Top Law Schools

168/3.40 with 1 B.A., 1 B.S. (biology, journalism) from a top 20 private school

Softs: The usual...volunteer work, honors organizations, Dean's club.
No upward trend - just 1 really bad semester where I had health issues
Non-URM

Schools:
USC (its a stretch)
Pepperdine
UC Hastings
UC Davis
USF

What are my chances? What other California schools should I look at? Thanks!

do you have a 168 or 160?

Opps, 168. Changed.

stowhat wrote:Opps, 168. Changed.

your numbers should get you into UC irvine and on down...and believe it or not USC is actually a realistic reach and almost a target school. just make sure you apply early. UCLA would be a little harder for you to get into but it's still a realistic reach.

that's a good list (i applied this cycle with the same numbers). USC is becoming a bit more of a reach than a target with our numbers, but it's definitely worth the app. You'll probably end up on the waitlist. You should be in at Hastings and Davis, and obviously in with $$$ at Pepperdine, USF, etc. UCLA is another possibility for you, but it's a big reach now too. I applied ED and was waitlisted. Those getting in with 168/3.4ish numbers were URMs, had really special softs, etc. Good luck! Feel free to check out my LSN profile to see my results from CA schools.

As I'm packing up and heading for Davis, I just can't let it go unsaid that there is as yet no "on down" from Irvine. It ranks for now only in the imagination, and imaginations vary.

You're almost certainly in at Davis. On LSN, Hastings is showing 1 reject w/better numbers and a few WLs at similar. Still probably a great bet though, especially if you apply early.

I'd definitely apply to USC and UCLA also. You'll surely at least grab a WL from one, if not both.

Also: Why USF and not Santa Clara?? You'll likely be able to avoid both. But SCU might give you some good $$$ (I'd still pick any UC over it).

Thanks everyone!

I might retake my LSAT since I scored 5 points below my PT average - I think that would give me a better shot at USC or UCLA.

UC Irvine is not on my list because I currently live and work in Irvine and do not want to stay here for another 4 years.

USF is on the list because I love San Francisco (Santa Clara is not on the list because I don't want to live in Santa Clara).

ozarkhack wrote:As I'm packing up and heading for Davis, I just can't let it go unsaid that there is as yet no "on down" from Irvine. It ranks for now only in the imagination, and imaginations vary.

You're almost certainly in at Davis. On LSN, Hastings is showing 1 reject w/better numbers and a few WLs at similar. Still probably a great bet though, especially if you apply early.

I'd definitely apply to USC and UCLA also. You'll surely at least grab a WL from one, if not both.

Also: Why USF and not Santa Clara?? You'll likely be able to avoid both. But SCU might give you some good $$$ (I'd still pick any UC over it).

heheh...woops ...by "on down" i meant schools admitting applicants with less competitive stats than irvine, not ranking. so OP is it at irvine and schools with stats downward from theirs.

I'm a native Californian who applied in fall '09 with 169/3.4. I applied around Thanksgiving to UCLA, USC and Hastings. I was accepted to Hastings in January (with $5k/yr), waitlisted at UCLA in February (that was my undergrad school and I'm still riding the WL, though I don't really expect to get off of it), and accepted at USC in March with a big fat $0. I didn't want to bite USC's $200k+ sticker bullet, so I'm headed to GW instead.

I'm white, with good but somewhat standard softs, 3 years WE.

Good luck on apps. Just know going into it that a 3.4 means you'll get crap for $$ at most any Tier 1.

Would it change much if the OP's number was 167? I have a 167/3.47 and am interested in USC/UCLA. I know UCLA is a huge reach, but is USC a realistic (if somewhat reaching) goal? I also bring to the table 4 yrs work experience and a smile.

stowhat wrote: USF is on the list because I love San Francisco (Santa Clara is not on the list because I don't want to live in Santa Clara).

And with good reason...SCU's placement in SF is not so hot.

But I still can't believe you'd attend USF with a 168 (even for free). I'd attend GULC or GW or something, even if you want to work in CA.

Davis and Hastings are going to be too expensive to be worthwhile...Davis is grossly overrated both by USNWR and by its false employment figures.

username99 wrote:Would it change much if the OP's number was 167? I have a 167/3.47 and am interested in USC/UCLA. I know UCLA is a huge reach, but is USC a realistic (if somewhat reaching) goal? I also bring to the table 4 yrs work experience and a smile.

ucla is an unrealistic reach. and i also think usc is as well. usc accepted those with 167 but they had at least a 3.6x

No shot at UCLA, Berkeley, or Stanford. USC is a high reach, and Hastings/Davis are targets.

i think UCLA with ED and a good PS is a realistic reach. The seemed to be willing to dip on GPA for a few EDers this cycle. That said, if you think you can bump the LSAT then that is always the correct answer.

Yeah, I'm thinking about taking the LSAT again. I was PTing around 174 before the test. If I could bring my score up to that, I think I'd have a much better shot at UCLA or USC.

stowhat wrote:Thanks everyone!

I might retake my LSAT since I scored 5 points below my PT average - I think that would give me a better shot at USC or UCLA.

UC Irvine is not on my list because I currently live and work in Irvine and do not want to stay here for another 4 years.

That is the same reason UC Irvine is not on my list either. Boring city. I take it you went to UCI? or do you just work in Irvine? Definitely retake though. I'm retaking as well.

I love San Francisco as well, and would definitely love to practice law there. My friend got into Hastings this cycle with a 165/3.7.

No, I went to school in Boston but grew up in Orange County and currently work in Irvine. I know I want to work and live in Northern California, so UC Hastings or UC Davis are looking pretty good.

username99 wrote:Would it change much if the OP's number was 167? I have a 167/3.47 and am interested in USC/UCLA. I know UCLA is a huge reach, but is USC a realistic (if somewhat reaching) goal? I also bring to the table 4 yrs work experience and a smile.

ED with those numbers. I was accepted ED with around your same numbers, and I'm not black/hispanic/native-american etc. I also applied straight out of college without work experience.

Check out the UCLA 2013 thread - some chick got off the waitlist with a 162. I strongly believe UCLA admissions isn't as static as their peers.

stowhat wrote:No, I went to school in Boston but grew up in Orange County and currently work in Irvine. I know I want to work and live in Northern California, so UC Hastings or UC Davis are looking pretty good.

Yeah, I grew up in Orange County as well. Sounds like my older sister. She went to school in Boston and wants to live in SF.
Yeah, if you know you definitely want to live in Nor Cal, I'd say to go for Hastings/Davis.

If you retake for a 170+ I think you might have a better chance at UCLA/USC.

queenlizzie13 wrote:I love San Francisco as well, and would definitely love to practice law there.

Bold is credited-rest is not. That market is both completely screwed and saturated with higher ranked grads right now, so Hastings grads are just getting killed ITE. (I've got multiple friends attending there now) I think the only way you should consider Hastings is if they give you $.

sundance95 wrote:

queenlizzie13 wrote:I love San Francisco as well, and would definitely love to practice law there.

Bold is credited-rest is not. That market is both completely screwed and saturated with higher ranked grads right now, so Hastings grads are just getting killed ITE. (I've got multiple friends attending there now) I think the only way you should consider Hastings is if they give you $.

Good to know that. Thanks. Yeah, California is pretty much in the tank, period. My industry (housing) is getting destroyed right now. It's horrid.

What about Davis? I was looking into both schools myself. Do you think it makes more sense to go back east (DC for example at some place like American/GMU) then go for a CA school if it's not say Berkeley/Stanford/UCLA/USC?

queenlizzie13 wrote:

sundance95 wrote:

queenlizzie13 wrote:I love San Francisco as well, and would definitely love to practice law there.

Bold is credited-rest is not. That market is both completely screwed and saturated with higher ranked grads right now, so Hastings grads are just getting killed ITE. (I've got multiple friends attending there now) I think the only way you should consider Hastings is if they give you $.

Good to know that. Thanks. Yeah, California is pretty much in the tank, period. My industry (housing) is getting destroyed right now. It's horrid.

What about Davis? I was looking into both schools myself. Do you think it makes more sense to go back east (DC for example at some place like American/GMU) then go for a CA school if it's not say Berkeley/Stanford/UCLA/USC?

Oh Davis is great....98% employment rate

SF market is terrible right now. The Marin and SF DAs are hiring unpaid ADAs and have resumes through the roof. I cannot speak for OCI/larger firms/long term employment, but I sent 250-300 applications to smaller firms with only 5 interviews and 1 offer for my 1L summer job.

I don't know that SF is worse than other major markets or that Hastings is any worse off than any other non T20, major market school. My impression is that it is pretty much uniformly bad everywhere.

If you do not get into USC, dont go. Not going to a t14 is very risky, but USC has the potential that could lead you to a mediocre career path.

I didn't mention that I also have two years of experience working for a large pharmacuetical company and one year of experience working for a research lab. Some of this was during school/summer breaks but I'm also currently taking a year and a half off between graduation and law school. I'm interested in health care law. Will this make any difference?

stowhat wrote:I didn't mention that I also have two years of experience working for a large pharmacuetical company and one year of experience working for a research lab. Some of this was during school/summer breaks but I'm also currently taking a year and a half off between graduation and law school. I'm interested in health care law. Will this make any difference?

Hastings is partnering with UCSF to create a new health law concentration, but I still don't think it's significant enough to outweigh its deficiencies in your situation.