5-year MBA 3.5 undergrad, 3.77 grad school, 165 LSAT, Forum

[thegreatk]

Honestly, I'm just curious how much having an MBA will boost my chances, especially considering that my MBA GPA is higher than undergrad. I've also worked in a law firm for several years. Oh, and I got a 154 on my LSAT in October. (11 point increase, I'm happy!)

My dream schools:
UCLA
USC
UC Irvine
Berkeley
Duke
UNC

Thanks for the help guys!

[bk1]

Probably won't care about MBA or its GPA.

Of those the only real shot you have is UNC, maybe small one at UCI. I'd retake if you want any of the others though Berkeley is out probably no matter what you would get on a retake.

[thegreatk]

That seems illogical that they won't care at all. Second opinion?

[bk1]

That seems illogical that they won't care at all. Second opinion?

Illogical? I present to you:

[paratactical]

That seems illogical that they won't care at all. Second opinion?

It is a nice soft, but it will only matter if you're up against another person with similar numbers for a seat at the schools. Because schools only report UG GPA to US News, that is the GPA that they consider when they look at applicants.

[thegreatk]

Haha okay, good point. Well, I guess then a better response would be....

Why would an undergraduate GPA mean so much to them as in indicator of academic ability, while graduate GPAs, which imply roughly the same thing, would be disregarded? I understand that they can't compare graduate GPAs to other students, since most don't have graduate degrees, but wouldn't it give me SOME kind of boost, since it shows I'm able to succeed on a graduate level?

[LeBum James]

That seems illogical that they won't care at all. Second opinion?

He's right. They won't care about the MBA. It's a soft at best and most likely won't be taken into consideration at all.

[thegreatk]

Ah, an answer before my question. So you think it's mostly because they aren't concerned as much about how good of a student I actually am, but moreso about the numbers they report year after year?

[LeBum James]

Ah, an answer before my question. So you think it's mostly because they aren't concerned as much about how good of a student I actually am, but moreso about the numbers they report year after year?

Numbers are very important

[Veyron]

That seems illogical that they won't care at all. Second opinion?

The kid is right. You're fucked.

[thegreatk]

That seems illogical that they won't care at all. Second opinion?

He's right. They won't care about the MBA. It's a soft at best and most likely won't be taken into consideration at all.

Oh what, now because you got a 173 you think you're mr. F-ing knowitall?

Ha, just kidding. Mad love from the waiting thread.

Well, I hope you guys are wrong....hell, you only have to be wrong with one admissions officer at one law school to make my dreams come true!

How about my chances at Loyola, Davis, or Hastings?

[paratactical]

Ah, an answer before my question. So you think it's mostly because they aren't concerned as much about how good of a student I actually am, but moreso about the numbers they report year after year?

Yes.

[MrAnon]

they won't care at all. the only thing that matters are the numbers they report. If you applied with a 4.0/180 they would accept you even if you told them your express intention was to coast through law school.

[thegreatk]

That seems illogical that they won't care at all. Second opinion?

The kid is right. You're fucked.

Fucked is probably an overstatement. Thanks though.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

Haha okay, good point. Well, I guess then a better response would be....
Why would an undergraduate GPA mean so much to them as in indicator of academic ability, while graduate GPAs, which imply roughly the same thing, would be disregarded? I understand that they can't compare graduate GPAs to other students, since most don't have graduate degrees, but wouldn't it give me SOME kind of boost, since it shows I'm able to succeed on a graduate level?

Because graduate programs are known to have very high inflation. That combined with rankings being dependent on UGPA means that while a graduate degree is an alright soft, it will not make schools consider you as a 3.77.

For whatever it's worth, I have a masters that is significantly better than my UGPA (3.8 compared to 3.56). My application cycles (applied 2 years in a row) seemed to play out like they would for the 3.56, not the 3.8.

[Veyron]

That seems illogical that they won't care at all. Second opinion?

The kid is right. You're fucked.

Fucked is probably an overstatement. Thanks though.

Dear 3.5/165,

Unless you already have a job lined up you will not be getting one that pays a decent wage subsequent to loan payments after law school. Law is completely unlike business. School and class rank are everything.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

That seems illogical that they won't care at all. Second opinion?

The kid is right. You're fucked.

Fucked is probably an overstatement. Thanks though.

Dear 3.5/165,

Unless you already have a job lined up you will not be getting one that pays a decent wage subsequent to loan payments after law school. Law is completely unlike business. School and class rank are everything.

While OP is being a bit on the annoying side by trying to ignore what everyone is telling him, being a douche bag doesn't contribute much to the thread. 3.5/165 can get a person into a school in the 20-30 range, with potentially some money.

[albanach]

Take the LSAT a third time. If you're working, wait until June so you have a decent chance to prepare.

Get an extra three or four points, and apply early to Northwestern who will value your work experience (more so than the MBA).

[Veyron]

[/quote]

The kid is right. You're fucked.[/quote]

Fucked is probably an overstatement. Thanks though.[/quote]

Dear 3.5/165,

Unless you already have a job lined up you will not be getting one that pays a decent wage subsequent to loan payments after law school. Law is completely unlike business. School and class rank are everything.[/quote]

While OP is being a bit on the annoying side by trying to ignore what everyone is telling him, being a douche bag doesn't contribute much to the thread. 3.5/165 can get a person into a school in the 20-30 range, with potentially some money.[/quote]

And a school in the 20-30 range ITE will get someone unemployed.

[thegreatk]

[/quote]

Dear 3.5/165,

Unless you already have a job lined up you will not be getting one that pays a decent wage subsequent to loan payments after law school. Law is completely unlike business. School and class rank are everything.[/quote]

While OP is being a bit on the annoying side by trying to ignore what everyone is telling him, being a douche bag doesn't contribute much to the thread. 3.5/165 can get a person into a school in the 20-30 range, with potentially some money.[/quote]

I'm not ignoring you, I just want to understand the logic or reason behind what you guys are telling me, especially because I've heard different things from other reputable sources.

I do seriously appreciate all of you taking the time to answer my question. And Richie Tenenbaum---thank you especially, that explanation makes a lot of sense, and thank you for helping me muster a small bit of dignity.

Veyron-- I have a job lined up and will not be incurring significant debt. Hence, I am most certainly not fucked. But I didn't come to talk about that, I came to ask about the MBA and the potential boost I could get from it. I'll have be in the same position out of law school no matter what school I attend....I just want to get the best legal education humanly possible.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

And a school in the 20-30 range ITE will get someone unemployed.

I'm probably one of the more debt averse people on here and would have only consider paying sticker at a T6, but even I don't think going to a school in the 20-30 range is a bad idea if you get money/pay in-state, and you want to work in the area after graduation. Relying on schools in the 20-30 range to get big law might be a big risk, but unemployed is probably an exaggeration for most of the class, especially since OP will be class of 2014.

[Veyron]

And a school in the 20-30 range ITE will get someone unemployed.

I'm probably one of the more debt averse people on here and would have only consider paying sticker at a T6, but even I don't think going to a school in the 20-30 range is a bad idea if you get money/pay in-state, and you want to work in the area after graduation. Relying on schools in the 20-30 range to get big law might be a big risk, but unemployed is probably an exaggeration for most of the class, especially since OP will be class of 2014.

What sort of non-biglaw jobs (that require less than biglaw credentials) do people get around your parts (genuinely curious)?

[bk1]

I'm not ignoring you, I just want to understand the logic or reason behind what you guys are telling me, especially because I've heard different things from other reputable sources.

Having spent a lot of time looking at different applicant profiles, soft factors rarely come into play in a significant way. Grad GPA's are notorious for being irrelevant due to the perceived ease of such programs. Because schools only report LSAC GPA and LSAT to USNWR, they have in incentive to value those things over others. Schools have been known to consider soft factors, but these are almost often the exceptional ones (such as Rhodes/Fulbright/Olympian/etc).

Schools are trying to increase their median numbers and taking someone who is not above at least one is very detrimental. This is usually reserved for URM applicants often who have lower LSAT scores than the rest of the applicant pool. Schools, in this race to increase their medians, cannot afford to pick up someone below both medians just because they have something like a good grad GPA (which is decently common) or an MBA.

It seems to me that applicant advisors do not really want to relay the hard truth to those they help. They don't want to tell them things like how bad the job market is and how some schools really are awful. Instead they try to do what they are paid/supposed to do, which is help the applicant get into the school that the applicant thinks is worth going to, whether or not that is a good/smart decision.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

And a school in the 20-30 range ITE will get someone unemployed.

I'm probably one of the more debt averse people on here and would have only consider paying sticker at a T6, but even I don't think going to a school in the 20-30 range is a bad idea if you get money/pay in-state, and you want to work in the area after graduation. Relying on schools in the 20-30 range to get big law might be a big risk, but unemployed is probably an exaggeration for most of the class, especially since OP will be class of 2014.

What sort of non-biglaw jobs (that require less than biglaw credentials) do people get around your parts (genuinely curious)?

Are you seriously asking what other legal jobs exist other than big law? Didn't big law in boom times account for like 25-30% (this number may be off) of the legal jobs out there? There are plenty of legal jobs that don't pay 160k. The problem is the most common ones pay 40-50k, thus not a good option for someone drowning in debt. If someone has limited debt though, they have a lot more options.

--ImageRemoved--

[Veyron]

"Veyron-- I have a job lined up and will not be incurring significant debt. Hence, I am most certainly not fucked. But I didn't come to talk about that, I came to ask about the MBA and the potential boost I could get from it. I'll have be in the same position out of law school no matter what school I attend....I just want to get the best legal education humanly possible."

Ooops, missed this part. In this case, just focus on getting the cheapest legal education humanly possible, law schools, even elite ones, do little to prepare you for practice.