Top Law Schools

Hey everyone,

I'm a senior at Georgetown. I'll end up graduating this week with a 3.56 LSAC GPA (3.54 originally) and I received a 167 on my LSAT. I really like Boston College and was just wondering if anyone could enlighten me about my chances. Should I take the LSAT again? I'll be working for at least 2 years in a non-super intense environment so that won't be a huge problem...but I'd rather not.

Thanks in advance!

I'd say that's right in BC's wheelhouse. You should be competitive. But of course if you managed to bump your gpa up ~2 points, you'd be a lock.

check out lawschoolnumbers.com, will probably be your best source of info.

Very strong chance of admission. (165/3.5 & above is near certain admit status.)

Thanks for the responses, everyone. I have checked lawschoolnumbers and noticed that a lot people with similar GPAs and LSATS weren't having as much luck for BC. Considering my GPA is towards the bottom of their middle 50% range, that's understandable but a little surprising considering that my LSAT is one point above the range. Again, thanks for the additional insight.

I got into bc with scholly with same LSAT and lower gpa and wl at bu

CanadianWolf wrote:Very strong chance of admission. (165/3.5 & above is near certain admit status.)

False. A 165 is median LSAT. 3.5 is way below median. Nowhere near a certain admit status.

hoya2alawya wrote:Thanks for the responses, everyone. I have checked lawschoolnumbers and noticed that a lot people with similar GPAs and LSATS weren't having as much luck for BC. Considering my GPA is towards the bottom of their middle 50% range, that's understandable but a little surprising considering that my LSAT is one point above the range. Again, thanks for the additional insight.

1 point above the range is nothing. The LSAT standard deviation is 7 points. 1 point is measurement error.

manofjustice wrote:

CanadianWolf wrote:Very strong chance of admission. (165/3.5 & above is near certain admit status.)

False. A 165 is median LSAT. 3.5 is way below median. Nowhere near a certain admit status.

http://bc.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats

Everyone with those numbers are either in or WL. Last year, almost everyone with those numbers got in.

manofjustice wrote: 1 point above the range is nothing. The LSAT standard deviation is 7 points. 1 point is measurement error.

Tell that to the bros 1 point below the median. Wall of death.

Nova wrote:

manofjustice wrote:

CanadianWolf wrote:Very strong chance of admission. (165/3.5 & above is near certain admit status.)

False. A 165 is median LSAT. 3.5 is way below median. Nowhere near a certain admit status.

http://bc.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats

Everyone with those numbers are either in or WL. Last year, almost everyone with those numbers got in.

manofjustice wrote: 1 point above the range is nothing. The LSAT standard deviation is 7 points. 1 point is measurement error.

Tell that to the bros 1 point below the median. Wall of death.

What the hell are you talking about? Only 1 out of 3 people with a 165 and between a 3.4 and 3.6 got in. You suggest the waitlist is victory? Check last year's numbers and put your glasses on: you read them wrong. Waitlists that turned into acceptances should show; most wailists that turned into rejections also show. No one with a 165 below a 3.63 got in, and that's out of about 25. A good 10 out of 10 between 3.4 and 3.6 are all red. So, no. You're just wrong. Not "almost everyone got in." And no, not "you're an auto-admit." Just a horrible, deplorable demonstration of wrongness.

manofjustice wrote:

hoya2alawya wrote:Thanks for the responses, everyone. I have checked lawschoolnumbers and noticed that a lot people with similar GPAs and LSATS weren't having as much luck for BC. Considering my GPA is towards the bottom of their middle 50% range, that's understandable but a little surprising considering that my LSAT is one point above the range. Again, thanks for the additional insight.

1 point above the range is nothing. The LSAT standard deviation is 7 points. 1 point is measurement error.

LSATs at or near median are not always attractive. If the school's LSATs are 160, 162, 165, 165, 165, 165, 167, the median is 165 and 4 LSATs are at median, but it has to admit 6 above-median LSATs to pull the median up to 166 (or 5, if the median is rounded-up). If the LSATs are 160, 162, 164, 165, 166, 166, 166, the median is also 165, but only 1 LSAT is at median; in this case, the school has only to admit 2 above-median LSATs to pull the median up to 166 (or just 1, if the median is rounded-up). In both scenarios the LSATs add up to the same, so the one model class isn't "more competitive" than the other.

Note, however, that the 25th and 75th percentile range is wider in the fewer-at-median distribution (162 to 165 versus 162 to 166). So, schools with wider 25th and 75th percentile LSAT ranges are less median-friendly and probably more splitter-friendly.

manofjustice wrote:

Nova wrote:

manofjustice wrote:

CanadianWolf wrote:Very strong chance of admission. (165/3.5 & above is near certain admit status.)

False. A 165 is median LSAT. 3.5 is way below median. Nowhere near a certain admit status.

http://bc.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats

Everyone with those numbers are either in or WL. Last year, almost everyone with those numbers got in.

manofjustice wrote: 1 point above the range is nothing. The LSAT standard deviation is 7 points. 1 point is measurement error.

Tell that to the bros 1 point below the median. Wall of death.

What the hell are you talking about? Only 1 out of 3 people with a 165 and between a 3.4 and 3.6 got in. You suggest the waitlist is victory? Check last year's numbers and put your glasses on: you read them wrong. Waitlists that turned into acceptances should show; most wailists that turned into rejections also show. No one with a 165 below a 3.63 got in, and that's out of about 25. A good 10 out of 10 between 3.4 and 3.6 are all red. So, no. You're just wrong. Not "almost everyone got in." And no, not "you're an auto-admit." Just a horrible, deplorable demonstration of wrongness.

LOL. You must be looking at a different chart bro. This year, only one person listed has been outright rejected with 165+/3.5+

Last year 6/6 applicants with 167/3.5-6 were admitted.

manofjustice wrote:

manofjustice wrote:

hoya2alawya wrote:Thanks for the responses, everyone. I have checked lawschoolnumbers and noticed that a lot people with similar GPAs and LSATS weren't having as much luck for BC. Considering my GPA is towards the bottom of their middle 50% range, that's understandable but a little surprising considering that my LSAT is one point above the range. Again, thanks for the additional insight.

1 point above the range is nothing. The LSAT standard deviation is 7 points. 1 point is measurement error.

LSATs at or near median are not always attractive. If the school's LSATs are 160, 162, 165, 165, 165, 165, 167, the median is 165 and 4 LSATs are at median, but it has to admit 6 above-median LSATs to pull the median up to 166 (or 5, if the median is rounded-up). If the LSATs are 160, 162, 164, 165, 166, 166, 166, the median is also 165, but only 1 LSAT is at median; in this case, the school has only to admit 2 above-median LSATs to pull the median up to 166 (or just 1, if the median is rounded-up). In both scenarios the LSATs add up to the same, so the one model class isn't "more competitive" than the other.

Note, however, that the 25th and 75th percentile range is wider in the fewer-at-median distribution (162 to 165 versus 162 to 166). So, schools with wider 25th and 75th percentile LSAT ranges are less median-friendly and probably more splitter-friendly.

Stop it. Nothing can be deduced from your hypo. Medians affect rankings. 25th/75th do not.

Nova wrote:

manofjustice wrote:

manofjustice wrote:

hoya2alawya wrote:Thanks for the responses, everyone. I have checked lawschoolnumbers and noticed that a lot people with similar GPAs and LSATS weren't having as much luck for BC. Considering my GPA is towards the bottom of their middle 50% range, that's understandable but a little surprising considering that my LSAT is one point above the range. Again, thanks for the additional insight.

1 point above the range is nothing. The LSAT standard deviation is 7 points. 1 point is measurement error.

LSATs at or near median are not always attractive. If the school's LSATs are 160, 162, 165, 165, 165, 165, 167, the median is 165 and 4 LSATs are at median, but it has to admit 6 above-median LSATs to pull the median up to 166 (or 5, if the median is rounded-up). If the LSATs are 160, 162, 164, 165, 166, 166, 166, the median is also 165, but only 1 LSAT is at median; in this case, the school has only to admit 2 above-median LSATs to pull the median up to 166 (or just 1, if the median is rounded-up). In both scenarios the LSATs add up to the same, so the one model class isn't "more competitive" than the other.

Note, however, that the 25th and 75th percentile range is wider in the fewer-at-median distribution (162 to 165 versus 162 to 166). So, schools with wider 25th and 75th percentile LSAT ranges are less median-friendly and probably more splitter-friendly.

Stop it. Nothing can be deduced from your hypo. Medians affect rankings. 25th/75th do not.

Reread post. You've misunderstood it. Kind of like how you looked at LSN and thought you saw something but you actually saw the exact opposite.