Page 1 of 3
3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:44 pm
by JEDyessir
Well..
INFO:My resume is freaking awesome. I'd bet "95 percentile" in the resume awesomeness category [a bet that now appears over-confident and poor hyperbole].
I was a two-school undergrad. A CC first two, with a T-scholarship to a T-1 school for the remaining two, total GPA for both was 3.61. (CC: 3.85, T1: 3.41~).
My LOR's will both come from good profs in chaired positions in the history and philosophy department.
I took (unfortunately) the Dec. '11 LSAT and got a 145. I didn't finish sections, and yeah it really sucked.
I then took this past Oct. '12 LSAT and can tell you (haven't gotten scores..) that I did better. I actually prepared, got further in the sections, and did a little bit better job of controlling the exam. I'd guess, and lets just assume FTSOA that I got a 152.
Could I squeak into a T-50 school? Idk, a school that really likes "behind the numbers stuff".. like Notre Dame or something?
Thanks a million.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:50 pm
by kalvano
JEDyessir wrote:Well..
INFO:My resume is freaking awesome. I'd bet "95 percentile" in the resume awesomeness category.
I was a two-school undergrad. A CC first two, with a T-scholarship to a T-1 school for the remaining two, total GPA for both was 3.61. (CC: 3.85, T1: 3.41~).
My LOR's will both come from good profs in chaired positions in the history and philosophy department.
I took (unfortunately) the Dec. '11 LSAT and got a 145. I didn't finish sections, and yeah it really sucked.
I then took this past Oct. '12 LSAT and can tell you (haven't gotten scores..) that I did better. I actually prepared, got further in the sections, and did a little bit better job of controlling the exam. I'd guess, and lets just assume FTSOA that I got a 152.
Could I squeak into a T-50 school? Idk, a school that really likes "behind the numbers stuff".. like Notre Dame or something?
Thanks a million.
Let me boil this down to what's important for law school admissions:
3.61 and a 145 / 152.
The answer, then, is not very damn likely.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:50 pm
by rebexness
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:58 pm
by wert3813
.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:58 pm
by Phlash58
JEDyessir wrote:Well..
INFO:My resume is freaking awesome. I'd bet "95 percentile" in the resume awesomeness category.
I was a two-school undergrad. A CC first two, with a T-scholarship to a T-1 school for the remaining two, total GPA for both was 3.61. (CC: 3.85, T1: 3.41~).
My LOR's will both come from good profs in chaired positions in the history and philosophy department.
I took (unfortunately) the Dec. '11 LSAT and got a 145. I didn't finish sections, and yeah it really sucked.
I then took this past Oct. '12 LSAT and can tell you (haven't gotten scores..) that I did better. I actually prepared, got further in the sections, and did a little bit better job of controlling the exam. I'd guess, and lets just assume FTSOA that I got a 152.
Could I squeak into a T-50 school? Idk, a school that really likes "behind the numbers stuff".. like Notre Dame or something?
Thanks a million.
I think you have a small chance of penetrating the top 50. Outside of the top 16 or so schools, I would weigh employment numbers and location as being more important than rank. Even with a 152 you're 5-10 points below the medians at nearly every top 50 school. That is brutal, unless you have something really special you bring to the table
I congratulate you on your GPA. However, I would caution you to look at your GPA with the eyes of an admissions officer. "He did fantastic when the competition was lower (at CC) but then just okay (by Law school standards) at the T1. Is this applicant going to be able to compete when the competition is ramped WAY up." Then your LSAT is going to exacerbate those fears.
162+ for at least a waitlist at ND imo. 166 for a good chance (50%+). Most other schools, 25-50, a 160 would go a long way.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:02 pm
by rad lulz
lawschoolnumbers.com
Retake or don't go.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:20 pm
by JEDyessir
wert3813 wrote:rebexness wrote:Even if you do squeak in, which seems unlikely, you will have to pay for the privilege. Retake when you are consistently scoring in the 160s+
What they said. I'll bite:
What puts one's resume in the 95th percentile of awesomeness in your mind?
Thanks for all the responses, first off.
Specifically with my resume, I was involved in three volunteer service organizations, gave talks, never had a semester with <25 hours of job work, can list a half dozen awards etc. I also have two different teaching positions (one as an undergrad, one that I hold now) that are going to spicen things up quite a bit. The statement was off the cuff, but I would like to think it compares very well? -- who knows.
What I'm getting from all this is that I have to get my scores up.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:30 pm
by kalvano
JEDyessir wrote:wert3813 wrote:rebexness wrote:Even if you do squeak in, which seems unlikely, you will have to pay for the privilege. Retake when you are consistently scoring in the 160s+
What they said. I'll bite:
What puts one's resume in the 95th percentile of awesomeness in your mind?
Thanks for all the responses, first off.
Specifically with my resume, I was involved in three volunteer service organizations, gave talks, never had a semester with <25 hours of job work, can list a half dozen awards etc. I also have two different teaching positions (one as an undergrad, one that I hold now) that are going to spicen things up quite a bit. The statement was off the cuff, but I would like to think it compares very well? -- who knows.
What I'm getting from all this is that I have to get my scores up.
That's pretty average, at best.
It's nowhere near as valuable as 10 extra LSAT points from your hypothetical score.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:30 pm
by wert3813
.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:07 pm
by Doorkeeper
JEDyessir wrote:wert3813 wrote:rebexness wrote:Even if you do squeak in, which seems unlikely, you will have to pay for the privilege. Retake when you are consistently scoring in the 160s+
What they said. I'll bite:
What puts one's resume in the 95th percentile of awesomeness in your mind?
Thanks for all the responses, first off.
Specifically with my resume, I was involved in three volunteer service organizations, gave talks, never had a semester with <25 hours of job work, can list a half dozen awards etc. I also have two different teaching positions (one as an undergrad, one that I hold now) that are going to spicen things up quite a bit. The statement was off the cuff, but I would like to think it compares very well? -- who knows.
What I'm getting from all this is that I have to get my scores up.
Unless the awards that you speak of go by the names of Rhodes, Marshall, or Fulbright, they won't matter.
You need to retake the LSAT until you're getting in the 160s.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:13 pm
by Puffin
as everyone else has stated rrrrretake
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:19 pm
by BerkeleyBear
If you don't score in the 160's this round, definitely retake again when you're PTing up near the 170 mark.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:45 am
by Chickensoup
Ignore many of these posters. It is ridiculous to assume that everyone can bring their score up 10 to 15 points. In most likelihood, you are simply not smart enough to get into any law school worth going to. Forget law school and find a new career.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:35 am
by toshiroh
Retake and don't give up unlike someone else has suggested.
I was told the same thing when my first diagnostic score was a 137. I then started studying my *** off and took the the June LSAT and received a 162. I prepared for the October test PTing in the mid 170s. That's a 30+ point increase. It can be done, don't let people on here discourage you.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:48 am
by drive4showLSAT4dough
Chickensoup wrote:Ignore many of these posters. It is ridiculous to assume that everyone can bring their score up 10 to 15 points.
Literally every (non-vision impaired) english speaker in the world with a 3.6ugpa can test in the 160s if they study enough.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:16 am
by Chickensoup
drive4showLSAT4dough wrote:Chickensoup wrote:Ignore many of these posters. It is ridiculous to assume that everyone can bring their score up 10 to 15 points.
Literally every (non-vision impaired) english speaker in the world with a 3.6ugpa can test in the 160s if they study enough.
Lololol no.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:24 am
by JEDyessir
Chickensoup wrote:drive4showLSAT4dough wrote:Chickensoup wrote:Ignore many of these posters. It is ridiculous to assume that everyone can bring their score up 10 to 15 points.
Literally every (non-vision impaired) english speaker in the world with a 3.6ugpa can test in the 160s if they study enough.
Lololol no.
Chicken soup: I appreciate your thoughts. And, I honestly do value your take on the situation. The thing is, I'm quite confident it has nothing to do with intelligence. If you sat down with me for more than 5 minutes I think you'd do a complete 180' on this position. Thing is, I studied maybe 6 days/<20 hours total for my first round, and although slightly more and unto the end (I'm confident) to a better score the second round, the study time was increased to something like 12 days/<40 hours, only touching the RC the night before-- getting ~4 hours sleep for the exam the following morning. Not exactly ideal. My work schedule really forced this unfortunate reality, and yet I'm pretty certain I'll score mid 150's this time.
If I score below 155 for 10/'12 I'll see you all in December.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:40 am
by WhiteyCakes
JEDyessir wrote:Chickensoup wrote:drive4showLSAT4dough wrote:Chickensoup wrote:Ignore many of these posters. It is ridiculous to assume that everyone can bring their score up 10 to 15 points.
Literally every (non-vision impaired) english speaker in the world with a 3.6ugpa can test in the 160s if they study enough.
Lololol no.
Chicken soup: I appreciate your thoughts. And, I honestly do value your take on the situation. The thing is, I'm quite confident it has nothing to do with intelligence. If you sat down with me for more than 5 minutes I think you'd do a complete 180' on this position. Thing is, I studied maybe 6 days/<20 hours total for my first round, and although slightly more and unto the end (I'm confident) to a better score the second round, the study time was increased to something like 12 days/<40 hours, only touching the RC the night before-- getting ~4 hours sleep for the exam the following morning. Not exactly ideal. My work schedule really forced this unfortunate reality, and yet I'm pretty certain I'll score mid 150's this time.
If I score below 155 for 10/'12 I'll see you all in December.
How is this a reasonable study strategy? If you can't prepare effectively, don't take the test.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:46 am
by justonemoregame
Chickensoup wrote:Ignore many of these posters. It is ridiculous to assume that everyone can bring their score up 10 to 15 points. In most likelihood, you are simply not smart enough to get into any law school worth going to. Forget law school and find a new career.
The assumption is not that the score will increase, but that it must increase for law school to become a reasonable option.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:49 am
by drive4showLSAT4dough
justonemoregame wrote:Chickensoup wrote:Ignore many of these posters. It is ridiculous to assume that everyone can bring their score up 10 to 15 points. In most likelihood, you are simply not smart enough to get into any law school worth going to. Forget law school and find a new career.
The assumption is not that the score will increase, but that it must increase for law school to become a reasonable option.
Also, I'd alert OP to chickensoup's track record of being an insufferable asshat, and recommend to ignore the original quote.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:51 am
by North
drive4showLSAT4dough wrote:Also, I'd alert OP to chickensoup's track record of being an insufferable asshat, and recommend to ignore the original quote.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:12 pm
by JEDyessir
North wrote:drive4showLSAT4dough wrote:Also, I'd alert OP to chickensoup's track record of being an insufferable asshat, and recommend to ignore the original quote.
Well, I bow before the forum as regards avoiding asshatery as best I can.
Again, thanks for all your responses. I've been rubbing my chin. I had medical circumstances that made the first (and even a little on the second) exam(s) come much sooner than the ideal study prep plan envisioned. I would be able to put in 4-5x the study efforts if I took the !exam in Dec.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:23 pm
by Chickensoup
JEDyessir wrote:North wrote:drive4showLSAT4dough wrote:Also, I'd alert OP to chickensoup's track record of being an insufferable asshat, and recommend to ignore the original quote.
Well, I bow before the forum as regards avoiding asshatery as best I can.
Again, thanks for all your responses. I've been rubbing my chin. I had medical circumstances that made the first (and even a little on the second) exam(s) come much sooner than the ideal study prep plan envisioned. I would be able to put in 4-5x the study efforts if I took the !exam in Dec.
In all honesty, take a freaking class. Princeton Review was what I used. Money well spent.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:32 pm
by NoodleyOne
Really, ignore Chickensoup. Manhattan, PS, Blueprint, or one of those if you insist on taking a course. Avoid Princeton and Kaplan.
Re: 3.61 GPA, Very good Resume, Good LORS, LSATS not good.
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:41 pm
by paratactical
1. Ignore Chickensoup
2. Your resume is fine, but it's not anywhere near 95%. The top resumes submitted to law schools are insane. Like "I single-handedly brought water to a starving African village, saving dozens of lives" or "I wrote a NYT bestselling novel that changed the way America views an important social issue."
3. You can get into the 160s. I think classes are a waste of money. Take your time and review PithyPike's LSAT guide and you can make it. It's better to postpone school and the LSAT and try to give yourself a better opportunity to succeed.