Top Law Schools

-~3.8 GPA
-Graduating from a top 50 UG program in Business, if that matters (U.S. News).
-No softs
-Projected to graduate in 5 years instead of the average 4 years it normally takes to complete school. Wasted my time on on a few courses because I thought it would be good to have liberal arts classes attached to my transcript because of all the quantitative focused courses I'm taking.

Assuming that I get a 170 to 180:
-what are the chances of me fulfilling my dreams of going to HSY or a T14 school for that matter? What if I were to start improving my softs now and participate in more school related activities and other programs? Or is it too late?
-Would it help if I went for my masters in accounting (only one year, and most employers hiring in accounting prefer it from the graduates from our school anyway) so that I could have time to increase my softs and accomplish other achievements?
-How detrimental is it for me to come from top 50 school as opposed to from a top 10 school?

I checked lawschoolnumbers.com and saw all the scores and all those that got rejected and accepted and what not. However, my biggest concern is if school matters, and if law school use formulas to take into account grade inflation and the said difficulty and reputation of a school.

Thanks for reading.

In simple terms: LSAT score counts for 70% of the law school admissions decision while GPA counts for 30%. Ranking of one's undergraduate school is usually not relevant.

Assuming an LSAT score of 170 to 180 is unreasonable.

So courses, course load, and major shouldn't be a major factor either, right?

patriclm wrote:So courses, course load, and major shouldn't be a major factor either, right?

i'd be surprised if anyone ever looked at your transcript

Have you taken a practice LSAT?

CanadianWolf wrote:Assuming an LSAT score of 170 to 180 is unreasonable.

I often ask people to assume my success as a starting premise, and them ask them if I will be successful. Anything else invites failure.

For example: "Assuming Mitt Romney wins Florida, Ohio, and either Michigan or Pennsylvania--and of course that he gets back VA, NC, and IN--do you think he can beat Obama?!"

flcath wrote:

CanadianWolf wrote:Assuming an LSAT score of 170 to 180 is unreasonable.

I often ask people to assume my success as a starting premise, and them ask them if I will be successful. Anything else invites failure.

For example: "Assuming Mitt Romney wins Florida, Ohio, and either Michigan or Pennsylvania--and of course that he gets back VA, NC, and IN--do you think he can beat Obama?!"

Fair enough. Unreasonable, I see.

If you value anonymity you might want to not list your exact GPA, undergrad and major. It might be fairly easy for someone to track you down.

aca0260 wrote:Have you taken a practice LSAT?

Yes. I only scored a 160, though. Like I said, it is a dream. I have been studying the logic games section non-stop, though, so as to develop my analytical abilities and diagramming skills.

Is it wrong of me to believe that if I study, gauge my initial abilities with respect to the practice scores, do the relevant practice exams, etc etc, that a score of 170-180 will still be unreasonable?

buckilaw wrote:If you value anonymity you might want to not list your exact GPA, undergrad and major. It might be fairly easy for someone to track you down.

kk. Duly noted. Thanks!

patriclm wrote:

aca0260 wrote:Have you taken a practice LSAT?

Yes. I only scored a 160, though. Like I said, it is a dream. I have been studying the logic games section non-stop, though, so as to develop my analytical abilities and diagramming skills.

Is it wrong of me to believe that if I study, gauge my initial abilities with respect to the practice scores, do the relevant practice exams, etc etc, that a score of 170-180 will still be unreasonable?

It's not unreasonable to think so, but it's hard to project it actually happening. People on this board won't discuss a projected score if you got it on ten practice tests in a row, much less if you plan to develop the proficiency.

That's not to say it's impossible, that's to say, look at the LSAT help topics and get cracking.

Come back when you have a real LSAT score.

delusional wrote:

patriclm wrote:

aca0260 wrote:Have you taken a practice LSAT?

Yes. I only scored a 160, though. Like I said, it is a dream. I have been studying the logic games section non-stop, though, so as to develop my analytical abilities and diagramming skills.

Is it wrong of me to believe that if I study, gauge my initial abilities with respect to the practice scores, do the relevant practice exams, etc etc, that a score of 170-180 will still be unreasonable?

It's not unreasonable to think so, but it's hard to project it actually happening. People on this board won't discuss a projected score if you got it on ten practice tests in a row, much less if you plan to develop the proficiency.

That's not to say it's impossible, that's to say, look at the LSAT help topics and get cracking.

Sorry about that. New to this forum and to forums in general.

your life dream bums me out a little.

A 160 is a good diagnostic score. It's very possible to crack 170, but it's equally likely you won't. Ask anyone who got 165-170...most if not all had several PTs in the 170+ range. The real deal is, well, the real deal.

aca0260 wrote:A 160 is a good diagnostic score. It's very possible to crack 170, but it's equally likely you won't. Ask anyone who got 165-170...most if not all had several PTs in the 170+ range. The real deal is, well, the real deal.

Truth. I got a diagnostic score of 168 and it still took me 3 tries to get over a 170. (168, 169, 176). And that, OP, is why we won't predict shit for you until you've taken the actual LSAT.

ze2151 wrote:your life dream bums me out a little.

Shallow? Unrealistic? Naive?

One step at a time, right? Long-term goals are achieved through short-term achievements at times. This is one of them, in my opinion. I have gone to multiple career fairs, scouted the labor market, and done research on improving my employment prospects.

For example, one of the major statistics on lawschoolnumbers.com shows the number of firms hiring from certain major cities or places of importance. All in all, employment and the field i'm interested in is what drives me to pursue my goal.

So what is it that depresses you about my intentions?

crumpetsandtea wrote:

aca0260 wrote:A 160 is a good diagnostic score. It's very possible to crack 170, but it's equally likely you won't. Ask anyone who got 165-170...most if not all had several PTs in the 170+ range. The real deal is, well, the real deal.

Truth. I got a diagnostic score of 168 and it still took me 3 tries to get over a 170. (168, 169, 176). And that, OP, is why we won't predict shit for you until you've taken the actual LSAT.

Fair enough. I saw most of the posts on here had actual lsat scores attached to them. I saw a few that had hypotheticals. So I thought it would be o.k. for me to add a hypothetical to my question as well.

.

well... you seem like a really intelligent, driven person. if you are going to score a 170 on the LSAT, then you are in the upper echelon of intelligence, no doubt about it. what revs your engines so much about legal practice? following are a few initial thoughts i had about your situation, granting that i know next to nothing about you personally.

1. You're smart, you like to have a plan, and you've got a business degree. what's stopping you from building a better mousetrap in some other field, or at least selling that better mousetrap? why not secure a loan to start a business? Or work in business? From the way you describe yourself, it's clear you've got marketable skills. You may have to start small, but you'll be starting small without being saddled with massive amounts of debt that can never be discharged.

2. If you can get your masters in accounting and get a job as an accountant in one year, why wouldn't you do that? Is the object of the game to do meaningful work or make big bucks? Either way you answer, you've got just as good of a shot achieving that object without the JD as with it, ESPECIALLY if you are going to take out beaucoup bucks to get the JD.

If you are independently wealthy, well, that would change things.

patriclm wrote:However, my biggest concern is if school matters, and if law school use formulas to take into account grade inflation and the said difficulty and reputation of a school.

No, it doesn't. No, they don't.

1. UG does not matter

2. Extra sifts will not matter (better use of time take extra class raise gpa)

3. Break 175 ish on LSAT great shot at H.
Break 170 very great shot at several T14, apply all.

The fact that the lower bound of your LSAT prediction is in the 97th percentile and the upper is a perfect 180 seems optimistic. However, I wish you the best

Dont worry about UG prestige, doesn't matter. 170 opens up Penn and lower. Good luck

crumpetsandtea wrote:Come back when you have a real LSAT score.

Come back when you have a real GPA. No reason to be snotty toward somebody looking for advice.

Ohiobumpkin wrote:

crumpetsandtea wrote:Come back when you have a real LSAT score.

Come back when you have a real GPA. No reason to be snotty toward somebody looking for advice.

LOL what? Chill out, even the OP didn't get butthurt about my casual comment. My intention wasn't to be snotty. If you keep reading, you can see that I later explain why people on this site don't tend to give advice without actual numbers (the volume of people coming in asking for hypotheticals would be enormous, and there's no point in idle speculation).

If anything, you're the one being snotty by making a snide, unnecessary comment about my GPA. You mad I got into 3 T14s with a 2.8, bro?