Intereted in Chicago Law School Forum

[wehman]

Good morning,

I'm considering taking my LSAT and applying to law school in the Fall. I want to go to law school in Chicago or Milwaukee. I prepped once upon a time and although graduating Magna Cum Laude in Philosophy & Religious Studies, I'm not a great test taker. I read a book by a guy who was on Harvard's admissions and he recommended proving, by attaching my SATs and GREs, I am a weak test taker can help admissions focus on my other admissions criteria.

I am just narrowing my scope though to Chicago-Kent as a reach, Loyola as a plausible shot, DePaul as a hopeful consideration and Marquette as a strong possibility. I graduated Phi Beta Kappa and Magna Cum Laude from a strong regional, large public school; however, most importantly, I am in the middle of finishing up a #5 ranked Master of Health Administration program.

Question: Will my acceptance and completion of this Master's program and the work experience I have alongside it in healthcare help my admittance?
Question: Based on the above, anybody feel comfortable throwing out some LSAT figures necessary for admittance? White, Male, Non-URM.

Thank you.

[RodneyRuxin]

1) Your masters will help very, very little.
2) GPA and LSAT are all that matter.
3) You haven't given us a GPA.
4) http://www.lawschoolpredictor.com/

[jselson]

If you're a bad test taker, then wouldn't you do poorly on law school exams, the only things that matter 1L? And hence, you shouldn't go to law school? Especially at the schools you've listed, which are all poor choices, especially when it comes to employment?

[nugnoy]

Here's some helpful concrete info:

1. According to lawschoolnumbers.com, US News reports Chicago's 2013 medians as follows: 171 LSAT and 3.87 GPA. Be aware though, that the 3.87 is probably the GPA that LSAC calculates, which may be different from your university calculated GPA.

2. Anna Ivey (of the Ivey guide) argues that of the two sides of the median, the upper side is the non-URM side and the lower side is the URM side. Basically, schools take a hit on their median GPA and LSAT by taking on URM, because having URM offers other statistical benefits. That means that it's likely that for the LSAT and GPA medians for the non-URM is likely higher. So, she recommends that a non-URM to not feel too safe if he falls exactly on the median.

So it depends on your GPA. But the ballpark seems to be 171 and higher in general. Maybe a point or two lower is acceptable with higher GPA than the median.

On the SAT etc, I think Ivey explicitly pointed out usually it's inappropriate except in your situation. She stated that the only reason to attach SAT score is to contrast that a low SAT score did not represent your good performance in college. She probably means for you to use this to support your claim that a low lsat score, similarly, will not be representative of your performance in law school.

Ivey's book doesn't really emphasize Master's as a resume booster. It does mention Master's as a possible item to use in personal statement and interviews. Work experience in good standing can't hurt.

The impression I get is that having an lsat score of 174+ will make you a highly likely candidate with your softs, but the softs themselves won't overcome a low lsat score.

Of course, this is all assuming you have a good GPA of 3.8+ (which I definitely don't haha).

[trojandave]

Here's some helpful concrete info:

1. According to lawschoolnumbers.com, US News reports Chicago's 2013 medians as follows: 171 LSAT and 3.87 GPA. Be aware though, that the 3.87 is probably the GPA that LSAC calculates, which may be different from your university calculated GPA.

2. Anna Ivey (of the Ivey guide) argues that of the two sides of the median, the upper side is the non-URM side and the lower side is the URM side. Basically, schools take a hit on their median GPA and LSAT by taking on URM, because having URM offers other statistical benefits. That means that it's likely that for the LSAT and GPA medians for the non-URM is likely higher. So, she recommends that a non-URM to not feel too safe if he falls exactly on the median.

So it depends on your GPA. But the ballpark seems to be 171 and higher in general. Maybe a point or two lower is acceptable with higher GPA than the median.

On the SAT etc, I think Ivey explicitly pointed out usually it's inappropriate except in your situation. She stated that the only reason to attach SAT score is to contrast that a low SAT score did not represent your good performance in college. She probably means for you to use this to support your claim that a low lsat score, similarly, will not be representative of your performance in law school.

Ivey's book doesn't really emphasize Master's as a resume booster. It does mention Master's as a possible item to use in personal statement and interviews. Work experience in good standing can't hurt.

The impression I get is that having an lsat score of 174+ will make you a highly likely candidate with your softs, but the softs themselves won't overcome a low lsat score.

Of course, this is all assuming you have a good GPA of 3.8+ (which I definitely don't haha).

OP doesn't mean THAT Chicago. Means the general city of Chicago and listed a lot of schools he's considering. Anyway, a much lower LSAT and GPA than what's listed here should work for ya with the schools you mentioned. If you have a really strong undergrad GPA though, you can get away with the bad test taker thing... If you don't... It'll be a lot tougher to sell

[wehman]

I appreciate the responses. I earned a 3.71 UG GPA.

I'm completely aware of how saturated the legal market is right now; also, I'm aware that your ROI may be crap. However, I cannot shake the interest in learning law. It probably sounds crazy but I guess I come from a different mindset. My MHA is vocational and terminal; it will get me a great job and a long, wonderful career. I know if I don't now, then I'll never get a JD.

[Winston1984]

I appreciate the responses. I earned a 3.71 UG GPA.

I'm completely aware of how saturated the legal market is right now; also, I'm aware that your ROI may be crap. However, I cannot shake the interest in learning law. It probably sounds crazy but I guess I come from a different mindset. My MHA is vocational and terminal; it will get me a great job and a long, wonderful career. I know if I don't now, then I'll never get a JD.

It sounds like you would be better off pursuing a career with your MHA. Why get the degree if you didn't want to use it anyway?

[jselson]

I appreciate the responses. I earned a 3.71 UG GPA.

I'm completely aware of how saturated the legal market is right now; also, I'm aware that your ROI may be crap. However, I cannot shake the interest in learning law. It probably sounds crazy but I guess I come from a different mindset. My MHA is vocational and terminal; it will get me a great job and a long, wonderful career. I know if I don't now, then I'll never get a JD.

So are you looking to do part-time with a large scholarship?

[wehman]

I still plan on going into health administration, even if I got a JD. I ultimately want to be professionally trained in health law and have a better understanding of it. I have seen, working at a corporate level now in business development for a health system, how much we communicate with our associate counsel and the integral part she plays. Granted to get her position she graduated from Harvard and worked at a Vault top 100 firm first... it would be nice to understand the legal parameters, jargon, and ins/outs of health law. Not to mention the potential career path of health policy, politics, lobbying, etc.

Healthcare is near and dear, and very personal to me. My MHA is just one tool in the toolbox, and I am interested in adding a JD.

[trojandave]

I still plan on going into health administration, even if I got a JD. I ultimately want to be professionally trained in health law and have a better understanding of it. I have seen, working at a corporate level now in business development for a health system, how much we communicate with our associate counsel and the integral part she plays. Granted to get her position she graduated from Harvard and worked at a Vault top 100 firm first... it would be nice to understand the legal parameters, jargon, and ins/outs of health law. Not to mention the potential career path of health policy, politics, lobbying, etc.

Healthcare is near and dear, and very personal to me. My MHA is just one tool in the toolbox, and I am interested in adding a JD.

Hmmm... Well I think if you want to pursue the legal side, get the very best LSAT you can (it's way more learnable than say, the SAT) and go to the best school you can. Like the woman in your example - follow her lead because the school makes a big difference in employment prospects these days... But if you for sure want to pursue an MHA job and the legal degree is just for your own benefit, go to the school that best balances quality with the smallest amount of debt. Keep in mind these schools will make it harder to get into that Vault 100 type job though, so if you want the option to go straight legal, really do your best to rock that LSAT. You have plenty of time and your GPA is definitely worthy of admittance into HLS and below. And with a top tier LSAT you'll get a huge scholly at a number of great places and most assuredly a full ride at the schools you mentioned

[jbagelboy]

Here's some helpful concrete info:

1. According to lawschoolnumbers.com, US News reports Chicago's 2013 medians as follows: 171 LSAT and 3.87 GPA. Be aware though, that the 3.87 is probably the GPA that LSAC calculates, which may be different from your university calculated GPA.

2. Anna Ivey (of the Ivey guide) argues that of the two sides of the median, the upper side is the non-URM side and the lower side is the URM side. Basically, schools take a hit on their median GPA and LSAT by taking on URM, because having URM offers other statistical benefits. That means that it's likely that for the LSAT and GPA medians for the non-URM is likely higher. So, she recommends that a non-URM to not feel too safe if he falls exactly on the median.

So it depends on your GPA. But the ballpark seems to be 171 and higher in general. Maybe a point or two lower is acceptable with higher GPA than the median.

On the SAT etc, I think Ivey explicitly pointed out usually it's inappropriate except in your situation. She stated that the only reason to attach SAT score is to contrast that a low SAT score did not represent your good performance in college. She probably means for you to use this to support your claim that a low lsat score, similarly, will not be representative of your performance in law school.

Ivey's book doesn't really emphasize Master's as a resume booster. It does mention Master's as a possible item to use in personal statement and interviews. Work experience in good standing can't hurt.

The impression I get is that having an lsat score of 174+ will make you a highly likely candidate with your softs, but the softs themselves won't overcome a low lsat score.

Of course, this is all assuming you have a good GPA of 3.8+ (which I definitely don't haha).

This feels more abstract than "concrete".This information must have been relevant for the 2010 or 2011 admissions cycles, when schools were actually trying to increase medians. Now they are desperate to hold them at only -1 and not -2. Tons of non-urm people are getting into schools with below "median" numbers in one category, or even both (because the medians are shifting and outdated). Warning someone that they should have a 174+/3.8+ to get into UChicago is basically just erroneous fear mongering. I got into UChicago w/ the same gpa as OP; the 3.87 is bloated and entirely misleading. Only for Yale would that advice still hold.

OP, take the LSAT and come back with what you've got. It's a learnable exam, even for bad test takers. If you get a 171, you're most likely in at Chicago. With a 169 or 170, you're in at Northwestern. ITE I wouldn't attend Chicago-Kent or any of the other local TTT's.

If you really can't score above mid-160's, try to get $$ at notre dame and you can still land decent work in the region.

[nugnoy]

This feels more abstract than "concrete".This information must have been relevant for the 2010 or 2011 admissions cycles, when schools were actually trying to increase medians. Now they are desperate to hold them at only -1 and not -2. Tons of non-urm people are getting into schools with below "median" numbers in one category, or even both (because the medians are shifting and outdated). Warning someone that they should have a 174+/3.8+ to get into UChicago is basically just erroneous fear mongering. I got into UChicago w/ the same gpa as OP; the 3.87 is bloated and entirely misleading. Only for Yale would that advice still hold.

OP, take the LSAT and come back with what you've got. It's a learnable exam, even for bad test takers. If you get a 171, you're most likely in at Chicago. With a 169 or 170, you're in at Northwestern. ITE I wouldn't attend Chicago-Kent or any of the other local TTT's.

If you really can't score above mid-160's, try to get $$ at notre dame and you can still land decent work in the region.

That's a good point. I think that makes a lot more sense considering some of the numbers on LSN. In any way, I made a mistake of thinking that a person would need above median in both - even as a splitter OP would stand a chance, and his GPA is pretty solid. Yeah, it really depends on his lsat.

[AntipodeanPhil]

OP, take the LSAT and come back with what you've got. It's a learnable exam, even for bad test takers. If you get a 171, you're most likely in at Chicago. With a 169 or 170, you're in at Northwestern. ITE I wouldn't attend Chicago-Kent or any of the other local TTT's.

+1

I'm a philosophy major and always thought of myself as a bad test taker. I took practice LSAT exams under exact test conditions so often that by the time the exam came, it didn't even feel like a test to me - just my morning routine.

The LSAT is different, and if you're determined enough, you can beat it - especially as the skills involved overlap heavily with philosophy.