Top Law Schools

I also worked all 6 years I was in college. Do I have a chance of getting into a top 20 school?

annab wrote:I also worked all 6 years I was in college. Do I have a chance of getting into a top 20 school?

Unless URM, no. I have the same stats almost, and spent a full year making my PS perfect, and I'm being shot down left & right.

It's all stats for Law School.......

I am a female and I make no money...does that count?

annab wrote:I also worked all 6 years I was in college. Do I have a chance of getting into a top 20 school?

3.65/163 isn't getting T20. MBA is a soft and that doesn't really count as WE. Sorry dude.

Edit: sorry dudette

To FuManChusco:

Does work experience help?

annab wrote:To FuManChusco:

Does work experience help?

Sadly not enough to make up for your LSAT

WE helps for NU with a higher LSAT.

krad wrote:

annab wrote:To FuManChusco:

Does work experience help?

Sadly not enough to make up for your LSAT

WE helps for NU with a higher LSAT.

True, but that only includes full time post-grad. Working during school is worth nearly nothing.

the age old TLS answer, you need to retake.

FuManChusco wrote:

krad wrote:

annab wrote:To FuManChusco:

Does work experience help?

Sadly not enough to make up for your LSAT

WE helps for NU with a higher LSAT.

True, but that only includes full time post-grad. Working during school is worth nearly nothing.

Ah whoops, missed that the WE was in college.

Where is the MBA from?

Total Litigator wrote:Where is the MBA from?

she makes no money, so......

Chance at USC, WashUStL & GWU of the Top 20.

Patriot1208 wrote:

Total Litigator wrote:Where is the MBA from?

she makes no money, so......

ouch...

CanadianWolf wrote:Chance at USC, WashUStL & GWU of the Top 20.

OP is likely out at all of those. last year, only one person got into any of those schools within OP's range of numbers on LSN. It was a girl who had a 3.6x GPA, but had eight surgeries early on in college and had a 4.0 every semester after the surgeries. I seriously doubt OP gets into any of those schools with a 163.

LSN is not comprehensive as it represents only a very small percentage of applicants. Most law school applicants probably do not know that LSN exists.

CanadianWolf wrote:LSN is not comprehensive as it represents only a very small percentage of applicants.

I hate when people make this argument, sure, it's not comprehensive, but it's pretty damn accurate. Sure, OP has a chance at those schools, but that chance is SLIM.

You hate it when people argue facts ?

CanadianWolf wrote:You hate it when people argue facts ?

LULZ

Don't act stupid. I hate it when people say that LSN is a small sample as part of an argument about whether or not a person has a chance at a certain school. Because, that isn't really relevant. Generally, if you are out according to LSN, you are out IRL. LSN is pretty damn accurate for the vast majority of applicants. Trying to discredit that to make inferences about someones chance, which is backed by zero evidence, is just stupid.

Canadian Wolf - How bout you actually make YOUR argument. 3.65 163 non-URM with an unextraordinary MBA is not going to get you top 30, and definitely not top 20... I'm sure everyone is wondering what your angle is.

My angle ? The OP should apply. According to the above advice, OP should just type his numbers into LSN or lawschoolpredictor.com & abide by that tiny sampling. Why even fill out applications ? If it was that simple, then admissions officers would be replaced by computers & decisions would be instantaneous.

Patriot1208 wrote:

CanadianWolf wrote:LSN is not comprehensive as it represents only a very small percentage of applicants.

I hate when people make this argument, sure, it's not comprehensive, but it's pretty damn accurate. Sure, OP has a chance at those schools, but that chance is SLIM.

You may "hate" it, but you can't deny the small size of the sample pool. For example, Fordham had 8,843 applications last year. On LSN, Fordham had 536 data points. you're telling me this is "pretty damn accurate?"

I'd say it's pretty damn self selecting, and an average metric at best.

BrownBears09 wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:

CanadianWolf wrote:LSN is not comprehensive as it represents only a very small percentage of applicants.

I hate when people make this argument, sure, it's not comprehensive, but it's pretty damn accurate. Sure, OP has a chance at those schools, but that chance is SLIM.

You may "hate" it, but you can't deny the small size of the sample pool. For example, Fordham had 8,843 applications last year. On LSN, Fordham had 536 data points. you're telling me this is "pretty damn accurate?"

I'd say it's pretty damn self selecting, and an average metric at best.

Refer to previous posts, it isn't the end all, but it is well beyond "average" for the average white applicant.

Patriot1208 wrote:

BrownBears09 wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:

CanadianWolf wrote:LSN is not comprehensive as it represents only a very small percentage of applicants.

I hate when people make this argument, sure, it's not comprehensive, but it's pretty damn accurate. Sure, OP has a chance at those schools, but that chance is SLIM.

You may "hate" it, but you can't deny the small size of the sample pool. For example, Fordham had 8,843 applications last year. On LSN, Fordham had 536 data points. you're telling me this is "pretty damn accurate?"

I'd say it's pretty damn self selecting, and an average metric at best.

Refer to previous posts, it isn't the end all, but it is well beyond "average" for the average white applicant.

Refer to previous post. And, nah.

... Well it is technically a chance I guess, although we're probably talking less than a 5% chance here so I wouldn't want to get the OP's hopes up. That being said, yeah sure apply, a 5% chance is a 5% chance.

BrownBears09 wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:

BrownBears09 wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:I hate when people make this argument, sure, it's not comprehensive, but it's pretty damn accurate. Sure, OP has a chance at those schools, but that chance is SLIM.

You may "hate" it, but you can't deny the small size of the sample pool. For example, Fordham had 8,843 applications last year. On LSN, Fordham had 536 data points. you're telling me this is "pretty damn accurate?"

I'd say it's pretty damn self selecting, and an average metric at best.

Refer to previous posts, it isn't the end all, but it is well beyond "average" for the average white applicant.

Refer to previous post. And, nah.

lol, offer me something that disproves that statement. I may only have anecdotal evidence, but there is STRONG anecdotal evidence that backs up my point. You just have wishes and dreams, nothing substantial. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that LSN isn't indicative of the average applicants cycle.