Any shot at getting in? Forum

[JamMasterJ]

Just wondering how you are going to bring your GPA up that much with only one year left for your BSW. One thing that I learned that was VERY upsetting in my BSW program is that your internship units are all Pass/Fail... at least it is at my school which is also a CSU. Really annoying basically getting NO GPA boost after the fall since I am doing my ENTIRE internship in the fall (all 10 units) and then just a 2 units online seminar. I am doing my internship with the California Coalition for Youth. Nice to meeting another SWer I am so hoping to get into UCLA/USC but I will be applying to their MSW/JD program.

We are on the quarter system so I still don't have my grades for this spring quarter ending 6/10...hoping for a 4.0!! I'm also taking 4 classes in summer and will be taking 3 classes each quarter next year along with my internship. And even if I get all 4.0s it will still bring me up less than 0.2 GPA points. Good Luck to you!!!

I went from 3.35ish to a 3.53 in a year. You can totally do this

[Haribo]

No, but from what I've heard and read it's fairly similar to the SAT. I got a 2370 on the new SAT so I think with a lot of studying I should be okay (I should add here that Cal State was not my first choice for undergrad-I went to NYU for a year straight out of HS but had to move back with family after I had my kids and had to start over since I didnt have enough credits to actually transfer)

Does your calculated GPA include the units you took at NYU? LSAC's grade calculation will include this as well.

[cassie2012]

Just wondering how you are going to bring your GPA up that much with only one year left for your BSW. One thing that I learned that was VERY upsetting in my BSW program is that your internship units are all Pass/Fail... at least it is at my school which is also a CSU. Really annoying basically getting NO GPA boost after the fall since I am doing my ENTIRE internship in the fall (all 10 units) and then just a 2 units online seminar. I am doing my internship with the California Coalition for Youth. Nice to meeting another SWer I am so hoping to get into UCLA/USC but I will be applying to their MSW/JD program.

We are on the quarter system so I still don't have my grades for this spring quarter ending 6/10...hoping for a 4.0!! I'm also taking 4 classes in summer and will be taking 3 classes each quarter next year along with my internship. And even if I get all 4.0s it will still bring me up less than 0.2 GPA points. Good Luck to you!!!

I went from 3.35ish to a 3.53 in a year. You can totally do this

Awesome!!! You give me hope, haha!

No, but from what I've heard and read it's fairly similar to the SAT. I got a 2370 on the new SAT so I think with a lot of studying I should be okay (I should add here that Cal State was not my first choice for undergrad-I went to NYU for a year straight out of HS but had to move back with family after I had my kids and had to start over since I didnt have enough credits to actually transfer)

Does your calculated GPA include the units you took at NYU? LSAC's grade calculation will include this as well.

oh, hmmm I didn't know that. I dropped out completely, it doesn't show on my transcript at all. But my GPA there was 3.6 for only 2 semesters so I guess it doesn't really matter either way, it won't bring me up much, if any.

[crumpetsandtea]

FWIW, I have a sub-3.0 GPA w/1 year of post-grad WE and I'm hoping for a 170+ and will be ED-ing to a T14 (NU). I'm also from the socal area (: You can definitely shoot higher than USC/UCLA, particularly because they place so much emphasis on GPA. Like others have said, it definitely depends on your diagnostic. If you're starting out at 140-150, the chances of you getting 175+ will be SEVERELY diminished (read: you're going to have to work VERY HARD, and even then, it might not happen). If you're starting in the 160s-170s it will be easier (but still very hard--bottom line, get ready to work your ass off). Also, the LSATs are NOT like the SATs.

[Corwin]

FWIW, I have a sub-3.0 GPA w/1 year of post-grad WE and I'm hoping for a 170+ and will be ED-ing to a T14 (NU). I'm also from the socal area (: You can definitely shoot higher than USC/UCLA, particularly because they place so much emphasis on GPA. Like others have said, it definitely depends on your diagnostic. If you're starting out at 140-150, the chances of you getting 175+ will be SEVERELY diminished (read: you're going to have to work VERY HARD, and even then, it might not happen). If you're starting in the 160s-170s it will be easier (but still very hard--bottom line, get ready to work your ass off). Also, the LSATs are NOT like the SATs.

From what I can tell NU looks for 172+ for those types of splitters (I'll be one as well).

[czelede]

In all actuality your GPA is not low. A 3.2-3.4 makes you a contender. Remember that. You can go where-ever you set your mind to. Anything is possible

Maybe only if OP has good to amazing softs. A 3.2 is not a contender at the top 6.

This is not true, though the top 3-4 are most definitely out.

[Muenchen]

In all actuality your GPA is not low. A 3.2-3.4 makes you a contender. Remember that. You can go where-ever you set your mind to. Anything is possible

Maybe only if OP has good to amazing softs. A 3.2 is not a contender at the top 6.

This is not true, though the top 3-4 are most definitely out.

^^ Everytime I see you in a thread, I'm going to tell you to come to Chicago.

/sidebar

[czelede]

In all actuality your GPA is not low. A 3.2-3.4 makes you a contender. Remember that. You can go where-ever you set your mind to. Anything is possible

Maybe only if OP has good to amazing softs. A 3.2 is not a contender at the top 6.

This is not true, though the top 3-4 are most definitely out.

^^ Everytime I see you in a thread, I'm going to tell you to come to Chicago.

/sidebar

I actually just decided on Penn today (went to visit Philadelphia yesterday). My whole family is very upset about my decision, haha.

[09042014]

FWIW, I have a sub-3.0 GPA w/1 year of post-grad WE and I'm hoping for a 170+ and will be ED-ing to a T14 (NU). I'm also from the socal area (: You can definitely shoot higher than USC/UCLA, particularly because they place so much emphasis on GPA. Like others have said, it definitely depends on your diagnostic. If you're starting out at 140-150, the chances of you getting 175+ will be SEVERELY diminished (read: you're going to have to work VERY HARD, and even then, it might not happen). If you're starting in the 160s-170s it will be easier (but still very hard--bottom line, get ready to work your ass off). Also, the LSATs are NOT like the SATs.

Intelligent people are intelligent people. While I'm sure some people just have a logic problem, I bet there is a fairly strong SAT/LSAT correlation. Top 1% standardized test takers tend to stay that way.

Diagnostics are totally fucking useless. It doesn't diagnose shit. People have 10 pt swings from the first test to the second just because knowing the format of the test is really important as pacing is a huge part of the LSAT.

Don't even take a diagnostic. Just start prepping.

[09042014]

In all actuality your GPA is not low. A 3.2-3.4 makes you a contender. Remember that. You can go where-ever you set your mind to. Anything is possible

Maybe only if OP has good to amazing softs. A 3.2 is not a contender at the top 6.

This is not true, though the top 3-4 are most definitely out.

Sub 5% chance at NYU, probably sub 1% at CC.

[czelede]

In all actuality your GPA is not low. A 3.2-3.4 makes you a contender. Remember that. You can go where-ever you set your mind to. Anything is possible

Maybe only if OP has good to amazing softs. A 3.2 is not a contender at the top 6.

This is not true, though the top 3-4 are most definitely out.

Sub 5% chance at NYU, probably sub 1% at CC.

You really think it's that low, even if his LSAT is above all of their 75ths? Chicago just took a bunch of ~3.2 splitters this cycle.

[09042014]

Maybe only if OP has good to amazing softs. A 3.2 is not a contender at the top 6.

This is not true, though the top 3-4 are most definitely out.

Sub 5% chance at NYU, probably sub 1% at CC.

You really think it's that low, even if his LSAT is above all of their 75ths? Chicago just took a bunch of ~3.2 splitters this cycle.

I'm wrong then. Uchi usually had a much higher GPA cut off. Probably trying to keep their shiny new median after the drop in applicants.

I'm guilty of the major sin that TLSer do. We assume static admissions standards, when they are actually very fluid. Year to year there are fairly significant changes. UIUC use to be the super splitter school, but they've been less likely to take them, while IUB is throwing them full rides. Two years ago Minnesota was straight up rejecting splitters, and my year they gave us 16K/year even with a sub 3 gpa.

It's why you should apply to reaches. Weird shit happens.

[crumpetsandtea]

Intelligent people are intelligent people. While I'm sure some people just have a logic problem, I bet there is a fairly strong SAT/LSAT correlation. Top 1% standardized test takers tend to stay that way.

Diagnostics are totally fucking useless. It doesn't diagnose shit. People have 10 pt swings from the first test to the second just because knowing the format of the test is really important as pacing is a huge part of the LSAT.

Don't even take a diagnostic. Just start prepping.

RE: the SAT/LSAT correlation. I don't doubt that people who do well on the SAT might have a penchant for standardized tests, or happen to be intelligent people, and that might carry over to their performance on the LSAT. All I'm saying is, as tests, they're pretty different. (for example - the SAT has a math section)

RE: diagnostics. I don't know that I completely agree with this, because I think at the very least, taking a test before you start prepping will give you a sense of where you stand. If you're testing in the 140s-150s, you probably can improve your score immediately by learning some basic tricks (particularly if you're missing a lot in LG). If you're testing in the 160s, you probably have some basic stuff down but need to improve on some specific things (timing, specific sections).

Moreover, doing a diagnostic will give you a sense of what the test is like and what's tripping you up: did you bomb the LG section? Was timing an issue for you? Did LR totally befuddle you? That way, you're going into your prep with an idea of what you should be focusing on. It gives context to your studying. If I'm starting out with a perfect LG section, I'm not going to pound through the LGB first like most people do. I'm going to work on LR, or RC.

With that said, maybe I was hyperbolic in my original statement. I guess on this topic I tend to trend towards giving advice that is more like "THIS IS GOING TO BE HARD PREPARE YOY ANUS"

[09042014]

Intelligent people are intelligent people. While I'm sure some people just have a logic problem, I bet there is a fairly strong SAT/LSAT correlation. Top 1% standardized test takers tend to stay that way.

Diagnostics are totally fucking useless. It doesn't diagnose shit. People have 10 pt swings from the first test to the second just because knowing the format of the test is really important as pacing is a huge part of the LSAT.

Don't even take a diagnostic. Just start prepping.

RE: the SAT/LSAT correlation. I don't doubt that people who do well on the SAT might have a penchant for standardized tests, or happen to be intelligent people, and that might carry over to their performance on the LSAT. All I'm saying is, as tests, they're pretty different. (for example - the SAT has a math section)

RE: diagnostics. I don't know that I completely agree with this, because I think at the very least, taking a test before you start prepping will give you a sense of where you stand. If you're testing in the 140s-150s, you probably can improve your score immediately by learning some basic tricks (particularly if you're missing a lot in LG). If you're testing in the 160s, you probably have some basic stuff down but need to improve on some specific things (timing, specific sections).

Moreover, doing a diagnostic will give you a sense of what the test is like and what's tripping you up: did you bomb the LG section? Was timing an issue for you? Did LR totally befuddle you? That way, you're going into your prep with an idea of what you should be focusing on. It gives context to your studying. If I'm starting out with a perfect LG section, I'm not going to pound through the LGB first like most people do. I'm going to work on LR, or RC.

With that said, maybe I was hyperbolic in my original statement. I guess on this topic I tend to trend towards giving advice that is more like "THIS IS GOING TO BE HARD PREPARE YOY ANUS"

This post needs a Ewok. --ImageRemoved--

[crumpetsandtea]

Don't out me bro.