Concerned Forum

[dap757]

I am worried I won't be able to get into law school. I slacked for two semesters; my first semester I got a 2.75 but now that I am ending my second semester I will get an F in my first college level math class. I started a new job and let it get in the way of my studies and missed the withdraw date. I can retake the class this upcoming semester but the F will still be on my transcript. How much will this affect me?

[stillwater]

I am worried I won't be able to get into law school. I slacked for two semesters; my first semester I got a 2.75 but now that I am ending my second semester I will get an F in my first college level math class. I started a new job and let it get in the way of my studies and missed the withdraw date. I can retake the class this upcoming semester but the F will still be on my transcript. How much will this affect me?

The effect will be ~25% of your GPA. That F will hurt. The only thing you can do is bust out the next 3 years as close to perfect as you can. 2.75 isn't game over, but you'll need to rally in a big way.

[bp shinners]

I can retake the class this upcoming semester but the F will still be on my transcript. How much will this affect me?

Schools probably won't look close enough at your transcript to see that you retook the class in which you received the F. They'll just see your final GPA, which will reflect those two grades. It will affect you as much as those grades affect your GPA.

[Corsair]

..

[dap757]

Thanks for the quick replies. I did not think it would affect me to the point I had to do almost perfect but I wont repeat the same mistake again. Would law schools take into consideration it was a Math class? Which is not really relevant to writing?

[llachans]

Thanks for the quick replies. I did not think it would affect me to the point I had to do almost perfect but I wont repeat the same mistake again. Would law schools take into consideration it was a Math class? Which is not really relevant to writing?

No.

[Randomnumbers]

Or get a 170+ on the LSAT, and suddenly no one cares any more. I know plenty of people who got into top schools with 2.X GPAs, but they all had 99th percentile LSAT scores.

Note that they still aren't getting into T14 with 2.X GPA's, except for NU with work experience.

[Tom Joad]

Thanks for the quick replies. I did not think it would affect me to the point I had to do almost perfect but I wont repeat the same mistake again. Would law schools take into consideration it was a Math class? Which is not really relevant to writing?

I would say math is one of the few subjects that attempts to measure how objectively intelligent and hardworking a person is.

[thelawschoolproject]

Or get a 170+ on the LSAT, and suddenly no one cares any more. I know plenty of people who got into top schools with 2.X GPAs, but they all had 99th percentile LSAT scores.

Note that they still aren't getting into T14 with 2.X GPA's, except for NU with work experience.

Not true.

NU, UVA, and GULC all took people I know with 2.X GPAs.

OP, the type of class it was in won't matter. But, tbf, I'd think that suggesting math is unimportant to a legal education wouldn't really help your case as it is shown that math ability is closely linked with one's abilities in logic which is crucial to the study of law (and the LSAT).

With that said, it's great that you're trying to get on the right track now. Keep up a solid academic record, invest your free time into volunteer activities/leadership positions, build solid relationships with your professors as their recommendations and testaments that you are, in fact, a decent student will be quite beneficial in overcomming a lower GPA, and study hard for the LSAT. Do all of these things and you'll be happy with the results.

[arkansawyer]

Thanks for the quick replies. I did not think it would affect me to the point I had to do almost perfect but I wont repeat the same mistake again. Would law schools take into consideration it was a Math class? Which is not really relevant to writing?

I would say math is one of the few subjects that attempts to measure how objectively intelligent and hardworking a person is.

I would say this is completely incorrect.

OP, if you do well on the LSAT and bring that GPA up to say, a 3.6, and you might get some money at a t50.

[Tom Joad]

Thanks for the quick replies. I did not think it would affect me to the point I had to do almost perfect but I wont repeat the same mistake again. Would law schools take into consideration it was a Math class? Which is not really relevant to writing?

I would say math is one of the few subjects that attempts to measure how objectively intelligent and hardworking a person is.

I would say this is completely incorrect.

OP, if you do well on the LSAT and bring that GPA up to say, a 3.6, and you might get some money at a t50.

I just think that math is more objective and less brown-nose intensive than most writing-based lib arts classes.

-a person with a baller lib arts GPA and certified in professor schmoozing.

[arkansawyer]

Thanks for the quick replies. I did not think it would affect me to the point I had to do almost perfect but I wont repeat the same mistake again. Would law schools take into consideration it was a Math class? Which is not really relevant to writing?

I would say math is one of the few subjects that attempts to measure how objectively intelligent and hardworking a person is.

I would say this is completely incorrect.

OP, if you do well on the LSAT and bring that GPA up to say, a 3.6, and you might get some money at a t50.

I just think that math is more objective and less brown-nose intensive than most writing-based lib arts classes.

-a person with a baller lib arts GPA and certified in professor schmoozing.

I'll concede that, I don't mean to defend writing/poli sci/history/[insert useless liberal arts curriculum]. But I do think you can take qualitatively difficult classes without going deep into math. Logic and econ are great.

[rwhyAn]

OP, I'm not proud to say, but I had a couple of Fs on my transcript as well, and a few Ws. I got a 3.9x my last year and I brought my GPA up from a 2.9 to a 3.2, and this was after I already had 90 credits. You've only got two semesters under your belt, so you have plenty of time to rebound. Give 'em hell and rock the LSAT!

[BVest]

OP, if you do well on the LSAT and bring that GPA up to say, a 3.6, and you will get some money at a t50.

FIFY.

[bceagles182]

I am confused by the lack of candor in this thread. If you aren't capable of and/or aren't dedicated enough to get a 3.0 in undergrad, you have no business applying to law school.

I could understand why people may encourage you to apply to law school if you were 30 years old with 7 years in the work force, and you had gotten these lousy grades (way back) when you were in college. Perhaps then you could explain in an addendum that you've grown up and you're ready to be a better student this time around. But you got a 2.75 GPA LAST SEMESTER and now you're about to fail a class THIS SEMESTER? Grades that low in undergrad indicate either a lack of ability or a lack of motivation (or both). You will not succeed in law school with either, so it seems pretty clear to me that until you fix the problem, you shouldn't even be thinking about law school.

[Randomnumbers]

Or get a 170+ on the LSAT, and suddenly no one cares any more. I know plenty of people who got into top schools with 2.X GPAs, but they all had 99th percentile LSAT scores.

Note that they still aren't getting into T14 with 2.X GPA's, except for NU with work experience.

Not true.

NU, UVA, and GULC all took people I know with 2.X GPAs.

UVA will dip on rare occasion to 2.9 - the ones I've seen on LSN are either 2.9x with ED, a 179, or a 2.99. It appears that GULC will take some 2.x's ED, or high 17x's a few years removed from bad grades. I wouldn't count too much on either.

[stillwater]

I am confused by the lack of candor in this thread. If you aren't capable of and/or aren't dedicated enough to get a 3.0 in undergrad, you have no business applying to law school.

I could understand why people may encourage you to apply to law school if you were 30 years old with 7 years in the work force, and you had gotten these lousy grades (way back) when you were in college. Perhaps then you could explain in an addendum that you've grown up and you're ready to be a better student this time around. But you got a 2.75 GPA LAST SEMESTER and now you're about to fail a class THIS SEMESTER? Grades that low in undergrad indicate either a lack of ability or a lack of motivation (or both). You will not succeed in law school with either, so it seems pretty clear to me that until you fix the problem, you shouldn't even be thinking about law school.

TBF, I do know people who went to reputable UG, were in the bottom 1/3 of their class (right around 3.0), took 2 years off, and are now in the top 10% of top 30 law schools. I know at least 2 examples of this. Their issue wasn't intelligence but one of motivation. So I would be loath to make blanket statements like the above, but I suppose there is a shred of wisdom in that for many cases. It really comes down to the individual being honest with themselves.

[angrybird]

I am confused by the lack of candor in this thread. If you aren't capable of and/or aren't dedicated enough to get a 3.0 in undergrad, you have no business applying to law school.

I could understand why people may encourage you to apply to law school if you were 30 years old with 7 years in the work force, and you had gotten these lousy grades (way back) when you were in college. Perhaps then you could explain in an addendum that you've grown up and you're ready to be a better student this time around. But you got a 2.75 GPA LAST SEMESTER and now you're about to fail a class THIS SEMESTER? Grades that low in undergrad indicate either a lack of ability or a lack of motivation (or both). You will not succeed in law school with either, so it seems pretty clear to me that until you fix the problem, you shouldn't even be thinking about law school.

TBF, I do know people who went to reputable UG, were in the bottom 1/3 of their class (right around 3.0), took 2 years off, and are now in the top 10% of top 30 law schools. I know at least 2 examples of this. Their issue wasn't intelligence but one of motivation. So I would be loath to make blanket statements like the above, but I suppose there is a shred of wisdom in that for many cases. It really comes down to the individual being honest with themselves.

i'm one of those people. but dude, this guy is a freshman. he shouldn't be thinking about law school anyway.

[stillwater]

I am confused by the lack of candor in this thread. If you aren't capable of and/or aren't dedicated enough to get a 3.0 in undergrad, you have no business applying to law school.

I could understand why people may encourage you to apply to law school if you were 30 years old with 7 years in the work force, and you had gotten these lousy grades (way back) when you were in college. Perhaps then you could explain in an addendum that you've grown up and you're ready to be a better student this time around. But you got a 2.75 GPA LAST SEMESTER and now you're about to fail a class THIS SEMESTER? Grades that low in undergrad indicate either a lack of ability or a lack of motivation (or both). You will not succeed in law school with either, so it seems pretty clear to me that until you fix the problem, you shouldn't even be thinking about law school.

TBF, I do know people who went to reputable UG, were in the bottom 1/3 of their class (right around 3.0), took 2 years off, and are now in the top 10% of top 30 law schools. I know at least 2 examples of this. Their issue wasn't intelligence but one of motivation. So I would be loath to make blanket statements like the above, but I suppose there is a shred of wisdom in that for many cases. It really comes down to the individual being honest with themselves.

i'm one of those people. but dude, this guy is a freshman. he shouldn't be thinking about law school anyway.

Yeah, I wasn't really talking about this dude. Law school should be the farthest thing from his mind, stabilizing/improving his performance for the sake of itself should be the only priority and not making complete amateur mistakes like missing withdrawal deadlines.

[bceagles182]

I am confused by the lack of candor in this thread. If you aren't capable of and/or aren't dedicated enough to get a 3.0 in undergrad, you have no business applying to law school.

I could understand why people may encourage you to apply to law school if you were 30 years old with 7 years in the work force, and you had gotten these lousy grades (way back) when you were in college. Perhaps then you could explain in an addendum that you've grown up and you're ready to be a better student this time around. But you got a 2.75 GPA LAST SEMESTER and now you're about to fail a class THIS SEMESTER? Grades that low in undergrad indicate either a lack of ability or a lack of motivation (or both). You will not succeed in law school with either, so it seems pretty clear to me that until you fix the problem, you shouldn't even be thinking about law school.

TBF, I do know people who went to reputable UG, were in the bottom 1/3 of their class (right around 3.0), took 2 years off, and are now in the top 10% of top 30 law schools. I know at least 2 examples of this. Their issue wasn't intelligence but one of motivation. So I would be loath to make blanket statements like the above, but I suppose there is a shred of wisdom in that for many cases. It really comes down to the individual being honest with themselves.

i'm one of those people. but dude, this guy is a freshman. he shouldn't be thinking about law school anyway.

Yeah, I wasn't really talking about this dude. Law school should be the farthest thing from his mind, stabilizing/improving his performance for the sake of itself should be the only priority and not making complete amateur mistakes like missing withdrawal deadlines.

Did you even read my post?

Please tell me where I made a blanket statement that if you received a 3.0 GPA in undergrad, you should never apply to law school... because I'm pretty sure I said that if you can't manage above a 3.0 in undergrad (PRESENT TENSE), you have no business applying to law school (PRESENT TENSE). And I acknowledged that it was likely an issue of motivation, and if so "until [he] fix[es] the problem, [he] shouldn't even be thinking about law school." The people to whom you are referring fixed the problem.

[stillwater]

Did you even read my post?

Please tell me where I made a blanket statement that if you received a 3.0 GPA in undergrad, you should never apply to law school... because I'm pretty sure I said that if you can't manage above a 3.0 in undergrad (PRESENT TENSE), you have no business applying to law school (PRESENT TENSE). And I acknowledged that it was likely an issue of motivation, and if so "until [he] fix[es] the problem, [he] shouldn't even be thinking about law school." The people to whom you are referring fixed the problem.

Not sure what the material difference is whether that 3.0 is now or in past. Granted you did provide an example of 7 years of separation. I am not attempting to parse your words, but speaking toward the general thrust of your assertion (which I don't believe having said "can't manage" vs. "couldn't manage" really makes a bit of difference). I was also extrapolating beyond just your post and did mention I generally agreed with your contention.