Top Law Schools

MTaylor25 wrote:Do not listen to TLS posters who say that schools don't factor strong upward trends into the equation when a GPA is subpar. I have spoke to several adcomm's and law students at several different schools that have all told me that strong, upward trends in GPA's are definitely taken into consideration. I have heard this from enough reputable and respected adcomm’s to know that it is true.

It will put you ahead of someone with the same GPA without an upward trend, but it won't substantially help you because, in the end, they still have to report that GPA.

kalvano wrote:

MTaylor25 wrote:Do not listen to TLS posters who say that schools don't factor strong upward trends into the equation when a GPA is subpar. I have spoke to several adcomm's and law students at several different schools that have all told me that strong, upward trends in GPA's are definitely taken into consideration. I have heard this from enough reputable and respected adcomm’s to know that it is true.

It will put you ahead of someone with the same GPA without an upward trend, but it won't substantially help you because, in the end, they still have to report that GPA.

There is no doubt that at the end of the day your gpa is what it is. I agree with the both of you and the idea behind by post was that a high lsat/low gpa applicant with a strong upward trend will get the nod over a similar type splitter who is lacking an upward trend with their grades.

I think it indeed does get taken into account. I have a 2.5 with a drastic upward trend. I have a 170 LSAT though, putting me into the extreme splitter category. As long as you are above a schools LSAT median, you'll at least have a shot, and your upward trend will have some effect. If a school's 25% is say 3.3, a 3.1 or a 2.0 have the same affect. At that point your trend will come into play.

Some schools are more strict with bottom limits on their GPA though. I got WL'd at Duke, a school that is a GPA whore, so my 2.5 obviously wasn't so abhorrent as to warrant a full reject. I'm sure my trend went into account, though it doesn't matter as I calculate my chances of actually getting in off the WL at 0.01%.

kswiss wrote: If a school's 25% is say 3.3, a 3.1 or a 2.0 have the same affect.

Are you saying that someone with a 3.1 would be at the same disadvantage as a 2.0 because they're under the school's 25th percentile? I find that surprising. Isn't that like saying a 164 is as good as a 180 if the school's 75% is 163?

MTaylor25 wrote:

kalvano wrote:

MTaylor25 wrote:Do not listen to TLS posters who say that schools don't factor strong upward trends into the equation when a GPA is subpar. I have spoke to several adcomm's and law students at several different schools that have all told me that strong, upward trends in GPA's are definitely taken into consideration. I have heard this from enough reputable and respected adcomm’s to know that it is true.

It will put you ahead of someone with the same GPA without an upward trend, but it won't substantially help you because, in the end, they still have to report that GPA.

There is no doubt that at the end of the day your gpa is what it is. I agree with the both of you and the idea behind by post was that a high lsat/low gpa applicant with a strong upward trend will get the nod over a similar type splitter who is lacking an upward trend with their grades.

Oh, without a doubt.

thanks everyone

OP, if you want some other PM me. I originally had very similar #'s to you. No upward trend, but lots of WE.

BigA wrote:

kswiss wrote: If a school's 25% is say 3.3, a 3.1 or a 2.0 have the same affect.

Are you saying that someone with a 3.1 would be at the same disadvantage as a 2.0 because they're under the school's 25th percentile? I find that surprising. Isn't that like saying a 164 is as good as a 180 if the school's 75% is 163?

I think he meant that it will have the same affect on the schools reported medians. They have to report the middle number not the average so a 2.0 will pull it down just as much as a 3.1. But a 3.1 definitely looks better than a 2.0. Also, the 3.1 is statistically more likely to succeed than the 2.0.

a

KibblesAndVick wrote:

BigA wrote:

kswiss wrote: If a school's 25% is say 3.3, a 3.1 or a 2.0 have the same affect.

Are you saying that someone with a 3.1 would be at the same disadvantage as a 2.0 because they're under the school's 25th percentile? I find that surprising. Isn't that like saying a 164 is as good as a 180 if the school's 75% is 163?

I think he meant that it will have the same affect on the schools reported medians. They have to report the middle number not the average so a 2.0 will pull it down just as much as a 3.1. But a 3.1 definitely looks better than a 2.0. Also, the 3.1 is statistically more likely to succeed than the 2.0.

Exactly. Once you're below the 25%, your GPA becomes a soft factor. A 161 3.1 will obviously be more likely to be admitted over a 2.0, but a 3.1 with no upward trend versus a year of 2.0 and 3 years of 3.5 could easily go to the lower GPA.

Hi there,

I have an extremely similar profile to yours. I'm a more extreme splitter, but the grade trends are almost dead on: awful middle two years, much better final two years.

My numbers are: sub-3.0 GPA, 99th percentile LSAT score. Significant upward trend in GPA. I'm also a male Indian, so not a URM. I worked as an inner-city teacher for a year after undergrad.

I applied to "higher" ranked schools than you did, but I'm putting down some of my acceptances and waitlists to disprove this notion that you are an auto-reject with anything less than a 3.0.

Duke: Waitlisted
UVA: Waitlisted
Emory: Accepted
Case Western Reserve University: Accepted with substantial scholarship offer

I will say that I believe my softs were pretty good - i put a lot of effort into my personal statement, had solid recommendations and accomplished a lot outside the classroom. And I realize that having such a high LSAT score skews the results. But I don't think Law schools will throw out your application because you're below a 3.0 - you will be given a chance.

kswiss wrote:

KibblesAndVick wrote:

BigA wrote:

kswiss wrote: If a school's 25% is say 3.3, a 3.1 or a 2.0 have the same affect.

Are you saying that someone with a 3.1 would be at the same disadvantage as a 2.0 because they're under the school's 25th percentile? I find that surprising. Isn't that like saying a 164 is as good as a 180 if the school's 75% is 163?

I think he meant that it will have the same affect on the schools reported medians. They have to report the middle number not the average so a 2.0 will pull it down just as much as a 3.1. But a 3.1 definitely looks better than a 2.0. Also, the 3.1 is statistically more likely to succeed than the 2.0.

Exactly. Once you're below the 25%, your GPA becomes a soft factor. A 161 3.1 will obviously be more likely to be admitted over a 2.0, but a 3.1 with no upward trend versus a year of 2.0 and 3 years of 3.5 could easily go to the lower GPA.

The GPA in the latter case would actually be a little higher. But I think I get what you're saying

yeah i didn't do the math.

mayan2k wrote:Hi there,

I have an extremely similar profile to yours. I'm a more extreme splitter, but the grade trends are almost dead on: awful middle two years, much better final two years.

My numbers are: sub-3.0 GPA, 99th percentile LSAT score. Significant upward trend in GPA. I'm also a male Indian, so not a URM. I worked as an inner-city teacher for a year after undergrad.

I applied to "higher" ranked schools than you did, but I'm putting down some of my acceptances and waitlists to disprove this notion that you are an auto-reject with anything less than a 3.0.

Duke: Waitlisted
UVA: Waitlisted
Emory: Accepted
Case Western Reserve University: Accepted with substantial scholarship offer

I will say that I believe my softs were pretty good - i put a lot of effort into my personal statement, had solid recommendations and accomplished a lot outside the classroom. And I realize that having such a high LSAT score skews the results. But I don't think Law schools will throw out your application because you're below a 3.0 - you will be given a chance.

There's a pretty big difference between a 99th-percentile LSAT and a 163 (which is like 89th, I believe).

kalvano wrote:

mayan2k wrote:Hi there,

I have an extremely similar profile to yours. I'm a more extreme splitter, but the grade trends are almost dead on: awful middle two years, much better final two years.

My numbers are: sub-3.0 GPA, 99th percentile LSAT score. Significant upward trend in GPA. I'm also a male Indian, so not a URM. I worked as an inner-city teacher for a year after undergrad.

I applied to "higher" ranked schools than you did, but I'm putting down some of my acceptances and waitlists to disprove this notion that you are an auto-reject with anything less than a 3.0.

Duke: Waitlisted
UVA: Waitlisted
Emory: Accepted
Case Western Reserve University: Accepted with substantial scholarship offer

I will say that I believe my softs were pretty good - i put a lot of effort into my personal statement, had solid recommendations and accomplished a lot outside the classroom. And I realize that having such a high LSAT score skews the results. But I don't think Law schools will throw out your application because you're below a 3.0 - you will be given a chance.

There's a pretty big difference between a 99th-percentile LSAT and a 163 (which is like 89th, I believe).

Fact. But I also listed schools that are far higher than the OP's in terms of median LSATs and GPAs...

EDIT: That sounded douchy. I just meant that even though my LSAT score is much higher, the schools I listed are also looking for higher LSAT scores in general. They might not be perfectly analogous situations, but I thought it was relevant. My bad if it isn't. =)

mayan2k wrote:

kalvano wrote:

mayan2k wrote:Hi there,

I have an extremely similar profile to yours. I'm a more extreme splitter, but the grade trends are almost dead on: awful middle two years, much better final two years.

My numbers are: sub-3.0 GPA, 99th percentile LSAT score. Significant upward trend in GPA. I'm also a male Indian, so not a URM. I worked as an inner-city teacher for a year after undergrad.

I applied to "higher" ranked schools than you did, but I'm putting down some of my acceptances and waitlists to disprove this notion that you are an auto-reject with anything less than a 3.0.

Duke: Waitlisted
UVA: Waitlisted
Emory: Accepted
Case Western Reserve University: Accepted with substantial scholarship offer

I will say that I believe my softs were pretty good - i put a lot of effort into my personal statement, had solid recommendations and accomplished a lot outside the classroom. And I realize that having such a high LSAT score skews the results. But I don't think Law schools will throw out your application because you're below a 3.0 - you will be given a chance.

There's a pretty big difference between a 99th-percentile LSAT and a 163 (which is like 89th, I believe).

Fact. But I also listed schools that are far higher than the OP's in terms of median LSATs and GPAs...

Very true.

maybe i listed too many, how about giving me percentages on

georgia state ft or pt
miami
south carolina
penn state
rutgers camden
houston

Just to add I applied to two of the schools on your list- South Carolina and UMiami. I did my masters at UMiami was accepted, but no scholarship offer. South Carolina I was offered "no less than 17k" based on 2010-11 tuition when it comes out in June.

I had a 2.92/162. upward trend, but I also have a MST with a 3.72gpa.

lol adds hope, thanks

I think your best bet would be GA St part time. The admissions criteria are relaxed and you can work part-time and qualify for in-state tuition which will keep the cost down. GASt's tuition is a little over $10,000 for GA residents, which is very reasonable for a school of their ranking.

so is it true that part time programs have more relaxed admissions criteria?

gandhi10 wrote:so is it true that part time programs have more relaxed admissions criteria?

Yes, this is certainly true. Not that I swear by law school predictor or anything, but put in equal LSAT/GPA stats into the full and part time programs and take a look.