Chances T-14? Forum

[rayiner]

The law school counselor at my university said I had a decent shot to get into a T-14 school but I don't but I don't know... I just don't know if I can trust schools when they say that "we look at more than numbers!" I was wondering what other people thought my chances of getting into a T-14 school would be given the following info.

*3.80 UGPA, Major: Molecular and Cell Biology, Minor: Philosophy
*LSAT 165 (I also have a 156 on my file I had taken 3 years ago. But I sent in an addendum explaining the discrepancy. Basically I didn't prepare adequately because I decided to get a job instead.)
*I will have 3-years of work experience in a stem cell lab at Harvard associated teaching hopital.
*I want to do IP Law.

In at med school.

[rayiner]

I've gotten rejected to schools at which I was 75% for. And I've gotten into schools for where I was 25% at in terms of numbers. Non URM, good softs. I'm no lawyer but I'll let you make the inference on your own.

Your GPA is in the top 25% for a lot of the T14, and your LSAT is just under median for a lot of them. With your background you've got a great shot at a T14.

My friend squeaked into the T14 two cycles ago with 167/3.8. 165/3.8 just isn't happening.

[im_blue]

With that GPA and WE, why aren't you applying to med school, dental school, pharmacy school, optometry school, etc? Any of those would be better than T14 in terms of employment prospects.

[manthony]

Thanks for all the responses. This process just seems too numbers oriented. I got 18 wrong on the June LSAT and got a 165. If I had gotten 4 more right, or 14 wrong, I would have gotten a 168. I blame U.S. News and World Reports...

See, I had sympathy for you up until this post. Here's a little tough love for you: you aren't a special snowflake. If you retake the LSAT for a better score and actually end up at one of these schools (where I get the impression from your posts that you almost feel entitled to be), you'll very quickly realize that. The reality is that everybody at these schools did something you have twice failed to do - get an LSAT score that demonstrates your ability to analyze arguments and logic structures. It is the only method of comparing on an even scale a certain ability of all applicants, and other people have simply proven that they are better at it than you are.

You can complain and blame others all you want, or you can suck it up and work hard to get the score you need. If you want to argue that using a single stupid LSAT test (which you can take up to three times) is a dumb way to decide who should go to which law school, wait until you try taking an exam that constitutes your entire grade in a 1L final and that has the power to effectively make or break your career trajectory. Nobody owes you a thing, so quit complaining. People with a 3.8/165 are a dime a dozen, and each one of them believes they deserve to be at a T14. What makes you so special? A hard science major and a couple years of WE?
/end tough-love-asshole-mode

On a more positive note, I understand the frustration that your school's counselor may have built your hopes up. (S)he's an idiot for doing so, and for that I feel bad for you. You really will want to retake if you want a decent shot at the T14.

So these schools are lying when they say they look at something other than numbers?

Necessary not sufficient. Plenty of people underperform their numbers.

This. You don't have the necessary, so your softs mean very little.

Also,

your university should fire that law school counselor... if they don't then you should transfer to another undergraduate institution...

This. Seriously - I feel bad that your school's counselor got your hopes up, but you were right to be skeptical. It may still be worth the applications, but you are huge long shot without a retake (ideally 168+).

Didn't mean to come off as an a**hole though you obviously are. There are studies that show the LSAT is just indicator of how people do first year of law school. And 4 correct answers does not make a legal genius (the difference between a 165 and a 168). And the only ranking of prestige that people pay attention to is from one magazine. And there are debates as to whether or not their ranking method is even correct. The vitriol for somebody voicing their displeasure with a process and ranking system of debatable merit is not warranted.

But back to the topic at hand... There is just a disconnect between what these schools say on their websites about a process that is "more than just numbers" and what the statistics show. That's why I posted what I did. I just wanted to know my chances. And just to be clear, my counselor never said "you will get in." She just said it is worth applying. All T-14 are reach schools for me I understand that. I just was wondering what people think, if there was really anything beyond numbers that schools look at. I figured this would be the website to go to get analysis from Type-A people, of which I don't have a lot of friends that fit into that category. I already got into BU so I will be going to law school either way.

[manthony]

With that GPA and WE, why aren't you applying to med school, dental school, pharmacy school, optometry school, etc? Any of those would be better than T14 in terms of employment prospects.

Because I want to do science policy and/or IP law. I've done a lot of things outside science that I enjoy more and I figured that a law degree was the best way to get there. I don't need to go to a T-14 school. It would be nice, but it is not necessary for me to succeed in life.

[rayiner]

Dude. There isn't a big difference between 165 and 168, sure. But law schools have to put the cut-off somewhere, and decide between nearly identical applicants somehow. Why should they pick you over the guy with a 3.8/168?

[IAFG]

There is no disconnect between what schools say and what they do. If you were a URM or had more impressive softs, you would have a better shot. If you had a 175 and something alarming, like a felony conviction, you might get shut out. It isn't just numbers, but with so many quality 17X candidates, schools do not need to reach down for you.

[RPK34]

Is there a reason you're not going to med school? If I had a 3.8 in molecular biology, there wouldn't even be a hesitation in deciding between law school and med school.

[manthony]

Dude. There isn't a big difference between 165 and 168, sure. But law schools have to put the cut-off somewhere, and decide between nearly identical applicants somehow. Why should they pick you over the guy with a 3.8/168?

I agree. I'm not saying they should. I just don't know much about how admissions make decisions.I just don't appreciate when people are condescending implying I'm stupid for even asking these questions.

[FerminaD]

I would actually argue that there is a big differente between a 165 and a 168. I believe a 165 is in the 92nd or so percentile, and a 168 is the 96th. There are a bunch of qualifiers, like the percentiles are based on previous years' test takers, and there are differences between each test, but even very roughly that four percentile difference is huge when you consider 171,514 test takers. There are a few thousand people who managed to take the test and do better. You don't think any of those have amazing softs? Or equally good GPAs?

I think we all understand the LSAT is a terrible indicator of how one will perform as a lawyer, or even how one will perform in law school. But that said, it's the game we play because we want to get in, and if you are hung up on whether or not the game means anything, you are wasting time; time which other people are spending studying for their retakes.

[Older Chest]

Dude. There isn't a big difference between 165 and 168, sure. But law schools have to put the cut-off somewhere, and decide between nearly identical applicants somehow. Why should they pick you over the guy with a 3.8/168?

I agree. I'm not saying they should. I just don't know much about how admissions make decisions. I just don't appreciate when people are condescending implying I'm stupid for even asking thee questions.

I can relate to how you are feeling about your admissions chances. It's very sad to think that bubbling 4 or so answers correctly is the difference between a great school and a good one, but life can be cruel sometimes. The reality of the situation is crystal clear -> without an LSAT in the high 160s or higher, it is very difficult to get into a T14 school. There are so many qualified candidates (by the numbers as well as by the softs), that law schools needs to draw a line when reviewing, in some cases, upwards of 10,000 applications. LSAT is the most fair way because it is standardized across all applicants.

The best way to see what your chances are is to head over to http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/ It will give you a great idea of where you can expect to be admitted, and you will see that almost every single school has a fairly tight LSAT cut-off.

Final note: you can improve your LSAT score! I know it's not that fun to think about prepping for the LSAT again, but the proof is in the pudding. Not only will you be able to get into a higher ranked school than Boston, but you will see significant $$$ being thrown your way. As someone who jumped from a 164 to a 175, I know you can do it too.

[FlightoftheEarls]

Didn't mean to come off as an a**hole though you obviously are. There are studies that show the LSAT is just indicator of how people do first year of law school. And 4 correct answers does not make a legal genius (the difference between a 165 and a 168). And the only ranking of prestige that people pay attention to is from one magazine. And there are debates as to whether or not their ranking method is even correct. The vitriol for somebody voicing their displeasure with a process and ranking system of debatable merit is not warranted.

But back to the topic at hand... There is just a disconnect between what these schools say on their websites about a process that is "more than just numbers" and what the statistics show. That's why I posted what I did. I just wanted to know my chances. And just to be clear, my counselor never said "you will get in." She just said it is worth applying. All T-14 are reach schools for me I understand that. I just was wondering what people think, if there was really anything beyond numbers that schools look at. I figured this would be the website to go to get analysis from Type-A people, of which I don't have a lot of friends that fit into that category. I already got into BU so I will be going to law school either way.

My post hardly makes me an asshole, even if it wasn't particularly pleasant to hear. I even went so far as to put in my "tough love" disclaimer and recognize that I was being rather harsh, but I think it's some advice that you probably need to hear. My apologies if it didn't go over so well, but the US News blame is ridiculous - you can always find somebody else to blame. Everybody recognizes that the US News ranking system has flaws, but that has little to do with the fact that others were better (even if only marginally) than you on the sole objective standard that admissions committees have. At the end of the day, the ability of others to be just that much quicker puts them ahead of you. It's brutal, but it's the way it is.

Also, you still aren't getting IAGF's point if you're talking about the disconnect between the "more than just numbers" and the statistics. There are plenty of people who have T14 numbers but just won't get into the few T14 schools that genuinely care about soft factors. At these few schools, having the numbers is necessary, but not sufficient to get you in. Therefore, the admissions process can be seen as "more than just numbers."

I just don't appreciate when people are condescending implying I'm stupid for even asking thee questions.

Two points here: First, I never implied that you were stupid, only that you were placing the blame on others. Second, my response was entirely to this:

Thanks for all the responses. This process just seems too numbers oriented. I got 18 wrong on the June LSAT and got a 165. If I had gotten 4 more right, or 14 wrong, I would have gotten a 168. I blame U.S. News and World Reports...

You're welcome to ask questions all you want - I'm more than happy to answer. But it's not as though you were asking a question and somebody jumped on you for not knowing the answer. You were blaming somebody else for hurting your chances at admissions, and that just isn't likely to win you much sympathy.

Again, my apologies if my post came off harsh - I tend to have little patience for people who have trouble taking responsibility for themselves. Best of luck to you with the rest of your applications, and with the LSAT retake (if you end up going that route)

[manthony]

Didn't mean to come off as an a**hole though you obviously are. There are studies that show the LSAT is just indicator of how people do first year of law school. And 4 correct answers does not make a legal genius (the difference between a 165 and a 168). And the only ranking of prestige that people pay attention to is from one magazine. And there are debates as to whether or not their ranking method is even correct. The vitriol for somebody voicing their displeasure with a process and ranking system of debatable merit is not warranted.

But back to the topic at hand... There is just a disconnect between what these schools say on their websites about a process that is "more than just numbers" and what the statistics show. That's why I posted what I did. I just wanted to know my chances. And just to be clear, my counselor never said "you will get in." She just said it is worth applying. All T-14 are reach schools for me I understand that. I just was wondering what people think, if there was really anything beyond numbers that schools look at. I figured this would be the website to go to get analysis from Type-A people, of which I don't have a lot of friends that fit into that category. I already got into BU so I will be going to law school either way.

My post hardly makes me an asshole, even if it wasn't particularly pleasant to hear. I even went so far as to put in my "tough love" disclaimer and recognize that I was being rather harsh, but I think it's some advice that you probably need to hear. My apologies if it didn't go over so well, but the US News blame is ridiculous - you can always find somebody else to blame. Everybody recognizes that the US News ranking system has flaws, but that has little to do with the fact that others were better (even if only marginally) than you on the sole objective standard that admissions committees have. At the end of the day, the ability of others to be just that much quicker puts them ahead of you. It's brutal, but it's the way it is.

Also, you still aren't getting IAGF's point if you're talking about the disconnect between the "more than just numbers" and the statistics. There are plenty of people who have T14 numbers but just won't get into the few T14 schools that genuinely care about soft factors. At these few schools, having the numbers is necessary, but not sufficient to get you in. Therefore, the admissions process can be seen as "more than just numbers."

I just don't appreciate when people are condescending implying I'm stupid for even asking thee questions.

Two points here: First, I never implied that you were stupid, only that you were placing the blame on others. Second, my response was entirely to this:

Thanks for all the responses. This process just seems too numbers oriented. I got 18 wrong on the June LSAT and got a 165. If I had gotten 4 more right, or 14 wrong, I would have gotten a 168. I blame U.S. News and World Reports...

You're welcome to ask questions all you want - I'm more than happy to answer. But it's not as though you were asking a question and somebody jumped on you for not knowing the answer. You were blaming somebody else for hurting your chances at admissions, and that just isn't likely to win you much sympathy.

Again, my apologies if my post came off harsh - I tend to have little patience for people who have trouble taking responsibility for themselves. Best of luck to you with the rest of your applications, and with the LSAT retake (if you end up going that route)

Don't worry about it. The U.S. News and World Reports was more of a joke (I should stay away from sarcasm on message boards). If I had a 170 I would have a different attitude. I was just caught off guard by the amount of people that said I had no chance. And then I realized that I was 4 questions away from being "no chance" to "good chance". It was more of an observation than anything.

Just a misunderstanding I guess. Good luck with your apps.

[thisguy456]

Yep, it's only 3 or 4 questions on the LSAT that can keep people out of a T-14. And it's only 3 or 4 questions that can elevate those same people above others relegated to a T2. But they usually only complain about the first part.

[rayiner]

Dude. There isn't a big difference between 165 and 168, sure. But law schools have to put the cut-off somewhere, and decide between nearly identical applicants somehow. Why should they pick you over the guy with a 3.8/168?

I agree. I'm not saying they should. I just don't know much about how admissions make decisions. I just don't appreciate when people are condescending implying I'm stupid for even asking thee questions.

Re: how admissions makes decisions. It really helps to look at things from the perspective of an admissions person.

There were 172,000 test takers this past year, up from 143,000 when I took the test (less than 2 years ago!). That means 13,000+ people got 165 and up, and about 4,300 people with 170 and up. There are less than 4,500 1L seats in the T14.

From that pool, how do you pick your class? Look at two schools which heavily consider things besides LSAT score:
Berkeley focuses on GPA, letting in few people below 3.7, with a median of 3.8. Their LSAT median is still 167.
Northwestern focuses heavily on WE, almost 85% of their class has 2+ years. Their LSAT median is still 170, and even their GPA median is over 3.7.

[sissyclark]

Dude. There isn't a big difference between 165 and 168, sure. But law schools have to put the cut-off somewhere, and decide between nearly identical applicants somehow. Why should they pick you over the guy with a 3.8/168?

I agree. I'm not saying they should. I just don't know much about how admissions make decisions. I just don't appreciate when people are condescending implying I'm stupid for even asking thee questions.

You're so delicate...

[sophia.olive]

Didn't mean to come off as an a**hole though you obviously are. There are studies that show the LSAT is just indicator of how people do first year of law school. And 4 correct answers does not make a legal genius (the difference between a 165 and a 168). And the only ranking of prestige that people pay attention to is from one magazine. And there are debates as to whether or not their ranking method is even correct. The vitriol for somebody voicing their displeasure with a process and ranking system of debatable merit is not warranted.

Actually, a 165 is pretty low. Maybe you don't read or reason well? Which are important for law school. Being an ace with a magnifying glass wont help in law school.

[molomloch]

You don't have a chance. Try getting an M.A. in biology (or accounting).

[thegor1987]

Your GPA is in the top 25% for a lot of the T14, and your LSAT is just under median for a lot of them. With your background you've got a great shot at a T14.

His GPA is in the top 25% (barely) for Cornell and Georgetown, and a 165 isn't really "just under median" at any T14 (maybe Berkeley?). I think that a couple more points on the LSAT would make OP a lot more competitive at the T14.

ok I undo 'great shot'. But at the very least he's got about a 25% chance. Which is what the poll is at right now. And I agree the LSAT is a little low but everything else is quite impressive which is why I think there is significant enough chance to apply.