Top Law Schools

I've been told that once a GPA has met the 75th percentile, the degree to which it exceeds the 75th percentile is irrelevant. So, all else equal, someone applying to Harvard or Stanford with a 4.13 would not be evaluated more favorably than someone with a 3.97 or a 4.0.

I'd like to get feedback from some more posters. Is what I've described above generally true?

Check lawschoolnumbers.com, which suggests your theory isn't true. The benefit of a higher GPA tails off as you get further away from the median, but it does seem to exist even between a 3.97 and a 4.13.

alacrity wrote:I've been told that once a GPA has met the 75th percentile, the degree to which it exceeds the 75th percentile is irrelevant. So, all else equal, someone applying to Harvard or Stanford with a 4.13 would not be evaluated more favorably than someone with a 3.97 or a 4.0.

I'd like to get feedback from some more posters. Is what I've described above generally true?

For lesser schools this is absolutely true, but for Stanford (and Harvard) it does matter, because they get enough exceptional applicants that they can take a holistic approach.
What's your LSAT?

alacrity wrote: all else equal, someone applying to Harvard or Stanford with a 4.13 would not be evaluated more favorably than someone with a 3.97 or a 4.0.

That's not REALLY true. It doesn't make that much of a difference, but if there's two completely identical candidates with the same awesome PS and LoRs etc, then the .2+ to GPA might be the deciding factor.

However, if both candidates have the same LSAT and similar GPAs over the 75th, they'll probably either both get in or both get dinged together based on their LSAT.

dingbat wrote:

alacrity wrote:I've been told that once a GPA has met the 75th percentile, the degree to which it exceeds the 75th percentile is irrelevant. So, all else equal, someone applying to Harvard or Stanford with a 4.13 would not be evaluated more favorably than someone with a 3.97 or a 4.0.

I'd like to get feedback from some more posters. Is what I've described above generally true?

For lesser schools this is absolutely true, but for Stanford (and Harvard) it does matter, because they get enough exceptional applicants that they can take a holistic approach.
What's your LSAT?

171 (I plan to retake)

I've noticed that in recent cycles Harvard applicants with a 171 still have a decent chance if they're above the GPA 75th, and I'm wondering if my 4.13 would give me any advantage over comparable applicants with the same LSAT and lower GPAs above the 75th (e.g. 3.97 or 4.0).

The 171-172 crowd at Harvard seems to be the one most affected by having a GPA up over 4.0, rather than just over 3.9. But good on you for retaking.

I think it probably depends on the undergraduate institution.

I believe that if a school offers A+s, a 3.97 would pale in comparison to a 4.22 from that very same school.

However, a 3.97-4.0 (basically only one A- or B+) from an institution that does not offer A+s probably suggests that the GPA would be in the 4.1-2 range if it did offer them.

In sum, I think 3.99s from institutions with no A+s are evaluated as comparable to 4.2's from institutions with A+s.

Yeah, once you get into >75th zone, schools can start to nitpick your transcripts. But, as long as your LSAT is ~median or better, it shouldn't make too much difference. The only time I can see it being all that important is in waitlist rankings.

LexLeon wrote:I think it probably depends on the undergraduate institution.

I believe that if a school offers A+s, a 3.97 would pale in comparison to a 4.22 from that very same school.

However, a 3.97-4.0 (basically only one A- or B+) from an institution that does not offer A+s probably suggests that the GPA would be in the 4.1-2 range if it did offer them.

In sum, I think 3.99s from institutions with no A+s are evaluated as comparable to 4.2's from institutions with A+s.

What's the support for this?

Unoriginalist wrote:

LexLeon wrote:I think it probably depends on the undergraduate institution.

I believe that if a school offers A+s, a 3.97 would pale in comparison to a 4.22 from that very same school.

However, a 3.97-4.0 (basically only one A- or B+) from an institution that does not offer A+s probably suggests that the GPA would be in the 4.1-2 range if it did offer them.

In sum, I think 3.99s from institutions with no A+s are evaluated as comparable to 4.2's from institutions with A+s.

What's the support for this?

Probably that the LSAC report shows the median GPA of your UG LS applicants on your report.


I always considered an LSAT or GPA above the 75% to be considered a soft bump. It won't make a dramatic difference like you'd statistically see with hitting a schools LSAT median, but you would probably see a similar bump in line with an Ivy undergrad or being tri-lingual.

LexLeon wrote:I think it probably depends on the undergraduate institution.

I believe that if a school offers A+s, a 3.97 would pale in comparison to a 4.22 from that very same school.

However, a 3.97-4.0 (basically only one A- or B+) from an institution that does not offer A+s probably suggests that the GPA would be in the 4.1-2 range if it did offer them.

In sum, I think 3.99s from institutions with no A+s are evaluated as comparable to 4.2's from institutions with A+s.

As someone with a 3.9 from an institution that did not allow A+, I would certainly like to think so (esp. since I frequently had papers with superfluous pluses). But I doubt it.