3.5 GPA, what do I need on LSAT to have chance at T20? Forum

[imjustjoking22]

@OP: T20 is a misleading term. You're basically asking what LSAT you need for WUSTL/GW since the schools in the band above them (UCLA/USC/Vandy/UT) generally require a higher LSAT and the schools in the band of that (the lower T14) require an even higher LSAT. It also doesn't make any sense since even though WUSTL/GW are "T20" they are relatively equal to many, but not all, schools ranked all the way through the T1 (peers of WUSTL/GW include BU/BC/UCD/UCH/Fordham/Emory/UW/Illinois/etc). It makes no sense to aim for GW/WUSTL if you have no desire to work in DC or the midwest.

UC - Davis costs 34k for residents. That's about 3x as much as students attending similarly ranked public schools will pay if they are residents.

Your number is wrong. UCD was just shy of 42k/year for residents last year and is higher this year. (It's over 46k this year but it is hard to tell how much it actually jumped because the 46k contains a bunch of fees and I'm not entirely sure how many of those fees were included in the 42k.) But yes, UC's are the most insanely expensive public law schools (outside of UM/UVa).

Yes, I just said T20 to indicate I'm willing to look outside of T14 but that ranking is still relatively important.

I'm also willing to work in another state, I just figure I'll eventually want to come back here (and if I was heading back to CA immediately after graduating, it would be because I already had a job lined up here).

Obviously I'm aiming for an LSAT score that is as high as possible, and I'd love to know what type of score I'd be looking at to be competitive in the T14 as well (although unlikely, there's always a possibility!)

[imjustjoking22]

EDIT: Apparently I may only embed 4 quotes within each other. IVE GONE TOO DEEP

HYS obviously place nationally, and I'm inclined to think that schools like Michigan/Penn that are sort of in-between the north-east and mid-west place pretty well nationally (probably not as good in Cali).

I'm fairly ignorant as I haven't looked at the placement stats, but from what I understand NYU/Columbia / UChicago/Northwestern, while being amazing schools, place very well in their respective markets and in their general area (I.e. midwest/east-coast) but might not place as well farther west with competition from schools like Stanford/Boalt.

If you want to stay in cali S/Boalt/UCLA are probably your best bets.

Lower ranked schools are not really a good choice unless you want to be restricted to a smaller market and/or are getting significant $$$$

From what I understand, Stanford has a high GPA floor, Boalt is darn near impossible (although that's my big dream/reach/etc school), I'll be apping to UCLA as well, I'm just concerned because those three are all highly unlikely due to sheer volume of applicants and how highly ranked they are...

[Tiago Splitter]

EDIT: Apparently I may only embed 4 quotes within each other. IVE GONE TOO DEEP

HYS obviously place nationally, and I'm inclined to think that schools like Michigan/Penn that are sort of in-between the north-east and mid-west place pretty well nationally (probably not as good in Cali).

I'm fairly ignorant as I haven't looked at the placement stats, but from what I understand NYU/Columbia / UChicago/Northwestern, while being amazing schools, place very well in their respective markets and in their general area (I.e. midwest/east-coast) but might not place as well farther west with competition from schools like Stanford/Boalt.

If you want to stay in cali S/Boalt/UCLA are probably your best bets.

Lower ranked schools are not really a good choice unless you want to be restricted to a smaller market and/or are getting significant $$$$

From what I understand, Stanford has a high GPA floor, Boalt is darn near impossible (although that's my big dream/reach/etc school), I'll be apping to UCLA as well, I'm just concerned because those three are all highly unlikely due to sheer volume of applicants and how highly ranked they are...

I'm in the same boat GPA-wise and also looking to get back to California. I'd say Boalt and Stanford are almost certainly out. What sucks is that UCLA might also be out for those of us in the sub 3.6 category, and USC probably won't offer much money. The best bet is to rock the LSAT and get as high up into the T-14 as you can.

[bk1]

Yes, I just said T20 to indicate I'm willing to look outside of T14 but that ranking is still relatively important.

I'm also willing to work in another state, I just figure I'll eventually want to come back here (and if I was heading back to CA immediately after graduating, it would be because I already had a job lined up here).

Obviously I'm aiming for an LSAT score that is as high as possible, and I'd love to know what type of score I'd be looking at to be competitive in the T14 as well (although unlikely, there's always a possibility!)

Well if you don't have numbers for the T14/USC/UCLA then ideally you should take UCD/UCH/UCI. The problem becomes that UCD/UCH/UCI may not offer you enough money to make them economically viable so it comes down to whether you should take a larger scholarship to another regional school that doesn't place in CA (e.g. WUSTL/Illinois/BU/etc) and that comes down to the exact money amounts that you get from the various schools and how willing you are to work in another place such as Boston or the midwest for a decent amount of time. Just to add I wouldn't go to any CA school below UCD/UCH/UCI. The NorCal ones (USF/SCU) are just atrocious and the SoCal ones (Loyola/Pepperdine/USD) while being decent place top 30% or so stipulations on their scholarships and it doesn't make sense to go to a school where the majority of the time you will be losing your scholarship after a year.

168 gives you a small small shot at Cornell/Michigan but you really need a 170+ to make you competitive for the lower T14.

[imjustjoking22]

Yes, I just said T20 to indicate I'm willing to look outside of T14 but that ranking is still relatively important.

I'm also willing to work in another state, I just figure I'll eventually want to come back here (and if I was heading back to CA immediately after graduating, it would be because I already had a job lined up here).

Obviously I'm aiming for an LSAT score that is as high as possible, and I'd love to know what type of score I'd be looking at to be competitive in the T14 as well (although unlikely, there's always a possibility!)

Well if you don't have numbers for the T14/USC/UCLA then ideally you should take UCD/UCH/UCI. The problem becomes that UCD/UCH/UCI may not offer you enough money to make them economically viable so it comes down to whether you should take a larger scholarship to another regional school that doesn't place in CA (e.g. WUSTL/Illinois/BU/etc) and that comes down to the exact money amounts that you get from the various schools and how willing you are to work in another place such as Boston or the midwest for a decent amount of time. Just to add I wouldn't go to any CA school below UCD/UCH/UCI. The NorCal ones (USF/SCU) are just atrocious and the SoCal ones (Loyola/Pepperdine/USD) while being decent place top 30% or so stipulations on their scholarships and it doesn't make sense to go to a school where the majority of the time you will be losing your scholarship after a year.

168 gives you a small small shot at Cornell/Michigan but you really need a 170+ to make you competitive for the lower T14.

I'm definitely willing to work out of state if that is what it comes down to (rather than settle for a crummy CA school and lots of debt). Hopefully I can score well enough to be at the point where I am in at a higher-ranked school I want or in with money at a lower-ranked school.

If my numbers are bad enough I won't go, not worth big debt without good placement IMO.

[Yukos]

What's the deal with UCI? Is that a viable Cali alternative or still too risky?

[Bildungsroman]

What's the deal with UCI? Is that a viable Cali alternative or still too risky?

Nope, nothing risky about a provisionally accredited, expensive, brand new school with no track record and no alumni base in an oversaturated market.

[imjustjoking22]

What's the deal with UCI? Is that a viable Cali alternative or still too risky?

I would think it would depend on the individual- from what I hear, welll-qualified students are getting free rides, and ill bet that as the school tries to construct a reputation they will be working very hard to place their students well and all that.

[Haymarket]

A 168 seemed to be almost a guaranteed acceptance to WUSTL at #18. You can look at the LSN to confirm.

[Errzii]

What's the deal with UCI? Is that a viable Cali alternative or still too risky?

Probably depends on where else you got in and how much money those schools offered you in comparison. Paying sticker at UCI would be very risky and I personally wouldn't take UCI over any of the Tier 1 California law schools, at least not currently anyway.

[JDndMSW]

What's the deal with UCI? Is that a viable Cali alternative or still too risky?

Probably depends on where else you got in and how much money those schools offered you in comparison. Paying sticker at UCI would be very risky and I personally wouldn't take UCI over any of the Tier 1 California law schools, at least not currently anyway.

Pretty sure everyone still gets aid this upcoming cycle at UCI

[bk1]

Whether UCI is worth it depends on what your other options are. I am not advocating paying sticker for it, but if you could bring its price down to let's say $100k (maybe $120k) total CoA after figuring in scholarships then it comes into play. If it's more expensive than that I wouldn't recommend it (but then again I wouldn't personally recommend any decent regional school for more than that either).

If your other options are Pepperdine or Loyola with close to full rides I'd probably edge towards UCI. UCI maybe be untested, but there is a lot of effort in it and you won't have a 70% chance of losing your scholarship like you would at Pepperdine or Loyola. If you were comparing UCH/UCD at equal cost to UCI, I think it's a toss up (though many will disagree). While UCD/UCH are established law schools, they are struggling severely in placing students (mainly because CA is a shithole) and I think their most recent placement had only about 60% of their graduates getting full time legal jobs. UCI is risky, but so are UCD/UCH and I'm not inclined to believe that the risk assessment between them is that markedly different. If it is up against another top regional school for a similar amount of debt (e.g. GW/WUSTL/BU/BC/Emory/etc) you are going to have to ask yourself how badly you want CA. Arguable non-CA top regional schools are better bets than CA ones (including UCD/UCH/UCI) so you have to figure if better employment stats is worth likely working some place other than CA. If you are comparing it to a T14 at sticker you have to ask yourself whether the risk of all that debt is worth the risk of a new law school with no track record and while I'd probably lean T14 at sticker over UCI at that price you could make arguments for either. I think the only real nobrainer is if you compared UCI to USC/UCLA at a similar price because those schools are definitely a step up from UCI, place in CA, and you might be able to snag a similar scholarship offer. However I suggest still not taking out that much more for a place like USC/UCLA considering that they have been struggling as of late because of CA's awful economy.

For a strong regional school, especially a CA one, I feel like UCI is par for the course. Is UCI quite risky due to all its negatives? Of course it is but similarly situated established CA schools have risky employment prospects (e.g. UCD/UCH), lower ranked CA schools have scholarship stipulations or are just absolutely awful (e.g. USF/SCU/LLS/Pepperdine), it doesn't make sense to pay that much more for UCLA/USC with no guarantee that you can get that kind of scholarship from them, T14's will likely leave you with $200k+ worth of debt, and non-CA regional schools don't place in CA.

Could I be wrong and it be true that UCI is a really really bad idea that is far worse than UCH/UCD? Of course I could but considering the risks inherent in those schools, as well as other law schools, I'm not convinced that the gamble that is UCI is significantly different at this point in time (at least until solid placement info comes out representing several years worth of graduates).