Importance of the LSAC GPA over regular GPA Forum

[maxalexander]

I transferred to Vanderbilt from a top-4 public school. My Freshman GPA was horrible and Vanderbilt allowed my GPA to be wiped clean when I transferred. My freshman GPA was probably a 3.1, first semester of sophomore year was a 3.5, second semester was 3.7. My Vanderbilt GPA will probably be a 3.85 upon graduation. As a result, my transcript will say that my GPA is a 3.85, but my LSAC GPA will be much lower. How will this affect my acceptance into law schools? When looking to apply should I go off the GPA on my transcript or my LSAC GPA when looking where to apply? Will it help that my GPA at a moderately good school wasn't initially great but upon entering a (in my opinion) prestigious college, my GPA was near perfect?
Thank you for your help.

[rad lulz]

LSAC is what matters entirely. Srry bro.

[20130312]

LSAC is what matters entirely. Srry bro.

This is correct. Sorry OP.

[LexLeon]

I wouldn't jump to a conclusion one way or the other. The admissions process has so many subjective (and unpredictable) factors.

You might look better to someone reviewing your application as one who dramatically improved (from no laude to summa cum laude), relative to one who remained in the upper range throughout his or her education.

It seems like you've been duly diligent in recent times and I think that's something law schools will not overlook--notwithstanding a rough start.

[rad lulz]

I wouldn't jump to a conclusion one way or the other. The admissions process has so many subjective (and unpredictable) factors.

Taking a look at LSN will rapidly disburse you of this notion.

[WhiskeynCoke]

I wouldn't jump to a conclusion one way or the other. The admissions process has so many subjective (and unpredictable) factors.

What conclusion would that be? That Law schools only report the LSAC GPA to US News and it's the only number used to establish the medians and 75th/25th percentiles? That because your UG didn't care about your freshman year, law schools will accept the hit to their GPA median for "subjective factors."

Sure, the admissions committees might appreciate your "upward trend," in the sense that if you and someone else with identical LSAT/LSAC GPA's + comparable other softs are on the border it could help a bit, but by no means will they give a shit about your non-LSAC UG GPA. To think otherwise is retarded.

[Tiago Splitter]

I wouldn't jump to a conclusion one way or the other. The admissions process has so many subjective (and unpredictable) factors.

Taking a look at LSN will rapidly disburse you of this notion.

While at the same time disabusing you of that notion.

OP a 3.1 isn't even that bad. All you can do now is retake the LSAT.

[rad lulz]

I wouldn't jump to a conclusion one way or the other. The admissions process has so many subjective (and unpredictable) factors.

Taking a look at LSN will rapidly disburse you of this notion.

While at the same time disabusing you of that notion.

OP a 3.1 isn't even that bad. All you can do now is retake the LSAT.

Whoops phone autocorrect is funny.

[Big Dog]

"As a result, my [Vanderbilt] transcript will say that my GPA is a 3.85, but my [cumulative undergraduate] GPA will be much lower."

There, I fixed it for you.

My Freshman GPA was horrible and Vanderbilt allowed my GPA to be wiped clean when I transferred.

No real big 'allowance' here, however. I don't know of any college that adds anothers' grades to their its transcripts.

[LexLeon]

I wouldn't jump to a conclusion one way or the other. The admissions process has so many subjective (and unpredictable) factors.

What conclusion would that be? That Law schools only report the LSAC GPA to US News and it's the only number used to establish the medians and 75th/25th percentiles? That because your UG didn't care about your freshman year, law schools will accept the hit to their GPA median for "subjective factors."

Sure, the admissions committees might appreciate your "upward trend," in the sense that if you and someone else with identical LSAT/LSAC GPA's + comparable other softs are on the border it could help a bit, but by no means will they give a shit about your non-LSAC UG GPA. To think otherwise is retarded.

Right, law schools see high medians as ends in themselves: "by no means will they give a shit about your non-LSAC UG GPA."

Wrong.

Above all, law schools want good (academically excellent) students that will make tangible contributions to their university and the world (for a variety of reasons).

Admissions officers are not machines programmed to eliminate people with low numbers.

Though medians are a criterion on which schools' overall rankings are based, numbers' importance is subsidiary to softer factors. A high GPA is certainly indicative of academic excellence and commitment; but it's actually the academic excellence and commitment which is desirable, not the mere number which reflects it. It is the primary and single most important reason schools seek people with high GPA's.

[alwayssunnyinfl]

I wouldn't jump to a conclusion one way or the other. The admissions process has so many subjective (and unpredictable) factors.

What conclusion would that be? That Law schools only report the LSAC GPA to US News and it's the only number used to establish the medians and 75th/25th percentiles? That because your UG didn't care about your freshman year, law schools will accept the hit to their GPA median for "subjective factors."

Sure, the admissions committees might appreciate your "upward trend," in the sense that if you and someone else with identical LSAT/LSAC GPA's + comparable other softs are on the border it could help a bit, but by no means will they give a shit about your non-LSAC UG GPA. To think otherwise is retarded.

Right, law schools see high medians as ends in themselves: "by no means will they give a shit about your non-LSAC UG GPA."

Wrong.

Above all, law schools want good (academically excellent) students that will make tangible contributions to their university and the world (for a variety of reasons).

Admissions officers are not machines programmed to eliminate people with low numbers.

Though medians are a criterion on which schools' overall rankings are based, numbers' importance is subsidiary to softer factors. A high GPA is certainly indicative of academic excellence and commitment; but it's actually the academic excellence and commitment which is desirable, not the mere number which reflects it. It is the primary and single most important reason schools seek people with high GPA's.

The goal is to get your numbers high enough that you don't have to worry about soft factors breaking the tie between you and Boring-Whitey McBoarderton when you both have statistically identical numbers. OP, it sounds like your GPA won't be too low between three years of 3.85 balanced with only one year of 3.1. Kill the LSAT and profit, but don't like feel good mumbo jumbo make you soft. You should be aiming for the highest LSAT score, even if you have a 4.33.

[dingbat]

I wouldn't jump to a conclusion one way or the other. The admissions process has so many subjective (and unpredictable) factors.

What conclusion would that be? That Law schools only report the LSAC GPA to US News and it's the only number used to establish the medians and 75th/25th percentiles? That because your UG didn't care about your freshman year, law schools will accept the hit to their GPA median for "subjective factors."

Sure, the admissions committees might appreciate your "upward trend," in the sense that if you and someone else with identical LSAT/LSAC GPA's + comparable other softs are on the border it could help a bit, but by no means will they give a shit about your non-LSAC UG GPA. To think otherwise is retarded.

Right, law schools see high medians as ends in themselves: "by no means will they give a shit about your non-LSAC UG GPA."

Wrong.

Above all, law schools want good (academically excellent) students that will make tangible contributions to their university and the world (for a variety of reasons).

Admissions officers are not machines programmed to eliminate people with low numbers.

Though medians are a criterion on which schools' overall rankings are based, numbers' importance is subsidiary to softer factors. A high GPA is certainly indicative of academic excellence and commitment; but it's actually the academic excellence and commitment which is desirable, not the mere number which reflects it. It is the primary and single most important reason schools seek people with high GPA's.

it's a tie breaker against someone with a similar GPA (within +- .05), but won't let you outperform.
Remember, as a fresh out of college kid, all they have is your GPA and your LSAT score - just about every applicant has had a leadership position or a semester abroad, or whatever you think makes you special. Truth is, easily 9 out of 10 applicants are no different and will be judged solely on their numbers (and yes, an improving GPA is better than a candidate whose GPA has been steady all 4 years, but not by much)

[rad lulz]

I wouldn't jump to a conclusion one way or the other. The admissions process has so many subjective (and unpredictable) factors.

What conclusion would that be? That Law schools only report the LSAC GPA to US News and it's the only number used to establish the medians and 75th/25th percentiles? That because your UG didn't care about your freshman year, law schools will accept the hit to their GPA median for "subjective factors."

Sure, the admissions committees might appreciate your "upward trend," in the sense that if you and someone else with identical LSAT/LSAC GPA's + comparable other softs are on the border it could help a bit, but by no means will they give a shit about your non-LSAC UG GPA. To think otherwise is retarded.

Right, law schools see high medians as ends in themselves: "by no means will they give a shit about your non-LSAC UG GPA."

Wrong.

Above all, law schools want good (academically excellent) students that will make tangible contributions to their university and the world (for a variety of reasons).

Admissions officers are not machines programmed to eliminate people with low numbers.

Though medians are a criterion on which schools' overall rankings are based, numbers' importance is subsidiary to softer factors. A high GPA is certainly indicative of academic excellence and commitment; but it's actually the academic excellence and commitment which is desirable, not the mere number which reflects it. It is the primary and single most important reason schools seek people with high GPA's.

One look at lawschoolnumbers.com will rapidly disabuse you of this notion.

[20130312]

One look at lawschoolnumbers.com will rapidly disabuse you of this notion.

Surprised you had to say this twice already. Is there an extra dose of dumb in the on topics today?

[Tom Joad]

I don't know why you guys are arguing with Aslan.

[bp shinners]

Above all, law schools want good (academically excellent) students that will make tangible contributions to their university and the world (for a variety of reasons).

Admissions officers are not machines programmed to eliminate people with low numbers.

The first statement is true, but they can, for the most part, find someone with the numbers they're looking for without having to throw out a year of grades. While numbers are down, there are still more people applying to law school than there are seats to fill. You won't out-perform your numbers in any significant way with an upward trend.

The second statement is true, but they have people who work in the office that fill this role. Some schools will give a fair shake to every applicant; most will only give a brief consideration to someone without the numbers (if that much).