Top Law Schools

My co-worker has been working in venture capital for 3 years, scores around the low 160s on practice lsats and is looking to write it in June (he has been practicing it for about a year now and basically won't get higher because he is English second language so has trouble understanding inferred clues in the reading comprehension questions and the flowery wording).

He started an international level charity that had over 1000 volunteers and operated in southern Africa building wells and that kind of horse caca. He has received numerous awards/scholarships for this work (he started it when he was in university) and he has received a letter from the premier (equivalent of an American governor) and the mayor congratulating him on his achievements in philanthropy. If it is worthy to note this is the largest province with roughly 13 million people. He has worked as a registered lobbyist for the federal government for a year but left because he didn't like the "culture" (aka corruption) and has authored a published book. He also runs a moderately successful consulting business and is a civil rights activist

He has also self represented himself before a special tribunal (who hears all insurance disputes instead of the courts in Ontario to free up judges for criminal matters) over some kind of insurance dispute, and once in the equivalent of state court. He has lots of extra curriculars like helping kids and that kind of stuff, don't fully remember the rest of what I saw on his PS.

His gpa is like a 3.3 and he is convinced he can get into the t-14 but I am more skeptical.

Depends ENTIRELY on his LSAT score.

woeisme wrote:Depends ENTIRELY on his LSAT score.

Lets assume 162.

Geon wrote:

woeisme wrote:Depends ENTIRELY on his LSAT score.

Lets assume 162.

URM? If not, virtually no chance.

Those are incredible softs. But unless URM (and I didn't see that mentioned in the OP), then chances are close to, if not, zero IMO. The only two schools I could think where he would have an outside chance would be be Cornell and Berk (because of their low LSAT requirements compared to the rest of the T14). He would still be 6 points below Cornell's median LSAT and Berk loves high GPAs.

he won't get in most of them, but who knows

lawyerwannabe wrote:Those are incredible softs. But unless URM (and I didn't see that mentioned in the OP), then chances are close to, if not, zero IMO. The only two schools I could think where he would have an outside chance would be be Cornell and Berk (because of their low LSAT requirements compared to the rest of the T14). He would still be 6 points below Cornell's median LSAT and Berk loves high GPAs.

Right. His LSAT would keep him out of everywhere but Berkeley. And his GPA would keep him out of Berkeley. No T14 for your colleague. Let him down easy...

ETA: Though, I mean, it's always possible. I know my cycle someone got in ED at Penn with like a 162/3.4. This same person got rejected outright at the other T14s she applied to. Admissions are weird and there's always a chance. But it's unlikely.

162 3.3 has 0% chance at T14 unless he's a URM.

He's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay below the 25% for GPA and LSAT at all T14 schools.

lawyerwannabe wrote:Those are incredible softs. But unless URM (and I didn't see that mentioned in the OP), then chances are close to, if not, zero IMO. The only two schools I could think where he would have an outside chance would be be Cornell and Berk (because of their low LSAT requirements compared to the rest of the T14). He would still be 6 points below Cornell's median LSAT and Berk loves high GPAs.

He is non white but foreign = non american resident, so probably wouldn't qualify as urm, if I understand urm status correctly.

I agree he is way below the medians, but he is convinced that he can slide in because he argues that there are people who get in with 155s and 3.1 gpas into the t-14 (which is true when I checked the class profiles), although they may be very rare, he claims all of those below the 25% which in a school represent like 50-150 people (depending on class size) that got in with numbers below. Its an interesting argument, but I want to hear what others think. He is basically arguing that he'd be part of that 5-10% of the class who gets in with low numbers.

Geon wrote:

lawyerwannabe wrote:Those are incredible softs. But unless URM (and I didn't see that mentioned in the OP), then chances are close to, if not, zero IMO. The only two schools I could think where he would have an outside chance would be be Cornell and Berk (because of their low LSAT requirements compared to the rest of the T14). He would still be 6 points below Cornell's median LSAT and Berk loves high GPAs.

He is non white but foreign = non american resident, so probably wouldn't qualify as urm, if I understand urm status correctly.

I agree he is way below the medians, but he is convinced that he can slide in because he argues that there are people who get in with 155s and 3.1 gpas into the t-14 (which is true when I checked the class profiles), although they may be very rare, he claims all of those below the 25% which in a school represent like 50-150 people (depending on class size) that got in with numbers below. Its an interesting argument, but I want to hear what others think. He is basically arguing that he'd be part of that 5-10% of the class who gets in with low numbers.

Well generally splitters and URMs make up the below-median category. So that 155/3.1 is a URM, or someone will a 155 had a 4.3 GPA and someone with a 3.1 had a 174, balanced out by some other people.

lawschoolnumbers.com

Geon wrote:

lawyerwannabe wrote:Those are incredible softs. But unless URM (and I didn't see that mentioned in the OP), then chances are close to, if not, zero IMO. The only two schools I could think where he would have an outside chance would be be Cornell and Berk (because of their low LSAT requirements compared to the rest of the T14). He would still be 6 points below Cornell's median LSAT and Berk loves high GPAs.

He is non white but foreign = non american resident, so probably wouldn't qualify as urm, if I understand urm status correctly.

I agree he is way below the medians, but he is convinced that he can slide in because he argues that there are people who get in with 155s and 3.1 gpas into the t-14 (which is true when I checked the class profiles), although they may be very rare, he claims all of those below the 25% which in a school represent like 50-150 people (depending on class size) that got in with numbers below. Its an interesting argument, but I want to hear what others think. He is basically arguing that he'd be part of that 5-10% of the class who gets in with low numbers.

How do you know a school's lows (say 155 and 3.1) belong to a single person? Could be a 155/4.0 and a 178/3.1.

ETA: Scooped by radlulz.

Geon wrote:

lawyerwannabe wrote:Those are incredible softs. But unless URM (and I didn't see that mentioned in the OP), then chances are close to, if not, zero IMO. The only two schools I could think where he would have an outside chance would be be Cornell and Berk (because of their low LSAT requirements compared to the rest of the T14). He would still be 6 points below Cornell's median LSAT and Berk loves high GPAs.

He is non white but foreign = non american resident, so probably wouldn't qualify as urm, if I understand urm status correctly.

I agree he is way below the medians, but he is convinced that he can slide in because he argues that there are people who get in with 155s and 3.1 gpas into the t-14 (which is true when I checked the class profiles), although they may be very rare, he claims all of those below the 25% which in a school represent like 50-150 people (depending on class size) that got in with numbers below. Its an interesting argument, but I want to hear what others think. He is basically arguing that he'd be part of that 5-10% of the class who gets in with low numbers.

Getting into a T14 with a 3.1 or a 155 is pretty damn rare. When it happens, it's almost always a splitter or reverse-splitter. Getting in with a 3.1/155 or a 3.3/162 just isn't likely. And that's absurd to say that 10-15% of T14 classes have those sort of statistics. It happens once in a blue moon, but your coworker is delusional and way too optimistic to be so sure that this will happen to him. He's almost assuredly blocked out of the T14. It's not even certain that he'll get into a top 20 or a top 50.

If he has convinced himself, then who are we to argue? Let him apply, get unanimously denied, and then he will see that his confidence was misplaced.

Yale, Stanford and Berkeley (and a few others to a degree) particularly like to demonstrate their "black box" admissions policies, but even these schools have LSAT and GPA floors that they simply will not dip below.

Eh, I'm kinda inclined to disagree. Softs don't matter much around the margins ('senior year: treasurer at my frat' type stuff), but I think there's evidence that people with legitimately game-changing softs can have strong cycles (Elizabeth Wurtzel, who wrote 'Prozac Nation,' got into Yale with a 160). On one hand, that's different, because she describes herself as an 'honors graduate' from Harvard College, but on the other hand, it sounds like your friend actually has a legitimate reason for going to law school backed up by a strong, logical narrative leading him to X, while it sounds like she applied mainly on a whim ('I really had the feeling that the whole world had gone crazy [after 9/11],” she said. “I felt very powerless. If I’d been a lawyer, I would have known what to do.” So she looked to law school as a solution.')

I think the odds are against him at each individual school, and I wouldn't really be surprised if he struck out. But I also wouldn't be surprised if somebody bit. Whether it's worth wasting three or four months to do all the application stuff (recs, which I think some schools won't let you recycle the next year, his PS, which basically has to be the best PS they've ever read, etc.) to find out versus doubling down on the LSAT is a totally different question.

Seems like he could have a shot at Northwestern, especially if he gets his LSAT up a couple points.. They love the work experience and pick up people with sub 3.0s all the time

woeisme wrote:

Geon wrote:

lawyerwannabe wrote:Those are incredible softs. But unless URM (and I didn't see that mentioned in the OP), then chances are close to, if not, zero IMO. The only two schools I could think where he would have an outside chance would be be Cornell and Berk (because of their low LSAT requirements compared to the rest of the T14). He would still be 6 points below Cornell's median LSAT and Berk loves high GPAs.

He is non white but foreign = non american resident, so probably wouldn't qualify as urm, if I understand urm status correctly.

I agree he is way below the medians, but he is convinced that he can slide in because he argues that there are people who get in with 155s and 3.1 gpas into the t-14 (which is true when I checked the class profiles), although they may be very rare, he claims all of those below the 25% which in a school represent like 50-150 people (depending on class size) that got in with numbers below. Its an interesting argument, but I want to hear what others think. He is basically arguing that he'd be part of that 5-10% of the class who gets in with low numbers.

Getting into a T14 with a 3.1 or a 155 is pretty damn rare. When it happens, it's almost always a splitter or reverse-splitter. Getting in with a 3.1/155 or a 3.3/162 just isn't likely. And that's absurd to say that 10-15% of T14 classes have those sort of statistics. It happens once in a blue moon, but your coworker is delusional and way too optimistic to be so sure that this will happen to him. He's almost assuredly blocked out of the T14. It's not even certain that he'll get into a top 20 or a top 50.

Either that, or Daddy's name is on the building

rad lulz wrote:

Geon wrote:

lawyerwannabe wrote:Those are incredible softs. But unless URM (and I didn't see that mentioned in the OP), then chances are close to, if not, zero IMO. The only two schools I could think where he would have an outside chance would be be Cornell and Berk (because of their low LSAT requirements compared to the rest of the T14). He would still be 6 points below Cornell's median LSAT and Berk loves high GPAs.

He is non white but foreign = non american resident, so probably wouldn't qualify as urm, if I understand urm status correctly.

I agree he is way below the medians, but he is convinced that he can slide in because he argues that there are people who get in with 155s and 3.1 gpas into the t-14 (which is true when I checked the class profiles), although they may be very rare, he claims all of those below the 25% which in a school represent like 50-150 people (depending on class size) that got in with numbers below. Its an interesting argument, but I want to hear what others think. He is basically arguing that he'd be part of that 5-10% of the class who gets in with low numbers.

Well generally splitters and URMs make up the below-median category. So that 155/3.1 is a URM, or someone will a 155 had a 4.3 GPA and someone with a 3.1 had a 174, balanced out by some other people.
lawschoolnumbers.com

The law school numbers are not complete. Often people who get in with below average stats don't even want to post it. I've seen it on the board where someone post their gpa + lsat, then they get in somewhere and then erase their gpa and lsat in previous post for fear of criticism. I admit I have no clue how much splitters are getting but even virgina bottom 25% high end is 3.5. This means 1/4th of the class had lower than that. Its not unreasonable to say that 10% of that 25% had great softs and 16? lsats. I really don't know just trying to see both sides of the argument.

Even a 155 urm with a 3.1, wouldn't that technically be lower than 162, 3.3 non urm as being a urm adds only 10 points to lsat score. 155-3.1 urm = 165 -3.1 non urm. And after you consider that lsat scores are viewed with a flexible range of+/- 3 they are essentially the same lsats but a lower gpa.

Real Madrid wrote:If he has convinced himself, then who are we to argue? Let him apply, get unanimously denied, and then he will see that his confidence was misplaced.

Yale, Stanford and Berkeley (and a few others to a degree) particularly like to demonstrate their "black box" admissions policies, but even these schools have LSAT and GPA floors that they simply will not dip below.

Yale based on class profile does CLEARLY have a floor, around 3.5-3.6 gpa

Stanford has no gpa floor from what I've seen, in the past I thought I saw someone get in stanford with a 2.9 and it was as low as 3.1 or 3.2 this year, so if there is a floor its a 3.0 and a low 150 lsat.

Berkeley doesn't show its ENTIRE class profile just 25-75% medians, so one has no clue really how low they are dipping, but it'd be fair to assume that they are dipping as low as stanford, since they claim to be a holisitic school in admissions and they have lower 25/75 than stanford.

I tend to agree with he won't get in, but on the other hand, how does one explain others getting with basically equally low stats.

PigBodine wrote:Eh, I'm kinda inclined to disagree. Softs don't matter much around the margins ('senior year: treasurer at my frat' type stuff), but I think there's evidence that people with legitimately game-changing softs can have strong cycles (Elizabeth Wurtzel, who wrote 'Prozac Nation,' got into Yale with a 160). On one hand, that's different, because she describes herself as an 'honors graduate' from Harvard College, but on the other hand, it sounds like your friend actually has a legitimate reason for going to law school backed up by a strong, logical narrative leading him to X, while it sounds like she applied mainly on a whim ('I really had the feeling that the whole world had gone crazy [after 9/11],” she said. “I felt very powerless. If I’d been a lawyer, I would have known what to do.” So she looked to law school as a solution.')

I think the odds are against him at each individual school, and I wouldn't really be surprised if he struck out. But I also wouldn't be surprised if somebody bit. Whether it's worth wasting three or four months to do all the application stuff (recs, which I think some schools won't let you recycle the next year, his PS, which basically has to be the best PS they've ever read, etc.) to find out versus doubling down on the LSAT is a totally different question.

If it is worth noting he did his undergrad at Ivey which is like the most or 2nd most prestigious business school in Canada, but I'm not sure if Americans have heard of it but it has a strong national reputation so I don't know how that would affect his chances if at all. Ie. The people in that program all were basically A+ students from high school. Realistically, I don't think he will raise his lsat because he has been working on it for some time, and between all the shit he has to manage, I doubt he'd find more time to raise it.

Geon wrote: I tend to agree with he won't get in, but on the other hand, how does one explain others getting with basically equally low stats.

It's been explained. Splitters, reverse splitters, and URMs. Gotta have a GPA or LSAT above the median or be a URM. Having GPA and LSAT below the 25th %ile without URM status means not happening.

Geon wrote:

rad lulz wrote:

Geon wrote:

lawyerwannabe wrote:Those are incredible softs. But unless URM (and I didn't see that mentioned in the OP), then chances are close to, if not, zero IMO. The only two schools I could think where he would have an outside chance would be be Cornell and Berk (because of their low LSAT requirements compared to the rest of the T14). He would still be 6 points below Cornell's median LSAT and Berk loves high GPAs.

He is non white but foreign = non american resident, so probably wouldn't qualify as urm, if I understand urm status correctly.

I agree he is way below the medians, but he is convinced that he can slide in because he argues that there are people who get in with 155s and 3.1 gpas into the t-14 (which is true when I checked the class profiles), although they may be very rare, he claims all of those below the 25% which in a school represent like 50-150 people (depending on class size) that got in with numbers below. Its an interesting argument, but I want to hear what others think. He is basically arguing that he'd be part of that 5-10% of the class who gets in with low numbers.

Well generally splitters and URMs make up the below-median category. So that 155/3.1 is a URM, or someone will a 155 had a 4.3 GPA and someone with a 3.1 had a 174, balanced out by some other people.
lawschoolnumbers.com

The law school numbers are not complete. Often people who get in with below average stats don't even want to post it. I've seen it on the board where someone post their gpa + lsat, then they get in somewhere and then erase their gpa and lsat in previous post for fear of criticism. I admit I have no clue how much splitters are getting but even virgina bottom 25% high end is 3.5. This means 1/4th of the class had lower than that. Its not unreasonable to say that 10% of that 25% had great softs and 16? lsats. I really don't know just trying to see both sides of the argument.

Even a 155 urm with a 3.1, wouldn't that technically be lower than 162, 3.3 non urm as being a urm adds only 10 points to lsat score. 155-3.1 urm = 165 -3.1 non urm. And after you consider that lsat scores are viewed with a flexible range of+/- 3 they are essentially the same lsats but a lower gpa.

UVA is a pretty bad example actually; they are one of the most split-whorey schools there are. A 170+ and > 3.0 plus ED is a really good shot at getting in if you do it early. Same with GPAs above the median and like a 164+ and ED.

Your bro bro can apply if he wants, I don't give a shit what he does with his money, and maybe he'll hit that home run, but the evidence we have to predict with points to retake.

He should stay in VC or use his lobbying connections to do something else. Nowhere he can end up at with a 3.3/164 is going to be an expensive adventure that is overwhelmingly likely to end up in a worse situation than the present one.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

Geon wrote: I tend to agree with he won't get in, but on the other hand, how does one explain others getting with basically equally low stats.

It's been explained. Splitters, reverse splitters, and URMs. Gotta have a GPA or LSAT above the median or be a URM. Having GPA and LSAT below the 25th %ile without URM status means not happening.

Let me rephrase my question more clearly. When I said that some people were getting in with 3.1s and 155s, another poster asked how did I know it was the same guy getting the 3.1 and 155. And I didn't. My question would be how do you or I know its not the same guy?

Geon wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:

Geon wrote: I tend to agree with he won't get in, but on the other hand, how does one explain others getting with basically equally low stats.

It's been explained. Splitters, reverse splitters, and URMs. Gotta have a GPA or LSAT above the median or be a URM. Having GPA and LSAT below the 25th %ile without URM status means not happening.

Let me rephrase my question more clearly. When I said that some people were getting in with 3.1s and 155s, another poster asked how did I know it was the same guy getting the 3.1 and 155. And I didn't. My question would be how do you or I know its not the same guy?

Cuz.

http://uva.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats

Low LSAT is 156, with a 3.88 GPA (no mention of race, might be in-state which is a big boost for UVA.)

Low GPA is 2.93, with a 171 LSAT.

The same story repeats itself every year, and not just at UVA. It's not like your buddy is just barely below both medians, where his softs might push him over. Based on your guess of his LSAT performance he'll be below both 25th percentiles, which is a killer. Unless, as dingbat said, Daddy's name is on the building.

If he spent as much time studying for the LSAT as he did trying to explain why he stands a chance, his chances might actually be quite good. As it stands, he's not getting in.