168 3.7 Reaches Forum

[JJDancer]

I am applying to 7 "reach" schools. Basically the lower half of the T-14
I know I have very little chance at NYU/Columbia barring a higher Oct retake score but which of these 5 do I have the most shot at?
(I didn't include Cornell in this because I actually think I have an ok shot)

Duke
UVa
Gtown
penn
Berkeley

Predictions? WL?
Straight out dinged at Penn?
Thanks.

PS: If you know c/o 2013 medians for these 5 can you please post them.

[romothesavior]

I am applying to 7 "reach" schools. Basically the lower half of the T-14
I know I have very little chance at NYU/Columbia barring a higher Oct retake score but which of these 5 do I have the most shot at?
(I didn't include Cornell in this because I actually think I have an ok shot)

Duke
UVa
Gtown
penn
Berkeley

Predictions? WL?
Straight out dinged at Penn?
Thanks.

PS: If you know c/o 2013 medians for these 5 can you please post them.

I'm sorry to say it, but barring a better LSAT or some fantastic soft on your resume, you are almost certainly out at all of these.

And yes, you do have a pretty good shot at Cornell. Far from a lock, but you're probably in there.

[3ThrowAway99]

I don't know.. I think with your numbers if you apply to all these schools you would probably have reasonable shot of getting into to one of them although I'm not going to guess which one and I imagine you may be on the waitlist first... I also am skeptical that you would really have a much better chance at Cornell than some of these other schools- last year Cornell apps increased by 50% according to something I read, and I think the increase was more significant than any increases among Cornell's peer schools..

[09042014]

I don't know.. I think with your numbers if you apply to all these schools you would probably have reasonable shot of getting into to one of them although I'm not going to guess which one and I imagine you may be on the waitlist first... I also am skeptical that you would really have a much better chance at Cornell than some of these other schools- last year Cornell apps increased by 50% according to something I read, and I think the increase was more significant than any increases among Cornell's peer schools..

[dakatz]

OP, I had numbers pretty similar to yours, applied to 4 of those 5 schools. Got one WL and the rest were rejections. I wouldn't really expect much in that range. But I would def give it a try since you are certainly borderline and might get lucky on one of them. You never know. I would focus more on schools in the 15-25 range. That is where the action will be for you, not the top 14 range, though Cornell might give you a shot.

[3ThrowAway99]

I don't know.. I think with your numbers if you apply to all these schools you would probably have reasonable shot of getting into to one of them although I'm not going to guess which one and I imagine you may be on the waitlist first... I also am skeptical that you would really have a much better chance at Cornell than some of these other schools- last year Cornell apps increased by 50% according to something I read, and I think the increase was more significant than any increases among Cornell's peer schools..

perhaps you could clarify the basis of your enlightenment?

[JJDancer]

OP, I had numbers pretty similar to yours, applied to 4 of those 5 schools. Got one WL and the rest were rejections. I wouldn't really expect much in that range. But I would def give it a try since you are certainly borderline and might get lucky on one of them. You never know. I would focus more on schools in the 15-25 range. That is where the action will be for you, not the top 14 range, though Cornell might give you a shot.

Thanks. It's nice to have anecdotal evidence. Yeah I'm applying to 15+ schools. The other 10 are between #15-30 + Fordham so I have that covered. Here I was only talking about reaches and wondering whether I should target 1 or 2 of these if I have a better shot and not have to do some extra apps or is it just a "mostly wl/ding" at best chance and maybe 1/5 shot at these, without knowing which 1 that might be. (seems like the latter)

[romothesavior]

I don't know.. I think with your numbers if you apply to all these schools you would probably have reasonable shot of getting into to one of them although I'm not going to guess which one and I imagine you may be on the waitlist first... I also am skeptical that you would really have a much better chance at Cornell than some of these other schools- last year Cornell apps increased by 50% according to something I read, and I think the increase was more significant than any increases among Cornell's peer schools..

very helpful fox; perhaps you could clarify the basis of your enlightenment?

OP has a very small chance of getting into any of these schools, and OP has a much better shot at Cornell than any of the other schools mentioned. I think the strikethru was DF's way of saying you are wrong on all accounts. And with all due respect, you are wrong.

[romothesavior]

OP, I had numbers pretty similar to yours, applied to 4 of those 5 schools. Got one WL and the rest were rejections. I wouldn't really expect much in that range. But I would def give it a try since you are certainly borderline and might get lucky on one of them. You never know. I would focus more on schools in the 15-25 range. That is where the action will be for you, not the top 14 range, though Cornell might give you a shot.

Thanks. It's nice to have anecdotal evidence. Yeah I'm applying to 15+ schools. The other 10 are between #15-30 + Fordham so I have that covered. Here I was only talking about reaches and wondering whether I should target 1 or 2 of these if I have a better shot and not have to do some extra apps or is it just a "mostly wl/ding" at best chance and maybe 1/5 shot at these, without knowing which 1 that might be. (seems like the latter)

I will throw in some anecdotal evidence as well. I was a 168 LSAT with a little higher GPA and Duke was rejected by Duke and WL-->rejected by Michigan. I think your odds at any school above Cornell are very small. More important than anecdotal evidence are the graphs on LSN, and they show you as out at all of these schools as well.

I can almost guarantee you that you're out at all the schools you mentioned, and none of them really offer a better chance than any of the others. If you have the money to spend on app fees or if you have fee waivers, then by all means you should give it a shot. But just know that your odds are very small.

Good luck with your cycle.

[3ThrowAway99]

I did say 'reasonable shot' - not that OP would most likely get accepted to one of them for clarification; but indeed these schools are all appropriately classed as reaches IMO. Number thresholds can be kind of ridiculous sometimes, because if OP had scored a marginal 2 points higher on LSAT (170) with his 3.7 GPA I'm sure a lot of people on here would consider these target schools for OP rather than no-chance reaches.

[09042014]

I don't know.. I think with your numbers if you apply to all these schools you would probably have reasonable shot of getting into to one of them although I'm not going to guess which one and I imagine you may be on the waitlist first... I also am skeptical that you would really have a much better chance at Cornell than some of these other schools- last year Cornell apps increased by 50% according to something I read, and I think the increase was more significant than any increases among Cornell's peer schools..

very helpful fox; perhaps you could clarify the basis of your enlightenment?

His shot at Cornell is better because their LSAT median is lower. He is below both medians for every school he listed, except for Boalt, which just doesn't take a 3.7 with a 168.

[romothesavior]

I did say 'reasonable shot' - not that OP would most likely get accepted to one of them for clarification; but indeed these schools are all appropriately classed as reaches IMO. Number thresholds can be kind of ridiculous sometimes, because if OP had scored a marginal 2 points higher on LSAT (170) with his 3.7 GPA I'm sure a lot of people on here would consider these target schools for OP rather than no-chance reaches.

Hell, if I had just guessed right on one more LSAT question, I'm pretty sure I would have gotten into Michigan ED. But I didn't. You may find number thresholds ridiculous (and I'm sure plenty of others do too), but that doesn't make them any less real. USNWR calls the shots.

[09042014]

I did say 'reasonable shot' - not that OP would most likely get accepted to one of them for clarification; but indeed these schools are all appropriately classed as reaches IMO. Number thresholds can be kind of ridiculous sometimes, because if OP had scored a marginal 2 points higher on LSAT (170) with his 3.7 GPA I'm sure a lot of people on here would consider these target schools for OP rather than no-chance reaches.

Oh it is absolutely ridiculous that the number thresholds exist. A 3.7/168 has no shot at Northwestern, but a 3.1/170 does. Crazy.

But they exist.

[JJDancer]

Thanks romo, desert and lawquacious. I honestly wouldn't even waste my time/money applying for any of these because I would be super happy attending UCLA or USC (w. a shot at $) but I'm retaking in Oct and although there is no guarantee I will do better, I have these apps open just in case the retake can sweeten the deal

edit: I'm a "she."

[3ThrowAway99]

OP has a very small chance of getting into any of these schools, and OP has a much better shot at Cornell than any of the other schools mentioned. I think the strikethru was DF's way of saying you are wrong on all accounts. And with all due respect, you are wrong.

Cornell's number ranges are very similar to G-town's other than the fact that they have a lower GPA range, yet you categorically claim the OP has no chance at G-town and yet a reasonable shot at Cornell... this does not compute without some sort of cited evidence for your strong claim.. Additionally, you didn't address the fact that Cornell had much more competitive admissions this last cycle than normally from what I understand... You may be right, but where you are making such strong categorical assertions I would like to see more explanation.

Also, the only way to realistically say that I am wrong is for the OP to apply to the schools and get all rejections. Until that happens I have not been proven wrong. (though I admit that it is very possible that will be the case).

[CG614]

I did say 'reasonable shot' - not that OP would most likely get accepted to one of them for clarification; but indeed these schools are all appropriately classed as reaches IMO. Number thresholds can be kind of ridiculous sometimes, because if OP had scored a marginal 2 points higher on LSAT (170) with his 3.7 GPA I'm sure a lot of people on here would consider these target schools for OP rather than no-chance reaches.

You clearly have an unique definition of "reasonable."

[CG614]

OP has a very small chance of getting into any of these schools, and OP has a much better shot at Cornell than any of the other schools mentioned. I think the strikethru was DF's way of saying you are wrong on all accounts. And with all due respect, you are wrong.

So in other words: "I'm right, you're wrong, end of story." Cornell's number ranges are very similar to G-town's other than the fact that they have a lower GPA range, yet you categorically claim the OP has no chance a G-town cares about LSAT more than GPA and yet a reasonable shot at Cornell... this does not compute without some sort of cited evidence for your strong claim.. Additionally, you didn't address the fact that Cornell had much more competitive admissions this last cycle than normally from what I understand... You may be right, but where you are making such strong categorical assertions I would like to see more explanation.

Also, the only way to realistically say that I am wrong is for the OP to apply to the schools and get all rejections. Until that happens I have not been proven am wrong. (though I admit that it is very possible that will be the case).

ftfy

[Deuce]

At what point would GPA start becoming a factor? My GPA is higher at 3.85+ with a 168... am I also a likely lock out?

[CG614]

At what point would GPA start becoming a factor? My GPA is higher at 3.85+ with a 168... am I also a likely lock out?

Nope, 3.8 is somewhat of a magic number for GPA. You likely have a shot at Berkley.

[09042014]

At what point would GPA start becoming a factor? My GPA is higher at 3.85+ with a 168... am I also a likely lock out?

You have a shot at all because of your GPA.

[CG614]

At what point would GPA start becoming a factor? My GPA is higher at 3.85+ with a 168... am I also a likely lock out?

You have a shot at all because of your GPA.

This. But I think Boalt is the best bet.

[3ThrowAway99]

Oh it is absolutely ridiculous that the number thresholds exist. A 3.7/168 has no shot at Northwestern, but a 3.1/170 does. Crazy.

But they exist.

Point taken; the number thresholds do exist, but on the other hand not every school has the Northwestern approach that in certain cases allows these thresholds to be emphasized to almost a ridiculous degree. But it is true IMO that admissions is primarily a 'numbers game' for better or worse, and that relatively meaningless thresholds do play into this considerably. I guess I just have a hard time agreeing that OP has 'no chance' to get into any of the schools listed with her numbers, although perhaps it is true.

Good luck OP on retake! Hopefully this will be less of a question after that.

[CG614]

Also, OP. If you really want Penn, an ED may help.

[3ThrowAway99]

[quote="CG614"]

[romothesavior]

So in other words: "I'm right, you're wrong, end of story." Cornell's number ranges are very similar to G-town's other than the fact that they have a lower GPA range, yet you categorically claim the OP has no chance at G-town and yet a reasonable shot at Cornell... this does not compute without some sort of cited evidence for your strong claim.. Additionally, you didn't address the fact that Cornell had much more competitive admissions this last cycle than normally from what I understand... You may be right, but where you are making such strong categorical assertions I would like to see more explanation.

Also, the only way to realistically say that I am wrong is for the OP to apply to the schools and get all rejections. Until that happens I have not been proven wrong. (though I admit that it is very possible that will be the case).

1. GULC has a PT class, which brings down the LSAT median. OP has better odds at GULC than she does at MVPB, but her odds at getting in at GULC FT are still not great.
2. Cornell had a lot of apps. So what? So did other schools. Let's say Cornell improves their LSAT median by a point. OP would still probably get in, and her odds of getting into Cornell are still better than her odds of getting into Berkeley, Duke, UVA, etc.
3. Your last two sentences there are atrociously silly. You claimed two things:

-"OP's has a reasonable shot of getting into VPBDG"
-"OP's odds of getting into Cornell are roughly equal to her odds of getting into VPBDG"

I don't have to wait for the results to tell you that you are wrong. That'd be like me saying, "Your odds of winning in roulette are against you" and you responding by saying, "You can't say that until the wheel spins." Even if she comes back gets into Duke and gets rejected at Cornell, that doesn't prove you right.

(Also, FWIW, I am not telling OP NOT to apply to these reaches. I'm simply responding to her question as to what her odds are, and I'm telling her they are not good.)