Page 1 of 1
3.89/165
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:11 am
by tunarat
I am a white male from CA who attended one of the top 3 University of California schools undergrad, and majored in psychology and minored in sport management. I had a bad LSAT score of 160, but I slightly recovered afterwards with a 165. My LSAC GPA is 3.89 and I completed my school honors program and graduated with high honors.
What are my chances at UCLA/USC? I have a great interest in sport law and they both have offerings in the field.
Also, I have received fee waivers from Michigan and Duke, and am highly suspicious that these fee waivers were sent just so I can apply, be rejected and therefore improve their acceptance rate. Thoughts?
Re: 3.89/165
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:38 am
by bernaldiaz
I'm just on a roll with unhelpful responses, but I love it when people give a grouping like "top 3 University of California Schools". So you go to the third best then. Because if you went to UCLA or Berkeley there's no way in hell you're including UCSD in the same grouping as your school.
Re: 3.89/165
Posted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:14 am
by soj
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com
You might have a shot at mvp/duke ED, but I have no idea what their
sports law programs are like.
Re: 3.89/165
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:26 am
by jbc7
retake.
seriously man, with a 3.89 GPA, you should be scoring higher in the LSAT.
Re: 3.89/165
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:37 pm
by joshceo
jbc7 wrote:retake.
seriously man, with a 3.89 GPA, you should be scoring higher in the LSAT.
Right, because GPA is an indicator of LSAT success...seriously?
Re: 3.89/165
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:39 pm
by sportgirl234
joshceo wrote:jbc7 wrote:retake.
seriously man, with a 3.89 GPA, you should be scoring higher in the LSAT.
Right, because GPA is an indicator of LSAT success...seriously?
no but there is not reason not to retake. if he gets 3 more points it would be extremely significant in terms of scholarships and maybe admittance to a t-14 school. there is no downside to doing this unless he really believes he has peaked, and being a firm believer in the fact that anyone with enough determination can truly master this exam picking up a few more points is certainly doable.
Re: 3.89/165
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:52 pm
by joshceo
sportgirl234 wrote:joshceo wrote:jbc7 wrote:retake.
seriously man, with a 3.89 GPA, you should be scoring higher in the LSAT.
Right, because GPA is an indicator of LSAT success...seriously?
no but there is not reason not to retake. if he gets 3 more points it would be extremely significant in terms of scholarships and maybe admittance to a t-14 school. there is no downside to doing this unless he really believes he has peaked, and being a firm believer in the fact that anyone with enough determination can truly master this exam picking up a few more points is certainly doable.
Re: 3.89/165
Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:56 pm
by sportgirl234
no doubt that making connections always helps and that about 90% of being successful in life is about being personable and having strong relationships but it may be hard to just go out and make contacts for two months. Yes the LSAT sucks, its expensive, draining and in the larger picture such a small piece of the pie, BUT if he's playing the game that we all are (trying to get into the very best law school that we are physically capable of) then it really might be in his best interest to buckle down and retake. right now i see him getting waitlisted at some excellent schools and a stronger lsat may be what he needs to skate in. but i am no expert at all and just getting by like everyone else !
Re: 3.89/165
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:33 pm
by Perdevise
joshceo wrote:jbc7 wrote:retake.
seriously man, with a 3.89 GPA, you should be scoring higher in the LSAT.
Right, because GPA is an indicator of LSAT success...seriously?
This is something I wonder. Does LSAT correlate with GPA? I am unaware of any studies. There seem to be a lot of splitters on TLS. I don't think its unreasonable to think, but then again, GPA measures something very different from LSAT.