Top Law Schools

i just saw on LSN that a school that i got waitlisted at a person with a sub 3.0 gpa got in because their LSAT was 3 points higher

I dont understand how lsat can be such a great indicator of success in law school if people who cant even get/maintain a relatively easy gpa like a 3.0

The lsat puts certain people in a hole that is completely unjust. I work full time and go to school fulltime with a 3.7 gpa, yet because this person had the time to take 50 practice tests they show more potential then me? the lsat does not show any kind of real intelligence other then when you originally take and you get your diagnostic score. The rest of it is merely taking a million tests in order to do well on it.

sorry for the rage just things like this are a tad unfair

Meh, few people prove significantly past their diagnostic anyway. Plenty of people do well without taking 50 practice tests.

i would say that if someone has the time and resources, increasing 10-12 points is usually the norm, which makes the difference between 160-170

Oh please. GPA is no more meaningful. Grading standards vary substantially between professors, institutions and years. As does the competition. And what about folks who washed out of e.g. premed vs. people who went with joke GPA-inflating majors from their first semester?

And that guy's admit doesn't have to be because of his LSAT. It could be because he applied earlier, had better softs, was more diverse, had better reccs, was a legacy, or any combination thereof.

unless this person went to an ivy league school, then i mean comon.....
the people who take the hardest majors do not typically apply to law school but it is a huge mash of mostly, history, poly sci, and other majors in this area

So maybe this dude was in a crazy major?

question231 wrote:i just saw on LSN that a school that i got waitlisted at a person with a sub 3.0 gpa got in because their LSAT was 3 points higher

I dont understand how lsat can be such a great indicator of success in law school if people who cant even get/maintain a relatively easy gpa like a 3.0

The lsat puts certain people in a hole that is completely unjust. I work full time and go to school fulltime with a 3.7 gpa, yet because this person had the time to take 50 practice tests they show more potential then me? the lsat does not show any kind of real intelligence other then when you originally take and you get your diagnostic score. The rest of it is merely taking a million tests in order to do well on it.

sorry for the rage just things like this are a tad unfair

Retake

Lol

question231 wrote:i would say that if someone has the time and resources, increasing 10-12 points is usually the norm, which makes the difference between 160-170

If you really think that the LSAT can be moved that much in each direction, and don't have that much free time, then you need to plan. I have friends who started prepping over 9 months in advance. Does it suck that you have a lot on your plate? Yes. But then you complain about how little time you have, not that there is a metric used that you didn't have the time to prepare for. If you were applying to medical school, would you be complaining that people who don't have to work had more time to prep for the MCAT?

You don't know an individual's story. Maybe there was a death in the family. Maybe they dealt with depression. etc.

And sometimes people are just immature. Doesn't mean they don't straighten up and do better later. Keep in mind that LSAC counts ALL college credit grades. My LSAC GPA got dragged down by a college course I took when I was maybe 15 or 16. Some people take time off before applying and really mature in the interim.

im not saying that this particular person doesnt deserve the admission, but when you see extreme splitters getting into t14 schools even when their gpa is around 3.1-3.2 it just doesnt make sense.

if a person doesnt have the ability to do well or the desire to put the time in in order to get an acceptable grade, then how do they deserve these acceptances

question231 wrote:im not saying that this particular person doesnt deserve the admission, but when you see extreme splitters getting into t14 schools even when their gpa is around 3.1-3.2 it just doesnt make sense.

if a person doesnt have the ability to do well or the desire to put the time in in order to get an acceptable grade, then how do they deserve these acceptances

I'm under the impression that Northwestern, UVa, and GTown are the only T14s that accept that, and only with an ED commitment. There are several such splitters on TLS here who are doing fine in law school. Like I said, sometimes some people grow up late.

ETA: I have no real dog in this fight. I am not a splitter. Just making a point.

question231 wrote:im not saying that this particular person doesnt deserve the admission, but when you see extreme splitters getting into t14 schools even when their gpa is around 3.1-3.2 it just doesnt make sense.

if a person doesnt have the ability to do well or the desire to put the time in in order to get an acceptable grade, then how do they deserve these acceptances

I agree, dude, this is a huge injustice. You should probably contact those people who spend 40 hours a week making admissions decisions and ask them how they overlooked such an obvious point.

question231 wrote:im not saying that this particular person doesnt deserve the admission, but when you see extreme splitters getting into t14 schools even when their gpa is around 3.1-3.2 it just doesnt make sense.

if a person doesnt have the ability to do well or the desire to put the time in in order to get an acceptable grade, then how do they deserve these acceptances

I understand your frustration but there is no way to tell whether a person who got a 3.1 "doesn't have the ability to do well or the desire to get acceptable grades" GPA is not a total indicator of someone's ability! I did not work as hard for my 3.7 as my biochem major friends did for their 3.3s

Like was mentioned earlier, people make mistakes as well. I don't think mistakes made when someone was 18 should affect their career prospects for the rest of their life.

Can't you echo that statement for the lsat?

question231 wrote: if a person doesnt have the ability to do well or the desire to put the time in in order to get an acceptable LSAT, then how do they deserve these acceptances

question231 wrote:im not saying that this particular person doesnt deserve the admission, but when you see extreme splitters getting into t14 schools even when their gpa is around 3.1-3.2 it just doesnt make sense.

if a person doesnt have the ability to do well or the desire to put the time in in order to get an acceptable grade, then how do they deserve these acceptances

Honestly man, grow up. I have a friend who did engineering and his class was curved to a 2.6 or something. Are you telling me his 3.2 is less deserving then a 3.7 in some social science? Give me a break.

not really, i had to start working full time in order to help my family due to one of my parents losing their job, added on with actually trying to keep and maintain my gpa, there wasnt as much time

and the lsat is one test....3.5 hours... your gpa reflects your ability during a 4 year period, with a lot of different grades and classes

This topic is lulz. You are not the first person to think of this. In fact, the stats show that LSAT score is a much better (albeit still pretty bad) predictor of success in law school than UG GPA is. So whatever you can say about how they overrate the LSAT, even more can be said about GPA.

Edited to make sense.

How do you know this person didn't have some killer softs and/or work experience?

im not singling out this one applicant, but just using them to show what i think is a problem.
there are plenty of splitters that do a lot better then any reverse splitters which i dont understand

the lsat is about skills. if it's only after targeted practice that you manage to hone those skills, that doesn't make you less worthy of admission than someone who acquired them more organically through other activities that involve logic and analysis. the point is that you'll have the skills on day one of law school.

question231 wrote:im not singling out this one applicant, but just using them to show what i think is a problem.
there are plenty of splitters that do a lot better then any reverse splitters which i dont understand

Just my 2 cents but, grades in undergrad are more a measure of work ethic than intelligence, if you work really fuckin hard and take the right classes you will definitely get a 3.5+, but with the lsat there is more of a ceiling, some people could study the lsat for like 2 years and never break 170

question231 wrote:unless this person went to an ivy league school, then i mean comon.....
the people who take the hardest majors do not typically apply to law school but it is a huge mash of mostly, history, poly sci, and other majors in this area

Plenty of hard science and engineering majors go to law school. Where do you think all those IP lawyers come from?

Flanker1067 wrote:This topic is lulz. You are not the first person to think of this. In fact, the stats show that LSAT score is a much better (albeit still pretty bad) predictor of success in law school than UG GPA is. So whatever you can say about how they overrate the LSAT, even more can be said about GPA.

Edited to make sense.

You're right that LSAT is more closely correlated (~0.4) than GPA (~0.3). That said, both of these correlations are not bad by any means. For a real-world system as complex and randomized as law school grades, 0.4 is a strong factor.

Picture shamelessly stolen from wikipedia to show what 0.4 looks like:

i dont think the lsat is useless at all and i definitely understand why it is important, i just think there should be more of a balance rather then what the current system allows

Also, I know I am beating a dead horse at this point but you are an idiot if you spent more time trying to get good grades for a semester than studying for the lsat. Do two minutes of research and you can find out how much more important it is. You should have taken a bad grade or two to free up time to do those 50 practice tests. That's what the schools expect.

question231 wrote:i dont think the lsat is useless at all and i definitely understand why it is important, i just think there should be more of a balance rather then what the current system allows

GPA isn't a great measure as it differs by the school/classes you took/major, there needs to be some sort of equalizer, plus some people went to schools that don't have GPAs