Potential Law schools for Biology BS Forum

[imalla]

I will be graduating in December 2014, with a BS in Biology. I will be retaking some past course this fall, so my GPA will be around 2.8-3.1. Currently my GPA is a 2.5. I will be taking the LSAT soon and am curious what are the highest level schools I could potentially get considered for with a score of 160+ and 170+. All input is appreciated, thanks.

Background information:
I am not a URM . I have over the years as a biology major worked in several labs, ranging in research from Microbiology in Cancer to Ecological studies of invasive marine species. I have also recently published a book for my team at UPenn, doing clinical research on alternative Cardiac Arrest treatments.

[SFrost]

I will be graduating in December 2014, with a BS in Biology. I will be retaking some past course this fall, so my GPA will be around 2.8-3.1. Currently my GPA is a 2.5. I will be taking the LSAT soon and am curious what are the highest level schools I could potentially get considered for with a score of 160+ and 170+. All input is appreciated, thanks.

Background information:
I am not a URM . I have over the years as a biology major worked in several labs, ranging in research from Microbiology in Cancer to Ecological studies of invasive marine species. I have also recently published a book for my team at UPenn, doing clinical research on alternative Cardiac Arrest treatments.

Your major won't make much of a difference. Research experience is nice, but again won't matter much in my opinion. I have worked in admissions for a PhD program and I can say that if you do make a point of your research experience it will be expected that one of your LORs be from a research supervisor. We would have assumed you didn't get along with your adviser, otherwise. Keep that in mind.

Regarding schools... Your GPA is a major penalty. A GPA under 3.0 is a big red flag. Depending on how serious you are to a career in law, you may consider taking leveling courses. Until you receive your BS new grades will help you. You mentioned that you're retaking some courses. Just so you know, even if your school forgives old grades, LSAC will not. All grades will count.

You also might think about how well you will do in law school. A 2.5 GPA argues against success in the classroom. Do you want to go to a poorly ranked law school at sticker price, go in debt for a year, and then flunk out? The debt will be with you regardless of you earning a degree or not.

[bnssweeney]

I understand the GPA trouble with being a biology major. I switched to psychology in order to save my GPA.

The general consensus is that law schools care about your GPA/LSAT without taking much consideration your major. They would rather see a 3.7 as an art history major than a 3.0 as a biology major. I understand that this is hard to hear being that you must have worked very hard as a biology major, but it's just how it is.

If you apply to law school, still explain your book publication and research. This will be helpful in offsetting your GPA (even minimally).

I would also suggest taking some time off between undergrad and law school.

[Nova]

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com

http://www.mylsn.info

[Attax]

OP: rock the LSAT. <3.0 GPA here from Chemistry and I'm held at a T14 and in at Texas with full rides to plenty of other, *cough cough* T1, schools. You can open up almost any doors if you rock the LSAT hard enough. Of course, HYSCCN will probably be out, but UVA, NU, etc. may be options. I have a 168 and will be graduating with <$30,000 in debt from LS.

However, trends are important. I had multiple schools wait until my fall grades were released since I had a downward trend during my sophomore year and started upward end of junior year. Additionally, my GPA is low primarily due to just a few classes. Outside of those I have >3.0, and I addressed this in my addendum about how terribly horrible I am at organic chemistry and biochemistry. They were required, but my concentration is in an entirely different field, as is my research experience (which never came up in any interviews or anything).

Your major won't make much of a difference. Research experience is nice, but again won't matter much in my opinion. I have worked in admissions for a PhD program and I can say that if you do make a point of your research experience it will be expected that one of your LORs be from a research supervisor. We would have assumed you didn't get along with your adviser, otherwise. Keep that in mind.

Regarding schools... Your GPA is a major penalty. A GPA under 3.0 is a big red flag. Depending on how serious you are to a career in law, you may consider taking leveling courses. Until you receive your BS new grades will help you. You mentioned that you're retaking some courses. Just so you know, even if your school forgives old grades, LSAC will not. All grades will count.

You also might think about how well you will do in law school. A 2.5 GPA argues against success in the classroom. Do you want to go to a poorly ranked law school at sticker price, go in debt for a year, and then flunk out? The debt will be with you regardless of you earning a degree or not.

I just wanted to ask, is that necessarily a bad thing? I, for one, did not get along well with my advisor for a multitude of reasons, such as her being pregnant back to back and hardly ever around. I primarily did research under a post-doc and interacted with her just a few times. A few other reasons led to our falling out, but is not getting along with an advisor a bad thing automatically? I can understand apprehension because you don't want someone who can't get along with another advisor, but I had my research on my resume (for LS, I didn't apply to any PhD programs) without a LOR from my advisor.

[SFrost]

In my opinion, if you can't get along with a research adviser it speaks very poorly of your ability to work in a professional environment. The adviser presumably took you in when other students wanted the opportunity. Even if that person is difficult to get along with, you can't suck it up if not at least for the resume-building benefits?

An attentive adcomm will raise an eyebrow at research experience that doesn't include a LOR from the adviser. Of course this could be offset with otherwise strong LORs or LORs specifically demonstrating social ability.

[InTheHouse]

In my opinion, if you can't get along with a research adviser it speaks very poorly of your ability to work in a professional environment. The adviser presumably took you in when other students wanted the opportunity. Even if that person is difficult to get along with, you can't suck it up if not at least for the resume-building benefits?

An attentive adcomm will raise an eyebrow at research experience that doesn't include a LOR from the adviser. Of course this could be offset with otherwise strong LORs or LORs specifically demonstrating social ability.

Do you have ANY experience in law school admissions?

[mx23250]

In my opinion, if you can't get along with a research adviser it speaks very poorly of your ability to work in a professional environment. The adviser presumably took you in when other students wanted the opportunity. Even if that person is difficult to get along with, you can't suck it up if not at least for the resume-building benefits?

An attentive adcomm will raise an eyebrow at research experience that doesn't include a LOR from the adviser. Of course this could be offset with otherwise strong LORs or LORs specifically demonstrating social ability.

I agree completely with SFrost's posts here. I served on the admissions committee of my PhD program (bio sciences) and if someone lacked a LOR from the research adviser it was a red flag.

[SFrost]

In my opinion, if you can't get along with a research adviser it speaks very poorly of your ability to work in a professional environment. The adviser presumably took you in when other students wanted the opportunity. Even if that person is difficult to get along with, you can't suck it up if not at least for the resume-building benefits?

An attentive adcomm will raise an eyebrow at research experience that doesn't include a LOR from the adviser. Of course this could be offset with otherwise strong LORs or LORs specifically demonstrating social ability.

Do you have ANY experience in law school admissions?

I have experience in admissions otherwise. Two other points: 1) Only a handful of people on these boards have experience, and they don't usually comment on these posts. So your point could be made in many threads. 2) The variation in admission criteria (other than things that are obviously universal) are going to depend on the individual. Anyone speaking in generalities is going to be wrong in at least some instance, so even if we had the admissions deans of HYS, they wouldn't be able to give discrete, universal answers.

And yes, I do think there was a parallel between the admissions I was part of and law school. We looked for people that we thought were going to be successful long term. uGPA and GRE were top. LORs were a major source of information. By comparison, I can't recall ever caring too much about majors, minors, volunteer experience, etc. Many applicants were rejected because of something in their LORs, even if they were above our GPA/GRE median.

[mx23250]

In my opinion, if you can't get along with a research adviser it speaks very poorly of your ability to work in a professional environment. The adviser presumably took you in when other students wanted the opportunity. Even if that person is difficult to get along with, you can't suck it up if not at least for the resume-building benefits?

An attentive adcomm will raise an eyebrow at research experience that doesn't include a LOR from the adviser. Of course this could be offset with otherwise strong LORs or LORs specifically demonstrating social ability.

Do you have ANY experience in law school admissions?

lol Law school admissions may not place as much emphasis on an adviser LOR, but an adviser's letter would be a shining example of a LOR since it can speak to your qualities such as work ethic, research skills, analytical skills, presentation/writing skills, etc. from a professor's perspective. Most purely academic professors you took a class with can't provide that much insight into a person's qualities. That's why a research adviser's letter is so important.

[InTheHouse]

In my opinion, if you can't get along with a research adviser it speaks very poorly of your ability to work in a professional environment. The adviser presumably took you in when other students wanted the opportunity. Even if that person is difficult to get along with, you can't suck it up if not at least for the resume-building benefits?

An attentive adcomm will raise an eyebrow at research experience that doesn't include a LOR from the adviser. Of course this could be offset with otherwise strong LORs or LORs specifically demonstrating social ability.

Do you have ANY experience in law school admissions?

I have experience in admissions otherwise. Two other points: 1) Only a handful of people on these boards have experience, and they don't usually comment on these posts. So your point could be made in many threads. 2) The variation in admission criteria (other than things that are obviously universal) are going to depend on the individual. Anyone speaking in generalities is going to be wrong in at least some instance, so even if we had the admissions deans of HYS, they wouldn't be able to give discrete, universal answers.

And yes, I do think there was a parallel between the admissions I was part of and law school. We looked for people that we thought were going to be successful long term. uGPA and GRE were top. LORs were a major source of information. By comparison, I can't recall ever caring too much about majors, minors, volunteer experience, etc. Many applicants were rejected because of something in their LORs, even if they were above our GPA/GRE median.

Right. And the answer to that explains the different incentives facing law schools and graduate research programs.

[imalla]

So what is an adequate amount of LOR to have when applying? One from each Lab advisor or is there a limit on what admissions prefer?

All my PIs have liked me and I have always excelled in their research. Also out of the four labs I worked for, two have been for over two years and i am currently still working in both.

[Nova]

2 or 3