3.6 GPA and 167 LSAT - Columbia? Forum

[CanadianWolf]

Although a bit off topic, A handful of LACs are fairly prestigious (Williams & Amherst lead the list with Bowdoin, Swarthmore, Pomona & Wellesley following). But, National Universities probably have over two dozen prestigious schools within their ranks. Nevertheless, it is rare that one's undergraduate institution would play a significant part in an admissions decision to an elitle law school. LSAT, GPA & URM status are the primary factors.

P.S. The only prestigious liberal arts college for which grade deflation could be a consideration in the admissions process would be Harvey Mudd College due to their major areas of study--as a best guess.

[jfernandes16]

The only prestigious liberal arts college for which grade deflation could be a consideration in the admissions process would be Harvey Mudd College due to their major areas of study--as a best guess.

Harvey Mudd is super tough due to their crazy-rigorous freshman GE requirements. I go to Claremont McKenna College, and we are part of the consortium with Mudd+Pomona and others.

[BigZuck]

Are liberal arts colleges even actually prestigious? Most people haven't heard of any of them. Oh wow you studied Cicero vs Chaucer or whatever and copped a B- which was the highest grade in the class because of SO MUCH RIGOR. No one cares duder. Adcoms probably do know a fair amount about most colleges but they won't care about your RIGOROUS degree in International Comparative 13th Century Prussian Literary and Cultural Studies if your GPA doesn't help them.

Most importantly though, don't ever believe anything an adcom says. They are lying liars who lie.

Yes, there are prestigious liberal arts colleges, Zuck. Not probably as many are prestigious as want to be, but they exist. (There's how many people have heard of something, and then there's which people.)

But no, it won't make a difference for admissions.

Bowdoin? Swarthmore? These are noble houses in Game of Thrones, not prestigious LEARNED INSTITUTIONS.

Look, I went to a "prestigious" school and majored in something dumb too. So I get it. But a lot of this depends on which exact circle you're jerking into. This LACs are so prestigious thing that some TLSers like to perpetuate is dumb because A. Who cares and B. You're talking about jerking into a really small circle. The only people you're impressing are your fellow pseudo-intellectuals and college professors. And who really wants to talk to either of those groups of people? The "which people" you're referring to are people I hope I never get stuck talking to at a party, I'll tell you that much.

Anyway we can all agree that it doesn't matter and adcoms are horrible, horrible liars.

[CanadianWolf]

You're lucky. I wish that I had gone to CMC. Great school. Lots of really successful alumni in its relatively history.

[pittsburghpirates]

Post removed.

[CanadianWolf]

Not really. Adcomms & academics are very familiar with LACs and their reputations.

[jfernandes16]

You're lucky. I wish that I had gone to CMC. Great school. Lots of really successful alumni in its relatively history.

I am definitely blessed, but it was a struggle for me getting acclimated, at first- big culture shock. It can feel very homogeneous at times, which I have now come to appreciate (the familiarity aspect) but I still feel like I'm in a bubble, at times. But thank you!

[A. Nony Mouse]

Zuck, when I said "which people" I was thinking partly regionally, and partly a socio-economic thing. I should add that I think genuflecting at a school name is dumb. But it is real in certain privileged circles. Probably one of the best things I got out of my college experience was access to an alumni network of people who are by and large in pretty high-powered jobs. It's clearly a circle jerk of privilege reinforcing privilege (which, since my family didn't have that already, I was lucky to be able to buy into through my undergrad). But it gets you something not everyone has. Plenty of people don't realize that it even exists, and it's not like it's at all required for success in life, but it's there.

And it's not every LAC just by virtue of being a LAC. It's more that when you're talking about elite schools in the US, some are LACs, but because they're elite (they just happen to brand on being a LAC). It's not like every research university out there is elite, either.

I know, this is a dumb argument. Like I said, it's not getting you in anywhere your numbers won't get you.

[BigZuck]

Zuck, when I said "which people" I was thinking partly regionally, and partly a socio-economic thing. I should add that I think genuflecting at a school name is dumb. But it is real in certain privileged circles. Probably one of the best things I got out of my college experience was access to an alumni network of people who are by and large in pretty high-powered jobs. It's clearly a circle jerk of privilege reinforcing privilege (which, since my family didn't have that already, I was lucky to be able to buy into through my undergrad). But it gets you something not everyone has. Plenty of people don't realize that it even exists, and it's not like it's at all required for success in life, but it's there.

And it's not every LAC just by virtue of being a LAC. It's more that when you're talking about elite schools in the US, some are LACs, but because they're elite (they just happen to brand on being a LAC). It's not like every research university out there is elite, either.

I know, this is a dumb argument. Like I said, it's not getting you in anywhere your numbers won't get you.

I think this outs you as someone I wouldn't want to get stuck talking to at a party

But seriously though, I think you and I have fairly similar academic and pre-law school backgrounds but sit on opposite ends of the spectrum. Anyway your point is taken-I fully acknowledge that some people like this prestige stuff either because of some career benefit it gets them, or just purely for the general joy of jerking into a circle.


I think my main point for the OP was that this:

My school is a top liberal arts college, and law school officers will know the difference between Montana State vs a private liberal arts.

Is not a great look to go through life with and probably an attitude that should be ditched lest the OP become someone

I hope I never get stuck talking to at a party

If the only people the OP ends up talking to at parties are Bowdoinians and college professors that sounds really, really sad to me.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yeah, I didn't mean to endorse the "they'll know the difference between my school and Montana State"'statement, and I totally don't believe adcomms should assume anything about students (or their GPAs) from either of those schools. This is totally not even an argument about educational (or student) quality, it's more me pointing out that there's a social/cultural capital people get from going to elite schools in the US, and some of those schools are LACs.

Which doesn't really have anything to do with admissions, just life generally. For law schools admissions purposes, some people here argue that there are a very few absolutely tip top schools that appear to help a tiny bit, but it's likely that the vast majority of people who think their schools fall in that category are mistaken.

[lowschaal]

Thanks for the advice canadianwolf.

To those who do not like my attitude, you are misunderstanding. I don't think people at top LACs are necessarily smarter or better than people from Podunk U or wherever, but the fact remains these are very different schools with different calibers. Why else do I want Columbia instead of a state law school?

It is true that it is easy to get a high gpa at a state school that isn't as rigorous as my school. I am hoping law school officers see that.

[basedvulpes]

Post removed.

[fredfred]

Thanks for the advice canadianwolf.

To those who do not like my attitude, you are misunderstanding. I don't think people at top LACs are necessarily smarter or better than people from Podunk U or wherever, but the fact remains these are very different schools with different calibers. Why else do I want Columbia instead of a state law school?

It is true that it is easy to get a high gpa at a state school that isn't as rigorous as my school. I am hoping law school officers see that.

Listen man I went to a top LAC myself. So Im not hating on it, I myself went through this. Im just telling you, law school officers don't give a $%^(. At all. If you think they do, you are disillusioned. It sucks thinking people went to public college for 10-15k a year and you paid 60k a year for LAC but it makes zero difference on applications. Literally zero. Get that lsat up because you aren't getting into Columbia with those numbers.

[BigZuck]

Thanks for the advice canadianwolf.

To those who do not like my attitude, you are misunderstanding. I don't think people at top LACs are necessarily smarter or better than people from Podunk U or wherever, but the fact remains these are very different schools with different calibers. Why else do I want Columbia instead of a state law school?

It is true that it is easy to get a high gpa at a state school that isn't as rigorous as my school. I am hoping law school officers see that.

Listen man I went to a top LAC myself. So Im not hating on it, I myself went through this. Im just telling you, law school officers don't give a $%^(. At all. If you think they do, you are disillusioned. It sucks thinking people went to public college for 10-15k a year and you paid 60k a year for LAC but it makes zero difference on applications. Literally zero. Get that lsat up because you aren't getting into Columbia with those numbers.

Disillusioned? You mean delusional?

I'm starting to think not all LACers bring the smartz in the way you guys seem to think they do

[fredfred]

Thanks for the advice canadianwolf.

To those who do not like my attitude, you are misunderstanding. I don't think people at top LACs are necessarily smarter or better than people from Podunk U or wherever, but the fact remains these are very different schools with different calibers. Why else do I want Columbia instead of a state law school?

It is true that it is easy to get a high gpa at a state school that isn't as rigorous as my school. I am hoping law school officers see that.

Listen man I went to a top LAC myself. So Im not hating on it, I myself went through this. Im just telling you, law school officers don't give a $%^(. At all. If you think they do, you are disillusioned. It sucks thinking people went to public college for 10-15k a year and you paid 60k a year for LAC but it makes zero difference on applications. Literally zero. Get that lsat up because you aren't getting into Columbia with those numbers.

Disillusioned? You mean delusional?

I'm starting to think not all LACers bring the smartz in the way you guys seem to think they do

haha you are right. This memo is driving me insane.

[emkay625]

Thanks for the advice canadianwolf.

To those who do not like my attitude, you are misunderstanding. I don't think people at top LACs are necessarily smarter or better than people from Podunk U or wherever, but the fact remains these are very different schools with different calibers. Why else do I want Columbia instead of a state law school?

It is true that it is easy to get a high gpa at a state school that isn't as rigorous as my school. I am hoping law school officers see that.

lol the assumptions you're making here are ridiculous. as if all public schools are the same level of difficulty, and they are all below your school. as if every major at a public school is much easier than whatever it is you majored in at your lac.

the end all be all though is that even if admissions officers see that, THEY DON'T CARE. Go do some browsing on lsn and then perhaps it will become clear. If you don't believe us, maybe you'll believe the data. Three things matter: lsat, gpa, race.

http://columbia.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1415

The only people who got in with numbers below both medians (like you) are URMs.

Retake the LSAT.

[03152016]

Thanks for the advice canadianwolf.

To those who do not like my attitude, you are misunderstanding. I don't think people at top LACs are necessarily smarter or better than people from Podunk U or wherever, but the fact remains these are very different schools with different calibers. Why else do I want Columbia instead of a state law school?

It is true that it is easy to get a high gpa at a state school that isn't as rigorous as my school. I am hoping law school officers see that.

welcome to the real world
you can hope all you want, but you're not going to change reality
there's this thing called us news and world reports. they release a ranking of law schools every year, based in large part on the incoming class median lsat and median ugpa. most 0Ls are morons and just pick whatever school happens to be ranked highest, so law schools care about this ranking... a lot. and they make admissions decisions based on maintaining or improving their ranking. that is why, generally (a select few law schools and a select few ugs excepting), no adcomm really cares that you went to amhearst or switchmores or harvey milk, whatever those are
you're not going to columbia without a retake. get over it

[Mack.Hambleton]

Thanks for the advice canadianwolf.

To those who do not like my attitude, you are misunderstanding. I don't think people at top LACs are necessarily smarter or better than people from Podunk U or wherever, but the fact remains these are very different schools with different calibers. Why else do I want Columbia instead of a state law school?

It is true that it is easy to get a high gpa at a state school that isn't as rigorous as my school. I am hoping law school officers see that.

welcome to the real world
you can hope all you want, but you're not going to change reality
there's this thing called us news and world reports. they release a ranking of law schools every year, based in large part on the incoming class median lsat and median ugpa. most 0Ls are morons and just pick whatever school happens to be ranked highest, so law schools care about this ranking... a lot. and they make admissions decisions based on maintaining or improving their ranking. that is why, generally (a select few law schools and a select few ugs excepting), no adcomm really cares that you went to amhearst or switchmores or harvey milk, whatever those are
you're not going to columbia without a retake. get over it

This

[izha]

Thanks for the advice canadianwolf.

To those who do not like my attitude, you are misunderstanding. I don't think people at top LACs are necessarily smarter or better than people from Podunk U or wherever, but the fact remains these are very different schools with different calibers. Why else do I want Columbia instead of a state law school?

It is true that it is easy to get a high gpa at a state school that isn't as rigorous as my school. I am hoping law school officers see that.

If you are that smart and went to a "different caliber" school where is your high LSAT score?

[UnicornHunter]

Literally 0% chance. The LSAT controls for grade deflation.

[gnomgnomuch]

Yeah, I didn't mean to endorse the "they'll know the difference between my school and Montana State"'statement, and I totally don't believe adcomms should assume anything about students (or their GPAs) from either of those schools. This is totally not even an argument about educational (or student) quality, it's more me pointing out that there's a social/cultural capital people get from going to elite schools in the US, and some of those schools are LACs.

Which doesn't really have anything to do with admissions, just life generally. For law schools admissions purposes, some people here argue that there are a very few absolutely tip top schools that appear to help a tiny bit, but it's likely that the vast majority of people who think their schools fall in that category are mistaken.

I thought the consensus was that the only schools that even matter a bit for admissions are HYP and MIT/Caltech...and that there is a 'supposed' boost for LS admissions if you went to Columbia and you applied to CLS all things being equal, you'd get the nod over someone who didn't go to Columbia. (Replace Columbia for any school)

[gnomgnomuch]

Thanks for the advice canadianwolf.

To those who do not like my attitude, you are misunderstanding. I don't think people at top LACs are necessarily smarter or better than people from Podunk U or wherever, but the fact remains these are very different schools with different calibers. Why else do I want Columbia instead of a state law school?

It is true that it is easy to get a high gpa at a state school that isn't as rigorous as my school. I am hoping law school officers see that.

Yea, they won't give a crap. Your numbers are basically a shoe in for a rejection at CLS. You can dream that your 'rigorous' LAC education will be respected and give you a boost, but it won't. Adcoms care about 4 things:

1) LSAT
2) GPA
3) URM status
4) Super amazing unicorn softs like curing cancer.

#'s 3 and 4 don't apply to you, and you're well below both medians for #'s 1 and 2. Hence, almost guaranteed rejection.

Btw, I went to a "state" school and a solid portion of our classes were graded on a curve. Don't think your LAC education makes your education that much more rigorous, it probably doesn't, and it outs you as a dick who thinks he's better than everyone because of the university you went to.

You've been given excellent advice - if you want CLS retake the LSAT. Once you're above the median (171) you stand a fair shot. To feel more comfortable about getting in, you'd need to be at their 75% (173) and even then it's not guaranteed since you're GPA is just barely above their 25%. I don't think you'll get much if any scholarship money if you do get in though, so that should be a factor to take into account.

But, by all means, go ahead and apply to CLS and waste your money.

[ihenry]

Literally 0% chance. The LSAT controls for grade deflation.

This. This is not a good thread to talk about grade deflation because of OP's LSAT. And I think if you go to a top LAC and study those dense texts all day, there is really no reason for not breaking into 170's.

[A. Nony Mouse]

.I thought the consensus was that the only schools that even matter a bit for admissions are HYP and MIT/Caltech...and that there is a 'supposed' boost for LS admissions if you went to Columbia and you applied to CLS all things being equal, you'd get the nod over someone who didn't go to Columbia. (Replace Columbia for any school)

Right, those were the few very tippy top schools I was thinking of. (My discussion of the top LACs as elite generally wasn't meant to put them in that category, sorry if that was misleading.)

[Big Dog]

your chances are as close to zero that is statistically possible. Odds are much better that you get struck by lightning. Literally no worth the app fee.

The ONLY lac that might get a small bump is Reed. Sorry, if that is not your lac.