Top Law Schools

Hey guys,
sorry if this question came up before, but I am wondering which T14 schools look at gpa more than lsat.
Any insights much appreciated

Good luck to all of you guys!

As a splitter or reverse splitter, your best bet is to blanket the schools and see where you get lucky.

Most people on here will tell you there's no reason to be a reverse splitter. You can substantially improve your LSAT score through hard study and determination.

If you already have a great GPA, then a few LSAT points can make a world of difference.

Stanford and Berkeley. UVA early decision

whitespider wrote:there's no reason to be a reverse splitter.

Retake

JamMasterJ wrote:Stanford and Berkeley. UVA early decision

Chicago and Penn come to mind as well.

Also if you're a reverse splitter (high gpa, low LSAT), you're not really a reverse splitter. Just someone who needs to retake.

Yeap Chicago

Thanks to all of you.
But.. I've been studying LSAT since May or something and it's so hard to improve.
I don't think all high gpa-ers get high LSAT scores- I've studied hard during the summer.
Taking the LSAT this month.
PT scores are not that satisfying.. arghh!! This is really depressing.
I guess I have to work harder till the real thing.

Thanks again!!

There's no harm in sitting out an admissions cycle if you aren't properly prepared for the LSAT. I know the prospect can be daunting and unappealing, but it deserves consideration.

If you don't get the score you want this cycle, you'd be better off spending the next year studying toward achieving a 170+. Don't throw away hundreds of thousands of dollars because you aren't willing to wait for a competitive score.

studying intensely for the whole summer is not enough?
I'm starting to have doubts about myself.. whether more study time would really lead to increased lsat score.

TLS's September 2014 LSAT Study Group was started New Year's Eve last year. That's eight and a half months ago.

For some people, a couple months of studying isn't enough.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=222104

alphagirljhan wrote:studying intensely for the whole summer is not enough?
I'm starting to have doubts about myself.. whether more study time would really lead to increased lsat score.

I studied intensely for 11 months.

Though some people can score in 170's very quickly, my story isn't too unordinary (I think)

Post removed.

Regardless of which law schools you apply to, T14 or not, you should probably go for at least a 165 if you want to make law school a sound financial investment.

wouldn't OP fare just as well in admissions if he had 170 (give or take a point as long as it's below median) versus if he had a much lower lsat score as long as the scores are below median for the school?

Admitting OP is going to affect the median of the schools like HY equally for either 160 or 172 as far as lsat median is concerned.

Mathematically, you're correct.

If Yale or Harvard were to admit a 159 student instead of a 169 student, it wouldn't affect their 25/median/75 in the slightest.

Practically, though, that's not how it works. There going to take the 169.

why does it work this way? Schools have to report only their median for the ranking so 25/75 wouldn't matter. TLS says that the main motivation schools have for picking high lsats is to improve medians. Then once lsat is below median, say 172 for HY, it would function just like a soft factor unless the score is so low that makes the school worry whether the applicant would be able to handle the academic rigor.

Quite frankly because they're the best schools and don't have to settle for students with any weaknesses, LSAT or otherwise.

Bad LSAT... ding.
Bad GPA... ding.
Serious C&F Issues....ding.
Shitty personal statement/LORs.... ding.

It doesn't work that way for all schools, though. Some have to actively game the system to keep up their medians. Look at a school like Northeastern.

153/161/162

The spread between their 25/50 is enormous, while the spread between their 50/75 in miniscule. That means all they were worried about was that 50%+1 of their enrolled class had a GPA of 161 or higher. Those are the kids they threw the money at to get them to enroll.

The applicants below 161: Who cares if you're a 160 or a 150? They'll admit you, but you're going to get stuck paying sticker (or close to sticker) to support the 50% that they had to actively pursue to keep up their median.

Yeah what you are saying sounds right in general. The spread between 25 and median can be indicative of whether the school tried actively to raise their median (like penn) or had to choose amongst the best based on softs (hys).

But these hys schools do settle for some weaknesses as can be seen at LSN.

For hys having choice may mean rejecting some who had great lsat but it also affords them room to accept some who don't have great lsat. Wouldn't for such people it make no difference whether they had a 162 or 169 for yale/stan/H?

appind wrote:But these hys schools do settle for some weaknesses as can be seen at LSN.

Yeah, but if you're weak on the LSAT you damn better be an impressive individual (Olympian, Disabled Vet, Award Winner) or related to an influential individual (Son/Daughter of US Senator/CEO).

appind wrote:Yeah what you are saying sounds right in general. The spread between 25 and median can be indicative of whether the school tried actively to raise their median (like penn) or had to choose amongst the best based on softs (hys).

But these hys schools do settle for some weaknesses as can be seen at LSN.

For hys having choice may mean rejecting some who had great lsat but it also affords them room to accept some who don't have great lsat. Wouldn't for such people it make no difference whether they had a 162 or 169 for yale/stan/H?

I think you're trying to convince yourself that you have a chance with your 165. And the thing is that a lot of applicants with lower LSATs have excellent GPAs, whereas an international GPA doesn't count toward the medians.

I mean, sure, in theory, you're right. And you can argue that it shouldn't make a difference whether an applicant is 1 point below the median or 10 points below the median. But the reality is that it does, and that while HYS may occasionally dip pretty low (relative to their medians), that doesn't mean the odds of someone that far below that median are very good. Non-zero? Maybe. But that applicant isn't going to change the odds of admission by arguing for why it shouldn't make a difference how far below median they are.

My post in this thread is more general than that. When the median-raising motivation doesn't apply for a school, what makes them pick a 172 over 170/169 if 173 is the median. At that point the higher one seems to only have a soft value for the school. Do they always pick 172 over 169 all other numbers being equal and why?

Good schools have their pick of the litter and it wouldn't be surprising if schools like y are not always trying to actively improve their medians. It's just that the caliber of the their accepts correlates well with very high numbers.

I don't think anyone here can say that a school will always pick a 172 over a 169. But everything else being equal, they probably will, since the idea behind the LSAT is that it tests aptitude for law school, and even if you set aside UNSWR rankings, schools like to think they have the best students possible. Higher scores just look better than lower scores. For the purposes of medians, sure, the math means the score may not matter. But there is research suggesting a correlation between LSAT score and law school grades, too, which probably leads law schools to prefer a higher LSAT to a lower one, all else being equal.

appind wrote:My post in this thread is more general than that. When the median-raising motivation doesn't apply for a school, what makes them pick a 172 over 170/169 if 173 is the median. At that point the higher one seems to only have a soft value for the school. Do they always pick 172 over 169 all other numbers being equal and why?

Surprised no one else has mentioned this, but it would still be better for a hypothetical school to select the 172 over the 169 because a 172 is statistically rarer and thus more valuable. It is in their interest to gobble up as many of these hard-to-find LSATs as they can, while they can, in case they decide to accept a few exceptional applicants with low LSATs and want to still maintain a 172-173 median.

whitespider wrote:TLS's September 2014 LSAT Study Group was started New Year's Eve last year. That's eight and a half months ago.

For some people, a couple months of studying isn't enough.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=222104

You might not want to link ppl who want in depth, legit help to our thread

Yea All Right wrote:

appind wrote:My post in this thread is more general than that. When the median-raising motivation doesn't apply for a school, what makes them pick a 172 over 170/169 if 173 is the median. At that point the higher one seems to only have a soft value for the school. Do they always pick 172 over 169 all other numbers being equal and why?

Surprised no one else has mentioned this, but it would still be better for a hypothetical school to select the 172 over the 169 because a 172 is statistically rarer and thus more valuable. It is in their interest to gobble up as many of these hard-to-find LSATs as they can, while they can, in case they decide to accept a few exceptional applicants with low LSATs and want to still maintain a 172-173 median.

Yeah, thats not really what we're talking about. We are talking about why schools take higher LSATs when it won't affect their medians i.e. Yale taking a 169 over a 160 or Pepperdine taking a 170 over a 163.