Top Law Schools

I know there's a similar threat like this out there, but I have specific questions for myself. I'm non-URM 3.5/171 LSAT coming straight out of undergrad with decent softs (maybe solid but not enough to really make a difference).

I'm dead set on Practicing Law in California pretty much, so the list of schools I'm applying to is mostly California schools. My main goal considering my stats at this point is UCLA or USC. I'm also going to apply to Davis and Loyola. If I would go to the latter two is another question, but I would definitely go to UCLA or USC if they bit.

I hear a lot about UCLA/USC being GPA heavy, but their 25% is little above a 3.5 I figure if I am above their 75% LSAT median (which I am, just barely) I stand somewhat of a chance, but I've heard mixed feelings - either 3.5 is so low don't even bother or that it's not a problem. What are my chances? I'm an out of state student but I worked in California two summers in row (not this one though) so I figure that's shown enough interest. I am also taking the LSAT again, hopefully able to break 175, but I'm curious how my far my 171 might take me. Thanks!

..

I think you've got a good shot at both schools. I'm actually a bit surprised given your numbers, but it seems like similar applicants are roughly 50/50 for recent history per LSN. Not sure how much of that is due to yield protection -- you should make it abundantly clear how interested you are in order to avoid YP.

If you were to ED to UCLA, you'd almost definitely be in. They accepted a 170/3.3, a 171/3.15, and a 168/3.38 last year ED. Not a huge sample size, but obviously your numbers trump theirs. Might be sacrificing a lot of potential money, but that'd be an avenue if you want to secure an admission.

I am applying for the top 14 but I'm trying to prepare myself for the worst haha. if I know I can get into at least UCLA/USC then I can maintain some sort of sanity this cycle..ED isn't really an option though as $$ is a necessity.

I was also considering Hastings but with that tuition hike and the fact I would really rather go in the LA area made me choose to apply to Loyola over it. I don't want to have too many safeties as even if I get good $$ there I still might just decide to sit it out, get a job and earn some $$ and experience, and reapply later on.

No need to prepare yourself for the worst. You will have options in the T14. With money or without is the question. Your odds aren't great for large amounts of money in the T14, so I think it's probably a wise decision to avoid EDing.

Cast a wide net and hope to find a school that offers you a sizable chunk of change. Then use that school to negotiate with your favorite acceptance and go from there.

..

OP, I got into UCLA this year very early (without ED) with a 3.4 and 170. I'm not a URM either so, you've got a very good shot I think.

Ah that's encouraging. By early you mean when did you send in your apps? Mine are going to be ready once I get my other LSAT score November 1 or so. Did you demonstrate a lot of interest somehow to not get WL, and are you a Cali resident by any chance? Thanks!

slack_academic wrote: Also, no Hastings?

I think if you have a 171 LSAT, you expect less than a 95% chance of crushing debt and no job.

Yeah I wouldn't worry about getting into UCLA/USC. 3.6/169 here and I got into both, with a decent scholarship from USC. I had a few T-14 options and ended up going to Michigan. Like you, I want to end up back in CA.

Also, in terms of money, Michigan was happy to respond to a big scholarship offer I got from a different top-20 school. UCLA wasn't, and I think it may be that they're saving their scholarships to attract more out-of-staters. This was also the year after the UC system's budget went down the drain.

USC seems to YP people with above a 170. Just FYI. Similar stats and got UCLA with $$, waitlist->withdrew from SC.

..