Top Law Schools

My University's pre-law advising program recently held an admissions panel where former alumni who are now lawyers (specifically hiring managers and partners) came to discuss the process of applying to law school and preparing for admissions. Two statements stuck out to me that I wanted some feedback on since TLS has proven itself to be quite the wealth of information. I apologize in advance if I come off at any point as ignorant/naive.

One individual - a partner at a firm of about ~400 attorneys in Boston said that schools care far more about LSAT than GPA. I know TLS wisdom says that GPA and LSAT are all that really matter in admissions but he was making it sound as though GPA will always play second fiddle to LSAT and, moreover, schools do not have firm GPA cutoffs but they do have firm LSAT cut offs. A considerably low GPA can still be admitted to "virtually any" law school if it is coupled with a strong LSAT and the rest of the application is good - but a low LSAT cannot be overcome with a 4.0/sparkling letters of recommendations/interesting "softs" (military service, national-level athletics, etc.)

How accurate is this assessment? And is there any way to potentially determine a rough estimate of these supposed LSAT cut offs? Would it just be 25th percentile scores?

Another remark made by a hiring manager at a different firm in Boston said that undergraduate institution does not really factor in to hiring - prior to law school, undergraduate matters only so far as how you used your time as an undergrad to have interesting life experiences that might make an interview less routine. He said that firms will not make a decision between two candidates coming out of say, Cornell, with similar academic performances based on the fact that Candidate A went to Dartmouth and Candidate B went to San Jose State.

Again, TLS wisdom seems to be suggest that undergraduate pedigree does not matter in LS admissions - but can the same be said for firm hiring? Or are firms distinctly different from one another to the point that there really can't be blanket statements made about their hiring practices?

Both are very true. LSAT & Law School prestige & GPA rein supreme.

Both true. All that matters for hiring is what law school you went to and what grades you made there and journal/moot court to a lesser extent. When you begin law school, your UG and UG grades basically cease to matter. With respect to admissions, he was on point again. GPA is important, but LSAT is easily more important. How much more important varies by school. There is an old thread somewhere on here where someone used data to determine every school's GPA and LSAT floors, so maybe search for that? Good luck!

They can't have a LSAT cutoff at the 25th percentile lol. And it's true, a 180/2.0 will do much better than a 4.3/140. And I think a 140 is a higher percentile than a 2.0. But you still need at least a 3.0, coupled with a high LSAT, to break into the T14 realistically. (Sub 3.0 get NU but it's mostly off the WL and not a sure thing without a lot of WE).

To determine floors, just look at the LSN graphs, they give a general idea. Exclude URM if you aren't one.

Anyone else really surprised at how accurate these partners were? Read pre-law advising and partners and immediately assumed it would be terrible advice.

Yes OP everything they said is true. Your UG pedigree will be a zero factor at 99% of law firms, and a very small factor at a very small group of elite lit boutiques (and maybe WLRK/CSM).

PeanutsNJam wrote:They can't have a LSAT cutoff at the 25th percentile lol. And it's true, a 180/2.0 will do much better than a 4.3/140. And I think a 140 is a higher percentile than a 2.0. But you still need at least a 3.0, coupled with a high LSAT, to break into the T14 realistically. (Sub 3.0 get NU but it's mostly off the WL and not a sure thing without a lot of WE).

To determine floors, just look at the LSN graphs, they give a general idea. Exclude URM if you aren't one.