Top Law Schools

I remember reading a thread about a non-urm getting into Cornell last cycle with a 155. What are the mathematical chances of getting into the top14 with a sub 160 LSAT score as a non URM? Does this ever actually happen?

someguy55 wrote:I remember reading a thread about a non-urm getting into Cornell last cycle with a 155. What are the mathematical chances of getting into the top14 with a sub 160 LSAT score as a non URM? Does this ever actually happen?

Is there a building on campus named after someone in your immediate family?

are you an Olympic Champion (with some ncaa eligibility left)?

Asking "What are the mathematical chances...?" is a mistake.

The chance of your admission is 0 or 1.

Studying data on how many sub-160's make it to T1 will likely discourage you and fail to illuminate the reasons for their acceptance.

Yale accepted a 157 (check out their posted class profile), and I'm not sure there was a building named after this person or that this person is an Olympic Champion.

Remember what (I think) an LSAT score is for anyway: Firstly, to determine whether one is likely to be a good law student; secondly, to contribute to a higher USNWR ranking. In importance, the ranking is little in comparison. So if you can convincingly demonstrate that you'll be a good law student, a sub-160 LSAT score should not lock you out of anywhere, even the greatest, most selective, highest-yielding school in the country.

LexLeon wrote: Yale accepted a 157 (check out their posted class profile), and I'm not sure there was a building named after this person or that this person is an Olympic Champion.

Yeah that person probably had the 4.21 and was "Advisor to the President of the Kurdistan Region in Iraq"

LexLeon wrote:Asking "What are the mathematical chances...?" is a mistake.

The chance of your admission is 0 or 1.

This is a mathematical mistake.

ajr wrote:

LexLeon wrote:Asking "What are the mathematical chances...?" is a mistake.

The chance of your admission is 0 or 1.

This is a mathematical mistake.

Would you like to elaborate?

LexLeon wrote:

ajr wrote:

LexLeon wrote:Asking "What are the mathematical chances...?" is a mistake.

The chance of your admission is 0 or 1.

This is a mathematical mistake.

Would you like to elaborate?

The chances of admission is a probability. What you state are the possible outcomes. But never mind. I see the point you are trying to make.

It happens, but there are probably unusually significant hardships endured & overcome by these applicants.

CanadianWolf wrote:It happens, but there are probably unusually significant hardships endured & overcome by these applicants.

This. I remember reading an admissions officer's book where she said they twice let in applicants who were way below their LSAT/GPA range. Once, it was because the student had basically raised himself, with a horrible parent/home life situation, put himself through school, created a successful career, etc. The second time was just a clerical mistake.

LexLeon wrote:Asking "What are the mathematical chances...?" is a mistake.

The chance of your admission is 0 or 1.

Studying data on how many sub-160's make it to T1 will likely discourage you and fail to illuminate the reasons for their acceptance.

Yale accepted a 157 (check out their posted class profile), and I'm not sure there was a building named after this person or that this person is an Olympic Champion.

Remember what (I think) an LSAT score is for anyway: Firstly, to determine whether one is likely to be a good law student; secondly, to contribute to a higher USNWR ranking. In importance, the ranking is little in comparison. So if you can convincingly demonstrate that you'll be a good law student, a sub-160 LSAT score should not lock you out of anywhere, even the greatest, most selective, highest-yielding school in the country.

Lol you are sadly mistaken if you think schools care more about you being able to demonstrate that you will be a good student than US News ranking.

someguy55 wrote:I remember reading a thread about a non-urm getting into Cornell last cycle with a 155. What are the mathematical chances of getting into the top14 with a sub 160 LSAT score as a non URM? Does this ever actually happen?

It happens but you will need to bring something pretty unique to the table.

While I was planning a retake (I took the LSAT cold the first time) I was accepted at my top choice. It wasn't T-14 because the military is paying for my school and I needed to go to school in NYC. NYU and CCL weren't covered at 100% by my funding so Fordham was my top pick. Regardless, I was admitted strictly based on softs so in theory it might have happened at a T-14 as well.

So sure, it can be done. Is your name Mark Zuckerburg? Were you a Navy SEAL? Are you the son or daughter of a A list actor? Did you write a novel that did well? Is your name Peter Lik? Did you win the same award that Capt Sully Sullenburger got for landing in the Hudson? Where you a Blue Angel pilot? Did you get a silver star in Iraq? Are you a surgeon? Are you Todd Beamer's son? Do you have a PhD in theoretical physics?

When it comes down to it there are "interesting" students admitted well below a schools numbers every year. (At some schools.) Interesting may be something prestigious that the adcoms can point to in recruiting material. It may be something that is just plain interesting and unique. Generally, the more prestigious or interesting it is, the better your shot. It will also help if it shows you will be a good law student but there are lots of applicants that would be good students that never get past their numbers so I think it hinges more on the interesting/prestigious question.

LexLeon wrote: Remember what (I think) an LSAT score is for anyway: Firstly, to determine whether one is likely to be a good law student; secondly, to contribute to a higher USNWR ranking. In importance, the ranking is little in comparison. So if you can convincingly demonstrate that you'll be a good law student, a sub-160 LSAT score should not lock you out of anywhere, even the greatest, most selective, highest-yielding school in the country.

All of this seems wrong.

CyanIdes Of March wrote:

LexLeon wrote: Remember what (I think) an LSAT score is for anyway: Firstly, to determine whether one is likely to be a good law student; secondly, to contribute to a higher USNWR ranking. In importance, the ranking is little in comparison. So if you can convincingly demonstrate that you'll be a good law student, a sub-160 LSAT score should not lock you out of anywhere, even the greatest, most selective, highest-yielding school in the country.

All of this seems wrong.

Absolutely, completely wrong.

If anything, the ranking is so much more important in comparison.

Even if the LSAT was a great indicator of law school performance, two factors make this irrelevant:

a) Everyone's within a small slice of the score band, and a big chunk of the class is within the margin of error.
b) More importantly, everyone's on a curve in law school. Even if the school recruits a bunch of 172+ students, 20% of them are going to fail and be in the bottom 20% of the class.

The idea that law schools are looking for "good law students" is just bunk.

Is it Admissions Ignorance Day?

CyanIdes Of March wrote:

LexLeon wrote: Remember what (I think) an LSAT score is for anyway: Firstly, to determine whether one is likely to be a good law student; secondly, to contribute to a higher USNWR ranking. In importance, the ranking is little in comparison. So if you can convincingly demonstrate that you'll be a good law student, a sub-160 LSAT score should not lock you out of anywhere, even the greatest, most selective, highest-yielding school in the country.

All of this seems wrong.

not wrong in this context

but for all intents and purposes, no, this is false.