Top Law Schools

.

yesh. Did you enjoy systems & physiology? I think with an LSAT 172+ you can see if you can get into HYS and definitely 1 of CCN.

Congrats on the high GPA- I know how tough it is to get.

.

I agree that this is a very impressive GPA, and that the fact that it's in engineering at an ivy makes it all the more impressive to me. Unfortunately for you it actually will matter much less to admissions committees. The numerical value of the gpa is far more significant to law schools than your major and undergrad institution. This is due to the ranking system and each school's reportable gpa medians-your value to an admissions committee is, first and foremost, as a statistic. This isn't to say that your major and alma mater don't matter at all- they are small soft factors. If you want Harvard you're AT the GPA median so you still have to score high enough on the LSAT to at least match their median, which is 173. Good luck!

do not waste that gpa in that major at that school...good luck man!/woman!

+172 or bust!

Burger in a can wrote:I agree that this is a very impressive GPA, and that the fact that it's in engineering at an ivy makes it all the more impressive to me. Unfortunately for you it actually will matter much less to admissions committees. The numerical value of the gpa is far more significant to law schools than your major and undergrad institution. This is due to the ranking system and each school's reportable gpa medians-your value to an admissions committee is, first and foremost, as a statistic. This isn't to say that your major and alma mater don't matter at all- they are small soft factors. If you want Harvard you're AT the GPA median so you still have to score high enough on the LSAT to at least match their median, which is 173. Good luck!

+1. Your major and your ivy degree might count as a very minor soft, but probably not much more than that. Yale and Stanford are always black boxes, so it's hard to say. For a good shot at Harvard like Burger in a can says at least 173. For CCN I'd think anything over 170 would be enough.

Kobe_Teeth wrote:do not waste that gpa in that major at that school...good luck man!/woman!

+172 or bust!

Do not waste that gpa in that major on law school

sophia.olive wrote:

Kobe_Teeth wrote:do not waste that gpa in that major at that school...good luck man!/woman!

+172 or bust!

Do not waste that gpa in that major on law school

Good point! OP, why are you looking to jump directly from bioengineering at UPenn to law school? Might it make sense to work as, idk, an engineer first? Just to try it out for a little while?

Yes, coming from Penn, most people with OP's GPA are eligible for 70k+ jobs with fast rising pay scales- bulge banks, trading, and perhaps consulting. After 3 years, it could be around where top law law start (or even moar!!). You're talking about an opportunity cost of like 300k+! However, these guys require summer experience- most of them require that you work at a similar job junior year before they would consider you. I would have to guess OP probably didn't work at one of these places.

bioengineering is not a hard engineering major. hth

Yeh going to law school would be a waste for you.

.

tjw242 wrote: i dont know if i want to go to law school.

Then don't. Finish up at Penn, try life out for a while. Your GPA and the LSAT will still be waiting for you if and when you DO know you want to go.

. Unless you go to Yale, there is a good possibility you can't find gainful employment. Even some Stanford and Harvard law grads may not find jobs, and even if you do have a BigLaw job, there's no guarantee you'll be there in 3 years. You might be forced out for a variety of reasons. Please research as to whether you want to go to med or law school. If you are set on law school, the one thing I might suggest though is to try to get a large scholarship at a top law school so there would be less risk involved. If you can get a 172+, Michigan or Penn half/full scholarship is a great possibility.

Please read the following thread:
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=123174

Basically, you don't want to go to an elite school and risk being 100k+ in debt with no job. I strongly consider medical school if you have a choice. Of course, if you feel that you love law and law provides the most enjoyment for your personality and skill set, then by all means do so. But understand the risks going into this particular career path.

To the one who said BioEngineering isn't a difficult major; I took intro Chem E (transferred) and BioE at Penn, and BioE is much tougher in terms of getting high grades. The work is also very time consuming- you can ask OP, and the student quality as strong as any other discipline at Penn. It is well known that Engineering kids at Penn set the curve for the Wharton classes that they take.

MC Southstar wrote:bioengineering is not a hard engineering major. hth

Isn't this kind of the trifecta of irrelevant, unhelpful, AND dickheaded?

Burger in a can wrote:

MC Southstar wrote:bioengineering is not a hard engineering major. hth

Isn't this kind of the trifecta of irrelevant, unhelpful, AND dickheaded?

To be fair, different concentrations are of varying levels of rigor/difficulty depending on the institution. Perhaps MC Southstar attended such an institution. Bioengineering also seems to have different definitions at different schools...there's a difference between agricultural based bioengineering and biomedical engineering (which is hard as all heck).

But...at least of the schools I've known people to attend (generally top engineering schools), I've never actually heard anyone say bioengineering was easy. Usually it's just grumbling about civil, industrial, or general engineering.

czelede wrote:

Burger in a can wrote:

MC Southstar wrote:bioengineering is not a hard engineering major. hth

Isn't this kind of the trifecta of irrelevant, unhelpful, AND dickheaded?

To be fair, different concentrations are of varying levels of rigor/difficulty depending on the institution. Perhaps MC Southstar attended such an institution. Bioengineering also seems to have different definitions at different schools...there's a difference between agricultural based bioengineering and biomedical engineering (which is hard as all heck).

But...at least of the schools I've known people to attend (generally top engineering schools), I've never actually heard anyone say bioengineering was easy. Usually it's just grumbling about civil, industrial, or general engineering.

Irrelevant because law schools don't care what your major is, however difficult it may be.

Unhelpful because even if the above weren't true, telling OP that there are more difficult fields does nothing to answer his questions.

Dickheaded because of the above, and because of the "hth".

there is a certain ++ factor if an applicant is eligible for the patent bar; consider it a relatively strong soft.

DMXdawg wrote:there is a certain ++ factor if an applicant is eligible for the patent bar; consider it a relatively strong soft.

Why? Why does an admissions committee care whether an applicant is eligible for the patent bar? What benefit is there for the school? Your major might be a tiebreaker, meaning if the adcomms are forced to choose between you and a candidate with the exact same LSAT and GPA, they might opt to choose you because of their opinion of the difficulty of your major. But if it's between you and Elle Woods with identical GPAs but Elle has one more LSAT point, guess which fashion major just got in to Harvard?

^^GPAs in harder majors (such as engineering) are looked at more favorably. I've been told so by multiple admissions people and have seen it in my own results. Also have been told patent bar looks very good. Just one person but I think your over-generalizing.

Burger in a can wrote:

DMXdawg wrote:there is a certain ++ factor if an applicant is eligible for the patent bar; consider it a relatively strong soft.

Why? Why does an admissions committee care whether an applicant is eligible for the patent bar? What benefit is there for the school? Your major might be a tiebreaker, meaning if the adcomms are forced to choose between you and a candidate with the exact same LSAT and GPA, they might opt to choose you because of their opinion of the difficulty of your major. But if it's between you and Elle Woods with identical GPAs but Elle has one more LSAT point, guess which fashion major just got in to Harvard?

I really don't think admissions are as black and white as this. Yes, LSAT and GPA are king but...when you are within a certain threshold (defined by the 25/50/75 points, depending) softs come into play way more than one point on the LSAT. There is a reason why people with better GPAs AND LSATs are rejected or waitlisted sometimes in lieu of people with worse numbers, application timing notwithstanding.

Burger in a can wrote:

DMXdawg wrote:there is a certain ++ factor if an applicant is eligible for the patent bar; consider it a relatively strong soft.

Why? Why does an admissions committee care whether an applicant is eligible for the patent bar? What benefit is there for the school? Your major might be a tiebreaker, meaning if the adcomms are forced to choose between you and a candidate with the exact same LSAT and GPA, they might opt to choose you because of their opinion of the difficulty of your major. But if it's between you and Elle Woods with identical GPAs but Elle has one more LSAT point, guess which fashion major just got in to Harvard?

Because if a law school doesn't accept anyone eligible for the patent bar they will not produce any Patent Prosecutors which alienates that school from a very profitable concentration of law and possibly a few firms and boutiques who are turned off by the lack of a specific talent pool.

OrdinarilySkilled wrote:^^GPAs in harder majors (such as engineering) are looked at more favorably. I've been told so by multiple admissions people and have seen it in my own results. Also have been told patent bar looks very good. Just one person but I think your over-generalizing.

I have yet to see any data supporting this theory on LSN or anywhere else. It's the job of admissions committees to tell you that every part of your unique application matters a lot. The other, more important parts of their job: To entice as many applicants as possible so they can improve their selectivity rating. To improve the median LSAT score for the incoming class. To improve the median GPA for the incoming class. They work toward these goals in order to improve their overall ranking, which in turn improves the school for a variety of reasons.

U.S. News and World Reports doesn't request stats on the Patent Bar, nor does it care whether electrical engineering is more difficult than bioengineering.

I understand that the system isn't as simple as this, but if you think that those people who were admitted because of their softs aren't the overwhelming exception, (or if you think that law school admissions committees sit around debating which kind of engineering means you're smarter) you're kidding yourself.

Burger in a can wrote:

OrdinarilySkilled wrote:^^GPAs in harder majors (such as engineering) are looked at more favorably. I've been told so by multiple admissions people and have seen it in my own results. Also have been told patent bar looks very good. Just one person but I think your over-generalizing.

I have yet to see any data supporting this theory on LSN or anywhere else. It's the job of admissions committees to tell you that every part of your unique application matters a lot. The other, more important parts of their job: To entice as many applicants as possible so they can improve their selectivity rating. To improve the median LSAT score for the incoming class. To improve the median GPA for the incoming class. They work toward these goals in order to improve their overall ranking, which in turn improves the school for a variety of reasons.

U.S. News and World Reports doesn't request stats on the Patent Bar, nor does it care whether electrical engineering is more difficult than bioengineering.

I understand that the system isn't as simple as this, but if you think that those people who were admitted because of their softs aren't the overwhelming exception, you're kidding yourself.

When you're working within the T14, I strongly believe that adcomms have considerations other than just the USWNR. Like I've said, the numbers still come first and the cycles are still driven by them, but schools are also interested in providing a diverse, well-rounded group of peers for their students and producing successful alumni to carry on their legacies.

There is plenty of evidence on LSN that it doesn't have to come down to applicants identical in numbers for softs to matter. Of course, if you have a 4.0/179 like Elle Woods you're getting accepted to H regardless barring a terrible app, but for the overwhelming majority of people that are in the middle - where admissions could feasibly yield an acceptance, rejection, or waitlist, softs are NOT the overwhelming exception but instead a critical part of the application process. Engineering IS a soft in its own way. A 3.9 in bioE from a rigorous program is a very respectable soft in fact, and the diversity of the applicant in comparison to the swarm of political science applicants is a bonus.

Go into something else bro. People go to law school because their liberal arts degrees are worthless. But you can actually do something with those credentials.