NYU or reapply for HYSC? Forum

[fugitivejammer]

Posted at the beg of this cycle...so thought I'd post my results and a bit of a predicament I face. I'm currently a senior in UG.

stats:
gpa - 3.65
lsat - 170
w/e - military/nice internships

In - NYU, Mich, Cornell, Gtown
Out - Berk
W/L - Harvard, Columbia, Penn
Still waiting - Stanford, Chicago

Obv i'm pretty excited about NYU, but almost more-so about W/L from Harvard/Columbia strangely. I'm deferring admission for a year due to a military assignment I have coming up early nxt year. SO i'm wondering what you guys think - should I re-take lsat and try reapplying for columbia (ED possibly) and Harvard? I applied a bit late this cycle, so applying early might help. I plan on starting a business that's been in progress upon graduation as well which might help my w/e some. Plus i'll be an officer in the army reserve upon graduation. I can pretty much guarantee higher lsat (expect 172-174). Sooo...is it worth it to risk giving up NYU in order to shoot for H/S/C? Or is this stupid...should i be grateful for what i have and go with it?

I'm not sure whether i could get into these schools or even nyu again if i applied again - its sometimes kinda hard to predict....and i'm not sure if the diff between columbia and nyu is large enough to take the risk of not getting in and loosing nyu. (im assuming that i can't apply to a school after already dedicating to another....is this a good assumption?)

[ndpfn]

NYU (and Michigan for that matter) are both really really good options. Given the unpredictability that comes with LS admissions, I'd be pretty content to have those two options and a little wary of going through the whole process again.

Then again, you seem to have a pretty good grasp on what you're doing and what you're hoping to do post LS, so maybe it's worth the risk.

If it's me though, I take NYU or Mich without a second thought.

[vanwinkle]

1) You can't guarantee a usefully higher LSAT score unless you can consistently take practice LSATs in the 176+ range. You have to allot about 2-3 points at a minimum for test-day jitters/uncertainty, because it's a pretty established phenomenon that for whatever reason, testers often end up inexplicably hitting 2-3 points (or more) where they were regularly testing. To guarantee a 172+ you should be at a 176 at least consistently.

2) The difference between Columbia and NYU is not that large. I'd accept admission at NYU and ask for a one-year deferral. It doesn't make much sense to go through an entire other cycle just to try to get into Columbia.

3) What do you want to do when you graduate? It's very possible you can do the same things from NYU that you want to do from Harvard. Yes, Harvard offers more, but from NYU it's not going to offer that much more. This is only worth it if you're certain you want either clerkships or academia when you graduate. Otherwise you're putting yourself through a whole second cycle in which you hopefully have an increased chance of admission at Harvard but still aren't guaranteed it.

I guess it depends on how you assess and accept risk. I'd consider letting go of an NYU acceptance at least a little risky when admissions seem to be getting more and more competitive every year across the T14.

[legalease9]

Take NYU. That's way too much risk to take reapplying to NYU along with the other schools. You are at a T5. Your career opportunities will be ample.

[imchuckbass58]

I would accept NYU. There's not much difference between NYU and Columbia, and you'll have to get a higher LSAT to get into Columbia.

Harvard (I'm sorry to say) is not happening without a 3.75+ GPA, almost no matter what your LSAT.

[fugitivejammer]

1) You can't guarantee a usefully higher LSAT score unless you can consistently take practice LSATs in the 176+ range. You have to allot about 2-3 points at a minimum for test-day jitters/uncertainty, because it's a pretty established phenomenon that for whatever reason, testers often end up inexplicably hitting 2-3 points (or more) where they were regularly testing. To guarantee a 172+ you should be at a 176 at least consistently.

This is correct - I cannot absolutely gaurantee a 174, because any number of horrible test-day tragedies could occur. but i'm pretty confident in my prediction. i studied two weeks straight to get my 170, and my practice tests were going up everyday consistently to 174 on the last test. I know i still had sig room to improve and feel in even ONE more week it would show. 172 is my conservative est, 174 my goal

[vanwinkle]

This is correct - I cannot absolutely gaurantee a 174, because any number of horrible test-day tragedies could occur. but i'm pretty confident in my prediction. i studied two weeks straight to get my 170, and my practice tests were going up everyday consistently to 174 on the last test. I know i still had sig room to improve and feel in even ONE more week it would show. 172 is my conservative est, 174 my goal

Something sounds wrong here.

[scribelaw]

With that GPA, you're not getting into Harvard no matter what. Maybe with a 178-180, but even then probably not. They pretty much don't go below 3.7.

I think you need at least a 173 to get into Columbia. I have good softs, a 3.7x/173, and I'm currently on hold there. You military soft will help you, but that's still a below-median GPA.

That's a huge risk for a school that's largely a lateral move from NYU, where you already have acceptance.

It sounds like you want to retake and give it another shot, and if that's what you want to do, best of luck and godspeed. But it's not the percentage play.

[kissy]

This is correct - I cannot absolutely gaurantee a 174, because any number of horrible test-day tragedies could occur. but i'm pretty confident in my prediction. i studied two weeks straight to get my 170, and my practice tests were going up everyday consistently to 174 on the last test. I know i still had sig room to improve and feel in even ONE more week it would show. 172 is my conservative est, 174 my goal

Something sounds wrong here.

[fugitivejammer]

i studied for like a month, several months prior to this 2 week period for an earlier test but didnt end up taking that one...so to clear the air, i didn't sit down cold and study for 2 weeks w/o any other exposure to the lsat and get a 170. i bring up the 2 week period cuz its the real serious time i studied and was improving significantly - i felt i still had subst room to improve.

but thanks to all the quick replies. i see a common theme of nyu with similar reasoning that makes complete sense to me. this is what i'm leaning towards as well, but the lure of harvard/columbia was too great, forcing me to post on here instead of doing something more productive.

[BenJ]

With those numbers (or even a slightly higher LSAT) you might well be waitlisted or rejected at NYU next year, let alone the others. You have no chance at HYS with that GPA (H maybe with a 178+, but not Y or S even then), and Columbia is not significantly different from NYU--certainly not enough to be worth the risk of not getting in to NYU or Columbia next year.

[SoCalStudent]

You should go with NYU or Cornell while they for sure bets. There's always the chance that you retake the LSAT and actually score lower, which might have you knocked out of NYU for next year. You have awesome stats and I understand why you deserve HYLS's, but you should also note that NYU is just as prestigious. Either way, congrates on your success!!

[270910]

3) What do you want to do when you graduate? It's very possible you can do the same things from NYU that you want to do from Harvard. Yes, Harvard offers more, but from NYU it's not going to offer that much more. This is only worth it if you're certain you want either clerkships or academia when you graduate. Otherwise you're putting yourself through a whole second cycle in which you hopefully have an increased chance of admission at Harvard but still aren't guaranteed it.

I agree with Vanwinkle, but actually think it's a little more pronounced than he/she puts it. Basically by the time you crack the T10, especially the upper echelons of the T10, your performance in law school matters far more than the name of the school you attend. Even from Harvard, where options are greater, things like CoA clerkships will only be available to those who outperform most (often the vast majority of) their peers.

That being said, since you're already delaying your start date for a year, it might be worth your time... just keep in mind that it is extraordinarily rare for a school to grant a 1-year deferral and also allow you to re-apply; you'd almost certainly have to re-apply to NYU as well.

[r6_philly]

That being said, since you're already delaying your start date for a year, it might be worth your time... just keep in mind that it is extraordinarily rare for a school to grant a 1-year deferral and also allow you to re-apply; you'd almost certainly have to re-apply to NYU as well.

Could you elaborate? I don't want to misunderstand. Thanks.

[270910]

That being said, since you're already delaying your start date for a year, it might be worth your time... just keep in mind that it is extraordinarily rare for a school to grant a 1-year deferral and also allow you to re-apply; you'd almost certainly have to re-apply to NYU as well.

Could you elaborate? I don't want to misunderstand. Thanks.

If you get into school A, and ask for a deferral, the odds are that they will say "sure! please sign an agreement that you will not apply to any other law schools "

The point is that they're not going to allow you to BOTH bank on acceptance to school A AND apply to and potentially attend other schools. There's just no upside for the school, everyone would take a deferral and then re-take / re-apply if they could start cycle no. 2 knowing they had a guaranteed spot in a class.

It's not a hard and fast rule, but it is the exclusive experience I have heard of those who have sought and obtained deferrals.

[KG_CalGuy]

I wouldn't imagine that you could improve your application enough in 1 year (unless you absolutely dominated the LSAT) to make a difference in your applications to Harvard or Columbia. You'd be better served by taking your offer at NYU and, assuming you do really well and still want to go to Harvard or Columbia, transferring after your 1L.

[270910]

assuming you do really well and still want to go to Harvard or Columbia, transferring after your 1L.

Rarely provides any benefit. As I've already said, and as is very worth repeating, once you're in a top law school, how well you do matters MUCH more than the brand name. Top 10% student at podunk T14 wipes the floor with top third ad Columbia. Transferring is chiefly advisable for students at much lower schools who wouldn't even have access to interviews without the transfer.

[TheLuckyOne]

Why don't you retake the LSAT first and THEN start contemplating about the 2nd round?

[r6_philly]

Why don't you retake the LSAT first and THEN start contemplating about the 2nd round?

If the LSAT doesn't work out he may end up losing out on NYU. I suppose he has to ask for a deferral soon if he is going to do that. But if he does get a deferral then there is no point in retaking.

[DoubleChecks]

With those numbers (or even a slightly higher LSAT) you might well be waitlisted or rejected at NYU next year, let alone the others. You have no chance at HYS with that GPA (H maybe with a 178+, but not Y or S even then), and Columbia is not significantly different from NYU--certainly not enough to be worth the risk of not getting in to NYU or Columbia next year.

TITCR

[Unemployed]

assuming you do really well and still want to go to Harvard or Columbia, transferring after your 1L.

Rarely provides any benefit. As I've already said, and as is very worth repeating, once you're in a top law school, how well you do matters MUCH more than the brand name. Top 10% student at podunk T14 wipes the floor with top third ad Columbia. Transferring is chiefly advisable for students at much lower schools who wouldn't even have access to interviews without the transfer.

LOL @ "Podunk T14"

OP - you are lucky to have gotten into NYU with your current stats. The best you can hope for (even with a 180 retake) is Columbia, and I don't think the risk is worth it.

[dbt]

I would suggest

(1) you were pretty fortunate to get into NYU if you weren't URM

(2) you probably shouldn't be expecting admission to Columbia without a 3 point LSAT bump (which is kinda tough to pull off in the range that you're in) and for Harvard, given your GPA, you probably need a 176+.

Alternatively, if you're interested in transferring to Harvard or Columbia, I would recommend not coming to NYU and instead choosing one of the lower ranked schools that you got into (within the T14). While numbers (LSAT/GPA) are by no means conclusive, they do tend to suggest 1L grades, so with your stats it is unlikely that you will place high enough in the class to transfer to Harvard (top 10% or so). For Columbia, you'd probably still need top 1/3ish, and that's not guaranteed/looking too likely either.

[Z3RO]

Low #'s are low.

Don't push your luck. NYU is a retardedly good school.

[cutiewiddlebebe]

Your stats aren't that hot, soldier.

Consider the waitlists a courtesy extended for serving the country, but nothing more. Take NYU and thank your lucky stars.

[clintonius]

Edit: bah, never mind. Obvious troll is obvious. OP, I do recommend listening to everybody who has advised you to hang on to NYU.