California Splitters Forum

[Irvine2000]

I am only applying to the following schools since I know I want to live and practice in Southern California. I was wondering if anyone knows whether the following schools prefer LSAT over GPA or vice versa.

What I have: 168 LSAT / 3.2 GPA

USC (Long shot, but why not)
UCI
Pepperdine
USD
Chapman
Cal Western

Thanks!

[TheSpanishMain]

I had a 168 and a 3.3 and got UCLA without a problem. I am a non traditional applicant with military service which I think helped, but I don't think you're the long shot at USC you seem to think.

[North]

Time to raise your standards breh.

Start here:

USC (Long shot, but why not)
UCI
Pepperdine
USD
Chapman
Cal Western

Then seriously consider retaking the LSAT for a 170 and T14. I went from 168 to 173 on my retake.

Apply to UCLA too.

Do not even send applications to Pepperdine and below.

[joblessgrad]

Pepperdine will offer you and a number of others with good numbers a big scholarship requiring top 33% for retention past 1L. Then they'll put nearly everyone who accepted such an offer (i.e. the smartest students) into the same section to lessen the impact on their bottom line come 2L. It's a scam designed to improve the school's rank - don't fall for it, and don't apply.

[Irvine2000]

You guys really think I have that good of a shot? I thought my GPA was going to kill my chances. Believe I'd love a T14 school, but there's a difference between high standards and unrealistic standards.

I don't think I'll retake the LSAT, this was my second time taking it and the first time I only got a 160, so I was pretty happy with the improvement.

[BigZuck]

You guys really think I have that good of a shot? I thought my GPA was going to kill my chances. Believe I'd love a T14 school, but there's a difference between high standards and unrealistic standards.

I don't think I'll retake the LSAT, this was my second time taking it and the first time I only got a 160, so I was pretty happy with the improvement.

Retake. But only if you want to be employed as a lawyer.

[Irvine2000]

The next LSAT is February. I went get the results til March. Won't that be too late for any of those top schools to seriously consider me?

[BigZuck]

The next LSAT is February. I went get the results til March. Won't that be too late for any of those top schools to seriously consider me?

Naw

[midwest17]

The next LSAT is February. I went get the results til March. Won't that be too late for any of those top schools to seriously consider me?

Naw

It might be, but if it is you're better off waiting a cycle anyways.

[wbrother]

These aren't mutually exclusive. Apply. Then retake. Your numbers are likely good enough that you won't be rejected from everywhere before results come back if they know you're retaking. The retake could get you an acceptance and off the waitlist if it goes well, and if not than you may get into USC or a higher ranked school anyway. Just don't go to a school that you can't get the outcome you want from.

[rstahl]

You guys really think I have that good of a shot? I thought my GPA was going to kill my chances. Believe I'd love a T14 school, but there's a difference between high standards and unrealistic standards.

I don't think I'll retake the LSAT, this was my second time taking it and the first time I only got a 160, so I was pretty happy with the improvement.

Retake. But only if you want to be employed as a lawyer.

This obsession with retaking and 'oh, you don't have a 170+? Let me tell you to retake or apply next cycle with a 168 while I look down at you condescendingly' vibe is getting pretty old on TLS. I'm not saying that is said explicitly, but after you read enough of these posts, the underlying sentiment becomes pretty clear.

OP, you may get into USC because LSAT is weighted higher than GPA and you are above their 75th LSAT percentile (likely 80th too). However, if you don't get in and don't like your other options, Pepperdine, Chapman etc... THEN wait a cycle and retake and/or build your credentials. With respect to the retaking part, we don't know what your situation is with study time, standardized test problems, previous practice test averages, so I will just say this. If you are pretty certain you can improve your LSAT score by a few points for the February administration, then I believe retaking will give you a much larger benefit than waiting till February to apply will hurt you.

As for whether or not the February LSAT is a good idea, it may hurt your chances a bit with acceptance because schools will only give offers to a certain number of people, so a 168/3.2 in October is not the same as one in March (when the application is reviewable after getting the Feb score). Having said that, as a result of the declining applicant pool, some schools are pushing back their deadlines and decisions a bit so applying in Feb. won't be as detrimental as it would have been in, say, 2009 or 2010.

[Gooner91]

I am not saying it is a good choice but compared to the others on the list I do not think USD is a terrible option IF you can get a full ride or close to it, want to work in San Diego and have connections in San Diego to get a job. They have fairly reasonable scholarship stipulations if I am not mistaken.

[rstahl]

I am not saying it is a good choice but compared to the others on the list I do not think USD is a terrible option IF you can get a full ride or close to it, want to work in San Diego and have connections in San Diego to get a job. They have fairly reasonable scholarship stipulations if I am not mistaken.

I haven't been able to find what "good academic standing" precisely means for USD, but from 2010-2012, recipients of the highest scholarship only had their scholarships revoked or reduced in 3/39 instances.

[midwest17]

You guys really think I have that good of a shot? I thought my GPA was going to kill my chances. Believe I'd love a T14 school, but there's a difference between high standards and unrealistic standards.

I don't think I'll retake the LSAT, this was my second time taking it and the first time I only got a 160, so I was pretty happy with the improvement.

Retake. But only if you want to be employed as a lawyer.

This obsession with retaking and 'oh, you don't have a 170+? Let me tell you to retake or apply next cycle with a 168 while I look down at you condescendingly' vibe is getting pretty old on TLS. I'm not saying that is said explicitly, but after you read enough of these posts, the underlying sentiment becomes pretty clear.

OP, you may get into USC because LSAT is weighted higher than GPA and you are above their 75th LSAT percentile (likely 80th too). However, if you don't get in and don't like your other options, Pepperdine, Chapman etc... THEN wait a cycle and retake and/or build your credentials. With respect to the retaking part, we don't know what your situation is with study time, standardized test problems, previous practice test averages, so I will just say this. If you are pretty certain you can improve your LSAT score by a few points for the February administration, then I believe retaking will give you a much larger benefit than waiting till February to apply will hurt you.

As for whether or not the February LSAT is a good idea, it may hurt your chances a bit with acceptance because schools will only give offers to a certain number of people, so a 168/3.2 in October is not the same as one in March (when the application is reviewable after getting the Feb score). Having said that, as a result of the declining applicant pool, some schools are pushing back their deadlines and decisions a bit so applying in Feb. won't be as detrimental as it would have been in, say, 2009 or 2010.

The attitude on TLS isn't "retake because anyone who can't break 170 is dumb". It's "retake because if you don't get X you won't have a good outcome" (and X varies depending on the person's circumstances).

Sure, there are people who for one reason or another can't hit X. That doesn't make them dumb, but it does mean they should pursue some career other than law.

The idea that people should pursue their dreams regardless of their qualifications to do so is why people end up in soul-crushing debt with terrible job prospects.

[North]

This obsession with retaking and 'oh, you don't have a 170+? Let me tell you to retake or apply next cycle with a 168 while I look down at you condescendingly' vibe is getting pretty old on TLS. I'm not saying that is said explicitly, but after you read enough of these posts, the underlying sentiment becomes pretty clear.

No, that's not what the vibe is you moron. I'm tired of people pretending that's what TLS does. The vibe is that the job market it absolutely terrible, so people should do everything within their power to minimize the risk that they end up without a job and up to their neck in debt. USC is as low as OP should go in California, but whether USC at sticker is worth it, when considering risks vs. chance of a good outcome, is far from certain. So, because OP has one opportunity to retake the LSAT left and because OP has demonstrated an ability to increase his score, OP should retake. He doesn't have to sit out unless he does better (though he should consider it). But he should absolutely retake for a 170. Why? Because 170's are valuable, and T14's+UCLA+USC will pay him $$$$ for it. That's not condescension, that's encouraging people to make good, thoughtful decisions.

In short:

The attitude on TLS isn't "retake because anyone who can't break 170 is dumb". It's "retake because if you don't get X you won't have a good outcome" (and X varies depending on the person's circumstances).

Sure, there are people who for one reason or another can't hit X. That doesn't make them dumb, but it does mean they should pursue some career other than law.

The idea that people should pursue their dreams regardless of their qualifications to do so is why people end up in soul-crushing debt with terrible job prospects.

OP's not in a bad spot, but there's no reason he shouldn't keep trying to make it better.

ETA: Do not go to USD. Not even half of their graduates have jobs as lawyers nine months after graduating. Not even half. That's not worth the 3 years of lost income it'd take to get the degree, much less a single penny on top of that.

[BigZuck]

You guys really think I have that good of a shot? I thought my GPA was going to kill my chances. Believe I'd love a T14 school, but there's a difference between high standards and unrealistic standards.

I don't think I'll retake the LSAT, this was my second time taking it and the first time I only got a 160, so I was pretty happy with the improvement.

Retake. But only if you want to be employed as a lawyer.

This obsession with retaking and 'oh, you don't have a 170+? Let me tell you to retake or apply next cycle with a 168 while I look down at you condescendingly' vibe is getting pretty old on TLS. I'm not saying that is said explicitly, but after you read enough of these posts, the underlying sentiment becomes pretty clear.

OP, you may get into USC because LSAT is weighted higher than GPA and you are above their 75th LSAT percentile (likely 80th too). However, if you don't get in and don't like your other options, Pepperdine, Chapman etc... THEN wait a cycle and retake and/or build your credentials. With respect to the retaking part, we don't know what your situation is with study time, standardized test problems, previous practice test averages, so I will just say this. If you are pretty certain you can improve your LSAT score by a few points for the February administration, then I believe retaking will give you a much larger benefit than waiting till February to apply will hurt you.

As for whether or not the February LSAT is a good idea, it may hurt your chances a bit with acceptance because schools will only give offers to a certain number of people, so a 168/3.2 in October is not the same as one in March (when the application is reviewable after getting the Feb score). Having said that, as a result of the declining applicant pool, some schools are pushing back their deadlines and decisions a bit so applying in Feb. won't be as detrimental as it would have been in, say, 2009 or 2010.

Dude. Every school in CA ranked below USC is pretty much a dumpster fire. Maybe certain ones can be ok on a full ride but I don't see a 3.2 getting a full ride. And then USC and UCLA at sticker would be a horrible idea too. And that's probably what those numbers will face. I would retake to try and squeeze some money out them. Or, if I was facing sticker at every worthwhile school because of my low GPA I would retake and go to a school that is arguably worth sticker, like UVA or NU.

I don't have a 170. And if my 3 takes are any indication apparently I was incapable of getting a 170. All I'm saying is the legal job market is crap and if you're going to go to law school you should do everything you can possibly do to help yourself get a good outcome. Almost always that means retaking. Don't ad hom me bro.

[rstahl]

You guys really think I have that good of a shot? I thought my GPA was going to kill my chances. Believe I'd love a T14 school, but there's a difference between high standards and unrealistic standards.

I don't think I'll retake the LSAT, this was my second time taking it and the first time I only got a 160, so I was pretty happy with the improvement.

Retake. But only if you want to be employed as a lawyer.

This obsession with retaking and 'oh, you don't have a 170+? Let me tell you to retake or apply next cycle with a 168 while I look down at you condescendingly' vibe is getting pretty old on TLS. I'm not saying that is said explicitly, but after you read enough of these posts, the underlying sentiment becomes pretty clear.

OP, you may get into USC because LSAT is weighted higher than GPA and you are above their 75th LSAT percentile (likely 80th too). However, if you don't get in and don't like your other options, Pepperdine, Chapman etc... THEN wait a cycle and retake and/or build your credentials. With respect to the retaking part, we don't know what your situation is with study time, standardized test problems, previous practice test averages, so I will just say this. If you are pretty certain you can improve your LSAT score by a few points for the February administration, then I believe retaking will give you a much larger benefit than waiting till February to apply will hurt you.

As for whether or not the February LSAT is a good idea, it may hurt your chances a bit with acceptance because schools will only give offers to a certain number of people, so a 168/3.2 in October is not the same as one in March (when the application is reviewable after getting the Feb score). Having said that, as a result of the declining applicant pool, some schools are pushing back their deadlines and decisions a bit so applying in Feb. won't be as detrimental as it would have been in, say, 2009 or 2010.

Dude. Every school in CA ranked below USC is pretty much a dumpster fire. Maybe certain ones can be ok on a full ride but I don't see a 3.2 getting a full ride. And then USC and UCLA at sticker would be a horrible idea too. And that's probably what those numbers will face. I would retake to try and squeeze some money out them. Or, if I was facing sticker at every worthwhile school because of my low GPA I would retake and go to a school that is arguably worth sticker, like UVA or NU.

I don't have a 170. And if my 3 takes are any indication apparently I was incapable of getting a 170. All I'm saying is the legal job market is crap and if you're going to go to law school you should do everything you can possibly do to help yourself get a good outcome. Almost always that means retaking. Don't ad hom me bro.

I didn't necessarily mean you, specifically, were condescending to OP so not really ad hominem, but tbh the content of your post wasn't any different from a condescending poster here on TLS. I probably wouldn't have responded initially had you elaborated on the initial post. But 'retake with a 168 or else you are doomed to unemployment' isn't helpful and it presented law employment chances via a black and white fallacy.

[rstahl]

You guys really think I have that good of a shot? I thought my GPA was going to kill my chances. Believe I'd love a T14 school, but there's a difference between high standards and unrealistic standards.

I don't think I'll retake the LSAT, this was my second time taking it and the first time I only got a 160, so I was pretty happy with the improvement.

Retake. But only if you want to be employed as a lawyer.

This obsession with retaking and 'oh, you don't have a 170+? Let me tell you to retake or apply next cycle with a 168 while I look down at you condescendingly' vibe is getting pretty old on TLS. I'm not saying that is said explicitly, but after you read enough of these posts, the underlying sentiment becomes pretty clear.

OP, you may get into USC because LSAT is weighted higher than GPA and you are above their 75th LSAT percentile (likely 80th too). However, if you don't get in and don't like your other options, Pepperdine, Chapman etc... THEN wait a cycle and retake and/or build your credentials. With respect to the retaking part, we don't know what your situation is with study time, standardized test problems, previous practice test averages, so I will just say this. If you are pretty certain you can improve your LSAT score by a few points for the February administration, then I believe retaking will give you a much larger benefit than waiting till February to apply will hurt you.

As for whether or not the February LSAT is a good idea, it may hurt your chances a bit with acceptance because schools will only give offers to a certain number of people, so a 168/3.2 in October is not the same as one in March (when the application is reviewable after getting the Feb score). Having said that, as a result of the declining applicant pool, some schools are pushing back their deadlines and decisions a bit so applying in Feb. won't be as detrimental as it would have been in, say, 2009 or 2010.

The attitude on TLS isn't "retake because anyone who can't break 170 is dumb". It's "retake because if you don't get X you won't have a good outcome" (and X varies depending on the person's circumstances).

Sure, there are people who for one reason or another can't hit X. That doesn't make them dumb, but it does mean they should pursue some career other than law.

The idea that people should pursue their dreams regardless of their qualifications to do so is why people end up in soul-crushing debt with terrible job prospects.

I wasn't presenting a rosy, alternate reality where 2.5 and 154's get into decent schools. But the LSAT is incredibly important in decisions and OP is above the 75th percentile, so I took issue with the 'retake or else' idea. If the post had said, 'you may want to retake because a 168 might get you into SC, but there is a high likelihood you will be paying sticker in an uncertain economy.' I would have added a +1 to that.

[rstahl]

No, that's not what the vibe is you moron.

Entirely unnecessary.

[North]

No, that's not what the vibe is you moron.

Entirely unnecessary.

Though not untrue. Sorry you think good advice is condescending, bro.

But please, tell me other ways we should sugarcoat it to protect everybody's feelings.

ETA: Again, OP is in a good spot. That doesn't mean he shouldn't still retake to be sure it's the best he can do. I almost didn't retake. It would have been the worst decision I ever made. If OP can get a 168, he can get the three extra questions right to get a 170. It's not condescending to tell him to try.

[Clearly]

No, that's not what the vibe is you moron.

Entirely unnecessary.

Is your name Seth?

[wowhio]

Every school in CA ranked below USC is pretty much a dumpster fire. Maybe certain ones can be ok on a full ride but I don't see a 3.2 getting a full ride. And then USC and UCLA at sticker would be a horrible idea too. And that's probably what those numbers will face. I would retake to try and squeeze some money out them. Or, if I was facing sticker at every worthwhile school because of my low GPA I would retake and go to a school that is arguably worth sticker, like UVA or NU.

Not sure why UVA or NU would be worth sticker but UCLA would not, or even USC, considering the desire to live and practice in Southern California.

[wowhio]

Also, Chapman is EXTREMELY generous with scholarship money. I didn't apply, but I hear that they give scholarships like crazy. Not sure what someone with your numbers could expect, but just thought I would throw that out there. There's a reason this school that is not even fully ABA accredited (or just barely passed its preliminary phase) has managed to break into the Top 100. Scholarships to top students, that's how.

[North]

[quote="wowhio"]Also, Chapman is EXTREMELY generous with scholarship money. I didn't apply, but I hear that they give scholarships like crazy. Not sure what someone with your numbers could expect, but just thought I would throw that out there. There's a reason this school that is not even fully ABA accredited (or just barely passed its preliminary phase) has managed to break into the Top 100. Scholarships to top students, that's how.[/quote]
Yeah but too bad only 1/3 of the class has a job as a lawyer 9 months after graduation. How can you, in good conscience, recommend a school like that to somebody? Having a 1/3 chance of becoming a lawyer that makes 40k a year (not enough to comfortable pay back even the COL loans incurred) isn't worth three years at that dumpster fire of a school. Not even close. They could give him a full ride, stipend, and a brand new Escalade and it wouldn't be worth it.

What the hell is going on. Have the on-topics have been moving back in time to when nobody knew what the they were talking about and thought going to any law school was just the best decision ever?

[BigZuck]

Every school in CA ranked below USC is pretty much a dumpster fire. Maybe certain ones can be ok on a full ride but I don't see a 3.2 getting a full ride. And then USC and UCLA at sticker would be a horrible idea too. And that's probably what those numbers will face. I would retake to try and squeeze some money out them. Or, if I was facing sticker at every worthwhile school because of my low GPA I would retake and go to a school that is arguably worth sticker, like UVA or NU.

Not sure why UVA or NU would be worth sticker but UCLA would not, or even USC, considering the desire to live and practice in Southern California.

Because sticker debt makes big law a necessity and UVA and NU give someone a MUCH better shot at a big law job than UCLA and USC do.

I'm with North, wtf is happening? I'm not anti-0L advice (obvi), but this new crop of 0Ls need to step up their game.