Top Law Schools

I've experienced quite a bit of crap in my life (not here to whine, I promise), and I want to include my struggle in my adendum. I've had a divorse in the family seeprating pretty much everyone, my father has suffered 2 heart attacks and 3 heart surgeries, 2 stents leaving him bed ridden (I have to take care of him), and my sister had cancer, all while I was working 40+ hours a week and running my own tiny business all the while having medical problems of my own.

I ended up pulling a near 3.0 with all of that crap (which isn't great, but hell, life happens). My question is -- would all that effect my adendum? Are adendums even effective? My life has settled quite a bit and I am going to be far more capable of handling law school. So in short, would law schools even bother to look, assuming I have a high LSAT score, and, would it impact my admission what so ever?

Unfortunately, no, these struggles are probably not going to make much of a difference in admissions.

But if you crush the LSAT, that can be something of a panacea. Good luck!

Ron Don Volante wrote:Unfortunately, no, these struggles are probably not going to make much of a difference in admissions.

But if you crush the LSAT, that can be something of a panacea. Good luck!

Unfortunately, even if I slaughter the LSAT with 175+, I wouldn't get into UCLA. Bummer

badluckchuck wrote:

Ron Don Volante wrote:Unfortunately, no, these struggles are probably not going to make much of a difference in admissions.

But if you crush the LSAT, that can be something of a panacea. Good luck!

Unfortunately, even if I slaughter the LSAT with 175+, I wouldn't get into UCLA. Bummer

what

I'm not an adcomm, but I disagree with the poster who said it's not going to help; that sounds like the exact kind of thing that GPA addenda are for. That's not to say that anyone is obliged to take that into account in any kind of formulaic way, but if that really is something that contributed to what you see as under-performance, why wouldn't you explain it?

As with all things, present explanations as "this is what I faced and how I overcame it. Though it resulted in a lower GPA than I feel I'm capable of under more favorable circumstances, the experience has made me a better person and a better prospective law student." Don't whine or come off as though you expect special treatment.

Good luck.

You can write an addendum to put your low GPA in context, but you will probably still be judged on your 3.0. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

It doesn't seem like you'll be shut out from UCLA if you get a 170+.

DrSpaceman wrote:I'm not an adcomm, but I disagree with the poster who said it's not going to help; that sounds like the exact kind of thing that GPA addenda are for. That's not to say that anyone is obliged to take that into account in any kind of formulaic way, but if that really is something that contributed to what you see as under-performance, why wouldn't you explain it?

As with all things, present explanations as "this is what I faced and how I overcame it. Though it resulted in a lower GPA than I feel I'm capable of under more favorable circumstances, the experience has made me a better person and a better prospective law student." Don't whine or come off as though you expect special treatment.

Good luck.

Oh I dont plan on whining, I looked into how adendums should be written. I'm not one to complain either. Thank you!

[quote="Dirigo"]You can write an addendum to put your low GPA in context, but you will probably still be judged on your 3.0. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

It doesn't seem like you'll be shut out from UCLA if you get a 170+.



I was looking at some of the older people who had applied with GPA's similar to mine, and they got wait listed and denied.


Also, sorry double post

badluckchuck wrote: I was looking at some of the older people who had applied with GPA's similar to mine, and they got wait listed and denied.

I highly doubt UCLA discriminates against older students. If anything, the more separation you have from your GPA, the better.
How old/non-traditional are you, if you don't mind me asking?

Yeah I mean law school is generally not a good path to attempt when you have a GPA that low. There are good situations to be had if you crush the lsat, but those situations will almost certainly not involve schools in California.

If you're from California and staying is important to you, I would strongly advise you to find another career path. More generally, if you're risk-averse, you don't want to commit four years and a lot of debt to an uncertain future, and you have any alternative potential paths in life that you think would make you happy, I would not try to do this. Unfortunately -- and in many circumstances, unfairly -- the two biggest indicators of and factors for success as an attorney are your undergraduate GPA and LSAT score. It's going to be a tough with a 3.0 -- no way around it. We're here to help if it's what you end up choosing, though.

Dirigo wrote:You can write an addendum to put your low GPA in context, but you will probably still be judged on your 3.0. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

It doesn't seem like you'll be shut out from UCLA if you get a 170+.

The thing is, even if he gets into UCLA, there's not going to be much money to be had. Taking even tuition-level debt at UCLA is a very scary option.

Ron Don Volante wrote:

Dirigo wrote:You can write an addendum to put your low GPA in context, but you will probably still be judged on your 3.0. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.
It doesn't seem like you'll be shut out from UCLA if you get a 170+.

The thing is, even if he gets into UCLA, there's not going to be much money to be had. Taking even tuition-level debt at UCLA is a very scary option.

True, but I mainly wanted to show OP that UCLA is in fact a possibility.

DrSpaceman wrote:I'm not an adcomm, but I disagree with the poster who said it's not going to help; that sounds like the exact kind of thing that GPA addenda are for. That's not to say that anyone is obliged to take that into account in any kind of formulaic way, but if that really is something that contributed to what you see as under-performance, why wouldn't you explain it?

Please present the data that refutes LSN's decade-old hard cutoff lines for literally every school but Berkeley in the T17.

Yes, it could make a difference if OP is on the margins. Thing is, with that GPA, he's simply not going to be on the margins without an extraordinary LSAT.

Hypothetically, what would be a better options if one where to get a 175? I'd like to stay within california, but if there are no other options...

Northwestern or WUSTL would be the classic options in such a scenario. Not exactly easy to get back to Cali from either, though.

badluckchuck wrote:Hypothetically, what would be a better options if one where to get a 175? I'd like to stay within california, but if there are no other options...

It looks like a better chance at getting money out of UCLA, but about the same chance of being admitted.
Every LSAT point counts, for sure. However, once you're over a school's 75th percentile, you experience diminishing returns.

better get the adendum prepped then. Hopefully, it'll hold enough weight to shift the balance a bit more in my favor

badluckchuck wrote:better get the adendum LSAT prepped then. Hopefully, it'll hold enough weight to shift the balance a bit more in my favor

ftfy

ballcaps wrote:

badluckchuck wrote:better get the adendum LSAT prepped then. Hopefully, it'll hold enough weight to shift the balance a bit more in my favor

ftfy

Why not both?

because improving on the lsat will actually make a difference