Top Law Schools

FML. I could have used some of that much-touted grade inflation. Apparently going to a private school could pretty readily have meant an extra .2 on the old GPA. Lesson for law school applicants: spend early, spend often, because USNWR rankings don't give a shit how much your $40k/year private undergrad institution inflated its grades.

Before anyone says public schools are shittier, consider how many god fucking awful private schools there are.

On the flip side, I would never be able to afford law school if I went to a private institution.

softsgalore wrote:


FML. I could have used some of that much-touted grade inflation. Apparently going to a private school could pretty readily have meant an extra .2 on the old GPA. Lesson for law school applicants: spend early, spend often, because USNWR rankings don't give a shit how much your $40k/year private undergrad institution inflated its grades.

It's not that serious. A 3.8 and 3.82 doesn't make a difference. Plus, public colleges are way cheaper.

My public undergrad education has included profs who have helped and encouraged my research activities, and I've presented solo papers at a few conferences because of it. I've actually attended classes at both private and public liberal arts colleges, and the private schools had easier grading by quite a bit.

Sanjola, that's a .2, not a .02. As in, the difference between a 3.5 and a 3.7. A whoooole lot of law schools look a lot differently at a 3.7 than a 3.5.

RPK34 wrote:On the flip side, I would never be able to afford law school if I went to a private institution.

TCR for law school admission is going to a private school on merit scholarship.

sanjola wrote:

softsgalore wrote:


FML. I could have used some of that much-touted grade inflation. Apparently going to a private school could pretty readily have meant an extra .2 on the old GPA. Lesson for law school applicants: spend early, spend often, because USNWR rankings don't give a shit how much your $40k/year private undergrad institution inflated its grades.

It's not that serious. A 3.8 and 3.82 doesn't make a difference. Plus, public colleges are way cheaper.

SERIOUSLY???????????????????????? I bet u went to private college

GPA should count for half as much as it does now in admissions. 75% LSAT 25% GPA.

Those numbers don't surprise me. Still glad I went to a public school, though, because it didn't take very long to realize my undergrad education was going to have very little to do with facilities, professors, or tuition and more to do with my own willingness and desire to read/understand the material. My SEC school was essentially free for me to attend.

As stupid as it is to spend $40k+ on undergraduate education, though, there are plenty of people paying near that to send their kids to HIGH SCHOOL. Now that's just insane.

Sandro777 wrote:GPA should count for half as much as it does now in admissions. 75% LSAT 25% GPA.

IMO GPA should be heavily weighed but in a more subjective fashion. There shouldn't be a LSAC gpa. If some guy goes 2.0, 2.5, 3.5 , 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0 a school should be allowed to consider his record. Instead LSAC makes that a 3.4.

Trying to turn GPA into an objective universal measure is silly.

Sandro777 wrote:GPA should count for half as much as it does now in admissions. 75% LSAT 25% GPA.

word, who needs worth ethic?????? amirite????

Yeah at my public school it costs me $3500 a semester in tuition. I also contend there are fewer people really gunning for grades here than at the private school I attended previously and there is a loose curve making earning high grades about the same difficulty.

If you are smart, you will do well no matter where you go. One of my biggest regrets is not going to a public undergrad and saving a lot of money. If you are going to law school, then where you went to undergrad is especially irrelevant.

Desert Fox wrote:

Sandro777 wrote:GPA should count for half as much as it does now in admissions. 75% LSAT 25% GPA.

IMO GPA should be heavily weighed but in a more subjective fashion. There shouldn't be a LSAC gpa. If some guy goes 2.0, 2.5, 3.5 , 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0 a school should be allowed to consider his record. Instead LSAC makes that a 3.4.

Trying to turn GPA into an objective universal measure is silly.

Agreed. Although I'm biased because I had similar predicament, but will still finish with around a 3.8, luckily.

Desert Fox wrote:

Sandro777 wrote:GPA should count for half as much as it does now in admissions. 75% LSAT 25% GPA.

IMO GPA should be heavily weighed but in a more subjective fashion. There shouldn't be a LSAC gpa. If some guy goes 2.0, 2.5, 3.5 , 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0 a school should be allowed to consider his record. Instead LSAC makes that a 3.4.

Trying to turn GPA into an objective universal measure is silly.

I have never understood why wasting yourself away for a year or two should be acceptable, as long as you start taking things seriously at the end. Someone who goes 2.0, 2.5, 3.5, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0 deserves to be seen as a 3.4. That's what they did.

I went to public. Very cheap, but not a whole lot of prestige.

If you want to discount bad performances in the first 2 years, then you need to reward people who didn't do bad. So in effect you should give 4.3 to people who has a 4.0 under the current system but bump the 3.4 with bad first year into a 3.8. Right?

TheTallOne0602 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Sandro777 wrote:GPA should count for half as much as it does now in admissions. 75% LSAT 25% GPA.

IMO GPA should be heavily weighed but in a more subjective fashion. There shouldn't be a LSAC gpa. If some guy goes 2.0, 2.5, 3.5 , 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0 a school should be allowed to consider his record. Instead LSAC makes that a 3.4.

Trying to turn GPA into an objective universal measure is silly.

I have never understood why wasting yourself away for a year or two should be acceptable, as long as you start taking things seriously at the end. Someone who goes 2.0, 2.5, 3.5, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0 deserves to be seen as a 3.4. That's what they did.

Law schools use GPA/LSAT metrics to (ostensibly) determine how likely a candidate is to succeed. The string of 4.0 semesters that this hypothetical person put together shows that he is able to sustain a work ethic and succeed academically. The prior bad grades show he was being an idiot and screwing around.

Replace GPA with rank in major.

That is all.

0LNewbie wrote:
Law schools use GPA/LSAT metrics to (ostensibly) determine how likely a candidate is to succeed. The string of 4.0 semesters that this hypothetical person put together shows that he is able to sustain a work ethic and succeed academically. The prior bad grades show he was being an idiot and screwing around.

The 3.4 is used to differentiate people who screwed around from people who are equally able to succeed but didn't screw around.

There is a problem with the way people typically interpret this sort of data but I dont have the energy to explain why..

Also, I went something like 2.85, 2.7, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 3.95 and I have no regrets. Had a lot of fun... sure it might keep me out of Stanford but it is what it is.

TheTallOne0602 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Sandro777 wrote:GPA should count for half as much as it does now in admissions. 75% LSAT 25% GPA.

IMO GPA should be heavily weighed but in a more subjective fashion. There shouldn't be a LSAC gpa. If some guy goes 2.0, 2.5, 3.5 , 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0 a school should be allowed to consider his record. Instead LSAC makes that a 3.4.

Trying to turn GPA into an objective universal measure is silly.

I have never understood why wasting yourself away for a year or two should be acceptable, as long as you start taking things seriously at the end. Someone who goes 2.0, 2.5, 3.5, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0 deserves to be seen as a 3.4. That's what they did.

Except that this is supposedly gauging academic potential. That GPA split shows to me someone who screwed around their first 2 years of college and then became serious about their academics. LS admissions isn't supposed to be a referendum on 19 year old immaturity; it's supposed to be about assembling a diverse and capable class. Assume that those 4.0s came in his upper level courses, then try to tell me that this individual is equal to someone who went 3.4 every semester and got the same LSAT. The constant 3.4 shows me that that's what he is. At least you know the late bloomer has the potential to get a 4.0 - you don't know that about the 3.4.

androstan wrote:Replace GPA with rank in major.

That is all.

What if you go to a crappy or small program?

r6_philly wrote:

0LNewbie wrote:
Law schools use GPA/LSAT metrics to (ostensibly) determine how likely a candidate is to succeed. The string of 4.0 semesters that this hypothetical person put together shows that he is able to sustain a work ethic and succeed academically. The prior bad grades show he was being an idiot and screwing around.

The 3.4 is used to differentiate people who screwed around from people who are equally able to succeed but didn't screw around.

And I'm positing that, for the purpose of determining the likelihood of a candidate's success, that differentiation isn't very useful.

Kabuo wrote:

TheTallOne0602 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Sandro777 wrote:GPA should count for half as much as it does now in admissions. 75% LSAT 25% GPA.

IMO GPA should be heavily weighed but in a more subjective fashion. There shouldn't be a LSAC gpa. If some guy goes 2.0, 2.5, 3.5 , 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0 a school should be allowed to consider his record. Instead LSAC makes that a 3.4.

Trying to turn GPA into an objective universal measure is silly.

I have never understood why wasting yourself away for a year or two should be acceptable, as long as you start taking things seriously at the end. Someone who goes 2.0, 2.5, 3.5, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0, 4.0 deserves to be seen as a 3.4. That's what they did.

Except that this is supposedly gauging academic potential. That GPA split shows to me someone who screwed around their first 2 years of college and then became serious about their academics. LS admissions isn't supposed to be a referendum on 19 year old immaturity; it's supposed to be about assembling a diverse and capable class. Assume that those 4.0s came in his upper level courses, then try to tell me that this individual is equal to someone who went 3.4 every semester and got the same LSAT. The constant 3.4 shows me that that's what he is. At least you know the late bloomer has the potential to get a 4.0 - you don't know that about the 3.4.

He said it real good.