Northwestern - Great Experience, Low (for them) Numbers Forum

[username99]

I would love to go to Northwestern and have work experience that I'm sure they would value. My numbers, though, are low for the school, but I've been waitlisted at other T-14's. How much can my work experience raise my value to the admissions office?

[hokie]

Seeing as WE is pretty much a requirement at NW, I can't fathom that having extensive and/or intriguing will be a large enough impact to make up for GPA/LSAT that fall below their medians (unless of course, your WE is TRULY awesome like being an astronaut)---meaning since over 90% of the students have at least 1 yr of WE, yours is going to need to stand out

[im_blue]

You'll need a 3.8+ or 170+ to have any chance at NU regardless of WE, especially without ED.

[CanadianWolf]

Depends upon your actual numbers & type of work experience that you think might overshadow low numbers.

[username99]

Depends upon your actual numbers & type of work experience that you think might overshadow low numbers.

167/3.48ish...

[CanadianWolf]

That addresses two of the three issues. What type of work experience ? Your numbers are low for Northwestern, but not impossible if your other factors are compelling. Nevertheless, your chances are well below average for NU unless you are an URM with work experience, in my opinion.

[whymeohgodno]

Depends upon your actual numbers & type of work experience that you think might overshadow low numbers.

167/3.48ish...

Unless you get a 170+ you have no shot. Maybe a 169 will give you a slight hope.

[username99]

Thanks all. I think my LSAT-taking days are behind me. My practice scores were in the low 170s but both this time and last time (many years ago) I scored lower than my practices. I'm not ready to go through the whole test thing again only to get a similar score. I'm cool with mine. My GPA is what it is..bad grades during freshman year almost a decade ago. I'm hoping schools will take it for what it is, which surprisingly has happened in my cycle so far.

[im_blue]

Thanks all. I think my LSAT-taking days are behind me. My practice scores were in the low 170s but both this time and last time (many years ago) I scored lower than my practices. I'm not ready to go through the whole test thing again only to get a similar score. I'm cool with mine. My GPA is what it is..bad grades during freshman year almost a decade ago. I'm hoping schools will take it for what it is, which surprisingly has happened in my cycle so far.

T14 isn't happening with your numbers. I'd suggest aiming for the following schools, of which you should get into several.

167 median: UT, GW, USC, WUSTL, Illinois, Minnesota, ND
166 median: Fordham, BU, BC

[username99]

Thanks. Already been waitlisted and deferred at T-14s and in at some of those you mentioned.

[Perch]

I don't want to hijack the thread but I also didn't want to make more or less an identical one.

With a 3.8x and 166 (retake) LSAT, is it even worth flying to Chicago to interview?

thanks for any and all opinions.

[whymeohgodno]

I don't want to hijack the thread but I also didn't want to make more or less an identical one.

With a 3.8x and 166 (retake) LSAT, is it even worth flying to Chicago to interview? If I don't interview I wouldn't even apply. Work experience is interned at a law firm under a former federal judge, then worked on a political campaign.

thanks for any and all opinions.

Did you ED? Maybe with a higher end of a 3.8x GPA you might have a shot.

[Perch]

I don't want to hijack the thread but I also didn't want to make more or less an identical one.

With a 3.8x and 166 (retake) LSAT, is it even worth flying to Chicago to interview?

thanks for any and all opinions.

Did you ED? Maybe with a higher end of a 3.8x GPA you might have a shot.

nope no ED, and low end of 3.8, so just over median.

[whymeohgodno]

I don't want to hijack the thread but I also didn't want to make more or less an identical one.

With a 3.8x and 166 (retake) LSAT, is it even worth flying to Chicago to interview? If I don't interview I wouldn't even apply. Work experience is interned at a law firm under a former federal judge, then worked on a political campaign.

thanks for any and all opinions.

Did you ED? Maybe with a higher end of a 3.8x GPA you might have a shot.

nope no ED, and low end of 3.8, so just over median.

I personally wouldn't waste the $ but people have told me I'm too pessimistic...

[glewz]

You'll need a 3.8+ or 170+ to have any chance at NU regardless of WE, especially without ED.

This is not true at all...The whole point of announcing statistics is to show the spread of a school's historic admissions. And in no way are NU's historic admissions indicating that you "need a 3.8+ or 170+ to have any chance at NU."

25% = 3.4, 75% = 3.8
25% = 166, 75%= 171

When interpreting stats like those, it is not an "either, or" game, and an applicant's profile needs to be evaluated holistically.

If anything, NU has in the past put preference on those with work experience - many types of WE suffice, and it is up to the applicant to demonstrate his/her distinguishing characteristics.

[glewz]

Depends upon your actual numbers & type of work experience that you think might overshadow low numbers.

167/3.48ish...

Unless you get a 170+ you have no shot. Maybe a 169 will give you a slight hope.

Exaggeration I think... don't be too discouraged by this statement. Honestly, you have a lower chance of getting in, but it's not true that "you have no shot."

Why don't you look at the spread of numbers for diff. schools and evaluate it for yourself. Depending on your other softs (e.g. where you attending school, how compelling your WE is, etc.), you can find out whether you truly qualify to apply or not.

[im_blue]

You'll need a 3.8+ or 170+ to have any chance at NU regardless of WE, especially without ED.

This is not true at all...The whole point of announcing statistics is to show the spread of a school's historic admissions. And in no way are NU's historic admissions indicating that you "need a 3.8+ or 170+ to have any chance at NU."

25% = 3.4, 75% = 3.8
25% = 166, 75%= 171

When interpreting stats like those, it is not an "either, or" game, and an applicant's profile needs to be evaluated holistically.

If anything, NU has in the past put preference on those with work experience - many types of WE suffice, and it is up to the applicant to demonstrate his/her distinguishing characteristics.

1) Medians matter, not 25th/75th.

2) Almost without exception, numbers below both medians are auto-rejects. NU's medians were 3.72/170 last cycle. If you look at LSN results, they took only 1 applicant out of about 70 who did not have either a 3.72+ or 170+, and that was obviously a special case who also got into Chicago. The cycle before that, they rejected every single one of the 100+ such applicants.

3) NU claims to have 3.8/170 medians this year, although I suspect that it's really 3.75 rounded up to 3.8, since they took a few 3.75+/168-169s. So if you don't have either a 3.75+ or 170+, almost no amount of softs can get you in.

[glewz]

You'll need a 3.8+ or 170+ to have any chance at NU regardless of WE, especially without ED.

This is not true at all...The whole point of announcing statistics is to show the spread of a school's historic admissions. And in no way are NU's historic admissions indicating that you "need a 3.8+ or 170+ to have any chance at NU."

25% = 3.4, 75% = 3.8
25% = 166, 75%= 171

When interpreting stats like those, it is not an "either, or" game, and an applicant's profile needs to be evaluated holistically.

If anything, NU has in the past put preference on those with work experience - many types of WE suffice, and it is up to the applicant to demonstrate his/her distinguishing characteristics.

1) Medians matter, not 25th/75th.

2) Almost without exception, numbers below both medians are auto-rejects. NU's medians were 3.72/170 last cycle. If you look at LSN results, they took only 1 applicant out of about 70 who did not have either a 3.72+ or 170+, and that was obviously a special case who also got into Chicago. The cycle before that, they rejected every single one of the 100+ such applicants.

3) NU claims to have 3.8/170 medians this year, although I suspect that it's really 3.75 rounded up to 3.8, since they took a few 3.75+/168-169s. So if you don't have either a 3.75+ or 170+, almost no amount of softs can get you in.

1. "Medians matter, not 25th/75th" implies that only one of the three statistics counts. The whole point schools of publishing 3 numbers and not just the median is to provide a spread of scores. Depending on your other softs, Many people (not just 1) get in with below-median stats.

2. Self-reported statistics (as on LSN) give a general idea on admissions, but I think you and I (and anyone else) will agree that these numbers are not the hard facts. NU extended 952 offers of admission, and even in the unlikely case that we can consider your 70 LSN reportings accurate, that leaves 882 offers of admission unaccounted for.

3. Yeah...if you're really gonna make such a cold-cut statement "You'll need a 3.8+ or 170+ to have any chance," you need to consider so many factors, none of which we know about. To list a few:
- Changes in admissions cycles (fewer projected apps this year)
- Extracurriculars/WE
- Difficulty of major/school
- Extraneous circumstances
- Ethnicity
- Essays
- Reader(s) of OP's application

One thing I am sure of is that we as a TLS community should not be writing things like "no chance" or "don't even try for it" when published statistics show direct evidence that NU has taken lower # applicants.