Page 1 of 1
35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:29 pm
by mpgold
I've seen other post like this, but I'm a bit different than the typical undergraduate.
I was a mess in college, no excuses, simply did the bare minimum to graduate. My grades actually went down as the years progressed. I graduated from U Texas with a BA.
I eventually got my life together and got a lucky break to get into a well known private equity firm as an analyst and have been there ever since, working in Tokyo, Madrid and Chicago. For the last 5 years I've wanted to go to law school, and so I decided to take the LSATs and was fortunate to score a 172.
I sure you can figure out what I will ask....is it worth my time to apply to any decent schools? Does an extensive, unique job history matter?
I currently live in Chicago and I'm sure I can get into Depaul or John Marshall, but, I'm not sure I'm interested in a lower tier school. Do I have any chance at all of getting into a decent school?
Thanks for any input you can provide.
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:36 pm
by Dmini7
Northwestern. They are pretty forgiving of a poor GPA for work experience, and the 170+ LSAT is just what they want. With that said, nearly all mid tier 1 and tier 2 will probably bite on the LSAT and understand that you have distanced yourself from the GPA. I would expect large amounts of money from those schools personally, but I can't really say since your such a large splitter. I am not certain, maybe someone else can enlighten me, but do the schools still have to submit their students GPA if they are "X" amount of years out of undergrad?
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:38 pm
by WanderingPondering
Don't go. You're life is better now than it will be in and after law school.
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:38 pm
by manofjustice
Dmini7 wrote:Northwestern. They are pretty forgiving of a poor GPA for work experience, and the 170+ LSAT is just what they want. With that said, nearly all schools 25 and up will probably bite on the LSAT and understand that you have distanced yourself and matured from your gpa. I am not certain, maybe someone else can enlighten me, but do the schools still have to submit their students GPA if they are "X" amount of years out of undergrad?
This. Your range is T50.
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:42 pm
by francesfarmer
WanderingPondering wrote:Don't go. You're life is better now than it will be in and after law school.
Since you are an adult with extensive business experience, you should be smart enough to recognize a risky investment. That said, you are obviously capable of excelling in the real world, so you could do very well for yourself with a JD. Please take the time to read about how difficult it is to get a job as a lawyer right now, and how (if at all) a JD will affect your ability to continue working in your current field after law school should you strike out in the legal field.
Good luck!
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:46 pm
by bizzybone1313
What if he ED to Virginia every year until he got admitted? Virginia does truly seem like one of the biggest number whores in the T-14. In this guy's case, it isn't a running joke. All those people that Virginia is throwing $100K at aren't going to accept their offers. They are taking their talents to the T-6.
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:48 pm
by dingbat
WanderingPondering wrote:Don't go. You're life is better now than it will be in and after law school.
Ignore this.
As an equity analyst I'm sure you can analyze for yourself whether or not it's worth going. If you want I built a model calculating weighted average outcome and comparing NPVs that I'm happy to share.
A lot of schools will forgive your Paleolithic GPA - you've got strong work experience and an excellent LSAT. As people have mentioned, Northwestern is splitter friendly, loves work experience and is a T14 in Chicago
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:48 pm
by paratactical
francesfarmer wrote:WanderingPondering wrote:Don't go. You're life is better now than it will be in and after law school.
Since you are an adult with extensive business experience, you should be smart enough to recognize a risky investment. That said, you are obviously capable of excelling in the real world, so you could do very well for yourself with a JD. Please take the time to read about how difficult it is to get a job as a lawyer right now, and how (if at all) a JD will affect your ability to continue working in your current field after law school should you strike out in the legal field.
Good luck!
This- plus, don't be afraid to apply and decide whether or not you should attend based on what schools you get into and what kinds of scholarships you are offered.
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 3:51 pm
by Tiago Splitter
On the surface you seem like the perfect NW candidate, but the truth is we have no evidence that they'll take a GPA as low as 2.0. Assuming you want to practice a type of law that is somewhat aligned with your work experience, I wouldn't recommend going anywhere below T-14.
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:41 pm
by WanderingPondering
dingbat wrote:WanderingPondering wrote:Don't go. You're life is better now than it will be in and after law school.
Ignore this.
As an equity analyst I'm sure you can analyze for yourself whether or not it's worth going. If you want I built a model calculating weighted average outcome and comparing NPVs that I'm happy to share.
A lot of schools will forgive your Paleolithic GPA - you've got strong work experience and an excellent LSAT. As people have mentioned, Northwestern is splitter friendly, loves work experience and is a T14 in Chicago
Let me clarify. It would be difficult for OP to land a career making as much money as he/she is now. Given the time commitment and the lost wages, it might not be a great idea purely from a financial standpoint. A 5th year associate at a successful private equity firm can make quite a bit of cash, as you know.
If OP has money saved up, or actually cares about the law, or really wants to do something fulfilling like govt or public interest then go for it, especially at a T14. OP is obviously a bright fellow and i think will be successful whichever route is chosen.
Good luck!
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:52 pm
by BengaliFarmGirl
Tiago Splitter wrote:On the surface you seem like the perfect NW candidate, but the truth is we have no evidence that they'll take a GPA as low as 2.0. Assuming you want to practice a type of law that is somewhat aligned with your work experience, I wouldn't recommend going anywhere below T-14.
They've taken 2.1 in the past. I wouldn't say he's a "perfect NW candidate" and more like NW is probably the only decent school who will even consider him.
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:59 pm
by Tiago Splitter
BengaliFarmGirl wrote:Tiago Splitter wrote:On the surface you seem like the perfect NW candidate, but the truth is we have no evidence that they'll take a GPA as low as 2.0. Assuming you want to practice a type of law that is somewhat aligned with your work experience, I wouldn't recommend going anywhere below T-14.
They've taken 2.1 in the past. I wouldn't say he's a "perfect NW candidate" and more like NW is probably the only decent school who will even consider him.
Lowest I could find on LSN for a non-URM was a 2.54, but I believe you. That said, most of the apps on LSN with 170+ LSATs and sub-2.5 GPAs get rejected. Admittedly it's a small sample size.
The "perfect for NW" comment was made because the guy has a terrible GPA, work experience, and wants Chicago. Your explanation was better.
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:14 pm
by dingbat
WanderingPondering wrote:Let me clarify. It would be difficult for OP to land a career making as much money as he/she is now. Given the time commitment and the lost wages, it might not be a great idea purely from a financial standpoint. A 5th year associate at a successful private equity firm can make quite a bit of cash, as you know.
Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of long term associates who don't make big bucks. You're also assuming OP only cares about money. I doubt I'll ever again have the kind of opportunity I gave up to go to law school. I don't regret that decision one bit (although, to be fair, grades haven't come in yet)
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 5:29 pm
by timbs4339
What kind of law do you want to practice? For what kind of organization representing which kinds of clients? Are you doing this to change or improve career prospects, or simply for recreation?
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:06 pm
by BigZuck
I think it would be useful if OP came back and explained how he got such a good job from a middling UG with a horrible GPA. We have so many kids on this site working shit jobs with better credentials and who feel law school is the only way out, maybe the OP could start a new thread and give some insight and help lots of people in the process.
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:13 pm
by paratactical
BigZuck wrote:I think it would be useful if OP came back and explained how he got such a good job from a middling UG with a horrible GPA. We have so many kids on this site working shit jobs with better credentials and who feel law school is the only way out, maybe the OP could start a new thread and give some insight and help lots of people in the process.
Odds are that a huge part of the answer is that he wasn't trying to do it in this shitty economy.
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:23 pm
by UVAIce
The 90's were a completely different era than today.
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:45 pm
by mpgold
I've been extremely busy, I apologizing for not jumping back into the fray earlier.
Some more background (and this was during an excellent economy)....
I was working as a business banker (effectively a used car salesman for banking products), truly a pulse and a degree are all that's required when I met a partner from a new formed PE firm that was looking to establish accounts. Through about a year long relationship I was able to do some good for the company (good terms on a line of credit, noticeing some potential accounting issues in bifurcated accounts, etc). The partner in question eventually started speaking with me about various businesses and my impressions of them. I didn't realize at the time, but it was basically a practical interview. About 18 months after I first met him, he invited me to lunch with several other partners where I was offered an opportunity to take an intern role for about 1/3 of what I was making with no promise of a job past the summer (I found out later someone had quit and they needed someone fast). I was single at the time and just decided to take a chance, banker job are a dime a dozen. I worked about 120 hrs a week for 10 weeks. I was called into a partner's office (not the one I originally met) and was offered full time employment. About 3 years later, my firm was acquired by one of the major Wall Street banks (Ironically, the parent co. of the same one I worked for as a retail banker) and have been there ever since.
I will stay in the same line of business with a law degree, I think it would help greatly if I try to move on....
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:46 pm
by mpgold
...and U Texas is not a middling school!!! McCombs School of Business is currently #9 globally.
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 3:58 pm
by aarwu2000
law school cares about two indicators to get their ranking up: (1) gpa; (2) lsat. I argue LSAT is weighted more in their selection process. In fact take a look at lawschoolnumbers website and sort by LSAT and GPA. you'll be surprised what schools you will get into. Some schools value LSAT so much they will give you a full ride. think about how easy you can get a high gpa (taking shit classes like bowling) yet how difficult it is to crush a standardized test (feels like an IQ test in a way). You probably going to law school for the credentials/status which is cool. Don't go for the money b/c you'll be too old to get picked up at BIG law as an associate or you will likely not want to grind for $8K a mo doing 60 hours a week. Your best gig would be in-house counsel to start up in emerging issues market such as blockchain tech. Whatever you do--->don't go to unranked or t4. With a 172 you likely could get into t20.
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Fri May 11, 2018 4:41 pm
by sparkytrainer
aarwu2000 wrote:law school cares about two indicators to get their ranking up: (1) gpa; (2) lsat. I argue LSAT is weighted more in their selection process. In fact take a look at lawschoolnumbers website and sort by LSAT and GPA. you'll be surprised what schools you will get into. Some schools value LSAT so much they will give you a full ride. think about how easy you can get a high gpa (taking shit classes like bowling) yet how difficult it is to crush a standardized test (feels like an IQ test in a way). You probably going to law school for the credentials/status which is cool. Don't go for the money b/c you'll be too old to get picked up at BIG law as an associate or you will likely not want to grind for $8K a mo doing 60 hours a week. Your best gig would be in-house counsel to start up in emerging issues market such as blockchain tech. Whatever you do--->don't go to unranked or t4. With a 172 you likely could get into t20.
Why are you bumping a 6 year old tread?
Re: 35 yo- 2.0 GPA from 1998, 172 LSAT
Posted: Sun May 13, 2018 12:19 am
by albanach
sparkytrainer wrote:
Why are you bumping a 6 year old tread?
No idea, but it'd be interesting to know what happened to OP. Did they end up applying to schools? Did anyone bite? Where are they now?