Top Law Schools

Numbers: 3.2 uGPA (biomedical engineering), 172 LSAT

softs:
-masters at ivy in BME (3.9 gGPA)
-2 research publications
-Fulbright-type engineering fellowship with top 5 med school in developing nation
-co-founded startup company
-founded a University chapter of NGO and supported 7 children in developing nation
-President of fraternity
-college award for engineering senior design project

looking to ED at either N or MVP. Do my softs give me a shot?

Looking to do IP in NYC/Boston/DC

Great softs, but for the schools you're applying to they won't matter too much. Softs make the biggest difference at the West Coast schools (Boalt and Stanford) and Yale, and you don't have the GPA for any of them. At the margins though, your softs might put you in over some other splitters.

Makes sense, so then if I ED, which should I consider, N or MVP?

Ideally, I want to apply to the best school, but also worried that if I ED to NYU, I'll waste my ED when I had a strong chance for MVP.

My goal is to enter NYC IP market.

thanks!

I'm not sure if it says it on there, but these are all ED applicants btw.

Softs are above average.

I would say 7 (maybe on a good day out of 10. Unfortunately, you're gpa is holding you back big time.

That's what u get for studying engineering lol

EDing to penn and hoping for some splitter love

If I were you I would take a risk and either ED to a T6 or not ED at all. I think you would get in RD to NU and stand a chance of RD at one of M or P.

A friend of mine worked at an admissions office of a T20 for 4 years and told me they adjust engineering and hard science majors' GPAs up. Depending on the major it was anywhere from a 0.10 to a 0.30 bump in GPA. They do the same for finaid consideration. This might vary from school to school, but a 3.2 Engineering GPA will likely be considered in the T20, probably also the T10. Just some food for thought.

To the OP, take the PatentBar soon and put that on your resume.

Hmm, although that made me really happy, I think that's used to compare splitters with the same GPA for a spot.

The school still has to report GPAs of all admitted students regardless of major. So, schools probably put applicants in tiers based on their numbers and evaluate admits in each tier based on softs. There are probably more spots available for top tiers than lower tiers which makes it more likely more likely to be admitted if your in the top tier category because of your high numbers.

The corrective factor is probably a subjective means of comparing students in same tiers.

collegebum1989 wrote:Hmm, although that made me really happy, I think that's used to compare splitters with the same GPA for a spot.

The school still has to report GPAs of all admitted students regardless of major. So, schools probably put applicants in tiers based on their numbers and evaluate admits in each tier based on softs. There are probably more spots available for top tiers than lower tiers which makes it more likely more likely to be admitted if your in the top tier category because of your high numbers.

The corrective factor is probably a subjective means of comparing students in same tiers.

She told me that the policy at the school she worked was the applicant's major/coursework and relevant difficulty of the program was looked at before a decision was made: So if it was going in the reject pile, they looked at the major and possibly changed it to a WL. If it was a WL, then the GPA was recalculated as stated in my first post. If it was being considered for a WL they might just bump it up to an accept.

In the end, medians are what is important. Someone with 3.1x or 3.2x is not going to bring down the GPA median by any significant amount unless many applicants in that range are accepted. A quick look at LSNs however, shows that MOST applicants in the 3.0-3.3 range do not have high LSAT scores (170+). There's a reason why a 3.1/3.2 with a 170+ LSAT gets looked at by most top schools. Always remember that while LSNs has a good amount of data on top applicants (high LSAT + high GPA), it has terrible stats on splitters. There are just not that many of us and only a fraction report statistics on TLS or LSN. I know a few people who got waitlist-admits to CCN with 3.3 GPAs and high LSATs that are not on LSNs or TLS.

Your softs put you in good range for a most of the T14 minus HYS. CCN are reaches, the rest are targets. I would apply to HYS if you get fee waivers, but its not worth it otherwise. You'll probably have to ride waitlists at all the T14 schools, but have a good shot at getting accepted at NU, GULC, and UVA right off the bat.

shadowofjazz wrote:

collegebum1989 wrote:Hmm, although that made me really happy, I think that's used to compare splitters with the same GPA for a spot.

The school still has to report GPAs of all admitted students regardless of major. So, schools probably put applicants in tiers based on their numbers and evaluate admits in each tier based on softs. There are probably more spots available for top tiers than lower tiers which makes it more likely more likely to be admitted if your in the top tier category because of your high numbers.

The corrective factor is probably a subjective means of comparing students in same tiers.

She told me that the policy at the school she worked was the applicant's major/coursework and relevant difficulty of the program was looked at before a decision was made: So if it was going in the reject pile, they looked at the major and possibly changed it to a WL. If it was a WL, then the GPA was recalculated as stated in my first post. If it was being considered for a WL they might just bump it up to an accept.

In the end, medians are what is important. Someone with 3.1x or 3.2x is not going to bring down the GPA median by any significant amount unless many applicants in that range are accepted. A quick look at LSNs however, shows that MOST applicants in the 3.0-3.3 range do not have high LSAT scores (170+). There's a reason why a 3.1/3.2 with a 170+ LSAT gets looked at by most top schools. Always remember that while LSNs has a good amount of data on top applicants (high LSAT + high GPA), it has terrible stats on splitters. There are just not that many of us and only a fraction report statistics on TLS or LSN. I know a few people who got waitlist-admits to CCN with 3.3 GPAs and high LSATs that are not on LSNs or TLS.

Your softs put you in good range for a most of the T14 minus HYS. CCN are reaches, the rest are targets. I would apply to HYS if you get fee waivers, but its not worth it otherwise. You'll probably have to ride waitlists at all the T14 schools, but have a good shot at getting accepted at NU, GULC, and UVA right off the bat.

There is an entirely different reason for this, and I don't think it just has to do with the "relative difficulty" of your coursework. Schools like to keep their employment numbers high and they keep them in mind in the admissions process. Students with engineering backgrounds (especially advanced engineering degrees) have a much easier time finding a legal job in the IP arena than patent bar non-eligible people.

nice, I'm going to go ahead and ED to N and fall back on UVa for EA if I am denied and RD to all other T14 minus HYSCCN and B and D and apply to GWU as a safety.

Money is a concern, but not as much as getting into the best school possible. So I would be willing to pay NYU/Penn at sticker since I am riding on my advanced engineering background for opportunities in IP.

collegebum1989 wrote:nice, I'm going to go ahead and ED to N and fall back on UVa for EA if I am denied and RD to all other T14 minus HYSCCN and B and D and apply to GWU as a safety.

Money is a concern, but not as much as getting into the best school possible. So I would be willing to pay NYU/Penn at sticker since I am riding on my advanced engineering background for opportunities in IP.

I think you're good for Penn with ED. It's iffy with your numbers but seriously your softs are pretty great. And cycle's (supposedly) getting easier if apps decline once more. A combination of those, and you have a good shot at Penn.

I honestly wouldn't ED NYU. I know it's been debated all over these forums but IMO Penn and NYU are peers. Agree or disagree, even if NYU is better than Penn, the advantage isn't worth the risk for giving up Penn ED.

I'm kind of in the same boat as you. I have a 3.2 in Medical Biology. Same type of softs except I also have 3 years of WE as a research lab manager. We should have majored in ass scratching and gotten a 4.0 right? Apparently no one gives two shits if you took calculus or some math class called shapes. All that matters is the grade.

airplay355 wrote:I'm kind of in the same boat as you. I have a 3.2 in Medical Biology. Same type of softs except I also have 3 years of WE as a research lab manager. We should have majored in ass scratching and gotten a 4.0 right? Apparently no one gives two shits if you took calculus or some math class called shapes. All that matters is the grade.

Thus is law school admissions. On the flip side, you will do better than your average basket weaving BA come OCI (assuming same grades in LS)

airplay355 wrote:I'm kind of in the same boat as you. I have a 3.2 in Medical Biology. Same type of softs except I also have 3 years of WE as a research lab manager. We should have majored in ass scratching and gotten a 4.0 right? Apparently no one gives two shits if you took calculus or some math class called shapes. All that matters is the grade.

Lol I took multivariable and differential calculus so I definitely know what you mean haha, but I have noticed that scientific experience is super valuable OUTSIDE of science, which is a bit ironic since within science (especially research) it may not be that much helpful since so there are many people are more qualified than you are. That's the advantage of going into a niche field outside of science.

airplay355 wrote:I'm kind of in the same boat as you. I have a 3.2 in Medical Biology. Same type of softs except I also have 3 years of WE as a research lab manager. We should have majored in ass scratching and gotten a 4.0 right? Apparently no one gives two shits if you took calculus or some math class called shapes. All that matters is the grade.

In all fairness, a class called "shapes" sounds easy as fuck.

Let's say that I have a relatively similar application with a wide breadth of softs, leadership awards, own business, and a difficult engineering major, but am just coming out of a non-ivy undergrad with a 3.5/173. Should I be shooting toward increasing my LSAT past 75th percentile for HYSCCN to have any shot?

skypres1 wrote:Let's say that I have a relatively similar application with a wide breadth of softs, leadership awards, own business, and a difficult engineering major, but am just coming out of a non-ivy undergrad with a 3.5/173. Should I be shooting toward increasing my LSAT past 75th percentile for HYSCCN to have any shot?

HYS are basically out of the picture. CCN will be in play with a 173, but a >75% LSAT would be a big boost. By no means are you guaranteed to get one even with a higher LSAT, you just improve your chances.