Am I just an idiot and have no hope.... Forum

[bk1]

GPA is 3.38 I believe. Might be slightly higher according to LSAC because I managed an A+ my last quarter and my UG school doesn't factor an A+ into GPA calculations.

Just FYI, even with a 180 your chances at UCLA/USC don't look too good with that GPA. You'd be better off aiming for most of the lower T14 (assuming 170+, maybe 169 for Cornell or Michigan).

Disagree. I am a CA resident and went to another UC for undergrad. I think UCLA is quite possible even with a GPA like mine. Several people with my numbers or worse have gotten in, but obv have done so with 170+ LSAT's. That's prob the only positive thing I have going for me. The UC system always favor's CA residents. I am not saying it will be easy by any means, UCLA will be a huge reach, but it's def attainable.

I'd say the only school's I'd have 0 chance to get into with a 180 would be HYS + Boalt.

Did you even read what I said? I didn't say it was impossible, merely that it was unlikely. I am also unconvinced the the UC law schools actually favor CA residents by a significant margin. Several people have done it, but my point was that it is way more likely that you will get rejected from USC/UCLA and get into one of the lower T14.

[darkatillam2]

I did read what you said and I think it's a fair statement if you remove the "even with a 180" from your post. I have yet to see an applicant get rejected from USC/UCLA with a 180 LSAT score regardless of GPA. Wouldn't happen frankly.

And I would say the term "significant" might be too strong. I would say they favor, but not significantly.

You are correct in the latter part of your statement however, so there's that

I did have my eye on Cornell, but I'd prefer to stay in CA if I could. If I got accepted, I'd obv go in a heartbeat.

[bmili]

.

[bk1]

I did read what you said and I think it's a fair statement if you remove the "even with a 180" from your post. I have yet to see an applicant get rejected from USC/UCLA with a 180 LSAT score regardless of GPA. Wouldn't happen frankly.

"Wouldn't happen?" Are you serious? There are very few 180 applicants but I'd be hard pressed to believe that a 180 is an auto-accept for such GPA-centric schools. For reference:

UCLA (--LinkRemoved--)
3.25-3.49/175-180 - 7 Admits out of 32 Applications

And that is old data, iirc. I'd say that it is pretty rough at UCLA with a sub 3.5.

[darkatillam2]

A 180 is miles different than a 174-179 imo.


According to LSN, UCLA accepted a 180 applicant with a 2.98 GPA last year. 180s are a very very rare breed and the exclusivity of being in the "perfect score" club warrants a lot of attention (for schools OUTSIDE of HYS), regardless of GPA.

[bk1]

A 180 is miles different than a 174-179 imo.


According to LSN, UCLA accepted a 180 applicant with a 2.98 GPA last year. 180s are a very very rare breed and the exclusivity of being in the "perfect score" club warrants a lot of attention (for schools OUTSIDE of HYS), regardless of GPA.

This isn't actually true for horrid GPAs.

Anyways this is a pointless argument. You're not going to believe, I'm not going to believe you. Either way there won't be enough data points to prove either of us right or wrong.

That being said, I stand by my statement that you are very likely out of UCLA (and probably USC as well) based on your GPA.

[09042014]

A 180 is miles different than a 174-179 imo.


According to LSN, UCLA accepted a 180 applicant with a 2.98 GPA last year. 180s are a very very rare breed and the exclusivity of being in the "perfect score" club warrants a lot of attention (for schools OUTSIDE of HYS), regardless of GPA.

There is no reason for a school to value a 180 any more than 179. And they seemingly don't. Schools don't brag about 180's.

A 180/2.98 getting into UCLA is only one data point. He applied ED, and went to a UC. He could have had a very good reason for the 3.0.

[rubydandun]

If you are getting that many wrong after doing the bibles I'd bet on idiot.

Have you considered being less of a douche? & lol at your post count.

Sorry, had to give you some shit, I've seen you be a raging jerk more than once on these boards.

[09042014]

If you are getting that many wrong after doing the bibles I'd bet on idiot.

Have you considered being less of a douche? & lol at your post count.

Sorry, had to give you some shit, I've seen you be a raging jerk more than once on these boards.

He asked, and I'm probably right.

[darkatillam2]

A 180 is miles different than a 174-179 imo.


According to LSN, UCLA accepted a 180 applicant with a 2.98 GPA last year. 180s are a very very rare breed and the exclusivity of being in the "perfect score" club warrants a lot of attention (for schools OUTSIDE of HYS), regardless of GPA.

There is no reason for a school to value a 180 any more than 179. And they seemingly don't. Schools don't brag about 180's.

A 180/2.98 getting into UCLA is only one data point. He applied ED, and went to a UC. He could have had a very good reason for the 3.0.

lol @ "only one data point".


A single 180 is actually a huge data point in relation to the total 180s each year. Something like 10-20 people get 180s a year out of 100K+ takers.

So basically, one 180 scorer makes up around 5% of the total number of 180 scorers.

Even though there is no reason to value a 180 over a 179, I would argue the mere fact there are so few perfect scorers out there, schools like UCLA offer acceptances to them simply because of their exclusivity. I highly doubt UCLA/USC would scoff at a 180er who had a low GPA when there are around 10-20 total applicants like them out there (some of which might not even bother with schools outside the top 5).

A 180 adds to the uniqueness of your application which I would argue schools take into account.

[bk1]

lol @ "only one data point".


A single 180 is actually a huge data point in relation to the total 180s each year. Something like 10-20 people get 180s a year out of 100K+ takers.

So basically, one 180 scorer makes up around 5% of the total number of 180 scorers.

You've got a solid grasp of statistics, my friend!

[darkatillam2]

lol @ "only one data point".


A single 180 is actually a huge data point in relation to the total 180s each year. Something like 10-20 people get 180s a year out of 100K+ takers.

So basically, one 180 scorer makes up around 5% of the total number of 180 scorers.

You've got a solid grasp of statistics, my friend!

More like I have a solid example to make a solid point, my friend....

[bk1]

A 180 adds to the uniqueness of your application which I would argue schools take into account.

Yes because getting only 2 questions wrong on the LSAT as opposed to 3 makes you unique.

[darkatillam2]

A 180 adds to the uniqueness of your application which I would argue schools take into account.

Yes because getting only 2 questions wrong on the LSAT as opposed to 3 makes you unique.

Apparently...

If there is something you've done that only 10-20 others have done out of 100k+ people..... wouldn't that make you unique to a school admission board (even moreso to a school that's not T10)?

Let me put that in a different way....

Do you honestly think there is something unique in your softs, like work experience/volunteer work that not a shit load of other applicants haven't already done themselves?

Getting a 180 is a solid way to show a school your in that club, and thus makes you more appealing. Again, that's why I'd argue schools would appreciate it a lot more than a 175-179.

Anyway, this thread is getting off topic.

Thanks to those who gave good advice on how to improve my study methods. I am sure it will help.

[bk1]

Using the volunteer hours thing, the difference between a 180 and a 179 is like doing 10000 community service hours when the second best people only do 9000. There is a difference, but you are already at such an elite level that the difference is marginal.

Not everything that makes someone unique is significant towards admissions. Not to mention that the number of people who get a 179 isn't very large either.

[TyrodTaylor]

read and go through the whole LR bible in a week. That way you can apply all of the concepts at once. It helped me. If you space it out, you will be good at one type of LR game, then a week later, you will be good at the enxt type, but lose fundamentlas fromthe first. Just absorb.

[09042014]

A 180 adds to the uniqueness of your application which I would argue schools take into account.

Yes because getting only 2 questions wrong on the LSAT as opposed to 3 makes you unique.

Apparently...

If there is something you've done that only 10-20 others have done out of 100k+ people..... wouldn't that make you unique to a school admission board (even moreso to a school that's not T10)?

Let me put that in a different way....

Do you honestly think there is something unique in your softs, like work experience/volunteer work that not a shit load of other applicants haven't already done themselves?

Getting a 180 is a solid way to show a school your in that club, and thus makes you more appealing. Again, that's why I'd argue schools would appreciate it a lot more than a 175-179.

Anyway, this thread is getting off topic.

Thanks to those who gave good advice on how to improve my study methods. I am sure it will help.

You can't make a trend out of one data point even if it's 100% of the 180's.

[cassidylane]

I thought I'd offer my two cents about UCLA chances:

I understand that a lower GPA decreases chances, but splitters often go to difficult undergrad schools (therefore they have a GPA that seems disproportionately low to their LSAT.) So without making a judgement about the initial poster, if you have a difficult work load at a well-respected undergrad school that 3.38 might look very different. I have a 3.56 LSAC GPA and a 171 and I got into UCLA after only being under review for less than a month. Not URM and not a CA resident, but I go to a really respected undergraduate college that has a great reputation with UCLA, and I really think that it is this factor that has gotten me into some T14 schools and held at Harvard despite having numbers below the medians. If you have some soft factors and you can get that LSAT where you want it than a 3.38 will not entirely keep you out of the running at UCLA by any means.

To your initial question: Have you given any thought to getting a tutor? Sometimes with the LR having an articulate person help walk you through the logic can really help. If you can't afford an expensive one, maybe put an add out on campus?

[fosterp]

come on you have taken three tests. you really expect to be scoring high after barely any review?

do you really think the high scorers on this forum got there with just a few practice tests and reviewing the bibles? Those people are a vast minority. there is a reason the most popular study guide requires 3 months of prep minimum, because it really is necessary to get anywhere close to your potential.

review the bibles, practice every section from the first 10 untimed, practice every section from the next 10 timed, and then take every full prep test from 28 onward until you have exhausted your prep material, and THEN start thinking about your law school fate based on that score

and if you think that is too much work, then you should reexamine how truly dedicated you are to getting into t14 or the legal profession in general - because this is only the beginning

[darkatillam2]

come on you have taken three tests. you really expect to be scoring high after barely any review?

do you really think the high scorers on this forum got there with just a few practice tests and reviewing the bibles? Those people are a vast minority. there is a reason the most popular study guide requires 3 months of prep minimum, because it really is necessary to get anywhere close to your potential.

review the bibles, practice every section from the first 10 untimed, practice every section from the next 10 timed, and then take every full prep test from 28 onward until you have exhausted your prep material, and THEN start thinking about your law school fate based on that score

and if you think that is too much work, then you should reexamine how truly dedicated you are to getting into t14 or the legal profession in general - because this is only the beginning

That study plan seems like a really good idea.

And no, that's not a lot of work at all. In fact, I was planning on taking 1 full prep test every other day (I had heard the actual number you can get your hands on is around 50-60, and doing the math, that meant I had to take one every two days if I wanted to do them all by June) until June along with reading 2 more books in addition to the bibles.

I had used Dec-Jan to finish all the bibles and half of "Master the LSAT". Then feb is when I started taking PTs every other day. I was just pissed off at my early results, and thus began this thread.

It's been nice to hear your insights, I think I will makes some changes to my study methods and probably repost later with (hopefully) some positive improvements.

[Yassig]

While by no means an LSAT expert, just wanted to point out that while having access to a number of preptests and doing lots is great, doing every single one isn't going to help your score unless you review and realize what you're doing wrong so that you can correct it. If that takes 10 tests, reviewing and going through everything, so much the better. If it takes 60, then fine. But most people would recommend quality over quantity - don't get caught up on the number. Work more on understanding the wrong answers and correcting them. GL!

[Deep Trench]

Everyone has a different strategy, but I studied for almost three months (bibles at the beginning and then practicing section by section) before I did any full PT. There is no need to tackle the full timed test before you are ready and get discouraged by the score. When I took the first full PT after three months of studying, my score was 169, and it was encouraging to see that I was not that far off.

[onthecusp]

Take it in September. Do every single practice test, 1-60 or whatever they're at right now....watch your score grow. Seriously, 3 preptests is just getting started. You're don't even get into a rhythm until you have 10 under your belt. After 20+ you should be fairly comfortable, after 30+ you should see some real improvement.

The real learning comes when you are brutally dissecting every single question you get wrong for every PT you take. Seriously, with scores in the 150's you should be spending at least a solid hour on review, or longer if that's what it takes to FULLY comprehend why every single answer choice is right or wrong.

[Hey-O]

Some things the helped me on LR:

1.) Do 1-15 and then work backwards. The questions in the middle are the hardest and this gets the easy questions out of the way. time was never a serious issue for me, but it did give me more time to work on the hardest questions without stressing. Also, this way you make sure you answer all the questions you are most likely to get right.

2.) Focus on why the other questions are wrong and not why the right answer is right. This will also help with time. It helps to understand the questions

3.) When reviewing old tests dissect every question. This really, really helped me. Within each question is an argument or an attempt at an argument. Most are logical fallacies. The trick is to be able to spot them. So I would go through each question underline the conclusion and then circle the support for that conclusion. Then I'd write next to it what time of logical fallacy was used or if there was no fallacy.

[darkatillam2]

All good advice.

That's pretty much how I am reviewing my PTs after I take them. I try and dissect why the answer I initially put was wrong and why the right answer is right. This process still isn't perfect for me by any means. There are still around 2-4 questions per PT that I literally look at and have 0 clue how and why the correct answer is correct. That's very off putting for me, but it's a reality I am dealing with right now. In all honestly, I think having a study partner would help, but I seem to be out of those at the moment.

It's a little odd too when I come across questions like that. A lot of time I am prephrasing after I read a stimulus only to find no contenders which fit my prephrase in the answer choices. It doesn't happen a lot, but I will find questions like these on every test.

For example:

PT 22 LR section 4, #17.

I really have no clue why the answer is D. I can't see how D is a resolution. Maybe I'm confusing some relationship between individual rights and property ownership rights?


Anyway, more on this later. I am going to re-read the LR bible in the hopes I might pick up more from it this time than I did the first time around.