. Forum

[Miracle]

First of all there are "VERY" few applicants with high LSAT score, and low GPA to begin with.

That's true, but that doesn't make my claim any less relevant. The fact that there are so few suggests that it is very unlikely the OP is going to become one. Indeed, since the OP doesn't have an LSAT score yet, or even a reasonable prediction, it would perhaps be more helpful to look at all candidates with 3.0 GPAs. At the T14, the vast majority are rejected.

Second of all LSN is not the only and most reliable predictor of law school admissions.

There are four things people tend to use in these forums: (1) LSN; (2) LSP, or similar; (3) school-reported percentile numbers; and (4) anecdotal evidence. In this case, (2) and (3) will be almost useless, because if the OP got a high LSAT score he would be an extreme splitter. I don't have any anecdotal evidence, and even if I did, that shouldn't count more than LSN.

and lastly, people with 3.7-3.8, and 175+ LSAT get rejected or waitlisted from top law schools according to LSN very often.

What's your point - that we shouldn't make any predictions, because anyone can get rejected? There is not much that is certain about law school admissions, which is why we consider what is likely.

I agree with you that he needs to get his LSAT first, however you first argument is very flawed.

Vast majority with 3.0 at T-14 are not rejected. There are very few to begin with. When you talk about majority you're talking "maybe" at most about 15-20 applicants (with respect to splitters). If you take a closer look at G-town for this cycle applicants with 3.0 GPA and 170+ on the LSAT did get in. You had five aapplicants (according to LSN) with GPA between 3.0 and 3.1, and 170+ on the lsat and all of them got in. People with GPA around 2.7-2.9 got waitlisted.

Michigan had acceptances as well, and so did other schools.

The vast majority of 3.0 applicants are not splitters. I think that might be the point he/she was trying to make.

Could be, but OP has 3.0 or will have 3.0, and he implied that he has zero to none chance of getting in at T-14

Most people on TLS feel that 3.0 is a splitter.

[splitmuch]

If you take a closer look at G-town for this cycle applicants with 3.0 GPA and 170+ on the LSAT did get in. You had five aapplicants (according to LSN) with GPA between 3.0 and 3.1, and 170+ on the lsat and all of them got in. People with GPA around 2.7-2.9 got waitlisted.

You should check that again

[Miracle]

I agree with you that he needs to get his LSAT first, however you first argument is very flawed.

Vast majority with 3.0 at T-14 are not rejected. There are very few to begin with. When you talk about majority you're talking "maybe" at most about 15-20 applicants (with respect to splitters). If you take a closer look at G-town for this cycle applicants with 3.0 GPA and 170+ on the LSAT did get in. You had five aapplicants (according to LSN) with GPA between 3.0 and 3.1, and 170+ on the lsat and all of them got in. People with GPA around 2.7-2.9 got waitlisted.

Michigan had acceptances as well, and so did other schools.

What I wrote was that the vast majority of 3.0 and below candidates are rejected. At G-town, I count 1 non-URM acceptance and 30+ rejections / waitlists. Your figure of 5 acceptances includes 4 candidates between 3.0 and 3.1, which - if anything - shows why the OP should wait to apply, since even a small GPA difference seems to make big difference to one's chances (although, if you include candidates between 3.0 and 3.1, the number of rejections and waitlists also increases significantly).

I did not write that the vast majority of 3.0 / 170+ splitters were rejected, because - as you point out - there aren't many. Since the OP doesn't have an LSAT yet, and is not even in a position to make an informed guess, I think the first statistic is more helpful.

EDIT: czelede put my point more succintly. LOL. I'll stop writing now.

You included 3.0-which is what OP claims to have or will have and I based my argument on 3.0-not below 3.0. My argument isn't that he will get in, my argument is that he has a decent shot getting in which was contrary to your argument of that he has zero to none chance of getting in. It all comes down to an individual application.

Its flawed reasoning to use numbers as the only excuse to justify candidates rejections, when you have decent number of people who have better numbers, and above schools medium such as 175-3.87, 174-3.8 that clearly indicate they were not rejected solely based on numbers.

[Miracle]

If you take a closer look at G-town for this cycle applicants with 3.0 GPA and 170+ on the LSAT did get in. You had five aapplicants (according to LSN) with GPA between 3.0 and 3.1, and 170+ on the lsat and all of them got in. People with GPA around 2.7-2.9 got waitlisted.

You should check that again

173-3.1
171-3.0
171-3.08
172-3.07
172-3.08

=5!

none of them are URM!

[AntipodeanPhil]

If you take a closer look at G-town for this cycle applicants with 3.0 GPA and 170+ on the LSAT did get in. You had five aapplicants (according to LSN) with GPA between 3.0 and 3.1, and 170+ on the lsat and all of them got in. People with GPA around 2.7-2.9 got waitlisted.

You should check that again

Well, you got in at NU, so it's hard to feel really sorry for you - although, with a 178, you deserved it.

[helmsleyB]

I have not taken any diagnostic tests. However, I am not going into the LSAT convinced that my SAT scores from six years ago will guide me. I'm signed up for an intensive Testmasters course this summer, and plan on eating and breathing LSAT for the entirety of the three months leading up to the test. I'm not totally assured that I can get a 175+ or anything; I just know that's what I need for a shot at t14, and I see it as an attainable goal with the proper (rigorous) preparation. On that note, the Testmasters site sternly warns potential students against studying outside material prior to the course. Is this advice worth following, or can I get cracking on some PowerScore now?

IMO, Testmasters telling you not to study other materials is pure BS. I guess their rationale is that you may not take their suggested approaches as gospel if you happen to read some other advice elsewhere. If they are warning you against LSAT studying burnout, that's legit. But, as long as we're talking 175+, following the Testmasters approaches like gospel isn't going to get you to that level on its own. Get as many materials/approaches as you can and find what works for you.

I took a Testmasters course. It was really pretty useful, but I think that's mostly because it helped structure my studying. I'm drifting more towards "LSAT Prep and Discussion" material now so sorry for drifting off topic a bit. Anyways, good luck with your LSAT studying!

[splitmuch]

If you take a closer look at G-town for this cycle applicants with 3.0 GPA and 170+ on the LSAT did get in. You had five aapplicants (according to LSN) with GPA between 3.0 and 3.1, and 170+ on the lsat and all of them got in. People with GPA around 2.7-2.9 got waitlisted.

You should check that again

173-3.1
171-3.0
171-3.08
172-3.07
172-3.08

=5!

none of them are URM!

Check the 178-3.09...I guarantee you he got a waitlist

[09042014]

Damn splitters get full rides at Indiana? I would have considered the shit out of that.

[splitmuch]

If you take a closer look at G-town for this cycle applicants with 3.0 GPA and 170+ on the LSAT did get in. You had five aapplicants (according to LSN) with GPA between 3.0 and 3.1, and 170+ on the lsat and all of them got in. People with GPA around 2.7-2.9 got waitlisted.

You should check that again

Well, you got in at NU, so it's hard to feel really sorry for you - although, with a 178, you deserved it.

Haha ya don't feel sorry for me at all...just funny that a good perentage of 3.0-to 3.1 splitters got in...just not the one with the highest. But ya, I'm happy with my cycle.

[tedler]

.

[AntipodeanPhil]

You included 3.0-which is what OP claims to have or will have and I based my argument on 3.0-not below 3.0. My argument isn't that he will get in, my argument is that he has a decent shot getting in which was contrary to your argument of that he has zero to none chance of getting in. It all comes down to an individual application.

Its flawed reasoning to use numbers as the only excuse to justify candidates rejections, when you have decent number of people who have better numbers, and above schools medium such as 175-3.87, 174-3.8 that clearly indicate they were not rejected solely based on numbers.

Miracle: you create the appearance of engaging in a debate with me, but the claims you contest are not claims I made. If you want to argue against some strawman, that's fine, but don't use my name for it.

Although, your claim that the OP has a "decent shot" of getting in to T14 schools is patently false. At this point, the OP has a 3.0 GPA and no LSAT score. What percentage of candidates in that situation go to attend a T14 school, do you suppose?

[tedler]

.

[Kabuo]

I'm not as extreme a splitter as splitmuch, but if I were in your shoes after just finishing my cycle, I would say do w/e you can to break 3.4 in UG. Pick up another major, anything. I think a 3.4, and definitely a 3.5, marks a big line for T14 schools.

[Adjudicator]

3.0/175 here. I didn't get in anywhere near the T14, although I did not ED anywhere. Got big money at WUSTL however. WUSTL, this cycle at least, seemed to love anyone with a high LSAT.

[Miracle]

You included 3.0-which is what OP claims to have or will have and I based my argument on 3.0-not below 3.0. My argument isn't that he will get in, my argument is that he has a decent shot getting in which was contrary to your argument of that he has zero to none chance of getting in. It all comes down to an individual application.

Its flawed reasoning to use numbers as the only excuse to justify candidates rejections, when you have decent number of people who have better numbers, and above schools medium such as 175-3.87, 174-3.8 that clearly indicate they were not rejected solely based on numbers.

Miracle: you create the appearance of engaging in a debate with me, but the claims you contest are not claims I made. If you want to argue against some strawman, that's fine, but don't use my name for it.

Although, your claim that the OP has a "decent shot" of getting in to T14 schools is patently false. At this point, the OP has a 3.0 GPA and no LSAT score. What percentage of candidates in that situation go to attend a T14 school, do you suppose?

Honey, i think you're confusing yourself.

I just provided you stats with people that were able to get in. Why are you choosing to ignore them? Maybe because they undermine your argument? I'm a splitter myself, and was able to break in G-town, Cornell, and Michigan.

We're running in circles here. I scored 170+ on LSAT- i don't believe i have reading comprehension problem, and am very aware of the claims you made. The fact that you choose to take your opinion as a fact is solely at your discretion.