Can Columbia UG, Military and STEM make up for a sub 3.5 GPA? Forum

[bpolley0]

.

[Clearly]

It doesn't matter how much you value what degrees, as long as usnwr ranks schools numerically, and adcomms are retained based on those rankings hard gpa data will matter more than major or school. And yes going into law school I'd much much rather be a 3.9 basket weaver from anywhere than a 3.3 math major from an ivy(not withstanding patent bar ramifications). Is it right? Probably not, but that IS how it works. Sure adcomms will look to school prestige or even major on occasion, usually once medians are secure, but in the aggregate it's a numbers game.

As for the op, veteran is a great soft, and your school and major will speak for themselves, I wouldn't write an addendum, and if you crush the lsat I'm confident you'll do great.

[Broncos15]

@bpolley - first, we're never going to agree about the value of the majors you call "gabllyguck," which I think is rather insulting, so there's no point in going further.

Second, a 3.0-3.5 isn't an obvious elephant in the room that needs to be explained. It's just kind of ordinary. So no, don't provide anything if you're just going to make excuses, which is what "I just didn't study hard in UG (but will now I swear)" looks like.

Third, if you think it's ever going to be productive to say that your GPA is low because your professors were bad, I don't think there's much help for you. That's the ultimate in making excuses. It doesn't matter whether it's the truth or not, part of the application process is to show that you know what you should and shouldn't say in what context.

Finally, do you think law schools actually do seriously holistic review of the majority of candidates? I'm not talking about what they should do, but what they actually do, which is what the OP and all other applicants have to contend with.

To add to that, a 3.0-3.5 from Columbia undergrad in a stem field with military exp isn't that ordinary. The fact is that law schools might care for those things, but there will inevitably be a candidate with better grades, and since law school is primarily a numbers game, OP might be the absolute best law candidate in the world, but because of the current system, it won't matter.

What a pathetic admission we have concluded upon- I think the top law schools should come out in concert and suggest to all current undergraduates they should major in underwater basket weaving and communications at Kaplan to guarantee their spot on the Supreme Court.

What's your problem with liberal arts? I'm not a HUGE fan, but i can see their worth. Hell, I majored in political science, took a few stats/math/econ courses along the way and came out of undergrad much better of than many of my friends doing stem/business.

I have absolutely no problem with liberal arts. I personally have read a lot of philosophy on my own. I just don't think you are comparing apples with apples when looking at someone who majored in Econ from Columbia and art from Kaplan. Under the current theoretical framework we are working under, if the person from Columbia had a 3.4 and the person from Kaplan had a 3.8, then we would admit the Kaplan person and throw out the Columbia grad's resume, all things held equal. I find that perplexing.

I will say; however, that a lot of people who have liberal art degrees have issues in the labor market due to the fact the skills that are taught are of little value in terms of producing a good or service that other people demand. I.E. that is great you understand Stoicism but that doesn't aid your ability to produce a profit. Obviously this isn't in absolutes as you could certainly argue the ability to digest complex information and simplify it is a skill that is valuable.

Well I mean, if you live your entire life thinking that the only thing that matters is the ability to produce a profit then you have somewhat of a point. And you're taking two extremes. If the difference is a bio major with a 3.5 GPA from Harvard, and a political science major with a 3.8 from Kansas state I'd pick the KSU graduate - who has shown the ability to consistently produce A level work for 4 years. You're putting entirely too much emphasis on prestige and the assumption that a major is or won't be hard.

You can't equate grades, life circumstances, professors etc etc across majors in one university, let alone the entire U.S. That's why adcoms take GPA's at face value and the rest of the application is your LSAT and p.s, w/e etc. Don't forget at Harvard, 25% of students entering have a GPA that's below a 3.8 (or whatever the 25th is.) So, it's not like there is no leeway for excellent candidates who don't have the grades. It's just that there are SO many candidates out there already who have the grades, that those who are accepted with a GPA that's low for Harvard are truly exceptional, and have differentiated themselves in some other manner.

The problem here is that by focusing on the GPA number at face value and not taking into consideration other factors influencing the GPA, it facilitates the wrong type of learning. If getting the highest GPA is the goal, then the system is easy to game and engineer to manufacture the best GPA. Following that logic, why should a student choose Professor A who gives only 5% A's in the course when they could take the same course with professor B who gives 30%A's. One could make a reasonable argument that a B student in professor A's class has as much mastery if not more of the course material than an A student in Professor B's class.........even worse by focusing on the GPA number alone, you could encourage cheating behaviors, for instance like taking online courses in order to use Quizlet, StudyBlue, reading the book while taking the exam versus taking the test in person where you can't do that.

Law schools do operate this way due to the USNWR are set up, but it would be illogical to assume that a 3.8 is more academically intelligent than a 3.5 solely based on the number

[bpolley0]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

There are obviously problems with GPA. But I feel like the anti-GPA crowd tends to be unfair to the people who really did work hard in rigorous courses to get their high GPAs - and I also think the anti-GPA crowd wildly overestimates how "self-evident" the value of a given major at a given school is. Like, I get that GPA is difficult to parse in a vacuum - but to the same extent you want to argue a given 3.8 is "less work" or "less rigorous" or whatever than a given 3.5, you simply can't know that, because under the specific conditions at that specific school, it might also be "more work" and "more rigorous." There are lots of different ways to get a BA.

[NoBladesNoBows]

[bpolley0]

.

[sodomojo]

Your UG/major are unfortunately not going to make a difference.

But 3.0-3.5 is a huge range. Can you still get into an excellent law school with a 3.4, high LSAT, and military soft? Absolutely.

And if you still have full GI Bill, that's even better - as your options would be that much more wide open post-admissions.

[ManoftheHour]

I am currently Columbia Undergrad, going for applied mathematics. I am also an Air Force intelligence vet. Unfortunately I think I will graduate with a GPA between 3.0 and 3.5. Will Columbia, military and STEM make up for a low GPA?

nope. sorry bud.

Yeah because someone who got a 4.0 in liberal studies/ Sociology/ any of the other useless leftist rip off majors from your local community college is equivalent to someone who got a 3.x in Applied Mathematics.

I agree, but unfortunately, law school admissions are so numbers based. It's not fair (I think it's quite frankly dumb), but it is what it is. The question asked was "Can Columbia UG, Military, and STEM make up for a sub 3.5 GPA?" TCR is fredfred's "nope. sorry bud."

[CPAlawHopefu]

Yes, they will help you.

If it was really all about the numbers, there would not be any need for a human to review the applications but instead a computer that auto-admits those above the median and auto-rejects those below, and the entire admission cycle would take no more than 24 hrs from the submission of the application to decisions, and there would not be a personal statement requirement.

Soft factors matter more than what people here give credit for.

[fredfred]

Yes, they will help you.

If it was really all about the numbers, there would not be any need for a human to review the applications but instead a computer that auto-admits those above the median and auto-rejects those below, and the entire admission cycle would take no more than 24 hrs from the submission of the application to decisions, and there would not be a personal statement requirement.

Soft factors matter more than what people here give credit for.

Trust me, I had some legit soft factors that actually fall into unicorn status and they didn't help me to get into places. The only difference was I got more scholarship money. PM if you want to know what, but truthfully softs don't mean jack. Most people who get rejected with really good numbers either have a spelling error in their app, a character and fitness thing, or they are being yield protected. You can actually pretty much determine where someone will get in based on LSAT, GPA, URM status and what the data looks like for LSAT takers (i.e. more takers and higher scores this year, so not as easy to get into the t14 this year than last).

So yeah, sorry bud.

[Clearly]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=258906

[gnomgnomuch]

There are obviously problems with GPA. But I feel like the anti-GPA crowd tends to be unfair to the people who really did work hard in rigorous courses to get their high GPAs - and I also think the anti-GPA crowd wildly overestimates how "self-evident" the value of a given major at a given school is. Like, I get that GPA is difficult to parse in a vacuum - but to the same extent you want to argue a given 3.8 is "less work" or "less rigorous" or whatever than a given 3.5, you simply can't know that, because under the specific conditions at that specific school, it might also be "more work" and "more rigorous." There are lots of different ways to get a BA.

I agree 100% with the majority of this. My argument is not anti high GPA, it is anti tossing someone out simply for a low GPA and not even considering them.

"For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition." Scrutinize them that is fine, but at least take the time to attempt to understand them.

I mean I do actually agree with you in that tossing someone out for a low GPA isn't fair, but then again, neither is life. If not for 2 classes that I took way back freshman year of college - when I was working 30 hour weeks and unsure of how to handle work/school balance - my GPA would be a 3.9+. Instead, I pulled a 3.3 average my first year of undergrad and graduated just under a 3.8 - despite basically straight 4.0's the next 3 years of undergrad, while working full time, and doing internships and a ton of e.c school stuff. But, I recognize that unless I absolutely KILL the LSAT, my shot at H is super low, and SY is basically non-existent. It's not fair, but that's the way the game is played.

My biggest gripe with the system is how A+'s are graded - at a 4.33. Most of the classes I have A's in, were basically straight 100's in the course. I SHOULD be getting A+'s, but my undergrad didn't offer them. However, I've got a good friend who went to a different CUNY than I did, and her's did offer A+'s, so her GPA is actually higher than mine when it comes to the LSAC (her CUNY weighed A+'s as a 4.0, but had that differentiation.)