Top Law Schools

.

URM? WE? Nice UG or shit state school? Please give us info if you want help.

.

I have nearly identical numbers and paid to apply. Going to keep the rejection letter for motivation down the road.

CR2012 wrote:I have a 3.41 and a (retake) 169.

My research shows me that these numbers haven't been competitive historically. The only reason I am considering the departure of around 100$ from my bank account is that there is so much hoopla about the decrease in applications.

I realize this is extremely late in the cycle and these numbers seem like auto-ding. But, what do you think?

Eh, I'd buy groceries. I have a higher LSAT and my ED app was deferred. (Anecdotal evidence FTW)

.

171/3.62 also deferred ED, for what it's worth.

CR2012 wrote:

francesfarmer wrote:

CR2012 wrote:I have a 3.41 and a (retake) 169.

My research shows me that these numbers haven't been competitive historically. The only reason I am considering the departure of around 100$ from my bank account is that there is so much hoopla about the decrease in applications.

I realize this is extremely late in the cycle and these numbers seem like auto-ding. But, what do you think?

Eh, I'd buy groceries. I have a higher LSAT and my ED app was deferred. (Anecdotal evidence FTW)

Was your GPA much higher than mine?

Your GPA is marginally higher than mine.

CR2012 wrote:Working for in Europe for a drug company right now.
Public UG
No URM

Omygod you are still no help.

How many years have you worked? Is this all your work experience? Public UG ranked 200 or 50? Do you have any previous internship? leadership?
So you're working in Europe but you're an American citizen right? That might help slightly with diversity. How many years have you lived in europe? do you speak any other languages?

99 percent chance it will be a rejection.

h_jane_w wrote:

CR2012 wrote:Working for in Europe for a drug company right now.
Public UG
No URM

Omygod you are still no help.

How many years have you worked? Is this all your work experience? Public UG ranked 200 or 50? Do you have any previous internship? leadership?
So you're working in Europe but you're an American citizen right? That might help slightly with diversity. How many years have you lived in europe? do you speak any other languages?

Why are you asking for this info? It won't change anything. There are three pieces of info we need, LSAT, GPA, and URM status. Your UG ranking means jack shit, so does fluency in another language. Softs short of Rhodes scholar/Olympian/cancer cure/world famous porn star have no effect on your admission.

h_jane_w wrote:

CR2012 wrote:Working for in Europe for a drug company right now.
Public UG
No URM

Omygod you are still no help.

How many years have you worked? Is this all your work experience? Public UG ranked 200 or 50? Do you have any previous internship? leadership?
So you're working in Europe but you're an American citizen right? That might help slightly with diversity. How many years have you lived in europe? do you speak any other languages?

What reason do you have to think any of this matters? Us 169/3.4-3.5s have little to no shot at NYU. Marginal softs are irrelevant.

EDIT: scoooooped

deputydog wrote: Why are you asking for this info? It won't change anything. There are three pieces of info we need, LSAT, GPA, and URM status. Your UG ranking means jack shit, so does fluency in another language. Softs short of Rhodes scholar/Olympian/cancer cure/world famous porn star have no effect on your admission.

I'm surprised this is such a given on this site. I can see why it might be true, but we'd need information about how different groups perform to test it--more than I have seen on here.

domino wrote:

deputydog wrote: Why are you asking for this info? It won't change anything. There are three pieces of info we need, LSAT, GPA, and URM status. Your UG ranking means jack shit, so does fluency in another language. Softs short of Rhodes scholar/Olympian/cancer cure/world famous porn star have no effect on your admission.

I'm surprised this is such a given on this site. I can see why it might be true, but we'd need information about how different groups perform to test it--more than I have seen on here.

Agreed. Also, we've seen obvious examples of how military experience make people hugely outperform their numbers. Things like significant work experience (maybe 5+ years?), PhDs, and various other factors do enhance applications.

That said, it probably is true that the softs of most people -- leadership in a college organization, part-time jobs, summer internships, volunteering, 1-2 years of post-college work experience -- don't help so much as not having any of that will probably hurt, even for those with outstanding numbers.

[edit] And to keep my post relevant to the thread, OP, I don't think you have a great chance. Along with the other deferred EDs chiming in, I had 3.7/170 and was deferred, probably waitlist-bound. It's worth the app fee if you really have nothing to spend $100 on, but ultimately it's just as much of a waste as an app to Yale.

Buy food

domino wrote:

deputydog wrote: Why are you asking for this info? It won't change anything. There are three pieces of info we need, LSAT, GPA, and URM status. Your UG ranking means jack shit, so does fluency in another language. Softs short of Rhodes scholar/Olympian/cancer cure/world famous porn star have no effect on your admission.

I'm surprised this is such a given on this site. I can see why it might be true, but we'd need information about how different groups perform to test it--more than I have seen on here.

The majority of people that apply to top schools have WE, or internships, or were president of their frat, or some other k-jd gunner BS resume bullet point. Although your mom might tell you that this makes your wiener prettier than everyone else's, the facts are it isn't impressive. 99% of softs don't make you stand out, don't make you special, and they sure as shit don't make you better than anyone else. At the end of the day, you're just the same asshole, like everyone else, standing in line to borrow 250k to try and get initiated into a profession you are probably going to hate.

02889 wrote:

domino wrote:

deputydog wrote: Why are you asking for this info? It won't change anything. There are three pieces of info we need, LSAT, GPA, and URM status. Your UG ranking means jack shit, so does fluency in another language. Softs short of Rhodes scholar/Olympian/cancer cure/world famous porn star have no effect on your admission.

I'm surprised this is such a given on this site. I can see why it might be true, but we'd need information about how different groups perform to test it--more than I have seen on here.

Agreed. Also, we've seen obvious examples of how military experience make people hugely outperform their numbers. Things like significant work experience (maybe 5+ years?), PhDs, and various other factors do enhance applications.

That said, it probably is true that the softs of most people -- leadership in a college organization, part-time jobs, summer internships, volunteering, 1-2 years of post-college work experience -- don't help so much as not having any of that will probably hurt, even for those with outstanding numbers.

[edit] And to keep my post relevant to the thread, OP, I don't think you have a great chance. Along with the other deferred EDs chiming in, I had 3.7/170 and was deferred, probably waitlist-bound. It's worth the app fee if you really have nothing to spend $100 on, but ultimately it's just as much of a waste as an app to Yale.

Eh, I think veteran status is the only meaningful non-special snowflake soft.

francesfarmer wrote:

02889 wrote:

domino wrote:

deputydog wrote: Why are you asking for this info? It won't change anything. There are three pieces of info we need, LSAT, GPA, and URM status. Your UG ranking means jack shit, so does fluency in another language. Softs short of Rhodes scholar/Olympian/cancer cure/world famous porn star have no effect on your admission.

I'm surprised this is such a given on this site. I can see why it might be true, but we'd need information about how different groups perform to test it--more than I have seen on here.

Agreed. Also, we've seen obvious examples of how military experience make people hugely outperform their numbers. Things like significant work experience (maybe 5+ years?), PhDs, and various other factors do enhance applications.

That said, it probably is true that the softs of most people -- leadership in a college organization, part-time jobs, summer internships, volunteering, 1-2 years of post-college work experience -- don't help so much as not having any of that will probably hurt, even for those with outstanding numbers.

[edit] And to keep my post relevant to the thread, OP, I don't think you have a great chance. Along with the other deferred EDs chiming in, I had 3.7/170 and was deferred, probably waitlist-bound. It's worth the app fee if you really have nothing to spend $100 on, but ultimately it's just as much of a waste as an app to Yale.

Eh, I think veteran status is the only meaningful non-special snowflake soft.

Right. By "enhance" I meant things like a PhD or 5+ years WE make you more interesting, but they certainly wouldn't be like a +3 bump to your LSAT or something. My main point was the second paragraph. I think the only importance of softs comes in when an applicant literally has none, and then it will likely count against him/her (in some tiny, mostly insignificant way).

02889 wrote:Right. By "enhance" I meant things like a PhD or 5+ years WE make you more interesting, but they certainly wouldn't be like a +3 bump to your LSAT or something. My main point was the second paragraph. I think the only importance of softs comes in when an applicant literally has none, and then it will likely count against him/her (in some tiny, mostly insignificant way).

Yeah, and even then, it probably only counts against an applicant if they're up against someone with the same numbers who does have the softs. Someone who's way at the top of a school's numbers really doesn't need softs.

02889 wrote: Right. By "enhance" I meant things like a PhD or 5+ years WE make you more interesting, but they certainly wouldn't be like a +3 bump to your LSAT or something. My main point was the second paragraph. I think the only importance of softs comes in when an applicant literally has none, and then it will likely count against him/her (in some tiny, mostly insignificant way).

I agree. My extremely oversimplified understanding of softs is that they help you only so far as they keep you from being boring. No softs = extremely boring.

law2015 wrote:99 percent chance it will be a rejection.

You're being far too generous.

Save your money, OP.

francesfarmer wrote: Eh, I think veteran status is the only meaningful non-special snowflake soft.

I agree with this. But it's significance is overstated IMO.

As far as softs go, I don't think you necesarily need them. They act as tie breakers.

francesfarmer wrote:I agree. My extremely oversimplified understanding of softs is that they help you only so far as they keep you from being boring. No softs = extremely boring.

That person might be boring to them, but they are still going to admit a no soft person with numbers because they are trying to maintain medians.


I don't know how to explain this more succinctly than, softs don't matter.

domino wrote:

deputydog wrote: Why are you asking for this info? It won't change anything. There are three pieces of info we need, LSAT, GPA, and URM status. Your UG ranking means jack shit, so does fluency in another language. Softs short of Rhodes scholar/Olympian/cancer cure/world famous porn star have no effect on your admission.

I'm surprised this is such a given on this site. I can see why it might be true, but we'd need information about how different groups perform to test it--more than I have seen on here.

deputydog wrote: The majority of people that apply to top schools have WE, or internships, or were president of their frat, or some other k-jd gunner BS resume bullet point. Although your mom might tell you that this makes your wiener prettier than everyone else's, the facts are it isn't impressive. 99% of softs don't make you stand out, don't make you special, and they sure as shit don't make you better than anyone else. At the end of the day, you're just the same asshole, like everyone else, standing in line to borrow 250k to try and get initiated into a profession you are probably going to hate.

**tldr warning**

While I enjoyed this response, I will have to respectfully disagree (not about being the same asshole as everyone else--that part is definitely true and a reminder is sometimes appreciated). Regarding UGs, it's awesome that someone who gets strong grades from a low-ranked UG and a high LSAT has great chances at getting into the top schools. A lot of the academic value of a "good" UG can be replicated at pretty much any school by a mature, self-directed student, so it's good that that can be recognized, not to mention that socioeconomic factors keep many smart kids from going to well-ranked UGs. Some of the brightest people from my high school went to our state school because of those factors.

However, I would bet you that if you look at the median GPA of accepted students to let's say Columbia who went to Harvard for UG, it will be lower than the median GPA for applicants from Penn State. This would just make sense because it's a lot harder to get a 3.7-4.0 at Harvard than Penn State. Maybe this isn't true because law schools are more guided by the rankings than by what the GPA actually signals--however, at least at the top few schools, I suspect that they have room to treat different UGs differently and maintain their rankings.

02889 wrote: Agreed. Also, we've seen obvious examples of how military experience make people hugely outperform their numbers. Things like significant work experience (maybe 5+ years?), PhDs, and various other factors do enhance applications.

That said, it probably is true that the softs of most people -- leadership in a college organization, part-time jobs, summer internships, volunteering, 1-2 years of post-college work experience -- don't help so much as not having any of that will probably hurt, even for those with outstanding numbers.

Agree, but I would add that being president of a club or whatnot, while I don't think it is something that will make people immediately sit up and take notice, can be an asset if it fits into a picture of who you are and what you could contribute that's appealing. I have seen that on these boards here and there with people outperforming their numbers seemingly for that reason.

deputydog wrote:

francesfarmer wrote: Eh, I think veteran status is the only meaningful non-special snowflake soft.

I agree with this. But it's significance is overstated IMO.

As far as softs go, I don't think you necesarily need them. They act as tie breakers.

francesfarmer wrote:I agree. My extremely oversimplified understanding of softs is that they help you only so far as they keep you from being boring. No softs = extremely boring.

That person might be boring to them, but they are still going to admit a no soft person with numbers because they are trying to maintain medians.


I don't know how to explain this more succinctly than, softs don't matter.

Definitely not arguing against the fact that no softs won't hurt someone who is an auto admit.

domino wrote:

domino wrote:

deputydog wrote: Why are you asking for this info? It won't change anything. There are three pieces of info we need, LSAT, GPA, and URM status. Your UG ranking means jack shit, so does fluency in another language. Softs short of Rhodes scholar/Olympian/cancer cure/world famous porn star have no effect on your admission.

I'm surprised this is such a given on this site. I can see why it might be true, but we'd need information about how different groups perform to test it--more than I have seen on here.

deputydog wrote: The majority of people that apply to top schools have WE, or internships, or were president of their frat, or some other k-jd gunner BS resume bullet point. Although your mom might tell you that this makes your wiener prettier than everyone else's, the facts are it isn't impressive. 99% of softs don't make you stand out, don't make you special, and they sure as shit don't make you better than anyone else. At the end of the day, you're just the same asshole, like everyone else, standing in line to borrow 250k to try and get initiated into a profession you are probably going to hate.

**tldr warning**

While I enjoyed this response, I will have to respectfully disagree (not about being the same asshole as everyone else--that part is definitely true and a reminder is sometimes appreciated). Regarding UGs, it's awesome that someone who gets strong grades from a low-ranked UG and a high LSAT has great chances at getting into the top schools. A lot of the academic value of a "good" UG can be replicated at pretty much any school by a mature, self-directed student, so it's good that that can be recognized, not to mention that socioeconomic factors keep many smart kids from going to well-ranked UGs. Some of the brightest people from my high school went to our state school because of those factors.

However, I would bet you that if you look at the median GPA of accepted students to let's say Columbia who went to Harvard for UG, it will be lower than the median GPA for applicants from Penn State. This would just make sense because it's a lot harder to get a 3.7-4.0 at Harvard than Penn State. Maybe this isn't true because law schools are more guided by the rankings than by what the GPA actually signals--however, at least at the top few schools, I suspect that they have room to treat different UGs differently and maintain their rankings.

02889 wrote: Agreed. Also, we've seen obvious examples of how military experience make people hugely outperform their numbers. Things like significant work experience (maybe 5+ years?), PhDs, and various other factors do enhance applications.

That said, it probably is true that the softs of most people -- leadership in a college organization, part-time jobs, summer internships, volunteering, 1-2 years of post-college work experience -- don't help so much as not having any of that will probably hurt, even for those with outstanding numbers.

Agree, but I would add that being president of a club or whatnot, while I don't think it is something that will make people immediately sit up and take notice, can be an asset if it fits into a picture of who you are and what you could contribute that's appealing. I have seen that on these boards here and there with people outperforming their numbers seemingly for that reason.

lolno.


The prestige of your UG does not matter, they have no incentive to admit a lower GPA because it says Dartmouth.

Re the difficulty of getting a good GPA at a top UG, have you ever heard of grade inflation? There is a reason why the LSAT is weighted so heavily.