Top Law Schools

I'm trying to get into a top 14 school and wondering if I should retake the LSAT in September or not.
What are my chances of going to UM Law or somewhere similar with my current score?

Does sexual orientation impact admission decisions? I've never heard of that being a factor before.

vracovino wrote:Does sexual orientation impact admission decisions? I've never heard of that being a factor before.

+1

If you retake with a 169+ you would be a lock for Mich. Don't waste your GPA with that LSAT.

Retake. You might sneak into a T14 as is but not with enough money to make it a financially prudent decision.

Gay is a boost, albeit extremely small. You're on the cusp at DNCG and if you retake for the 170s, you should be in at the T6

Thanks everyone. I guess I'll retake and hope that my score reflects my practice tests better next time around. Hitting the books again after all that effort does seem like pretty much the worst thing ever, but if it's the difference between getting into my first choice or not, I'm sure it's worth the struggle.

jfrix wrote:Thanks everyone. I guess I'll retake and hope that my score reflects my practice tests better next time around. Hitting the books again after all that effort does seem like pretty much the worst thing ever, but if it's the difference between getting into my first choice or not, I'm sure it's worth the struggle.

If only every poster in your position had this attitude.

Give it your full effort. When you get in to your top choice with many tens of thousands of dollars in scholarship money, the pain of having had to study again won't seem so bad. Visit the LSAT forum here for some advice on how to improve your study regimen, if necessary. With your GPA, you could potentially be admitted to any law school or receive any of the T14 full scholarship offers with the right LSAT. Don't waste that 3.86.

Good luck!

JamMasterJ wrote:Gay is a boost, albeit extremely small. You're on the cusp at DNCG and if you retake for the 170s, you should be in at the T6

Plus some schools, Cornell plus maybe Michigan and some others IIRC, have a box to check for LGBT now.

Being gay should have nothing to do with admissions. Increase that lsat a few points and you'll be good.

jfrix wrote:I'm trying to get into a top 14 school and wondering if I should retake the LSAT in September or not.
What are my chances of going to UM Law or somewhere similar with my current score?

while you should retake and maybe open up T5 schools. you'd probably have a really good shot at UMich.

I was a umich UG; had a 163, 3.2 GPA in LSA, no unique factors; pretty waspy, not gay, etc. I still got into MLaw - this was the past 2 cycles as well.

should-i-do-it wrote:Being gay should have nothing to do with admissions. Increase that lsat a few points and you'll be good.

I think some schools do give a (slight) LGBT boost. It's not usually a game changer from what I understand but it does help at the margins.

Anyway, OP, retake is the right call. Even if you got in to UM now, sticker is life ruining. Get that scholarship money.

How can being gay be a significant admissions boost when you can't prove it? What's stopping someone from saying they're bisexual just to make up for bad numbers?

If anything, it's just a very weak soft that you might be able to spin as an "overcoming adversity" story, but it still seems weird to even mention it. Some schools might have a checkbox just so they can talk about diversity, but they won't give gay students anything close to a URM preference (and if they did, suddenly 90% of applicants would become bisexual, rendering it moot).

RZ5646 wrote:How can being gay be a significant admissions boost when you can't prove it? What's stopping someone from saying they're bisexual just to make up for bad numbers?

If anything, it's just a very weak soft that you might be able to spin as an "overcoming adversity" story, but it still seems weird to even mention it. Some schools might have a checkbox just so they can talk about diversity, but they won't give gay students anything close to a URM preference (and if they did, suddenly 90% of applicants would become bisexual, rendering it moot).

I'm glad you're so educated on the topic

FWIW, it can provide a boost, but yes it's more based on how you spin it. For example, my PS was about being a gay student at a Christian college, and my LORs also mentioned overcoming adversity in this environment. Based on my cycle, this gave me a meaningful boost, but not everyone's story is the same.

Also, just because you can't "prove it" doesn't mean it shouldn't provide a boost. Actual LGBT people shouldn't not get a boost because of the possibility that some people can lie and say they are LGBT.

scottidsntknow wrote:Also, just because you can't "prove it" doesn't mean it shouldn't provide a boost. Actual LGBT people shouldn't not get a boost because of the possibility that some people can lie and say they are LGBT.

I'm just saying schools will never have a URM-style preference for gay applicants; I'm not saying that there should or shouldn't be one (though admittedly there aren't many good arguments beginning with "I'm gay" and ending with "therefore, my LSAT doesn't accurately show my ability").

RZ5646 wrote:

scottidsntknow wrote:Also, just because you can't "prove it" doesn't mean it shouldn't provide a boost. Actual LGBT people shouldn't not get a boost because of the possibility that some people can lie and say they are LGBT.

I'm just saying schools will never have a URM-style preference for gay applicants; I'm not saying that there should or shouldn't be one (though admittedly there aren't many good arguments beginning with "I'm gay" and ending with "therefore, my LSAT doesn't accurately show my ability").

The same way this wouldn't work for an upper class African American applicant...

RZ5646 wrote:How can being gay be a significant admissions boost when you can't prove it? What's stopping someone from saying they're bisexual just to make up for bad numbers?

If anything, it's just a very weak soft that you might be able to spin as an "overcoming adversity" story, but it still seems weird to even mention it. Some schools might have a checkbox just so they can talk about diversity, but they won't give gay students anything close to a URM preference (and if they did, suddenly 90% of applicants would become bisexual, rendering it moot).

I don't really think being queer helped me at all with admissions, but I do think it helped me with scholarship money, especially during negotiations. I don't know why you would ever lie about being bisexual, bisexuals get so much shit from everyone. In any event, no one is going to ask you to prove anything, but there is an expectation that you go through the admissions process in good faith and not lie. I mean, you could easily lie about being half Mexican, but to my knowledge no one does that either because a) it's wrong and b) if you got caught I would imagine that there would be consequences.

anyriotgirl wrote:

RZ5646 wrote:How can being gay be a significant admissions boost when you can't prove it? What's stopping someone from saying they're bisexual just to make up for bad numbers?

If anything, it's just a very weak soft that you might be able to spin as an "overcoming adversity" story, but it still seems weird to even mention it. Some schools might have a checkbox just so they can talk about diversity, but they won't give gay students anything close to a URM preference (and if they did, suddenly 90% of applicants would become bisexual, rendering it moot).

I don't really think being queer helped me at all with admissions, but I do think it helped me with scholarship money, especially during negotiations. I don't know why you would ever lie about being bisexual, bisexuals get so much shit from everyone. In any event, no one is going to ask you to prove anything, but there is an expectation that you go through the admissions process in good faith and not lie. I mean, you could easily lie about being half Mexican, but to my knowledge no one does that either because a) it's wrong and b) if you got caught I would imagine that there would be consequences.

I agree 100% with scholly money, and I'm not going to discuss specifics but I know this helped me get my scholly raised in part.

scottidsntknow wrote:

RZ5646 wrote:

scottidsntknow wrote:Also, just because you can't "prove it" doesn't mean it shouldn't provide a boost. Actual LGBT people shouldn't not get a boost because of the possibility that some people can lie and say they are LGBT.

I'm just saying schools will never have a URM-style preference for gay applicants; I'm not saying that there should or shouldn't be one (though admittedly there aren't many good arguments beginning with "I'm gay" and ending with "therefore, my LSAT doesn't accurately show my ability").

The same way this wouldn't work for an upper class African American applicant...

I totally agree.

scottidsntknow wrote:my PS was about being a gay student at a Christian college, and my LORs also mentioned overcoming adversity in this environment

Just curious, why would you choose to go to a Christian college where you knew you'd face adversity?

scottidsntknow wrote:

RZ5646 wrote:

scottidsntknow wrote:Also, just because you can't "prove it" doesn't mean it shouldn't provide a boost. Actual LGBT people shouldn't not get a boost because of the possibility that some people can lie and say they are LGBT.

I'm just saying schools will never have a URM-style preference for gay applicants; I'm not saying that there should or shouldn't be one (though admittedly there aren't many good arguments beginning with "I'm gay" and ending with "therefore, my LSAT doesn't accurately show my ability").

The same way this wouldn't work for an upper class African American applicant...

The purpose of the URM boost isn't that black people are poor. It's to rectify the damage done to the profession from having hundreds of years in which blacks were precluded from practicing law. Many lawyers have an immediate family member who is a lawyer, blacks do not.

PepperJack wrote:

scottidsntknow wrote:

RZ5646 wrote:

scottidsntknow wrote:Also, just because you can't "prove it" doesn't mean it shouldn't provide a boost. Actual LGBT people shouldn't not get a boost because of the possibility that some people can lie and say they are LGBT.

I'm just saying schools will never have a URM-style preference for gay applicants; I'm not saying that there should or shouldn't be one (though admittedly there aren't many good arguments beginning with "I'm gay" and ending with "therefore, my LSAT doesn't accurately show my ability").

The same way this wouldn't work for an upper class African American applicant...

The purpose of the URM boost isn't that black people are poor. It's to rectify the damage done to the profession from having hundreds of years in which blacks were precluded from practicing law. Many lawyers have an immediate family member who is a lawyer, blacks do not.

So two wrongs really do make a right? Glad they got that all cleared up.

I think the purpose is actually to avoid having a law school class with very few or zero black students, which would be embarrassing for a top law school. Schools would prefer someone with a really interesting background or from an impoverished family, but at the end of the day this is largely about how the school looks. They publish the minority percentage, not their socioeconomic distribution.

Regardless. OPs stats are actually competitive for UM and Cornell as they are, although he should retake all the same because the cost is very low and the potential benefit is very high. Plus, it's not like he or she is a lock at these schools.

nordi wrote:I think the purpose is actually to avoid having a law school class with very few or zero black students, which would be embarrassing for a top law school. Schools would prefer someone with a really interesting background or from an impoverished family, but at the end of the day this is largely about how the school looks. They publish the minority percentage, not their socioeconomic distribution.

TITCR. They'll accept a handful of less qualified students if it helps their brand.

PepperJack wrote:

scottidsntknow wrote:

RZ5646 wrote:

scottidsntknow wrote:Also, just because you can't "prove it" doesn't mean it shouldn't provide a boost. Actual LGBT people shouldn't not get a boost because of the possibility that some people can lie and say they are LGBT.

I'm just saying schools will never have a URM-style preference for gay applicants; I'm not saying that there should or shouldn't be one (though admittedly there aren't many good arguments beginning with "I'm gay" and ending with "therefore, my LSAT doesn't accurately show my ability").

The same way this wouldn't work for an upper class African American applicant...

The purpose of the URM boost isn't that black people are poor. It's to rectify the damage done to the profession from having hundreds of years in which blacks were precluded from practicing law. Many lawyers have an immediate family member who is a lawyer, blacks do not.

I think you missed my sarcasm. What you're saying is true, and would also support gays getting a boost if you want to take it that far but we really don't need to get into that.