Top Law Schools

In the past several weeks, I've come across three remarkable data points in UCLA Law's Class of 2015 admissions cycle. These are people I know in real life, so I know their stats and their background well.

In August, my three data points are:

* sub-163, 3.7+, female, non-URM, from a UC undergrad
* 161, 3.7+, female, non-URM, from a UC undergrad
* 159, GPA unknown, female, non-URM, from a UC undergrad

So... looking at these LSAT scores, one can't help but ask: What the hell is going on over at UCLA?

Yes, it was mere weeks before class started when these girls got admitted off the wait-list, so it wasn't that big of a blow to the school's standards. But it's still confusing. UCLA is the fifth most applied-to law school in the country* and just years ago had a median LSAT score of 169.

I also want to emphasize that I know these girls, and to my knowledge, none of them have experienced near-insurmountable adversity or any other experience to make them stand out from the crowd despite low LSAT scores. To further prove the point, before they got that magic phone call, they were all committed to law schools between T40-50. It's not like they had spurned offers from other top schools.

So is it true? Is the upcoming cycle really going to be one of the best in years? Can someone with a low-160's score actually have a decent shot at UCLA (and similar schools)?

Or can something else explain this?

--
* http://www.usnews.com/education/best-gr ... ns-in-2011

+1. I'm very curious about this, too

born4law wrote:In the past several weeks, I've come across three remarkable data points in UCLA Law's Class of 2015 admissions cycle. These are people I know in real life, so I know their stats and their background well.

In August, my four data points are:
* sub-163, 3.7+, female, non-URM (from a UC undergrad)
* 161, 3.7+, female, non-URM (from a UC undergrad)
* 159, GPA unknown, female, non-URM (from a UC undergrad)

So... looking at these LSAT scores, one can't help but ask: What the hell is going on over at UCLA?

Yes, it was mere weeks before class started when these girls got admitted off the wait-list, so it wasn't that big of a blow to the school's standards. But I do want to emphasize that I know these girls, and to my knowledge, none of them have experienced near-insurmountable adversity or any other experience to make them stand out from the crowd despite low LSAT scores.

So is it true? Is the upcoming cycle really going to be one of the best in years? Can someone with a low-160's score actually have a decent shot at UCLA (and similar schools)?

Or can something else explain this?

When filling out the last few spots in a class, admins sometimes focus on one particular thing--in this case it looks like GPA. UCLA might have needed these people to maintain a certain GPA median/75th percentile. And UCLA may have also wanted females just b/c the class was a little unbalanced in having too many men.

So, no, I do not think a random person with a low 160 score has a decent shot at UCLA. These people seem to have fit a particular mold well in filling out the last few spots in a class.

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

born4law wrote:These people seem to have fit a particular mold well in filling out the last few spots in a class.

Yes, that's true. I considered that. But what are the odds that I know all the people who happened to fill out the last few spots? Is it really a remarkable coincidence or they've been letting in a lot more people with these stats?

born4law wrote:In the past several weeks, I've come across three remarkable data points in UCLA Law's Class of 2015 admissions cycle. These are people I know in real life, so I know their stats and their background well.

In August, my three data points are:

* sub-163, 3.7+, female, non-URM, from a UC undergrad
* 161, 3.7+, female, non-URM, from a UC undergrad
* 159, GPA unknown, female, non-URM, from a UC undergrad

So... looking at these LSAT scores, one can't help but ask: What the hell is going on over at UCLA?

Yes, it was mere weeks before class started when these girls got admitted off the wait-list, so it wasn't that big of a blow to the school's standards. But it's still confusing. UCLA is the fifth most applied-to law school in the country* and just years ago had a median LSAT score of 169.

I also want to emphasize that I know these girls, and to my knowledge, none of them have experienced near-insurmountable adversity or any other experience to make them stand out from the crowd despite low LSAT scores. To further prove the point, before they got that magic phone call, they were all committed to law schools between T40-50. It's not like they had spurned offers from other top schools.

So is it true? Is the upcoming cycle really going to be one of the best in years? Can someone with a low-160's score actually have a decent shot at UCLA (and similar schools)?

Or can something else explain this?

--
* http://www.usnews.com/education/best-gr ... ns-in-2011

California and Texas are two states that are notorious for GPA whoring. It isn't that unexpected.

Hopefully accepted people there are starting to realize the retarded tuition+COL along with meh job prospects is NOT a good idea...leading to them taking low quality applicants off their WL. Maybe they can finally get their COA somewhere reasonable for the prospects they offer

DoctorShawHi wrote:California and Texas are two states that are notorious for GPA whoring. It isn't that unexpected.

YEP