Top Law Schools

.

Truly I don't know enough about this to speak to your chances. What I would say is that if you have a history of testing below your capabilities you should include an addendum with your application (or send one now if you've already applied) stating that you have a poor testing history which you have overcome with your numerous accomplishments, which you listed in your post above.

I think a lot of people on this forum are going to suggest that you re-take the LSAT after taking a course or studying intensively for some time (did you take a course?) and re-apply next year. If you don't want to go to a school ranked lower than the ones you have listed, that might be your best plan of action.

Good luck!

I think a lot of people wish they had that GPA, don't waste it on a low LSAT, go on and retake girl!

.

.

a ton of people on here are killer lsat takers. maybe if you explored what exactly you were weakest on (for me it was the games sections) they would be able to help you out with that. The LSAT is a very teachable test if you find the right teacher.

plus it does sound like you may have over studied and psyched yourself out a little.

hellokitty wrote:

neimanmarxist wrote:Truly I don't know enough about this to speak to your chances. What I would say is that if you have a history of testing below your capabilities you should include an addendum with your application (or send one now if you've already applied) stating that you have a poor testing history which you have overcome with your numerous accomplishments, which you listed in your post above.

I think a lot of people on this forum are going to suggest that you re-take the LSAT after taking a course or studying intensively for some time (did you take a course?) and re-apply next year. If you don't want to go to a school ranked lower than the ones you have listed, that might be your best plan of action.

Good luck!

Thanks! I took a prep course twice! I added an LSAT addendum, including a copy of my ACT score. I might end up either getting a Master's or teaching English in Latin America while studying for the LSAT again if I don't get into any schools.

it sounds like you have done all the right things and given it a great effort. some people just don't test that well-- this system really isn't very forgiving of them. the good news is that your other number (GPA) is great. I hope the adcomms will see past your score as it clearly doesn't represent your abilities. Fingers crossed for you!

hellokitty wrote:

narkizopoint wrote:I think a lot of people wish they had that GPA, don't waste it on a low LSAT, go on and retake girl!

Even with a retake, I scored 153 twice! With intense studying and a prep course! I mean intense. I actually think I over-studied.

So you don't think I have even a slight glimmer of hope at any of these schools? I know, wishful thinking. Lol but still, I'm trying to stay positive, but I understand excepting the reality of the situation is important as well.

Dont give up. I took the LSAT 4 times in 3 years. My first Lsat was 147. Last one was 162. You can do it. Just dont give up. The easiest way to improve is to work on the logic games.

Your avatar looks oddly familiar... any ways

UC Berkeley -Out
UC Davis- WL/IN
UC Hastings- WL/In
U of San Diego- WL/IN
Santa Clara-IN/WL
U of Alabama (my UG)- WL/IN
U of Arizona- WL/IN
UCLA-Out

whats with the focus on Cali? Given their ban on AA and diversity...you chances could be lessened so thats why I put WL/In....you should have applied to a broader range of schools and more...maybe reapply next year...retake the lsat...you can improve...

Are you urm?

You def. need to put some safetys in there.

hiromoto45 wrote:Your avatar looks oddly familiar... any ways

UC Berkeley -Out
UC Davis- WL/IN
UC Hastings- WL/In
U of San Diego- WL/IN
Santa Clara-IN/WL
U of Alabama (my UG)- WL/IN
U of Arizona- WL/IN
UCLA-Out

whats with the focus on Cali? Given their ban on AA and diversity...you chances could be lessened so thats why I put WL/In....you should have applied to a broader range of schools and more...maybe reapply next year...retake the lsat...you can improve...

Did Cali really ban diversity? That sounds like a crazy thing to do. Hmm.

Your GPA and URM status will basically determine where you get in (forget the softs, double major, etc), but with that LSAT, your chances don't look too good at many of these places. Unfortunately, the LSAT is much, much more important than the GPA for most schools. Why did you end up only applying to schools well above your LSAT score?

I wouldnt spend any money on a master's if your ultimate goal is law school. URM will give you all the boost you need, and a master's would not add anything to your application. More degrees =/= more money or better career prospects these days. Harvard PhDs are working at community colleges.

I would spend a year working and improving LSAT score. If you haven't taken a Powerscore class, I recommend doing so. If you get your score up even into the high 150s, you will get into pretty much all of the schools on your list (except maybe Berkeley and UCLA, hell you might even have a chance at them).

monkeyboy wrote:

hiromoto45 wrote:Your avatar looks oddly familiar... any ways

UC Berkeley -Out
UC Davis- WL/IN
UC Hastings- WL/In
U of San Diego- WL/IN
Santa Clara-IN/WL
U of Alabama (my UG)- WL/IN
U of Arizona- WL/IN
UCLA-Out

whats with the focus on Cali? Given their ban on AA and diversity...you chances could be lessened so thats why I put WL/In....you should have applied to a broader range of schools and more...maybe reapply next year...retake the lsat...you can improve...

Did Cali really ban diversity? That sounds like a crazy thing to do. Hmm.

Back in the 1990s...California Proposition 209 (1996 )http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... 209_(1996)

Also Michigan has a similar ban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_C ... Initiative

zimbadimp wrote:Are you urm?

hellokitty wrote:I'm also a URM.

PS - You have an Avatar avatar.

with URMs (especially with nice gpas like urs) admissions can kind of be a toss-up. If you've taken the lsat twice with intense studying and what not, i dont think theres a point in retaking.

With that said, I'd apply to a couple CA safeties like Mcgeorge...if you dont get into a school youd like to go to then take one for the team or just forget about law school.

hiromoto45 wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

hiromoto45 wrote:Your avatar looks oddly familiar... any ways

UC Berkeley -Out
UC Davis- WL/IN
UC Hastings- WL/In
U of San Diego- WL/IN
Santa Clara-IN/WL
U of Alabama (my UG)- WL/IN
U of Arizona- WL/IN
UCLA-Out

whats with the focus on Cali? Given their ban on AA and diversity...you chances could be lessened so thats why I put WL/In....you should have applied to a broader range of schools and more...maybe reapply next year...retake the lsat...you can improve...

Did Cali really ban diversity? That sounds like a crazy thing to do. Hmm.

Back in the 1990s...California Proposition 209 (1996 )http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... 209_(1996)

Also Michigan has a similar ban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_C ... Initiative

My point was that banning a program isn't the same as banning diversity. The guy's wording made no sense.

I meant diversity in terms of race in reference to the URM boost not being significant in California.

Yes Halibut6 my avatar is definitely avatar

hiromoto45 wrote:I meant diversity in terms of race in reference to the URM boost not being significant in California.

Oh, it made me laugh.

monkeyboy wrote:

hiromoto45 wrote:I meant diversity in terms of race in reference to the URM boost not being significant in California.

Oh, it made me laugh.

?

hiromoto45 wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

hiromoto45 wrote:I meant diversity in terms of race in reference to the URM boost not being significant in California.

Oh, it made me laugh.

?

The wording was funny. Just didn't make sense.

monkeyboy wrote:

hiromoto45 wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

hiromoto45 wrote:I meant diversity in terms of race in reference to the URM boost not being significant in California.

Oh, it made me laugh.

?

The wording was funny. Just didn't make sense.

Ok I'll be more careful next time.

.