How much can a high GPA make up for a low LSAT? Forum

[MrSam]

I have seen the opposite asked, "how much can a high LSAT make up for a low GPA?" I am in the other boat. While my GPA is relatively high, I can't seem to get my LSAT above a 155. I've never been a strong standardized test taker, but when it comes to knowledge-based exams, I can soak in the information and apply it with ease. I feel that my not-so-great LSAT score is going to keep my out of the top 20, or even the top 50 schools. If it matters, here is a bit of information about myself:

I graduated from a state school with a degree in Psychology. My final, cumulative GPA was a 3.95. I didn't take the easiest courses, nor did I take the most difficult courses - instead, I took a few courses in criminal and constitutional law, and courses that allowed me to get certified in certain fields (e.g. I am a certified scuba diver, and will possibly finish my rescue diver's certification within the next 6 months).
Again, I've never been a strong standardized test taker. My SAT score was just average, possibly slightly above average, but nothing worth writing home about.

I have a few questions:

1) Will my relatively high GPA make up for my low LSAT score?

2) Should I take another year off, and spend the next 6+ months studying for the LSAT? I will take the December 2015 exam, if that doesn't go well, I will take the June exam. I've been told that schools would question why I took so much time off. If I do decide to go this route, I will likely conduct volunteer work in another nation - not as an "excuse," but because I have always planned on doing so, but could never find the time.


3) Does it matter that I graduated from a state school?

4) This question isn't directly related to admissions, but, am I better off applying to a school that is ranked high, nationally, but low in the field that I intend on practicing in? Or, a school that is ranker lower, nationally (say, mid 70's) and higher in the field that I intend on practicing in (e.g. top 10 for trial advocacy)?

As always, any advice is appreciated.

[Poldy]

None. Study for the LSAT and get at least above 165. Don't waste a 3.95.

[smiles123]

That's a great gpa. This cycle, ppl got into the lower t14 with around you gpa and a 163-164. So a high gpa did make up for that LSAT score. But I doubt the top schools will consider you with anything below that. Keep studying. I thought I peaked in the high 150s but pushed through. LSAT is very learnable. With enough studying you can do this

[A. Nony Mouse]

This question isn't directly related to admissions, but, am I better off applying to a school that is ranked high, nationally, but low in the field that I intend on practicing in? Or, a school that is ranker lower, nationally (say, mid 70's) and higher in the field that I intend on practicing in (e.g. top 10 for trial advocacy)?

Specializations don't matter - the rankings are by profs, of other profs - it's an assessment of people's scholarship, but there's nothing about that that translates into any advantage for students studying at that school. A school with better job prospects (check lawschooltransparency.com) is better than one with worse job prospects, regardless of any specializations they offer.

[seashell.economy]

I sort of loathe to tell you to study more to get a higher score, because, you know, maybe you can't? Some people just aren't great at standardized tests, and telling everyone to "study more for the LSAT" can lead people down frustrating and fruitless paths. I am also not a standardized test taker type of person. I have an unusual educational background (for a law school applicant) and I had never taken a standardized test before the LSAT. I was stuck in the 150s for a while, but after reading the LG and LR bibles, and really treating the question types as homework - to actually learn the structure of each LR question - is what made me bump up to the 160s, along with just drilling logic games until I became fast and accurate at them. I think you should allow yourself at least a year to become familiar with the LSAT, six months of actually following a study plan, and at least 4 months of treating the LSAT like a daily 5-credit class. I did that, and I am now able to get upper 160s (167-168) on a solid basis. Good luck in whatever you choose, even if it is just applying with a 3.95 GPA and a 155 LSAT. I think that is OK, too.

[BigZuck]

You have a lot of questions hidden in there, might want to spell them out for people so that everything gets addressed

Whether law school can be worth it with a high gpa/average LSAT is dependent on a lot of things, mostly career goals, cost, and which specific school we are talking about.

But definitely give your all to the LSAT and take it at least 3 times before giving up on getting a high score.

[Generally]

Post removed.

[MrSam]

That's a great gpa. This cycle, ppl got into the lower t14 with around you gpa and a 163-164. So a high gpa did make up for that LSAT score. But I doubt the top schools will consider you with anything below that. Keep studying. I thought I peaked in the high 150s but pushed through. LSAT is very learnable. With enough studying you can do this

Thank you. This gives me hope. I feel that if I can improve my LR score slightly, my LG skills, and my RC speed, then I can score high enough to get into a T14, or at the very least a T50. It's just taking much longer than expected.

[MrSam]

Specializations don't matter - the rankings are by profs, of other profs - it's an assessment of people's scholarship, but there's nothing about that that translates into any advantage for students studying at that school. A school with better job prospects (check lawschooltransparency.com) is better than one with worse job prospects, regardless of any specializations they offer.[/quote]

Thank you. I was informed that national rank isn't always as important as the rank of the specialization. However, it seems as if though employers probably care more about the former and how well you performed, academically.

[MrSam]

I sort of loathe to tell you to study more to get a higher score, because, you know, maybe you can't? Some people just aren't great at standardized tests, and telling everyone to "study more for the LSAT" can lead people down frustrating and fruitless paths. I am also not a standardized test taker type of person. I have an unusual educational background (for a law school applicant) and I had never taken a standardized test before the LSAT. I was stuck in the 150s for a while, but after reading the LG and LR bibles, and really treating the question types as homework - to actually learn the structure of each LR question - is what made me bump up to the 160s, along with just drilling logic games until I became fast and accurate at them. I think you should allow yourself at least a year to become familiar with the LSAT, six months of actually following a study plan, and at least 4 months of treating the LSAT like a daily 5-credit class. I did that, and I am now able to get upper 160s (167-168) on a solid basis. Good luck in whatever you choose, even if it is just applying with a 3.95 GPA and a 155 LSAT. I think that is OK, too.

Thanks seashell. I'm hopeful and do believe that if I put in even more time that I can score in the mid to upper 160s - I'm already putting in anywhere from 8-10 hours a day/6 days a week, with a few breaks here and there. I think I am going to approach studying differently, and see how that goes.

[MrSam]

You have a lot of questions hidden in there, might want to spell them out for people so that everything gets addressed

Whether law school can be worth it with a high gpa/average LSAT is dependent on a lot of things, mostly career goals, cost, and which specific school we are talking about.

But definitely give your all to the LSAT and take it at least 3 times before giving up on getting a high score.

Thank you for the advice. I went ahead and edited my initial post. I actually decided that I may take an additional year off to study and do volunteer work. It seems like the overall consensus is "Don't apply with a 150'ish score."

Honestly unless you can get in the 160s, you wouldn't have any choices available that would be wise, even with that great GPA. Study up and get a great LSAT with that GPA and you will be in an amazing position. If you can break 150s I would reconsider law school. Sorry don't mean to be harsh, but you just wouldn't have good options. Being in debt with no job would suck more than passing on law.

That's what I figured. No appolgies necessary. I would much rather receive harsh but honest advice over sugarcoated advice. I'll go ahead and take the December LSAT. I I don't feel great about my performance, I'll cancel my score, take a year off, and apply next cycle.

[benwyatt]

Post removed.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Specializations don't matter - the rankings are by profs, of other profs - it's an assessment of people's scholarship, but there's nothing about that that translates into any advantage for students studying at that school. A school with better job prospects (check lawschooltransparency.com) is better than one with worse job prospects, regardless of any specializations they offer.

Thank you. I was informed that national rank isn't always as important as the rank of the specialization. However, it seems as if though employers probably care more about the former and how well you performed, academically.

That's absolutely true for academic programs (MA/PhD), but not for law schools. It's also fairly rare for a law student to do any kind of really focused specialization that a given school can't support - if you want to do business/corporate, or criminal, or employment, or legal aid type stuff, etc., you can take relevant classes at every schools. For instance, every school offers courses that fall under "trial advocacy."

[kcdc1]

I'd also caution you pursuing law school without first confirming that you have the reasoning skills to score in the 160's. Law school exams are not "knowledge-based" tests where you memorize and regurgitate -- they're reasoning tests with a dash of memorization.

[AfrocentricAsian]

From what I can tell, GPA's are just the cutoff. It's what you need but not what gets you in.

[AfrocentricAsian]

I'd also caution you pursuing law school without first confirming that you have the reasoning skills to score in the 160's. Law school exams are not "knowledge-based" tests where you memorize and regurgitate -- they're reasoning tests with a dash of memorization.

[Generally]

Post removed.

[PrayFor170]

There's no such thing as "bad test taker". You either don't study hard enough or you easily freak out. Work your ass off and give it a try. LSAT isn't that hard if you can get 3.95.

[seashell.economy]

Yeah, but, easily freak out = bad test taker

[AReasonableMan]

You are going to be best served improving your LSAT but going against the grain a bit: a high GPA can compensate for a low LSAT at many schools. However, it's going to be difficult to predict which ones because it's going to be at schools who have had too many splitters accept offers. Essentially, the school will wind up trying to admit reverse splitters towards the end of the cycle (possibly with scholarships) to avoid having their UGPA median fall. It will boil down to sheer luck.

For what it's worth, there are people who are naturally better standardized test takers than other people. I know people who did very well in law school despite substantially below median LSAT's, and the test has almost no correlation with bar passage.

[MrSam]

You are going to be best served improving your LSAT but going against the grain a bit: a high GPA can compensate for a low LSAT at many schools. However, it's going to be difficult to predict which ones because it's going to be at schools who have had too many splitters accept offers. Essentially, the school will wind up trying to admit reverse splitters towards the end of the cycle (possibly with scholarships) to avoid having their UGPA median fall. It will boil down to sheer luck.

For what it's worth, there are people who are naturally better standardized test takers than other people. I know people who did very well in law school despite substantially below median LSAT's, and the test has almost no correlation with bar passage.

Thank you. That's good news, however, I do understand that I cannot just rely on my GPA to get me in. I also know plenty of people who did exceptionally well in law school, despite their not-so-great LSAT scores. I spoke with the dean of admissions for one of the schools that I am considering. He mentioned that he, personally, prefers to see a higher GPA over a higher LSAT. However, like every other dean, he said that they take a holistic approach when viewing applications.

There's no such thing as "bad test taker". You either don't study hard enough or you easily freak out. Work your ass off and give it a try. LSAT isn't that hard if you can get 3.95.

Yeah, but, easily freak out = bad test taker

I honestly think that the reason I am not performing as well as I would like is because of the subject matter on some of the questions. For instance, on a reading comprehension passage that deals with the law or science, I can complete the passage in under 9 minutes, with a -0 score. However, when presented with something that deals with art or music, I get bored and do not perform as well. In any case, I know that this isn't an excuse, and is something that I need to work on. There's also the fact that I'm not a fan of standardized tests, but, again, this isn't an excuse.

From what I can tell, GPA's are just the cutoff. It's what you need but not what gets you in.

Thank you. Honestly, that's what I assumed.

Specializations don't matter - the rankings are by profs, of other profs - it's an assessment of people's scholarship, but there's nothing about that that translates into any advantage for students studying at that school. A school with better job prospects (check lawschooltransparency.com) is better than one with worse job prospects, regardless of any specializations they offer.

Thank you. I was informed that national rank isn't always as important as the rank of the specialization. However, it seems as if though employers probably care more about the former and how well you performed, academically.

That's absolutely true for academic programs (MA/PhD), but not for law schools. It's also fairly rare for a law student to do any kind of really focused specialization that a given school can't support - if you want to do business/corporate, or criminal, or employment, or legal aid type stuff, etc., you can take relevant classes at every schools. For instance, every school offers courses that fall under "trial advocacy."

Thank you. I suppose I'll have to start focusing less on the school's specialization ranking, and focus more on getting into a school that is nationally ranked high.

Alright, Mr. Sam, here goes nothing:

1. The thing about GPAs and LSAT scores is that in any cycle, there are hundreds (probably thousands considering medians at Harvard, Yale, and Stanford) more people with 3.9X GPAs than with 170+ LSAT scores. This means that law schools have a far easier time balancing a GPA median than they do an LSAT median. Your 3.95 will certainly help you some but it will in no way balance a mid 150's LSAT. With your test taking difficulties, your path to LSAT success might be a bit longer than many of your peers, but don't throw away a GPA like that on a middling score.

2. As long as you're doing something with your time off, law schools don't care. If you have the ability to do legal work in your time off, most people tend to think that's a great option but is by no means required. When I start next fall I will have taken 2 years off and all I've done is work full-time at an education company. Basically, take time off and study but make sure you do something else that builds your resume so law schools can see what you've been doing since you graduated. Your volunteering thing sounds fine.

3. No.

4. Nony already nailed it on this one. Look at job prospects, not specialization rankings.


Tl;Dr: Take time off, work hard on the LSAT and go to a school where grads get jobs.

Thank you, that was really informative. I figured that it's much easier to get a 3.9X GPA, than it is to score in the 170+ range on the LSAT. It does make sense that schools would want to see higher LSAT scores.
I will certainly focus more on job prospects - which, as far as I can tell, correlates with national ranking.


Overall: Thank you, everyone. I have decided to take the December 2015 LSAT. Like I said, if things don't go well, I will cancel my score and take an additional year off to study and volunteer.
With that said, I have one last question. I have already asked for my letters of recommendation. Assuming that I do take an additional year off, is it okay to have the letters on file? I was informed that some schools will see older letters as "outdated." In any case, I can't imagine that a letter written a year prior would be considered "outdated" but I figured I would ask anyways.

[benwyatt]

Post removed.

[Nebby]

I'd also caution you pursuing law school without first confirming that you have the reasoning skills to score in the 160's. Law school exams are not "knowledge-based" tests where you memorize and regurgitate -- they're reasoning tests with a dash of memorization.

Why are you rolling your eyes to that?

Because doing well on the LSAT doesn't mean you'll do well on a law school exam, and vice versa, because they're two different type of tests. Or perhaps KCDC is just being sarcastic and not very good at it.

[Generally]

Post removed.

[bpolley0]

.