Just wanted to throw my hat into the ring here.



D, DMan, Deucaliah, D-Nasty, Durrtyy D, DeucesWild, DoubleDeezy

lol

MysticalWheel wrote:

czelede wrote:

MysticalWheel wrote:

bk187 wrote:Depends on your numbers and the school. In general, schools are almost always more forgiving to splitters than reverse-splitters.

-1.

You disagree?

It does seem that in general, if you have to be below one median it's better to be below the GPA median than the LSAT. Of course there are exceptions and you have to take into account how big the split is/how far below the median you are, but it would appear that the rationale behind all this lies in the fact that high LSATs are more rare than high GPAs.

As so many have said before, splitters (reverse or not) are notoriously difficult to predict, despite general trends, so I think it is a bit extreme to say schools are "almost always more forgiving" towards splitters. Berkeley is one school that comes to mind that surely favors GPA over LSAT.

MW

You're either an elaborate flame or else perfect for Chicago.

Deuce wrote:Just wanted to throw my hat into the ring here.



D, DMan, Deucaliah, D-Nasty, Durrtyy D, DeucesWild, DoubleDeezy

Awesome!

FM, FMPL, the Fireman, CalienteHombre, Firemed, Firemedic, Your Daddy

Oh, and to the OP: regular (high LSAT/low GPA) splitters, generally. With exceptions. Expect a lot of WL.

Hannibal wrote:Way to underline your own emphasis in someone else's sentence. The "almost" is there to cover places like Berkeley. Considering Berkeley is the only T14 to favor reverse splitters over regular splitters, almost always is appropriate.

No, it's not appropriate. It is extreme language that oversimplifies the complexity of splitters. And the underline was to emphasize the extremity.

MW

MysticalWheel wrote:

Hannibal wrote:Way to underline your own emphasis in someone else's sentence. The "almost" is there to cover places like Berkeley. Considering Berkeley is the only T14 to favor reverse splitters over regular splitters, almost always is appropriate.

No, it's not appropriate. It is extreme language that oversimplifies the complexity of splitters. And the underline was to emphasize the extremity.

MW

Wow, I wouldn't say splitters' results are OVERcomplex. It's not THAT bad.

JazzOne wrote:

MysticalWheel wrote:

czelede wrote:

MysticalWheel wrote:
You disagree?

It does seem that in general, if you have to be below one median it's better to be below the GPA median than the LSAT. Of course there are exceptions and you have to take into account how big the split is/how far below the median you are, but it would appear that the rationale behind all this lies in the fact that high LSATs are more rare than high GPAs.

As so many have said before, splitters (reverse or not) are notoriously difficult to predict, despite general trends, so I think it is a bit extreme to say schools are "almost always more forgiving" towards splitters. Berkeley is one school that comes to mind that surely favors GPA over LSAT.

MW

You're either an elaborate flame or else perfect for Chicago.

Well, I applied to Chicago, but I think I'll go to Harvard or Stanford instead. Columbia is the consolation prize. Also, it seems quite odd to call someone who is relevantly responding with rational argument a flame, especially when you are not part of said argument. Why are you going to law school again?

MW

Double signature! What does it mean?!?!?!?!?

Hannibal wrote:

MysticalWheel wrote:

Hannibal wrote:Way to underline your own emphasis in someone else's sentence. The "almost" is there to cover places like Berkeley. Considering Berkeley is the only T14 to favor reverse splitters over regular splitters, almost always is appropriate.

No, it's not appropriate. It is extreme language that oversimplifies the complexity of splitters. And the underline was to emphasize the extremity.

MW

Wow, I wouldn't say splitters' results are OVERcomplex. It's not THAT bad.

Either way, I find saying "almost always" extreme.

MW

Deuce wrote:Double signature! What does it mean?!?!?!?!?

I took care of it for you .

MW

MysticalWheel wrote:

Hannibal wrote:

MysticalWheel wrote:

Hannibal wrote:Way to underline your own emphasis in someone else's sentence. The "almost" is there to cover places like Berkeley. Considering Berkeley is the only T14 to favor reverse splitters over regular splitters, almost always is appropriate.

No, it's not appropriate. It is extreme language that oversimplifies the complexity of splitters. And the underline was to emphasize the extremity.

MW

Wow, I wouldn't say splitters' results are OVERcomplex. It's not THAT bad.

Either way, I find saying "almost always" extreme.

MW

Always would be 14/14. What would be the closest to always you can get, without it being always (thus almost always)?

MysticalWheel wrote:

Hannibal wrote:

MysticalWheel wrote:

Hannibal wrote:Way to underline your own emphasis in someone else's sentence. The "almost" is there to cover places like Berkeley. Considering Berkeley is the only T14 to favor reverse splitters over regular splitters, almost always is appropriate.

No, it's not appropriate. It is extreme language that oversimplifies the complexity of splitters. And the underline was to emphasize the extremity.

MW

Wow, I wouldn't say splitters' results are OVERcomplex. It's not THAT bad.

Either way, I find saying "almost always" extreme.

MW

"Almost always" is held up over and over again by things like LSN. The majority of splitters don't have any complex issues going on. Let's face it, it is almost always about the numbers. Unless you have a published novel or a nobel peace prize you are just a set of numbers to admissions. Maybe a set of numbers they like after reading your PS or resume... but they aren't making the decision off that liking. They are going to make the decision off the numbers 9.9/10 times. And 13/14 times they will favor the "regular" splitter.

You are arguing a point you are wrong on for no apparent reason.

MysticalWheel wrote:Well, I applied to Chicago, but I think I'll go to Harvard or Stanford instead. Columbia is the consolation prize. Also, it seems quite odd to call someone who is relevantly responding with rational argument a flame, especially when you are not part of said argument. Why are you going to law school again?

MW

You are uniformly despised on this forum. Do you not get that? Wait, flame.