Page 1 of 1
168 3.6
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:23 am
by lsatisevil
What are my chances at Michigan/should I ED?
I graduated from U of M in 2011, have strong LORs, family member who went to Mich Law, strong extracurriculars, and I'm in-state.
Re: 168 3.6
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:55 am
by minnbills
You can ED but I think they will probably waitlist you. If you want to get in, you're going to have to wait out the list or retake.
Having family who went there should be a slight boost, but I don't think it will open doors like it would have for undergrad.
Good luck!
Re: 168 3.6
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:58 am
by bk1
If you really want Michigan then the best thing to help your application would be to retake the LSAT.
Re: 168 3.6
Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:34 pm
by Real Madrid
lsatisevil wrote:What are my chances at Michigan/should I ED?
I graduated from U of M in 2011, have strong LORs, family member who went to Mich Law, strong extracurriculars, and I'm in-state.
What are some of your "strong" extracurriculars?
Re: 168 3.6
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:43 am
by buckilaw
Sadly you are below both the LSAT and the GPA median, ED is unlikely to help too much in that case. I can see that you would be able to demonstrate why you really want Michigan and that should help, but you really need to retake the LSAT so you can meet or exceed at least one median.
Re: 168 3.6
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:43 am
by lsatisevil
bump
Re: 168 3.6
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:07 pm
by LawSchoolChampion
Retake if you want to get in. You're really pushing it for top 14.
And, from what I've been told, "strong" extra-carriculars are considered weak softs.
Not bad softs, but they won't give you a real boost, they'll just beat out other people with your numbers.
WE and athletics along with any sort of massive accomplishment (rhodes scholar, ect.) seem to give some advantage, but if you're talking about being on the E-board of a club, and an internship, you're probably not going to get in through them.
Summary:
Retake if you want a decent shot at acceptance, but even with a 170 it's iffy.
Re: 168 3.6
Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:32 pm
by BiglawOrBust
LawSchoolChampion wrote:Retake if you want a decent shot at acceptance, but even with a 170 it's iffy.
That's fucked up, because a mere eight years ago, a rejection with a 161 was grounds for a lawsuit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._bollinger
Re: 168 3.6
Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:37 pm
by Grizz
BiglawOrBust wrote:LawSchoolChampion wrote:Retake if you want a decent shot at acceptance, but even with a 170 it's iffy.
That's fucked up, because a mere eight years ago, a rejection with a 161 was grounds for a lawsuit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._bollinger
Re: 168 3.6
Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:42 pm
by BiglawOrBust
Grizz wrote:BiglawOrBust wrote:LawSchoolChampion wrote:Retake if you want a decent shot at acceptance, but even with a 170 it's iffy.
That's fucked up, because a mere eight years ago, a rejection with a 161 was grounds for a lawsuit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._bollinger
I'm not trying to provoke or disrupt, my man! I'm only emphasizing UofM's increasingly stringent admissions requirements.