Top Law Schools

I'm a URM so I was wondering,
will a perfect score of 180 and an okay GPA (3.0 - 3.4 range)
get me into nearly every law school sans Yale?
Specifically Harvard, Columbia, and NYU.

BTW: I don't have a perfect score but I have two years to get ready for this test so I think I can get close at least.

nystateofmind wrote:I'm a URM so I was wondering,
will a perfect score of 180 and an okay GPA (3.0 - 3.4 range)
get me into nearly every law school sans Yale?
Specifically Harvard, Columbia, and NYU.

BTW: I don't have a perfect score but I have two years to get ready for this test so I think I can get close at least.

If its closer to 3.4 than 3.0, you've got a decent shot at HLS.

What was your SAT?

It is really not helpful to ask about an LSAT when you have not taken it and the chances of getting a 180 are not great, even for people who PT consistently at 180.

Just worry about studying for the LSAT and once you have your score then figure out what your possibilities are. If you are curious before then, use lawschoolpredictor.com or lawschoolnumbers.com.

Honestly I can't remember it, I'd have to go look it up. I remember the ACT and I had a 32 on that.
and my GPA is now 3.3, so closer to the 3.4 range than 3.0, but still alot of time between now and graduation for that to change, hopefully upwards.

bk187 wrote:It is really not helpful to ask about an LSAT when you have not taken it and the chances of getting a 180 are not great, even for people who PT consistently at 180.

Just worry about studying for the LSAT and once you have your score then figure out what your possibilities are. If you are curious before then, use lawschoolpredictor.com or lawschoolnumbers.com.

thanks for the website links, I realize a 180 is a stretch, but I was just curious if the T6 law schools would accept URMs who score in the high 170s nearly automatically.

Have you taken a practice LSAT before? Take it and see how you do before assuming you have a good shot at a 180. The percentage of test takers who get a 180 is minuscule, and according to an estimate by Rayiner (who is a numbers god), a 175+ would put you into the 99.994 percentile for URM test takers. So I don't think your odds of a 180 are real good.

nystateofmind wrote:Honestly I can't remember it, I'd have to go look it up. I remember the ACT and I had a 32 on that.
and my GPA is now 3.3, so closer to the 3.4 range than 3.0, but still alot of time between now and graduation for that to change, hopefully upwards.

Ok, I was just making sure you were smart enough to make 180 a realistic possibility, and with a 32 ACT it definitely is.

I bet you'd get in with 175/3.3.

Desert Fox wrote:

nystateofmind wrote:Honestly I can't remember it, I'd have to go look it up. I remember the ACT and I had a 32 on that.
and my GPA is now 3.3, so closer to the 3.4 range than 3.0, but still alot of time between now and graduation for that to change, hopefully upwards.

Ok, I was just making sure you were smart enough to make 180 a realistic possibility, and with a 32 ACT it definitely is.

I bet you'd get in with 175/3.3.

thanks... My main focus on posting this was to see if a 180 (or any score above 175) would solidify a URM into a T6 score with that low a GPA, not to say that I am going to get a 180 (i realize that's a very far reach). Basically to see what is the farthest I can go, in terms of law schools, with my GPA.

nystateofmind wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

nystateofmind wrote:Honestly I can't remember it, I'd have to go look it up. I remember the ACT and I had a 32 on that.
and my GPA is now 3.3, so closer to the 3.4 range than 3.0, but still alot of time between now and graduation for that to change, hopefully upwards.

Ok, I was just making sure you were smart enough to make 180 a realistic possibility, and with a 32 ACT it definitely is.

I bet you'd get in with 175/3.3.

thanks... My main focus on posting this was to see if a 180 (or any score above 175) would solidify a URM into a T6 score with that low a GPA, not to say that I am going to get a 180 (i realize that's a very far reach). Basically to see what is the farthest I can go, in terms of law schools, with my GPA.

3.3 GPA & 175+ LSAT & URM status, imo is a lock for at least one of the T6 lol

nystateofmind wrote:I don't have a perfect score but I have two years to get ready for this test so I think I can get close at least.

Lulz

thanks for all the responses everyone, and to clarify, I realize it would be a reach to get a 180, I'm not that naive lol.

these threads give me ulcers. at least have the courtesy to take a practice test before claiming to be able to get close to a 180. some people could study for eternity and not break 170 much less get a 180.

Desert Fox wrote:

nystateofmind wrote:Honestly I can't remember it, I'd have to go look it up. I remember the ACT and I had a 32 on that.
and my GPA is now 3.3, so closer to the 3.4 range than 3.0, but still alot of time between now and graduation for that to change, hopefully upwards.

Ok, I was just making sure you were smart enough to make 180 a realistic possibility, and with a 32 ACT it definitely is.

I bet you'd get in with 175/3.3.

This is a joke, right DF?

FlightoftheEarls wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

nystateofmind wrote:Honestly I can't remember it, I'd have to go look it up. I remember the ACT and I had a 32 on that.
and my GPA is now 3.3, so closer to the 3.4 range than 3.0, but still alot of time between now and graduation for that to change, hopefully upwards.

Ok, I was just making sure you were smart enough to make 180 a realistic possibility, and with a 32 ACT it definitely is.

I bet you'd get in with 175/3.3.

This is a joke, right DF?

No 32 Act is the 99% percentile, which means he is probably pretty gifted in terms of intelligence. With intense study 180 is a possibility. Likely smart enough to understand all the problems on the LSAT, but to get a 180 he'd need to be consistent enough, and detailed enough to actually get them all right.

I'm not saying he's likely to get one, but he's probably smart enough to make it a possibility.

Desert Fox wrote:

FlightoftheEarls wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

nystateofmind wrote:Honestly I can't remember it, I'd have to go look it up. I remember the ACT and I had a 32 on that.
and my GPA is now 3.3, so closer to the 3.4 range than 3.0, but still alot of time between now and graduation for that to change, hopefully upwards.

Ok, I was just making sure you were smart enough to make 180 a realistic possibility, and with a 32 ACT it definitely is.

I bet you'd get in with 175/3.3.

This is a joke, right DF?

No 32 Act is the 99% percentile, which means he is probably pretty gifted in terms of intelligence. With intense study 180 is a possibility. Likely smart enough to understand all the problems on the LSAT, but to get a 180 he'd need to be consistent enough, and detailed enough to actually get them all right.

I'm not saying he's likely to get one, but he's probably smart enough to make it a possibility.

My bad - I was under the impression that a 32 ACT is equivalent to around a 1420 SAT, which is about the equivalent of a 96-97th percentile. Now that I'm looking on the composite score for the ACT I guess that's right, it is the lowest score in the 99th percentile. Even still, I don't think a low 99th percentile college admissions test score necessarily reflects the level of innate intellect required for a 99.9 percentile law school admissions test score. I'm sure OP will do great (and of course should aim for a 180), but these scores are just too rare to really be considering until you've been consistently hitting that range on PTs.

FlightoftheEarls wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

FlightoftheEarls wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:
Ok, I was just making sure you were smart enough to make 180 a realistic possibility, and with a 32 ACT it definitely is.

I bet you'd get in with 175/3.3.

This is a joke, right DF?

No 32 Act is the 99% percentile, which means he is probably pretty gifted in terms of intelligence. With intense study 180 is a possibility. Likely smart enough to understand all the problems on the LSAT, but to get a 180 he'd need to be consistent enough, and detailed enough to actually get them all right.

I'm not saying he's likely to get one, but he's probably smart enough to make it a possibility.

My bad - I was under the impression that a 32 ACT is equivalent to around a 1420 SAT, which is about the equivalent of a 96-97th percentile. Now that I'm looking on the composite score for the ACT I guess that's right, it is the lowest score in the 99th percentile. Even still, I don't think a low 99th percentile college admissions test score necessarily reflects the level of innate intellect required for a 99.9 percentile law school admissions test score. I'm sure OP will do great (and of course should aim for a 180), but these scores are just too rare to really be considering until you've been consistently hitting that range on PTs.

I don't think you need 99.9% intelligence to score 99.9% on the lsat. Preparation are too much of a factor, and even the toughest LSAT questions are relatively easy.

That's funny.. could have sworn the LSAT doesn't have a math or science section. In other words, ACT =/= intelligence test, rather aptitude test for a broad liberal arts education.

kenson wrote:That's funny.. could have sworn the LSAT doesn't have a math or science section. In other words, ACT =/= intelligence test, rather aptitude test for a broad liberal arts education.

Neither is the LSAT. It's a rough guess. I was just making sure he wasn't retarded. I can't figure out how intelligent people get more than 10 questions wrong on the LSAT.

Need a 3.5 to get into Yale, URM or not.

~3.3 and 174+ will get you into the rest of the T10 though if you're AA.

Desert Fox wrote:

kenson wrote:That's funny.. could have sworn the LSAT doesn't have a math or science section. In other words, ACT =/= intelligence test, rather aptitude test for a broad liberal arts education.

Neither is the LSAT. It's a rough guess. I was just making sure he wasn't retarded. I can't figure out how intelligent people get more than 10 questions wrong on the LSAT.

Credited. Someone scoring exponentially low on the ACT may indicate he/she doesn't have any kind of aptitute for tests/scholar work in general, just like high scores indicate a higher rate of success on things like the lsat. That being said, I don't think average sat/act scores are damning of your chances to score high on the lsat.

rad law wrote:

nystateofmind wrote:I don't have a perfect score but I have two years to get ready for this test so I think I can get close at least.

Lulz

+1. OP may indeed have a shot at a really high score but that's not a very good reason to think you'll do well on the LSAT.

once again I want to thank everyone for the responses

what I'm gathering from all of you is that most of the T10 schools would accept a 3.3, LSAT 175+ URM applicant except for Yale.
That was kind of what I expected because of how selective Yale is.

kenson wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

kenson wrote:That's funny.. could have sworn the LSAT doesn't have a math or science section. In other words, ACT =/= intelligence test, rather aptitude test for a broad liberal arts education.

Neither is the LSAT. It's a rough guess. I was just making sure he wasn't retarded. I can't figure out how intelligent people get more than 10 questions wrong on the LSAT.

Credited. Someone scoring exponentially low on the ACT may indicate he/she doesn't have any kind of aptitute for tests/scholar work in general, just like high scores indicate a higher rate of success on things like the lsat. That being said, I don't think average sat/act scores are damning of your chances to score high on the lsat.

An average ACT score is around a 20. I would wager very that few people who scored a 20 on the ACT go on to score over a 170 on the LSAT. Are there any stats on this?

kenson wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

kenson wrote:That's funny.. could have sworn the LSAT doesn't have a math or science section. In other words, ACT =/= intelligence test, rather aptitude test for a broad liberal arts education.

Neither is the LSAT. It's a rough guess. I was just making sure he wasn't retarded. I can't figure out how intelligent people get more than 10 questions wrong on the LSAT.

Credited. Someone scoring exponentially low on the ACT may indicate he/she doesn't have any kind of aptitute for tests/scholar work in general, just like high scores indicate a higher rate of success on things like the lsat. That being said, I don't think average sat/act scores are damning of your chances to score high on the lsat.

Desert Fox is one of my favorite posters, but this is absurd. Are you honestly suggesting that any intelligent person should be able to get a 170+ on virtually every LSAT? -9 on several LSAT prep tests is approaching a 175+. And, as you've said, the LSAT is largely trainable. going up ten, or twenty, points isn't incredibly difficult. Especially if you're just awful at one section or another.

Your initial point that ACT score probably correlates in some way to LSAT was probably more reasonable. I've generally found that those who are good test takers simply are good test takers.

Desert Fox wrote: I don't think you need 99.9% intelligence to score 99.9% on the lsat. Preparation are too much of a factor, and even the toughest LSAT questions are relatively easy.

You may not need 99.9% intelligence, but I think the overall combination of the difficulty of some of the questions (I disagree with you here - they are easy enough alone with time, but some questions can just take too much time to accurately answer and finish the section with perfect consistently through all 4 graded sections) and the time crunch makes that level of intelligence almost necessary. Either way, I think you and I may simply disagree on your original statement - I do not believe that getting a 99th percentile score in your college admission test sufficiently allows us to conclude that OP is smart enough that a 180 on the LSAT a realistic possibility.