167/3.85 (maybe interesting softs...) Forum

[HavOx2013]

OK, so I went to a top 10 LAC, got a 3.85 GPA, and took the LSAT three times already: one cancel, 160 (honestly sick), and 167. I then went to Oxford on a scholarship my college gives to about 10 kids annually and received a Masters degree in politics with a focus on international law (graduated With Distinction).

Some quick searches on this forum seemed to indicate this is largely a numbers game, but I have fairly strong campus leadership (founded a campus magazine, leader of 3 student organizations including a charity that raised $100,000 in 4 years), a publication coming out in a collection of essays on Third World economic development from Harvard University Press, and the "maybe interesting soft" alluded to in the title of this thread is that I served as the Outreach Director of a small non-profit while I was in undergrad that has collected over 50,000 textbooks for rural Ugandan schools. I also spent the summer after my sophomore year in Uganda working to set up libraries with this group.

Fairly good PS (but who really knows?) and 2 letters from professors (I won best senior thesis under one of them) that my pre-law department says are some of the strongest they've ever seen.

It'd be a dream to end up at Columbia/NYU, but I'm not sure about the LSAT score. Would you guys mind telling me what you think my chances are at the T-14? It'll be more than 2 years by June 2014--should I just retake the LSAT?? Non-URM, white male from working-class Pennsylvania, by the way.

Sorry for the kind of rambling post. All feedback appreciated!!

[NoodleyOne]

Your softs aren't bad, but they're not going to make up for the lack of numbers. Every point on the LSAT you can get on a retake greatly increases your chance at admissions and scholarship.

[nebula666]

Retake until you are 170. No reason to waste that GPA.

[twenty]

Your softs/GPA are definitely good enough to put you into Harvard territory with a 173+. Don't waste this cycle on a 167.

[jbagelboy]

I think Columbia would be a perfect school for you -- there are a lot of kids here with very similar backgrounds (top LAC/top MA/cool WE).

You could roll the dice on the 167 and maybe squeeze in at sticker, or retake for a 170+ and go to CLS or NYU w/ $$ (and as another poster mentioned, have a shot at Harvard or Stanford).

Its up to you. Right now, I think you're in at Georgetown, Cornell, Michigan, Berkeley, maybe Duke and Northwestern. Probably WL at Penn and UVA. I would retake in December to aim for HYSCCN, but its your call!

[jbagelboy]

Also congrats on the publication! And which college at Oxford if you dont mind me asking?

[HavOx2013]

Thanks for the input everyone! Ok, so how do law schools react to applying again the following year after a rejection the previous one? Could I roll the dice on NYU/Columbia (hoping to pay sticker), then if I don't like the results, apply again the next cycle after retaking in June 2014? I realize that this is an obvious waste of money if it doesn't go well, but, if I'm willing to just accept that, is there a real disadvantage to this strategy?

And it was Exeter College, jbagelboy. Really great experience.

[BigZuck]

Thanks for the input everyone! Ok, so how do law schools react to applying again the following year after a rejection the previous one? Could I roll the dice on NYU/Columbia (hoping to pay sticker), then if I don't like the results, apply again the next cycle after retaking in June 2014? I realize that this is an obvious waste of money if it doesn't go well, but, if I'm willing to just accept that, is there a real disadvantage to this strategy?

And it was Exeter College, jbagelboy. Really great experience.

I think the more tragic waste of money would be sticker at NYU/Columbia if you managed to sneak in (which you almost certainly won't with that LSAT score). I think the only T14s you have much of a shot at are Cornell, GULC, and Michigan (in b4 someone corrects me by incorrectly saying Berkeley which I think is highly unlikely for someone who is basically at both medians). And all those schools would be too expensive unless your parents are super rich.

Retake and set your sights on Harvard or CCN with money.

[jbagelboy]

Thanks for the input everyone! Ok, so how do law schools react to applying again the following year after a rejection the previous one? Could I roll the dice on NYU/Columbia (hoping to pay sticker), then if I don't like the results, apply again the next cycle after retaking in June 2014? I realize that this is an obvious waste of money if it doesn't go well, but, if I'm willing to just accept that, is there a real disadvantage to this strategy?

And it was Exeter College, jbagelboy. Really great experience.

I think the more tragic waste of money would be sticker at NYU/Columbia if you managed to sneak in (which you almost certainly won't with that LSAT score). I think the only T14s you have much of a shot at are Cornell, GULC, and Michigan (in b4 someone corrects me by incorrectly saying Berkeley which I think is highly unlikely for someone who is basically at both medians). And all those schools would be too expensive unless your parents are super rich.

Retake and set your sights on Harvard or CCN with money.

For any given 3.85/167, Cal would be a really tough play as you said, but that low median exists for a reason. It allows for the "holistic" admissions process crap. Its people like OP from good schools with graduate degrees and publications who create that lsat data. Also his gpa is quite a bit above the GPA median. I think Cal would be the most likely best outcome for OP here - problem is, it will be tough to recruit a halfway decent matching scholarship. Not impossible but tough.

[HavOx2013]

Well, June 2014 is the earliest I could take it with the "three times in two years" rule. Most law schools would just accept the highest, even though it's the 4th time and 3rd score? A cancel, 160, 167, and, say, 170, they'll just take the 170?

[moralsentiments]

A cancel, 160, 167, and, say, 170, they'll just take the 170?

Yes, unfortunately.

[BigZuck]

A cancel, 160, 167, and, say, 170, they'll just take the 170?

Yes, unfortunately.

I don't see what's unfortunate about that

Jbagelboy- you might be right that his softs propel him upward. I'm just kind of skeptical. I have struck out at Cal twice so I've followed their last two cycles pretty closely and non-URMs who are non-LGBT or without some super interesting personal background just don't seem to get in unless they have Chicago or HYS type numbers. Berkeley's medians are just a huge flame. Or maybe I'm just butthurt.

I think if the OP hits 170 he's good to go at Cal. Regardless, he's gotta retake. 167 is just not quite good enough. 169+ will snag him solid money at a Duke type school at the very least.

[moralsentiments]

I don't see what's unfortunate about that

I'm sure you don't.

[BigZuck]

I don't see what's unfortunate about that

I'm sure you don't.

Help me out here: why should I?