Chances T-14? Forum

[manthony]

The law school counselor at my university said I had a decent shot to get into a T-14 school but I don't but I don't know... I just don't know if I can trust schools when they say that "we look at more than numbers!" I was wondering what other people thought my chances of getting into a T-14 school would be given the following info.

*3.80 UGPA, Major: Molecular and Cell Biology, Minor: Philosophy
*LSAT 165
*I will have 3-years of work experience in a stem cell lab
*I want to do IP Law.

[policestate1234]

You will get in everywhere you apply. HTH

Actually, I'm lying. You have almost no shot at the t-14. Go punch in your numbers in lawschool calculator or look up similar stats on law school numbers.

It doesn't look good.

[IAFG]

ED Michigan and pray

[im_blue]

Retake. You'll need a 167 to have any measurable shot, and a 168-170 for a chance at several T14s.

[Ragged]

The law school counselor at my university said I had a decent shot to get into a T-14 school but I don't but I don't know... I just don't know if I can trust schools when they say that "we look at more than numbers!" I was wondering what other people thought my chances of getting into a T-14 school would be given the following info.

*3.80 UGPA, Major: Molecular and Cell Biology, Minor: Philosophy
*LSAT 165 (I also have a 156 on my file I had taken 3 years ago. But I sent in an addendum explaining the discrepancy. Basically I didn't prepare adequately because I decided to get a job instead.)
*I will have 3-years of work experience in a hematopoietic stem cell lab at Harvard associated teaching hopital.
*I want to do IP Law.

It's all good stuff, but you got no shot unless you retake for at least a 167.

[manthony]

So these schools are lying when they say they look at something other than numbers?

[Ragged]

So these schools are lying when they say they look at something other than numbers?

Yes.

[beachbum]

So these schools are lying when they say they look at something other than numbers?

Yup. Sorry dude. Add a few points to that LSAT and you'll be in much better shape.

[im_blue]

So these schools are lying when they say they look at something other than numbers?

To be fair, they also consider URM status.

[Ragged]

So these schools are lying when they say they look at something other than numbers?

To be fair, they also consider URM status.

Good point.

[IAFG]

So these schools are lying when they say they look at something other than numbers?

Necessary not sufficient. Plenty of people underperform their numbers.

[pelmen74]

So these schools are lying when they say they look at something other than numbers?

Yes.

Not fully. They do want decent personalities in their class. Problem is that almost everyone presents themselves as more than their numbers. So unless you are about to publish something in Nature, you don't have much chances at a t-14 (save Berkley).

[dpk711]

your university should fire that law school counselor... if they don't then you should transfer to another undergraduate institution...

[thegor1987]

I've gotten rejected to schools at which I was 75% for. And I've gotten into schools for where I was 25% at in terms of numbers. Non URM, good softs. I'm no lawyer but I'll let you make the inference on your own.

Your GPA is in the top 25% for a lot of the T14, and your LSAT is just under median for a lot of them. With your background you've got a great shot at a T14.

[dpk711]

I've gotten rejected to schools at which I was 75% for. And I've gotten into schools for where I was 25% at in terms of numbers. Non URM, good softs. I'm no lawyer but I'll let you make the inference on your own.

Your GPA is in the top 25% for a lot of the T14, and your LSAT is just under median for a lot of them. With your background you've got a great shot at a T14.

can you point out which T14 has a median of "just over" a 165??

[DieAntwoord]

Better to overestimate your chances than underestimate.

I think agood rule of thumb is: If you subtract 100 from your lsat score and then go drive that speed on the highway and everyone is passing you, t14 is out of reach.


I got pulled over for going 65 on a highway today. And I was driving behind the cop who pulled me over. no ticket though

[im_blue]

Your GPA is in the top 25% for a lot of the T14, and your LSAT is just under median for a lot of them. With your background you've got a great shot at a T14.

-1

[Bildungsroman]

Your GPA is in the top 25% for a lot of the T14, and your LSAT is just under median for a lot of them. With your background you've got a great shot at a T14.

His GPA is in the top 25% (barely) for Cornell and Georgetown, and a 165 isn't really "just under median" at any T14 (maybe Berkeley?). I think that a couple more points on the LSAT would make OP a lot more competitive at the T14.

[motiontodismiss]

So these schools are lying when they say they look at something other than numbers?

Yes, except the notable exception of Northwestern. For them, they only look at LSAT and work experience.

[sophia.olive]

So these schools are lying when they say they look at something other than numbers?

Yes, except the notable exception of Northwestern. For them, they only look at LSAT and work experience.

No, they look at other. But your other isnt other other its just other like everyone else's other. So they will take the other like your other that has other numbers, brother.

[icouldbuyu]

I don't think a 167 would be enough. You probably need like a 168. 167 is below the 25/median for almost all of the T14 now. Unfortunately a 167 puts you in "no-man's" land. You're just above what's required for some good schools (BU, BC, Fordham) but you fall short of the T14.

[Snape]

166 is 25% for most of the bottom t-15 (Duke, NW, UVA, Berk, Cornell, GTown, etc) which means that 50% of class has somewhere between a 167-171 (if 75% is 172 which many are...most of these medians are 170....which means there is absoutley no difference to admissions between a 167 and 169 (unless they think they can move 25% up to a 167 which then it has a totally different meaning...but with apps down this year that is very unlikely....BUT...a 165 is essentially the same as a 164, 163, and really 160 if it is below 25%....if your gpa is truly 3.8 and not rounded...you may try to ED at UVA/Mich/ but probably still not shot....apply t-15-t25 for some money (still try t-14 if it is that important and you would pay sticker....but chances arent great with out some major softs, letters, and statements....Good lukc

[icouldbuyu]

166 is 25% for most of the bottom t-15 (Duke, NW, UVA, Berk, Cornell, GTown, etc) which means that 50% of class has somewhere between a 167-171 (if 75% is 172 which many are...most of these medians are 170....which means there is absoutley no difference to admissions between a 167 and 169 (unless they think they can move 25% up to a 167 which then it has a totally different meaning...but with apps down this year that is very unlikely....BUT...a 165 is essentially the same as a 164, 163, and really 160 if it is below 25%....if your gpa is truly 3.8 and not rounded...you may try to ED at UVA/Mich/ but probably still not shot....apply t-15-t25 for some money (still try t-14 if it is that important and you would pay sticker....but chances arent great with out some major softs, letters, and statements....Good lukc

Applications are down this year. I thought they were going to be at all-time highs because of the economy?

[manthony]

Thanks for all the responses. This process just seems too numbers oriented. I got 18 wrong on the June LSAT and got a 165. If I had gotten 4 more right, or 14 wrong, I would have gotten a 168. I blame U.S. News and World Reports...

[FlightoftheEarls]

Thanks for all the responses. This process just seems too numbers oriented. I got 18 wrong on the June LSAT and got a 165. If I had gotten 4 more right, or 14 wrong, I would have gotten a 168. I blame U.S. News and World Reports...

See, I had sympathy for you up until this post. Here's a little tough love for you: you aren't a special snowflake. If you retake the LSAT for a better score and actually end up at one of these schools (where I get the impression from your posts that you almost feel entitled to be), you'll very quickly realize that. The reality is that everybody at these schools did something you have twice failed to do - get an LSAT score that demonstrates your ability to analyze arguments and logic structures. It is the only method of comparing on an even scale a certain ability of all applicants, and other people have simply proven that they are better at it than you are.

You can complain and blame others all you want, or you can suck it up and work hard to get the score you need. If you want to argue that using a single stupid LSAT test (which you can take up to three times) is a dumb way to decide who should go to which law school, wait until you try taking an exam that constitutes your entire grade in a 1L final and that has the power to effectively make or break your career trajectory. Nobody owes you a thing, so quit complaining. People with a 3.8/165 are a dime a dozen, and each one of them believes they deserve to be at a T14. What makes you so special? A hard science major and a couple years of WE?
/end tough-love-asshole-mode

On a more positive note, I understand the frustration that your school's counselor may have built your hopes up. (S)he's an idiot for doing so, and for that I feel bad for you. You really will want to retake if you want a decent shot at the T14.

So these schools are lying when they say they look at something other than numbers?

Necessary not sufficient. Plenty of people underperform their numbers.

This. You don't have the necessary, so your softs mean very little.

Also,

your university should fire that law school counselor... if they don't then you should transfer to another undergraduate institution...

This. Seriously - I feel bad that your school's counselor got your hopes up, but you were right to be skeptical. It may still be worth the applications, but you are huge long shot without a retake (ideally 168+).