Top Law Schools

I am 28. I finished undergrad in 2006. Since then, I've earned an MA (in education) with a grad gpa of 3.99. I've been teaching English in the inner city for 4 years, and I'm now the English department chair at my school. By many objective measures, I have been very successful at my job, and I've even earned our school some high-profile media exposure for our test scores and dramatic increases in achievement.

Here's my question:

How much will "soft" factors such as those described above impact an application that is "on the brink?"

My hard numbers should look something like this:
LSAT- 160-163 (projected score)
Undergrad GPA- 3.3 (UCI)

My soft factors include:
-MA in Education (USC), 3.99 gpa.
-4 years hs teaching experience with leadership positions.
-Internship at public defender's office (in 2007).
-Strong LOR's (validating claims made above).

Assuming I have a personal statement that is great (stands out, well-written, high above average), what are my chances at the following schools, and to what extent would the "soft" factors affect my acceptance?

Loyola
Hastings
UCI
UCLA

I know hard numbers determine almost everything, but does the fact that I have a track record of real-world success change anything? How would I fare in a pool of new undergraduates with no real-world experience, but slightly higher hard numbers?

you will be above-average among applicants with 3.3 gpas and no lsat scores

From what I've gathered here on TLS, softs won't do much for you unless you cured AIDS or were a contestant on the Bachelorette

Softs are like filler: one needs them, but by themselves they aren't worth much.

Your UGPA is low and, therefore, you have to score better than in the low 160s in the LSAT to make law school worthwhile. Focus on improving your LSAT score.

If you're on the brink, then yes it will help. But to get to that point aim for the highest LSAT score you can achieve.

cinephile wrote:If you're on the brink, then yes it will help. But to get to that point aim for the highest LSAT score you can achieve.

Thank you. My question is related specifically to schools where I'd have a "shot," but not a great one. For example, by some projections, an applicant with my same gpa and a 161 has about a 5.26% chance of getting into Hastings (about 1/18). That's not a great shot, but apparently these schools DO occasionally accept people who are demonstrably competent/intelligent yet did not "slay" the LSAT. If softs make a difference in that scenario, would mine make me competitive?

P.S.- I know there are people who are children of politicians, and people who performed some one-in-a-million tasks. I mean on average.

If you could aquirea Nobel Prize, it might help some.

3v3ryth1ng wrote:My soft factors include:
-MA in Education (USC), 3.99 gpa.
-4 years hs teaching experience with leadership positions.
-Internship at public defender's office (in 2007).
-Strong LOR's (validating claims made above).

Your softs are strong indeed.

3v3ryth1ng wrote:My question is related specifically to schools where I'd have a "shot," but not a great one. For example, by some projections, an applicant with my same gpa and a 161 has about a 5.26% chance of getting into Hastings (about 1/18). That's not a great shot, but apparently these schools DO occasionally accept people who are demonstrably competent/intelligent yet did not "slay" the LSAT. If softs make a difference in that scenario, would mine make me competitive?

But I don't think they are as strong as to get into Hastings with a 3.3/161.

bport hopeful wrote:If you could aquirea Nobel Prize, it might help some.

No Nobel winning laureate would waste his/her time on law school.

scammedhard wrote: Your softs are strong indeed.
But I don't think they are as strong as to get into Hastings with a 3.3/161.

Again, thank you for your insight, because I was seriously asking this question.

So, what are some practical things I could do in the mean time to help my application become what you would consider strong? I'm not applying for a few more months.

To the other guy: yes, if I were a nobel laureate that might change things. But if I go that route, why don't I just become president instead? I mean, since we're talking about realistic possibilities and all...

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

scammedhard wrote: Your softs are strong indeed.
But I don't think they are as strong as to get into Hastings with a 3.3/161.

Again, thank you for your insight, because I was seriously asking this question.

So, what are some practical things I could do in the mean time to help my application become what you would consider strong? I'm not applying for a few more months.

To the other guy: yes, if I were a nobel laureate that might change things. But if I go that route, why don't I just become president instead? I mean, since we're talking about realistic possibilities and all...

The honest answer to your question is retake. Thats not me being an asshole, but if you want to make your app stronger, thats what you should do.

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

scammedhard wrote: Your softs are strong indeed.
But I don't think they are as strong as to get into Hastings with a 3.3/161.

Again, thank you for your insight, because I was seriously asking this question.

So, what are some practical things I could do in the mean time to help my application become what you would consider strong? I'm not applying for a few more months.

To the other guy: yes, if I were a nobel laureate that might change things. But if I go that route, why don't I just become president instead? I mean, since we're talking about realistic possibilities and all...

A better LSAT is truly the only thing that can do much for you. You have the life experience that schools look for in a non-trad applicant; now you need the numbers to match. It's gonna be tough to get into California schools with a lower gpa, but if you want any shot, you need a goo LSAT score.

ebo wrote:From what I've gathered here on TLS, softs won't do much for you unless you cured AIDS or were a contestant on the Bachelorette

Jersey Shore character is also credited. Seriously, one of them was in a class taught by a Manhattan LSAT tutor.

bport hopeful wrote:

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

scammedhard wrote: Your softs are strong indeed.
But I don't think they are as strong as to get into Hastings with a 3.3/161.

Again, thank you for your insight, because I was seriously asking this question.

So, what are some practical things I could do in the mean time to help my application become what you would consider strong? I'm not applying for a few more months.

To the other guy: yes, if I were a nobel laureate that might change things. But if I go that route, why don't I just become president instead? I mean, since we're talking about realistic possibilities and all...

The honest answer to your question is retake. Thats not me being an asshole, but if you want to make your app stronger, thats what you should do.

Thanks Well then I'll cross my fingers that it came out on the high end of my range (worst case 160, possibly as high as 166). 2 more weeks!

Thanks to anyone who chimed in.

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

bport hopeful wrote:

3v3ryth1ng wrote:

scammedhard wrote: Your softs are strong indeed.
But I don't think they are as strong as to get into Hastings with a 3.3/161.

Again, thank you for your insight, because I was seriously asking this question.

So, what are some practical things I could do in the mean time to help my application become what you would consider strong? I'm not applying for a few more months.

To the other guy: yes, if I were a nobel laureate that might change things. But if I go that route, why don't I just become president instead? I mean, since we're talking about realistic possibilities and all...

The honest answer to your question is retake. Thats not me being an asshole, but if you want to make your app stronger, thats what you should do.

Thanks Well then I'll cross my fingers that it came out on the high end of my range (worst case 160, possibly as high as 166). 2 more weeks!

Thanks to anyone who chimed in.

Good luck and join us in October if it doesn't go as well as needed!

3v3ryth1ng wrote: Thank you. My question is related specifically to schools where I'd have a "shot," but not a great one. For example, by some projections, an applicant with my same gpa and a 161 has about a 5.26% chance of getting into Hastings (about 1/18). That's not a great shot, but apparently these schools DO occasionally accept people who are demonstrably competent/intelligent yet did not "slay" the LSAT. If softs make a difference in that scenario, would mine make me competitive?

They accept black people with those numbers.

3v3ryth1ng wrote:I am 28. I finished undergrad in 2006. Since then, I've earned an MA (in education) with a grad gpa of 3.99. I've been teaching English in the inner city for 4 years, and I'm now the English department chair at my school. By many objective measures, I have been very successful at my job, and I've even earned our school some high-profile media exposure for our test scores and dramatic increases in achievement.

Here's my question:

How much will "soft" factors such as those described above impact an application that is "on the brink?"

My hard numbers should look something like this:
LSAT- 160-163 (projected score)
Undergrad GPA- 3.3 (UCI)

My soft factors include:
-MA in Education (USC), 3.99 gpa.
-4 years hs teaching experience with leadership positions.
-Internship at public defender's office (in 2007).
-Strong LOR's (validating claims made above).

Assuming I have a personal statement that is great (stands out, well-written, high above average), what are my chances at the following schools, and to what extent would the "soft" factors affect my acceptance?

Loyola
Hastings
UCI
UCLA

I know hard numbers determine almost everything, but does the fact that I have a track record of real-world success change anything? How would I fare in a pool of new undergraduates with no real-world experience, but slightly higher hard numbers?

I strongly believe that softs only come into play once your numbers are at or near a school's medians. Also, your graduate GPA is a non-factor as far as I know. UG only.

If you can get a 170+ it will be a game changer. TLSers this year got into T6 schools with GPAs around yours and 170+ on the LSAT.

Curious as to why you want to leave your current job? From what you write it seems that you are good at what you do and what you do is certainly really worthwhile.

Rock-N-Roll wrote:

3v3ryth1ng wrote:I am 28. I finished undergrad in 2006. Since then, I've earned an MA (in education) with a grad gpa of 3.99. I've been teaching English in the inner city for 4 years, and I'm now the English department chair at my school. By many objective measures, I have been very successful at my job, and I've even earned our school some high-profile media exposure for our test scores and dramatic increases in achievement.

Here's my question:

How much will "soft" factors such as those described above impact an application that is "on the brink?"

My hard numbers should look something like this:
LSAT- 160-163 (projected score)
Undergrad GPA- 3.3 (UCI)

My soft factors include:
-MA in Education (USC), 3.99 gpa.
-4 years hs teaching experience with leadership positions.
-Internship at public defender's office (in 2007).
-Strong LOR's (validating claims made above).

Assuming I have a personal statement that is great (stands out, well-written, high above average), what are my chances at the following schools, and to what extent would the "soft" factors affect my acceptance?

Loyola
Hastings
UCI
UCLA

I know hard numbers determine almost everything, but does the fact that I have a track record of real-world success change anything? How would I fare in a pool of new undergraduates with no real-world experience, but slightly higher hard numbers?

I strongly believe that softs only come into play once your numbers are at or near a school's medians. Also, your graduate GPA is a non-factor as far as I know. UG only.

If you can get a 170+ it will be a game changer. TLSers this year got into T6 schools with GPAs around yours and 170+ on the LSAT.

Curious as to why you want to leave your current job? From what you write it seems that you are good at what you do and what you do is certainly really worthwhile.

I love my job, and the years I've spent here are absolutely irreplaceable. However, it's an extremely emotionally taxing job that cuts deeply into my personal life. After so many years of dealing with students, once can become "burned out." However, effective teaching requires 100% passion at all times. I just can't have the same passion for the class of 2018 the same way I had passion for 2012. Further, the stress of being responsible for the order of an otherwise rambunctious group of young individuals can, at times, make one want to quit on the spot. It's also extremely political- my every action is thoroughly reviewed, assessed, commented upon and debated by all interested parties. If I succeed, the praise is short-lived. If I ever fail, the humiliation will be extremely public and the shame will be permanent. The pay isn't too great for the workload, but it's also being cut every year. Add in the commute, gas prices, the cost of living, students getting shot, getting cursed out by parents...
It's not sustainable for me. These years are very special, and I need to keep them special quitting before I end up hating this job.

As for law, intellectually, it makes sense. I could be a great lawyer. I've wanted to be a public defender for a long time. I know exactly what they do (I was there for 10 months as an intern), and I know I could do it well. I just need to get there. Could I get burned out on public defense? Yes, quite possibly. It's not as stressful as teaching though, I know for a fact, so the chances are slimmer. I will cross that bridge when I get there, as it's at least 4 years away.

Speaking as someone who is in a boat similar to yours - 3.3 UGPA, relatively low LSAT score (although I hope yours is better than mine), but with two grad degrees in the humanities and 4 years experience as an adjunct instructor at a community college, I found softs to be helpful in the admissions process. I was admitted to a school or two where I was under both medians. I was awarded scholarships at all but the highest ranked school to which I was admitted, including some where my LSAT was just at the median. Admittedly, virtually all of these schools were T2 but I was heavily recruited by a number of these schools and was successful in negotiating away any stipulations on my scholarship at the school I will be attending in the fall. So some will say that softs aren't worth very much, but I believe that if they're unique enough, they're worth something.

softs do help, but you should definitely aim high on the LSAT. i was just accepted off the waitlist at University of Chicago with a 171 (retake) and a GPA way below their median. i think my softs were definitely what got me in (no nobel prize but 10+ years out of undergrad with a masters degree, and really cool domestic and international work experience, including senior leadership positions) but i'm sure they wouldn't have even considered my app unless i had at least one of my hard numbers within their range. since undergrad is set in stone, the LSAT really is your best bet at making sure they seriously consider your great softs.

i also got offered 90,000 at georgetown, where i am also below their gpa median.

good luck!!

JamMasterJ wrote: A better LSAT is truly the only thing that can do much for you. You have the life experience that schools look for in a non-trad applicant; now you need the numbers to match. It's gonna be tough to get into California schools with a lower gpa, but if you want any shot, you need a good LSAT score.

Agreed. The good thing is that you have several months to study and improve your score.

By most accounts my softs and LORs are A+++, but I really don't think they got me anywhere that my numbers wouldn't have. At best all they did was offset a couple small things that might otherwise be a detriment.

Retake, get a 165 in October and you'll get in to Hastings with those softs.

3v3ryth1ng wrote:For example, by some projections, an applicant with my same gpa and a 161 has about a 5.26% chance of getting into Hastings (about 1/18).

P.S.- I know there are people who are children of politicians, and people who performed some one-in-a-million tasks. I mean on average.

Those 5.26% of people who applied with your numbers and gained admissions were not the average - they were the crazy backgrounded people/children of politicians. This is who you'll have to compete with for those below-median numbered slots.

Your softs are certainly strong, and stronger than average, but you really can't tell who will be applying with you. A 5% chance means that you have a chance; if you can raise your LSAT, though, you'll have a better chance (much more so than adding more softs). I'd focus on the LSAT, then write an amazing PS and roll the dice. Softs aren't going to redefine your application chances, but they do sometimes help you roll the hard six.

3v3ryth1ng wrote: I love my job, and the years I've spent here are absolutely irreplaceable. However, it's an extremely emotionally taxing job that cuts deeply into my personal life. After so many years of dealing with students, once can become "burned out." However, effective teaching requires 100% passion at all times. I just can't have the same passion for the class of 2018 the same way I had passion for 2012. Further, the stress of being responsible for the order of an otherwise rambunctious group of young individuals can, at times, make one want to quit on the spot. It's also extremely political- my every action is thoroughly reviewed, assessed, commented upon and debated by all interested parties. If I succeed, the praise is short-lived. If I ever fail, the humiliation will be extremely public and the shame will be permanent. The pay isn't too great for the workload, but it's also being cut every year. Add in the commute, gas prices, the cost of living, students getting shot, getting cursed out by parents...
It's not sustainable for me. These years are very special, and I need to keep them special quitting before I end up hating this job.

As for law, intellectually, it makes sense. I could be a great lawyer. I've wanted to be a public defender for a long time. I know exactly what they do (I was there for 10 months as an intern), and I know I could do it well. I just need to get there. Could I get burned out on public defense? Yes, quite possibly. It's not as stressful as teaching though, I know for a fact, so the chances are slimmer. I will cross that bridge when I get there, as it's at least 4 years away.

I wanted to thank you for your frank post. I'm sorry to learn that your experience teaching wasn't more fulfilling.

It's actually a strong personal belief of mine that much more focus needs to be put into strengthening our educational system here in the US and too many of our resources are currently being applied towards what I consider issues of much lower priority. The state of the educational system including teacher recruitment and retention is a huge issue which needs to be addressed.

Rock-N-Roll wrote:

3v3ryth1ng wrote: I love my job, and the years I've spent here are absolutely irreplaceable. However, it's an extremely emotionally taxing job that cuts deeply into my personal life. After so many years of dealing with students, once can become "burned out." However, effective teaching requires 100% passion at all times. I just can't have the same passion for the class of 2018 the same way I had passion for 2012. Further, the stress of being responsible for the order of an otherwise rambunctious group of young individuals can, at times, make one want to quit on the spot. It's also extremely political- my every action is thoroughly reviewed, assessed, commented upon and debated by all interested parties. If I succeed, the praise is short-lived. If I ever fail, the humiliation will be extremely public and the shame will be permanent. The pay isn't too great for the workload, but it's also being cut every year. Add in the commute, gas prices, the cost of living, students getting shot, getting cursed out by parents...
It's not sustainable for me. These years are very special, and I need to keep them special quitting before I end up hating this job.

As for law, intellectually, it makes sense. I could be a great lawyer. I've wanted to be a public defender for a long time. I know exactly what they do (I was there for 10 months as an intern), and I know I could do it well. I just need to get there. Could I get burned out on public defense? Yes, quite possibly. It's not as stressful as teaching though, I know for a fact, so the chances are slimmer. I will cross that bridge when I get there, as it's at least 4 years away.

I wanted to thank you for your frank post. I'm sorry to learn that your experience teaching wasn't more fulfilling.

It's actually a strong personal belief of mine that much more focus needs to be put into strengthening our educational system here in the US and too many of our resources are currently being applied towards what I consider issues of much lower priority. The state of the educational system including teacher recruitment and retention is a huge issue which needs to be addressed.

Teaching is fulfilling, it's just not sustainable for me. It probably makes a difference that I teach in a very rough neighborhood.

There's a lot to say about our education system as a whole, but the short version of the story is that no one knows what's wrong with it, so no one knows how to fix it. If only it were as simple as just teaching and learning. lol.