Lsac GPA wtf!? Forum

[Clearly]

I finally got my lsac gpa... They counted all of my W's as F's, and literally decimated my gpa by .6
On what grounds is a withdrawal synonymous with a failure. I did not realize that withdrawing after 2 weeks from classes because of family health problems means that I am a failure. Especially as I went on to retake them the next semester and earned A's

For the most part, I've found the LSAC to be a really well ran organization, but this is absurd. My gpa wasn't great, and I was planning on getting in basically as a splitter, but splitting the 3.3 I had earned was a lot easier then splitting what the LSAC has bestowed upon me. Bull.

[Clearly]

and in the interest of having this be a productive thread. Is there anything I can do about this travesty!? An appeal of some sort?

[20121109]

LSAC normally doesn't factor non-punitive Ws into the LSAC GPA. Your undergrad must have considered Ws punitive, like WFs or something. If that is the case, I'm afraid there is nothing you can do.

[Clearly]

LSAC normally doesn't factor non-punitive Ws into the LSAC GPA. Your undergrad must have considered Ws punitive, like WFs or something. If that is the case, I'm afraid there is nothing you can do.

Shouldn't be the case, they didn't effect my gpa at my school...

This is screwing me so bad. Stony Brook University was the biggest mistake of my life. Notoriously hard, but without a big name, no A+ scoring... I had a great chance at really decent schools, now I'm fucked. Hello Brooklyn Law!

[20121109]

LSAC normally doesn't factor non-punitive Ws into the LSAC GPA. Your undergrad must have considered Ws punitive, like WFs or something. If that is the case, I'm afraid there is nothing you can do.

Shouldn't be the case, they didn't effect my gpa at my school...

This is screwing me so bad. Stony Brook University was the biggest mistake of my life. Notoriously hard, but without a big name, no A+ scoring... I had a great chance at really decent schools, now I'm fucked. Hello Brooklyn Law!

Check your inbox.

[nsbane]

LSAC didn't count my study abroad credits. It took me a year of calling them, calling my undergrad, etc... to get it solved. You can call and try to work it out. Keep in mind that you will have to keep trying. Even when you call, and the receptionist cuts you off in the middle of your introduction, and says look on the website and hangs up on you, call right back and be insistent.

[ThreeRivers]

Honestly I bet this is more of an issue with your UG. If they have the W's at non-punitive it shouldn't affect your LSAC GPA. Contact LSAC first, they may have made a mistake... if they say they haven't contact your UG next.

If you really just withdrew correctly under university procedures to make the W's non-punitive you should be ok

[bp shinners]

Yea, take a day to calm down, but check your transcript to see if there's anything on there that would make them look like punitive withdrawals. Then, call LSAC and talk with them about it (after another day of cooling off - you're justifiably angry right now, but that's not going to get you anywhere). After you hear from them, and if they don't budge, talk to your school about whether they're considered punitive. Go from there.

[thetaxman]

The whole concept of the LSAC GPA really needs to go away in my opinion. I have a 3.5+ from my undergrad school, but the LSAC has me below a 3.4 because of classes I retook after bombing freshman year. It's an enormous discrepancy, and an organization that has no affiliation with my school has no right to judge my performance at that school. No sane person looking over my transcript would say "oh yeah, this guy's a 3.38 level talent", but that's the number by which I'm going to be judged. On the off chance anyone from the LSAC reads this post, you all can slobber all over my genitalia.

[Mal Reynolds]

The whole concept of the LSAC GPA really needs to go away in my opinion. I have a 3.5+ from my undergrad school, but the LSAC has me below a 3.4 because of classes I retook after bombing freshman year. It's an enormous discrepancy, and an organization that has no affiliation with my school has no right to judge my performance at that school. No sane person looking over my transcript would say "oh yeah, this guy's a 3.38 level talent", but that's the number by which I'm going to be judged. On the off chance anyone from the LSAC reads this post, you all can slobber all over my genitalia.

But, you bombed your freshman year. Theyre not judging your gpa they're simply normalizing it so everyone's GPA is calculated using the same standards. Shouldn't someone who DIDN'T bomb freshman year have a higher GPA?

[Sandro]

GPA sucks and shouldn't be used how it is. A clown could go to clown college, as long as its accredited, and some GPA grubbing school would take them over someone who went to a harder school.

At least with LSAT, admitting its not perfect, you dont have such a wide disparity in objective measurement. The effort/knowledge level applied at School A could give you a 3.5, School B a 3.7, or school C - a 4.0. You take the LSAT and its scary how you can get the same score over and over, or within ~1 point of it.

And then add in all the people who get screwed because of some arbitrary GPA reporting standard, while other schools completely erase retaken classes from your grades.

[AntipodeanPhil]

The whole concept of the LSAC GPA really needs to go away in my opinion. I have a 3.5+ from my undergrad school, but the LSAC has me below a 3.4 because of classes I retook after bombing freshman year. It's an enormous discrepancy, and an organization that has no affiliation with my school has no right to judge my performance at that school. No sane person looking over my transcript would say "oh yeah, this guy's a 3.38 level talent", but that's the number by which I'm going to be judged. On the off chance anyone from the LSAC reads this post, you all can slobber all over my genitalia.

But, you bombed your freshman year. Theyre not judging your gpa they're simply normalizing it so everyone's GPA is calculated using the same standards. Shouldn't someone who DIDN'T bomb freshman year have a higher GPA?

Yeah, if you bombed your freshman year, your GPA should reflect that. It makes you a worse student that someone who got the better grades the first time around.

But it is unfair that some schools remove grades for retaken classes from students' transcripts (so LSAC can't see them) and others don't.

[thetaxman]

The whole concept of the LSAC GPA really needs to go away in my opinion. I have a 3.5+ from my undergrad school, but the LSAC has me below a 3.4 because of classes I retook after bombing freshman year. It's an enormous discrepancy, and an organization that has no affiliation with my school has no right to judge my performance at that school. No sane person looking over my transcript would say "oh yeah, this guy's a 3.38 level talent", but that's the number by which I'm going to be judged. On the off chance anyone from the LSAC reads this post, you all can slobber all over my genitalia.

But, you bombed your freshman year. Theyre not judging your gpa they're simply normalizing it so everyone's GPA is calculated using the same standards. Shouldn't someone who DIDN'T bomb freshman year have a higher GPA?

Yeah, if you bombed your freshman year, your GPA should reflect that. It makes you a worse student that someone who got the better grades the first time around.

But it is unfair that some schools remove grades for retaken classes from students' transcripts (so LSAC can't see them) and others don't.

I'm absolutely better than my former classmates, and that was reflected in my 3.8 upper division GPA during undergrad. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who got a 4.0 in Calc 1 and Generic Communications 101 then a 3.3 in the rest of their undergrad is a better student than someone who got a 2.1 their freshman year and a 3.8 for the rest? Maybe you do believe this, since the LSAC sure does.

[johansantana21]

Keep crying. Standardized rules are necessary and always result in some outliers QQing about how the system fucked them over.

[fatduck]

I'm absolutely better than my former classmates, and that was reflected in my 3.8 upper division GPA during undergrad. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who got a 4.0 in Calc 1 and Generic Communications 101 then a 3.3 in the rest of their undergrad is a better student than someone who got a 2.1 their freshman year and a 3.8 for the rest? Maybe you do believe this, since the LSAC sure does.

at my school, at least, a high freshman/sophomore gpa is much more difficult than a high junior/senior gpa.

[AntipodeanPhil]

I'm absolutely better than my former classmates, and that was reflected in my 3.8 upper division GPA during undergrad. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who got a 4.0 in Calc 1 and Generic Communications 101 then a 3.3 in the rest of their undergrad is a better student than someone who got a 2.1 their freshman year and a 3.8 for the rest? Maybe you do believe this, since the LSAC sure does.

In that case, I agree with you - but that's a different issue.

What I believe (along with other people here) is that if two students have the same GPA, but one of those students had to retake some of his or her classes to get that GPA, then the one that didn't have to retake any classes to get the GPA is a better student - all else being equal.

If one of the students took harder classes than the other, that's relevant - they're not equal in all other respects.

[Mal Reynolds]

The whole concept of the LSAC GPA really needs to go away in my opinion. I have a 3.5+ from my undergrad school, but the LSAC has me below a 3.4 because of classes I retook after bombing freshman year. It's an enormous discrepancy, and an organization that has no affiliation with my school has no right to judge my performance at that school. No sane person looking over my transcript would say "oh yeah, this guy's a 3.38 level talent", but that's the number by which I'm going to be judged. On the off chance anyone from the LSAC reads this post, you all can slobber all over my genitalia.

But, you bombed your freshman year. Theyre not judging your gpa they're simply normalizing it so everyone's GPA is calculated using the same standards. Shouldn't someone who DIDN'T bomb freshman year have a higher GPA?

Yeah, if you bombed your freshman year, your GPA should reflect that. It makes you a worse student that someone who got the better grades the first time around.

But it is unfair that some schools remove grades for retaken classes from students' transcripts (so LSAC can't see them) and others don't.

I'm absolutely better than my former classmates, and that was reflected in my 3.8 upper division GPA during undergrad. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who got a 4.0 in Calc 1 and Generic Communications 101 then a 3.3 in the rest of their undergrad is a better student than someone who got a 2.1 their freshman year and a 3.8 for the rest? Maybe you do believe this, since the LSAC sure does.

The unfair part of this whole system is schools who let their students retake and replace their grades. You fall into the "fair" category. You didn't do well your freshman year, it should be reflected in your GPA. You can't get butthurt that certain people did better in their early college years. To me they were the smart ones, before their GPA got locked in, they worked a little harder and got good grades. Unfortunately for you, an A in an easy class means the same thing as an A in a difficult class.

I would never argue that getting high grades in upper division classes isn't more admirable. Of course it is, but the USNWR and law schools don't care. They like higher GPAs and you didn't realize this your freshman year.

[Aberzombie1892]

The real problem isn't really LSAC - the issue is that each university uses a different grading scale. For example, if you graduate from an Ivy League school and your GPA is 3.0, you either (1) literally didn't do anything at all during your time in college or (2) are functionally special needs. However, if you graduate from many state schools with a 3.2, you are cum laude. While finishing with latin honors is great, most graduate level programs only care about cumulative GPA - so whatever school inflates grades the most for their undergraduates wins. It's silly.

[Clearly]

Idk, I think if they want to standardize it, theres gotta be a better system then this. My school doesn't give A+s...even disregarding W's, I'm in a worse position then others before I sat for my first class freshman year.

[Cartman]

The real problem isn't really LSAC - the issue is that each university uses a different grading scale. For example, if you graduate from an Ivy League school and your GPA is 3.0, you either (1) literally didn't do anything at all during your time in college or (2) are functionally special needs. However, if you graduate from many state schools with a 3.2, you are cum laude. While finishing with latin honors is great, most graduate level programs only care about cumulative GPA - so whatever school inflates grades the most for their undergraduates wins. It's silly.

+1. I love how in assuming undergrad institution plays a small soft factor role in admissions, the tendency to congratulate applicants from elite private school X is far above and beyond applicants from state schools, despite prestigious schools often inflating GPA to make graduates more appealing. (For the most part) state schools don't give a fuck, and don't have a policy of giving out free GPA points to improve image.

[09042014]

I'm absolutely better than my former classmates, and that was reflected in my 3.8 upper division GPA during undergrad. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who got a 4.0 in Calc 1 and Generic Communications 101 then a 3.3 in the rest of their undergrad is a better student than someone who got a 2.1 their freshman year and a 3.8 for the rest? Maybe you do believe this, since the LSAC sure does.

I do.

[Clearly]

Exactly. My school is NUTS. No breaks get cut at Stony Brook, and were competing with a lot of international students who came here JUST to get into the medical school. Its near impossible to get A's here, and I managed to keep my GPA at least decent, until the lsac W machine rolled through position me as a moron. I really hope I get this straightened out. It's literally depressing me. I was going to try and sneak in to Fordham at the deadline, and stood a decent chance at doing so, but if I can't clear this up till then, I'm literally forced to take option 2 of waiting around another year.

[johansantana21]

Exactly. My school is NUTS. No breaks get cut at Stony Brook, and were competing with a lot of international students who came here JUST to get into the medical school. Its near impossible to get A's here, and I managed to keep my GPA at least decent, until the lsac W machine rolled through position me as a moron. I really hope I get this straightened out. It's literally depressing me. I was going to try and sneak in to Fordham at the deadline, and stood a decent chance at doing so, but if I can't clear this up till then, I'm literally forced to take option 2 of waiting around another year.

Are you retarded? SUNY Stonybrook is a joke. I know friends who went there. They all know it's a joke of a school.

[20130312]

I'm absolutely better than my former classmates

I'm always amazed when people outright say these things.

[20121109]

Exactly. My school is NUTS. No breaks get cut at Stony Brook, and were competing with a lot of international students who came here JUST to get into the medical school. Its near impossible to get A's here, and I managed to keep my GPA at least decent, until the lsac W machine rolled through position me as a moron. I really hope I get this straightened out. It's literally depressing me. I was going to try and sneak in to Fordham at the deadline, and stood a decent chance at doing so, but if I can't clear this up till then, I'm literally forced to take option 2 of waiting around another year.

Are you retarded? SUNY Stonybrook is a joke. I know friends who went there. They all know it's a joke of a school.

I went to SUNY Stony Brook. If you go for engineering, computer science or anything pre-med, it's a tough school. So, stfu.