Top Law Schools

3.72/174 (1 lsat only)

and

3.72/174 (the 3rd lsat after 2 in the mid 160s)

in the way schools like

HYS
CCN
MVP

will look at the applicant...

retake

Sandro777 wrote:retake

i hope your not seriouS..

Why does it matter?

JD=Doctor wrote:3.72/174 (1 lsat only)

and

3.72/174 (the 3rd lsat after 2 in the mid 160s)

in the way schools like

HYS
CCN
MVP

will look at the applicant...

MVP won't care and will accept them both.
CCN won't really care unless it NYU which averages them.
HYS would select the first one over the second if they had to pick between the two.

bk187 wrote:Why does it matter?

because i would have 2 similar lower scores and one score 6+ points higher and LS' may consider it a fluke.

so even though NYU and CLS medians are 3.71/3.72 172 and i would meet and be above medians how much would the 2 lower scores hurt..

in reality all law schools care about is the numbers they get to report to USNWR, so basically both are the same, unless both applied late in the cycle and the law schools HAD to choose only one. But relax, if those are your numbers, even with retakes, you're in great shape.

SupraVln180 wrote:in reality all law schools care about is the numbers they get to report to USNWR, so basically both are the same, unless both applied late in the cycle and the law schools HAD to choose only one. But relax, if those are your numbers, even with retakes, you're in great shape.

Can someone sue schools for placing so much weight on LSAT scores even over GPA just to look good on a USNWR list? Specifically against state colleges (vs. private ones).

iphone7 wrote:

JD=Doctor wrote:3.72/174 (1 lsat only)

and

3.72/174 (the 3rd lsat after 2 in the mid 160s)

in the way schools like

HYS
CCN
MVP

will look at the applicant...

MVP won't care and will accept them both.
CCN won't really care unless it NYU which averages them.
HYS would select the first one over the second if they had to pick between the two.

+1
Edit: And lulz:

ISTAND wrote:Can someone sue schools for placing so much weight on LSAT scores even over GPA just to look good on a USNWR list? Specifically against state colleges (vs. private ones).

ISTAND wrote:

SupraVln180 wrote:in reality all law schools care about is the numbers they get to report to USNWR, so basically both are the same, unless both applied late in the cycle and the law schools HAD to choose only one. But relax, if those are your numbers, even with retakes, you're in great shape.

Can someone sue schools for placing so much weight on LSAT scores even over GPA just to look good on a USNWR list? Specifically against state colleges (vs. private ones).

Um, no. Good luck arguing that one in court. LSAT is actually a much better standard than GPA, mainly because there are so many random factors that can affect a person's GPA, for example some schools/professors tend to inflate/deflate grades, some fields of study are more difficult than others, and so on.

Also, you always have a chance to retake the LSAT and do better, whereas people generally do not have any chance to "fix" a sub-par GPA by the time they are preparing to apply to law school.

The test is still only about 16% predictive of one's success in law school.

omninode wrote: Um, no. Good luck arguing that one in court. LSAT is actually a much better standard than GPA, mainly because there are so many random factors that can affect a person's GPA, for example some schools/professors tend to inflate/deflate grades, some fields of study are more difficult than others, and so on.

Also, you always have a chance to retake the LSAT and do better, whereas people generally do not have any chance to "fix" a sub-par GPA by the time they are preparing to apply to law school.

Four years worth of classes including objective math, science classes are a better indicator than a test taken in a few hours that requires no studying - I never studied and took it on a fluke yet I know I have a better shot than someone with a 4.0 gpa who scored lower yet studied their ass off in undergrad and is likely smarter than me.

ISTAND wrote:

omninode wrote: Um, no. Good luck arguing that one in court. LSAT is actually a much better standard than GPA, mainly because there are so many random factors that can affect a person's GPA, for example some schools/professors tend to inflate/deflate grades, some fields of study are more difficult than others, and so on.

Also, you always have a chance to retake the LSAT and do better, whereas people generally do not have any chance to "fix" a sub-par GPA by the time they are preparing to apply to law school.

Four years worth of classes including objective math, science classes are a better indicator than a test taken in a few hours that requires no studying - I never studied and took it on a fluke yet I know I have a better shot than someone with a 4.0 gpa who scored lower yet studied their ass off in undergrad and is likely smarter than me.

And this thread is officially derailed circa the always dangerous gpa vs lsat debate.

I'm a relatively new member here so have not come across this debate before and I find it a healthy discussion of something very obvious, not dangerous. At the end of the day students suffer. Schools get prestige picking the high scoring students who don't reflect being the smartest over high gpa students, lsac makes money conducting the tests and selling study guides. Those who studied nonstop for four years to get high gpas yet not as high LSAT compared to the low gpa/high LSAT get kicked to the curb basically.

ISTAND wrote:I'm a relatively new member here so have not come across this debate before and I find it a healthy discussion of something very obvious, not dangerous.

Yea yea yea. The problem isn't the debate itself, but how it quickly decays into a name-calling bitch-fest. It's just funny that it pops up so frequently with each fresh group of 0L/ 1L's, with the same arguments. It's cool. It's just funny.

Basically, the test is not a great indicator of potential (but does show to be better than GRE/GMAT) However, the above posts are credited in that a Theater or Education major with a 3.5 will often be a more competitive applicant than a Biology major with a 3.3, and although not fair, I'm not sure it is going to be changed any time soon. I guess if the question is: Would a school favor an applicant with retakes or the same applicant with a the single, highest score, I guess it is pretty easy, they wouldn't care (at many schools), but probably choose the single tester. I think an addendum can make up any discrepancy though.

For this question to even matter you would have to be identical to the other candidate in every single way. I seriously doubt the one deciding factor is going to be taking the lsat a third time. In that highly unlikely scenario then yes every school would probably take the person who only had to take it once - if that was the ONLY way they had of distinguishing the two candidates and they absolutely only had one spot left.

If you are just asking if it is a big deciding factor. Probably not. Schools get to report the highest.

megaTTTron wrote:

ISTAND wrote:I'm a relatively new member here so have not come across this debate before and I find it a healthy discussion of something very obvious, not dangerous.

Yea yea yea. The problem isn't the debate itself, but how it quickly decays into a name-calling bitch-fest. It's just funny that it pops up so frequently with each fresh group of 0L/ 1L's, with the same arguments. It's cool. It's just funny.

You're the only one name calling and having a problem with it. Did it strike a nerve?

Good point txadv11 though if someone isn't so good in chemistry it's foolish of them to major in it then turn around complaining that their gpa is low. It doesn't mean by default they'd do better in the arts either.

txadv11 wrote:The test is still only about 16% predictive of one's success in law school.

people seem to always forget that while the LSAT is the best single predictor of 1L success out there (not a good one, just the best)...it is an even better predictor in conjunction w/ GPA.

krad wrote:

iphone7 wrote:

JD=Doctor wrote:3.72/174 (1 lsat only)

and

3.72/174 (the 3rd lsat after 2 in the mid 160s)

in the way schools like

HYS
CCN
MVP

will look at the applicant...

MVP won't care and will accept them both.
CCN won't really care unless it NYU which averages them. adding: [but still might not sometimes, they say they do but ive seen applicants get in who would not have otherwise -- ill treat it like HYS, they place emphasis on it]
HYS would select the first one over the second if they had to pick between the two.

+1

oh yeah and uh TCR; /thread

ISTAND wrote:

megaTTTron wrote:

ISTAND wrote:I'm a relatively new member here so have not come across this debate before and I find it a healthy discussion of something very obvious, not dangerous.

Yea yea yea. The problem isn't the debate itself, but how it quickly decays into a name-calling bitch-fest. It's just funny that it pops up so frequently with each fresh group of 0L/ 1L's, with the same arguments. It's cool. It's just funny.

You're the only one name calling and having a problem with it. Did it strike a nerve?

Good point txadv11 though if someone isn't so good in chemistry it's foolish of them to major in it then turn around complaining that their gpa is low. It doesn't mean by default they'd do better in the arts either.

Right, so where did I call someone a name?

I seem to point to this video a bunch, but it REALLY explains things from a expert source.

If you don't have 45 minutes to watch, then just skip to around 15 minutes and listen for a few.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c

ISTAND wrote:I'm a relatively new member here so have not come across this debate before and I find it a healthy discussion of something very obvious, not dangerous. At the end of the day students suffer. Schools get prestige picking the high scoring students who don't reflect being the smartest over high gpa students, lsac makes money conducting the tests and selling study guides. Those who studied nonstop for four years to get high gpas yet not as high LSAT compared to the low gpa/high LSAT get kicked to the curb basically.

As a general rule the prestigious schools pick applicants with both a high GPA and high LSAT. HTH.

ISTAND wrote:I'm a relatively new member here so have not come across this debate before and I find it a healthy discussion of something very obvious, not dangerous. At the end of the day students suffer. Schools get prestige picking the high scoring students who don't reflect being the smartest over high gpa students, lsac makes money conducting the tests and selling study guides. Those who studied nonstop for four years to get high gpas yet not as high LSAT compared to the low gpa/high LSAT get kicked to the curb basically.

dont confuse 'being the smartest' with doing the best during 1L yr.

besides that point, um, are you saying that GPA is a better measure of 'smarts' than the LSAT is? lol even if you factor in preptests (available and cheap enough to all), courses (only some can afford), testing anxiety, etc., the fact that virtually any liberal arts degree is good enough for law school...makes GPA being a stronger predictor laughable. way too much variability. getting a high GPA is A school with ANY major is too easy.

sure if adcomms could distinguish between programs/majors at all the schools, then it'd be a lot more viable...but they dont have the time or ability to do so.

ISTAND wrote:

SupraVln180 wrote:in reality all law schools care about is the numbers they get to report to USNWR, so basically both are the same, unless both applied late in the cycle and the law schools HAD to choose only one. But relax, if those are your numbers, even with retakes, you're in great shape.

Can someone sue schools for placing so much weight on LSAT scores even over GPA just to look good on a USNWR list? Specifically against state colleges (vs. private ones).

lol