Top Law Schools

I graduated from Boston College in 2013. I started out with a hard science major, but after a year (and horrible GPA) realized that wasn't for me, and ended up switching my major to something I was more interested and better in, and ended up with just over a 3.5, though my grades the last two years of college were all in the 3.8-4.0 range.

I am a horrible test taker, and on the October LSAT I got a 151 because I ran out of time on some of the sections and ended up guessing. I retook in December, but didn't have time to study as much as I wanted and I don't think I improved my score as much as I had hoped.

I am currently working full-time at a small law firm in my hometown, and I have been interning here summers for the past few years, so I have a significant amount of related work experience. I also have very, very good LORs, and I think my SOP is very strong as well, and I also wrote an additional essay stating how much I want to go to Boston College again, as I am already an alumni.

I know my numbers are not strong for BC, but do you think there is any chance of me getting in?

Also, if not, what about a school such as Rutgers? Would it be worth going there?

Thanks!

Unfortunately there really is not a chance of you getting in. While you may have struggled with the LSAT when you were taking it, the real answer is to retake the LSAT (and it more or less seems like you acknowledge that in your post). Have you tried working with some of the study methods on this site? It may help you to identify where you are going wrong.

you will need to retake and score much better to have a realistic shot at BC.. don't take the test again until you consistently score in the 165+ range

I doubt your experience is really at all relevant, and there's no such thing as not being a good test taker. Unless you have performance anxiety issues you either know the topic or don't. Law school and real lawyer work is a series of tests with increasing consequences. Don't judge me based on my work product or results doesn't work in big boy land.

Youre not getting in, and if you do it would be at sticker which would be a bad financial decision.

Don't waste your last retake until you are consistently scoring above the LSAT medians of the schools you want to attend

Your experience does not matter. The LSAT is all that is holding you back. Sit down, read the advice on this forum, take at least 6 months to study and don't take the exam against until you are scoring mid-160s, and only then think about applying.

BC also is not a great school. With a 151, it's going to be near impossible to get a job in Boston. This is the profile of many a white (fe)male 5 years away from 200k debt and no prospects. You are your numbers. Until you've worked on 20 mega deals or won a big case you are only your numbers. Why would working at a small matrimonial/small claims mom and pop firm possibly change that?

PepperJack wrote:BC also is not a great school. With a 151, it's going to be near impossible to get a job in Boston. This is the profile of many a white (fe)male 5 years away from 200k debt and no prospects. You are your numbers. Until you've worked on 20 mega deals or won a big case you are only your numbers. Why would working at a small matrimonial/small claims mom and pop firm possibly change that?

I don't think BC is a bad option for Boston. With regards to the bolded...wat?

I'm accounting for the fact that BC won't happen, and that even if it did with a 151 statistics indicate he's going to be at the bottom of the curve. Not being a URM there's not going to be positive treatment to counteract being at the bottom of the curve. He needs to only attend law school when he has a 165+ brain.

Lol at bringing up aa for no reason

PepperJack wrote:I'm accounting for the fact that BC won't happen, and that even if it did with a 151 statistics indicate he's going to be at the bottom of the curve. Not being a URM there's not going to be positive treatment to counteract being at the bottom of the curve. He needs to only attend law school when he has a 165+ brain.

Not necessarily true

Mojosodope wrote:

PepperJack wrote:I'm accounting for the fact that BC won't happen, and that even if it did with a 151 statistics indicate he's going to be at the bottom of the curve. Not being a URM there's not going to be positive treatment to counteract being at the bottom of the curve. He needs to only attend law school when he has a 165+ brain.

Not necessarily true

I think PepperJack accounted for the possibility of this not being necessarily true when s/he said "statistics indicate," which I'm inclined to believe since the LSAT, afterall, is supposed to be a reliable indicator of law school success.

altoid99 wrote:

Mojosodope wrote:

PepperJack wrote:I'm accounting for the fact that BC won't happen, and that even if it did with a 151 statistics indicate he's going to be at the bottom of the curve. Not being a URM there's not going to be positive treatment to counteract being at the bottom of the curve. He needs to only attend law school when he has a 165+ brain.

Not necessarily true

I think PepperJack accounted for the possibility of this not being necessarily true when s/he said "statistics indicate," which I'm inclined to believe since the LSAT, afterall, is supposed to be a reliable indicator of law school success.

But the statistics don't indicate that, statistics indicate that the LSAT accounts for/predicts for about 13% of your grade. It's considered a reliable indicator because compared to other standardized tests, it is relatively high.

Regardless of stats and math and stuff, bad test takers will almost assuredly be at the bottom of the curve. Law school isn't kind to bad test takers.

Mojosodope wrote:

altoid99 wrote:

Mojosodope wrote:

PepperJack wrote:I'm accounting for the fact that BC won't happen, and that even if it did with a 151 statistics indicate he's going to be at the bottom of the curve. Not being a URM there's not going to be positive treatment to counteract being at the bottom of the curve. He needs to only attend law school when he has a 165+ brain.

Not necessarily true

I think PepperJack accounted for the possibility of this not being necessarily true when s/he said "statistics indicate," which I'm inclined to believe since the LSAT, afterall, is supposed to be a reliable indicator of law school success.

But the statistics don't indicate that, statistics indicate that the LSAT accounts for/predicts for about 13% of your grade. It's considered a reliable indicator because compared to other standardized tests, it is relatively high.

13% indicator amongst students at a given school. That means if you have a 165 and I have a 163, it predicts 13% of our variance in FYGPA based on 2 questions. If you have that 165 and OP has a 151, the accuracy is higher than 13%. It's 13% overall, but in reality is about 3-4% between the 163 and 165 and about 35% between the 165 and 151 if you look more closely at the analytical data.

Again, none of this means he'll be below median with any certainty. That's why they play the game, and don't just show the rosters on paper to the refs. However, if you gave me 1:1 odds a 151 would be below median at BC, I'd sure as hell bet the house.

Nova wrote:Lol at bringing up aa for no reason

If s/he were -> s/he doesn't necessarily need the same #'s to make LS a good bet, and that is what it is, a bet.

The fact is that with the preferential treatment in admissions and firm hiring, law school is potentially a great bet for many AA's with numbers it would not be for other applicants. Even with these numbers, it would not be a great bet for the first AA pope who also wrote a Publitzer winning novel while winning the gold medal for swimming.