Top Law Schools

.

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?

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

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.

JamMasterJ wrote:WE - Your odds would pretty much stay the same across the board.

FTFY

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

dingbat wrote:

JamMasterJ wrote:WE - Your odds would pretty much stay the same across the board.

FTFY

I honestly think they would look a little harder at someone like that with a couple years of good WE

What GPA does one need to have a shot at Harvard with a 179?

Funkycrime wrote:What GPA does one need to have a shot at Harvard with a 179?

http://mylsn.info/graph.php?school=harvard

3.6

I am wondering if another huge drop in test takers might improve your/our chances at H and at $ at CCN.

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.

Don't wimp out--retake.

The only difficulty in taking off a year or two is in finding decent work.

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.

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.

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.

PickledPanda wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Anyone know when H has to release their 2015 GPA median by?

C'mon already!

@ 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.

You're not getting into H.

Your best bet is actually S (highly unlikely).

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.

I think you missed the point.
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.

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.

dingbat wrote:

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.

I think you missed the point.
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.

Curious why you picked 173 and not 172.

Isn't their 75% 172?

sinfiery wrote:

dingbat wrote:

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.

I think you missed the point.
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.

Curious why you picked 173 and not 172.

Isn't their 75% 172?

Being over 75% is more important than being at 75%.

dingbat wrote:

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.

I think you missed the point.
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.

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:

sinfiery wrote:

dingbat wrote:

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.

I think you missed the point.
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.

Curious why you picked 173 and not 172.

Isn't their 75% 172?

Being over 75% is more important than being at 75%.

Oh. Hah...

Is that the same for GPA medians? Being over the 50 is more important than at?

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.

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.

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 wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

cynthiad wrote:

PickledPanda wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.