Top Law Schools

I know your cummulative is what is the most important, but has anyone with a significant upward GPA trend seen this influence their acceptances (get in somewhere you thought was a longshot)

It's better to have an upward trend than not to if your GPA sucks, but I don't think it really makes a huge difference. If you do any interviews with schools, though, your GPA will probably come up, and having an upward trend at least helps you prove you aren't just a total slacker. This has been my experience anyway.

It'll get you in on the bottom end of who they accept, but don't expect miracles. If you look at the graphs on LSN, it just means you have a better shot at getting in on the low end than someone without an upward trend.

Although my experiences are anecdotal, I have experienced that if you are in the 'range' of accepted GPA's with a comparable LSAT, the upward GPA trend can make a substantial difference. That being said, it doesn't really account for 'longshot' applications.

I was able to get accepted to a bunch of low t14 and next tier (15-30)schools with a 2.8 LSAC GPA.
My story may be a little different because there was a gap in schooling, so it may not be applicable.
I had about a 1.75 GPA when I went to school originally, then took 10 years off. When I went back I had a 3.95 from then on.
I am sure that I received more favorable treatment than I would have if I had been a consistent 2.8 performer.

mermaidprincess92 wrote:I know your cummulative is what is the most important, but has anyone with a significant upward GPA trend seen this influence their acceptances (get in somewhere you thought was a longshot)

This is purely anecdotal, but I think it definitely makes a big difference. So far this cycle I've got into schools in the 15-20 range that LSN showed little chance of. My upward trend was from rock bottom to ~4.00 though.

I have a pretty strong upward trend, and I think I've reasonably outperformed my stats thus far. I've got pretty good work experience and great LORs, though, so I don't know if that's what the cause is.

Like others have said, it's better to have an upward than not, though it's probably not a huge factor either way.

It's better to have an upward trend than not, as has been said, but there's just really not any way it matters for the vast majority of cases. If law schools cared about qualitatively assessing a GPA, they would be letting in lots of STEM majors with low GPAs over humanities 3.9s. But they're not. There are no asterisks in USNWR rankings. So it is abundantly clear that it is the number in isolation that they care about. Moreover, good GPAs are much more common than good LSATs. For every applicant with an upward trend there are two with a consistently good UG record all fighting for the same seat. Schools will be sympathetic to rocky starts or family issues, but they're going to prefer people with proven consistent performance.

ldlamb wrote:I was able to get accepted to a bunch of low t14 and next tier (15-30)schools with a 2.8 LSAC GPA.
My story may be a little different because there was a gap in schooling, so it may not be applicable.
I had about a 1.75 GPA when I went to school originally, then took 10 years off. When I went back I had a 3.95 from then on.
I am sure that I received more favorable treatment than I would have if I had been a consistent 2.8 performer.

that's just splitter unpredictability. i had a similar situation -- a 1.xx GPA from 10 years ago, a 4.0 when i went back to school, for an LSAC gpa of 2.9ish. i did exactly as my numbers suggested. i don't think they give a shit about or even look hard enough at your transcripts to notice "upward trends"