3.47 179 Forum
-
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:52 pm
Re: 3.47 179
How much WE do you have? you should get a solid amount of $$$ from Gtown, UVA, Mich, and NU and NYU. Good luck, you have a great cycle ahead of you, would you also mind pming me about how you got that 179? 

- TheThriller
- Posts: 2282
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:12 pm
Re: 3.47 179
Max! I was pullin for that 180 for you. Just wanted to drop in with a congrats on the LSAT!
But to answer your questions:
2) Never any harm in taking a year off or 2. Distances yourself from the sub 25% GPA, puts a little dent in your debt and gives you some valuable WE that can help during OCI
But to answer your questions:
2) Never any harm in taking a year off or 2. Distances yourself from the sub 25% GPA, puts a little dent in your debt and gives you some valuable WE that can help during OCI
- JamMasterJ
- Posts: 6649
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm
Re: 3.47 179
WE is good, unless it's really bad WE, in which case, as long as you're actually doing something, it's still good.
Right now, in at NYU and down (except B), 50/50 at CC and out at HYS. Your odds would pretty much stay the same across the board, though a good job would maybe bump you up at Chicago.
Right now, in at NYU and down (except B), 50/50 at CC and out at HYS. Your odds would pretty much stay the same across the board, though a good job would maybe bump you up at Chicago.
- dingbat
- Posts: 4974
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm
Re: 3.47 179
FTFYJamMasterJ wrote:WE - Your odds would pretty much stay the same across the board.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Doorkeeper
- Posts: 4869
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:25 pm
Re: 3.47 179
60-70% chance at Columbia and NYU. Columbia at sticker if you get in. You'll probably get $30-50k at NYU.
Out at Berkeley and Penn.
WL at UVA. Probably $$ if you get off the WL.
30-50% shot at Michigan, Duke, probably with $$ if you get in.
You're in at Northwestern, Cornell, and Georgetown with $$.
The concern of UVA, Michigan, and Duke will be of whether you will attend. You should probably write a "Why X" essay for those three.
See: http://myLSN.info/j1f5iy
Out at Berkeley and Penn.
WL at UVA. Probably $$ if you get off the WL.
30-50% shot at Michigan, Duke, probably with $$ if you get in.
You're in at Northwestern, Cornell, and Georgetown with $$.
The concern of UVA, Michigan, and Duke will be of whether you will attend. You should probably write a "Why X" essay for those three.
See: http://myLSN.info/j1f5iy
- JamMasterJ
- Posts: 6649
- Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm
Re: 3.47 179
I honestly think they would look a little harder at someone like that with a couple years of good WEdingbat wrote:FTFYJamMasterJ wrote:WE - Your odds would pretty much stay the same across the board.
- Funkycrime
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 4:31 pm
Re: 3.47 179
What GPA does one need to have a shot at Harvard with a 179?
-
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:37 pm
Re: 3.47 179
http://mylsn.info/graph.php?school=harvardFunkycrime wrote:What GPA does one need to have a shot at Harvard with a 179?
3.6
- NoodleyOne
- Posts: 2326
- Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:32 pm
Re: 3.47 179
I am wondering if another huge drop in test takers might improve your/our chances at H and at $ at CCN.
- Gustave
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:41 pm
Re: 3.47 179
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... 4ZGc#gid=0
You're above Columbia's 75%. $!
It's a coin toss for HYS, but my best guess is in to HS, WL @ Yale.
You're above Columbia's 75%. $!
It's a coin toss for HYS, but my best guess is in to HS, WL @ Yale.
-
- Posts: 11453
- Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm
Re: 3.47 179
Don't wimp out--retake. 
The only difficulty in taking off a year or two is in finding decent work.

The only difficulty in taking off a year or two is in finding decent work.
- PickledPanda
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:43 pm
Re: 3.47 179
After passing the median LSAT for a given school, there is a very marginal return for each point. This is especially true once one has moved beyond the 75th percentile.Gustave wrote:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... 4ZGc#gid=0
You're above Columbia's 75%. $!
It's a coin toss for HYS, but my best guess is in to HS, WL @ Yale.
The same generally holds true for one's GPA.
Being under the median GPA or LSAT, on the other hand, is detrimental to their medians, and is not offset by an equal rise in the other score. Thus, schools like HYS would likely appreciate a 173 and a 3.89 compared to a 3.5 and a 179.
It is highly unlikely you get any of HYS without incredible softs.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- sinfiery
- Posts: 3310
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am
Re: 3.47 179
Anyone know when H has to release their 2015 GPA median by?PickledPanda wrote:After passing the median LSAT for a given school, there is a very marginal return for each point. This is especially true once one has moved beyond the 75th percentile.Gustave wrote:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... 4ZGc#gid=0
You're above Columbia's 75%. $!
It's a coin toss for HYS, but my best guess is in to HS, WL @ Yale.
The same generally holds true for one's GPA.
Being under the median GPA or LSAT, on the other hand, is detrimental to their medians, and is not offset by an equal rise in the other score. Thus, schools like HYS would likely appreciate a 173 and a 3.89 compared to a 3.5 and a 179.
It is highly unlikely you get any of HYS without incredible softs.
C'mon already!
- Gustave
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:41 pm
Re: 3.47 179
@ Pickled...
Not sure I agree with you on that one. Schools use indices precisely so they can correlate the value of an applicants LSAT and GPA as a tandem. The reason being that accepting a splitter provides you more flexibility in accepting a reverse splitter without negatively impacting your rankings. And since the LSAT is distributed along more or less a bell curve, whereas GPA's are closer to linear (thanks to GPA factories) the scarcity of a high LSAT score makes traditional splitters more valuable.
As long as you can persuade the admissions committe against using your UGPA as an indicator of your success in law school, numbers are numbers.
The point being, for Stanford a 179/3.47 = a 168/4.0= a 173/3.73, and they're all coin flips.
Not sure I agree with you on that one. Schools use indices precisely so they can correlate the value of an applicants LSAT and GPA as a tandem. The reason being that accepting a splitter provides you more flexibility in accepting a reverse splitter without negatively impacting your rankings. And since the LSAT is distributed along more or less a bell curve, whereas GPA's are closer to linear (thanks to GPA factories) the scarcity of a high LSAT score makes traditional splitters more valuable.
As long as you can persuade the admissions committe against using your UGPA as an indicator of your success in law school, numbers are numbers.
The point being, for Stanford a 179/3.47 = a 168/4.0= a 173/3.73, and they're all coin flips.
- Blessedassurance
- Posts: 2091
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:42 pm
Re: 3.47 179
You're not getting into H.
Your best bet is actually S (highly unlikely).
Your best bet is actually S (highly unlikely).
- dingbat
- Posts: 4974
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm
Re: 3.47 179
I think you missed the point.Gustave wrote:@ Pickled...
Not sure I agree with you on that one. Schools use indices precisely so they can correlate the value of an applicants LSAT and GPA as a tandem. The reason being that accepting a splitter provides you more flexibility in accepting a reverse splitter without negatively impacting your rankings. And since the LSAT is distributed along more or less a bell curve, whereas GPA's are closer to linear (thanks to GPA factories) the scarcity of a high LSAT score makes traditional splitters more valuable.
As long as you can persuade the admissions committe against using your UGPA as an indicator of your success in law school, numbers are numbers.
The point being, for Stanford a 179/3.47 = a 168/4.0= a 173/3.73, and they're all coin flips.
Once a student surpasses the 75%, there's no difference for the school whether it's by 1 point or by 5, so for Stanford there's no difference between a 173 and a 180.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- Leaborb192
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 7:21 pm
Re: 3.47 179
Max324 wrote:Hey guys, went to a competitive music conservatory (in a low ranked SUNY), with one semester at New Paltz; GPA should be about 3.47. 172 on first LSAT, 179 on second. Strong softs, 24 y/o non-URM male.
Two questions:
1) T14 chances and any possibility of $$?
2) Thinking of taking a year or two off to try to work off some serious undergraduate debt. Any disadvantages?
Thanks!
Is it the Crane School @ SUNY Potsdam? Potsdam alumnus here.

- sinfiery
- Posts: 3310
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am
Re: 3.47 179
Curious why you picked 173 and not 172.dingbat wrote:I think you missed the point.Gustave wrote:@ Pickled...
Not sure I agree with you on that one. Schools use indices precisely so they can correlate the value of an applicants LSAT and GPA as a tandem. The reason being that accepting a splitter provides you more flexibility in accepting a reverse splitter without negatively impacting your rankings. And since the LSAT is distributed along more or less a bell curve, whereas GPA's are closer to linear (thanks to GPA factories) the scarcity of a high LSAT score makes traditional splitters more valuable.
As long as you can persuade the admissions committe against using your UGPA as an indicator of your success in law school, numbers are numbers.
The point being, for Stanford a 179/3.47 = a 168/4.0= a 173/3.73, and they're all coin flips.
Once a student surpasses the 75%, there's no difference for the school whether it's by 1 point or by 5, so for Stanford there's no difference between a 173 and a 180.
Isn't their 75% 172?
- dingbat
- Posts: 4974
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm
Re: 3.47 179
Being over 75% is more important than being at 75%.sinfiery wrote:Curious why you picked 173 and not 172.dingbat wrote:I think you missed the point.Gustave wrote:@ Pickled...
Not sure I agree with you on that one. Schools use indices precisely so they can correlate the value of an applicants LSAT and GPA as a tandem. The reason being that accepting a splitter provides you more flexibility in accepting a reverse splitter without negatively impacting your rankings. And since the LSAT is distributed along more or less a bell curve, whereas GPA's are closer to linear (thanks to GPA factories) the scarcity of a high LSAT score makes traditional splitters more valuable.
As long as you can persuade the admissions committe against using your UGPA as an indicator of your success in law school, numbers are numbers.
The point being, for Stanford a 179/3.47 = a 168/4.0= a 173/3.73, and they're all coin flips.
Once a student surpasses the 75%, there's no difference for the school whether it's by 1 point or by 5, so for Stanford there's no difference between a 173 and a 180.
Isn't their 75% 172?
-
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:16 pm
Re: 3.47 179
So why do stats show people with 3.6 getting into H with LSATs above 178, but not with LSATs in the lower 170s? According to this logic a 3.6/174 would have the same chances as a 3.6/180, but the stats don't bear that out.dingbat wrote:I think you missed the point.Gustave wrote:@ Pickled...
Not sure I agree with you on that one. Schools use indices precisely so they can correlate the value of an applicants LSAT and GPA as a tandem. The reason being that accepting a splitter provides you more flexibility in accepting a reverse splitter without negatively impacting your rankings. And since the LSAT is distributed along more or less a bell curve, whereas GPA's are closer to linear (thanks to GPA factories) the scarcity of a high LSAT score makes traditional splitters more valuable.
As long as you can persuade the admissions committe against using your UGPA as an indicator of your success in law school, numbers are numbers.
The point being, for Stanford a 179/3.47 = a 168/4.0= a 173/3.73, and they're all coin flips.
Once a student surpasses the 75%, there's no difference for the school whether it's by 1 point or by 5, so for Stanford there's no difference between a 173 and a 180.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- sinfiery
- Posts: 3310
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am
Re: 3.47 179
Oh. Hah...dingbat wrote:Being over 75% is more important than being at 75%.sinfiery wrote:Curious why you picked 173 and not 172.dingbat wrote:I think you missed the point.Gustave wrote:@ Pickled...
Not sure I agree with you on that one. Schools use indices precisely so they can correlate the value of an applicants LSAT and GPA as a tandem. The reason being that accepting a splitter provides you more flexibility in accepting a reverse splitter without negatively impacting your rankings. And since the LSAT is distributed along more or less a bell curve, whereas GPA's are closer to linear (thanks to GPA factories) the scarcity of a high LSAT score makes traditional splitters more valuable.
As long as you can persuade the admissions committe against using your UGPA as an indicator of your success in law school, numbers are numbers.
The point being, for Stanford a 179/3.47 = a 168/4.0= a 173/3.73, and they're all coin flips.
Once a student surpasses the 75%, there's no difference for the school whether it's by 1 point or by 5, so for Stanford there's no difference between a 173 and a 180.
Isn't their 75% 172?
Is that the same for GPA medians? Being over the 50 is more important than at?
- PickledPanda
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:43 pm
Re: 3.47 179
I know this is directed to Dingbat. However, I think what is necessary to understand is that the 179 certainly is better than a 172/3(assuming 75th). But, that the 6/7 point difference is much less beneficial at that level as it would be from 166/7 to 172/3. Same goes for GPA. So if you are below median and 25th percentile and their LSAT median is 172 or even 170, there is less ground to be gained with a really high LSAT score. Thus, you cannot make up for a 3.47 GPA with a 179 LSAT for HYS under normal circumstances.cynthiad wrote:
So why do stats show people with 3.6 getting into H with LSATs above 178, but not with LSATs in the lower 170s? According to this logic a 3.6/174 would have the same chances as a 3.6/180, but the stats don't bear that out.
Plus, a lot of these speculations ignore the soft floors many schools have for non-urms. OPoster is below even the soft floor for URMs at Yale. They didn't admit anyone under a 3.61 for the entering 2014 class, if memory serves correctly.
-
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 1:16 pm
Re: 3.47 179
I was responding to dingbat saying that there is no difference at all from higher score once you're over 75%. I am aware that there are decreasing marginal benefits.PickledPanda wrote:I know this is directed to Dingbat. However, I think what is necessary to know is that the 179 certainly is better than a 172/3(assuming 75th). But, that the 6/7 point difference is much less beneficial at that level as it would be from 166/7 to 172/3. Same goes for GPA. So if you are below median and 25th median and their LSAT median is 172 or even 170, there is less ground to be gained with a really high LSAT score. Thus, you cannot make up for a 3.47 GPA with a 179 LSAT for HYS under normal circumstances.cynthiad wrote:
So why do stats show people with 3.6 getting into H with LSATs above 178, but not with LSATs in the lower 170s? According to this logic a 3.6/174 would have the same chances as a 3.6/180, but the stats don't bear that out.
Plus, a lot of these speculations ignore the soft floors many schools have for non-urms. OPoster is below even the soft floor for URMs at Yale. They didn't admit anyone under a 3.61 for the entering 2014 class, if memory serves correctly.
- PickledPanda
- Posts: 292
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:43 pm
Re: 3.47 179
I understand, that is why I prefaced my comment with, "I know this is directed to Dingbat." I think he meant that upon which I just expounded.cynthiad wrote:I was responding to dingbat saying that there is no difference at all from higher score once you're over 75%. I am aware that there are decreasing marginal benefits.PickledPanda wrote:I know this is directed to Dingbat. However, I think what is necessary to know is that the 179 certainly is better than a 172/3(assuming 75th). But, that the 6/7 point difference is much less beneficial at that level as it would be from 166/7 to 172/3. Same goes for GPA. So if you are below median and 25th median and their LSAT median is 172 or even 170, there is less ground to be gained with a really high LSAT score. Thus, you cannot make up for a 3.47 GPA with a 179 LSAT for HYS under normal circumstances.cynthiad wrote:
So why do stats show people with 3.6 getting into H with LSATs above 178, but not with LSATs in the lower 170s? According to this logic a 3.6/174 would have the same chances as a 3.6/180, but the stats don't bear that out.
Plus, a lot of these speculations ignore the soft floors many schools have for non-urms. OPoster is below even the soft floor for URMs at Yale. They didn't admit anyone under a 3.61 for the entering 2014 class, if memory serves correctly.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login