175, 3.9, few ECS, shot at HSC or T14 wi full ride Forum

[rachelql]

Average ECs for first two years of college. T20 University.
Good study abroad experience. T3 in UK.
But barely any ECs for junior and senior year.
Chances at Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, or a T14 with a full ride? or maybe partial scholarships or more likely?

...I've been hearing that number of ppl with 175+ is growing...

Thanks a lot!!!

[RunnerRunner]

I would say you are almost a lock at Columbia since you are above both 75ths, have a strong shot at H since you are above both medians, and have a ?????? shot at Stanford because they are unpredictable and really value softs.

As for the number of 175+ people growing, this is true, but it still isn't at the level it was a few years ago. Check out the analysis in the link below from 2011 (gotta scroll down to the 175 discussion). There were more 175+s then, and the analysis still predicted they would clean up at H, Y, and C.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&start=50

EDIT: That those with 175+ AND 3.8+ would clean up.

[jbagelboy]

You're a strong candidate for a Hamilton fellowship at CLS (although far from guaranteed, they only give out 20-25 per year), which is a full ride. That would probably wind up your best option if you want private sector work. You're in at Harvard and at least WL at Stanford. You should clean up with full named scholarships at many of the T14, although anticipate yield protect WL at UVA, Penn and potentially Michigan unless you have a compelling reason to attend/write a persuasive school-specific statement. Congrats on great numbers and chances.

No one gives a shit about your extracurriculars. Your letters of rec will have some consequence to distinguish you from other top candidates at YS. On that note, make sure to apply to Yale as well.

[BigZuck]

http://www.mylsn.info

[rachelql]

Thank you all!!

[bl1nds1ght]

You're in at Harvard and at least WL at Stanford.

From reading this site, I have been under the impression that SLS is pickier than HLS, but why is that when S's medians are typically lower? The GPA median of 3.9 (higher than H's) is a change, but the LSAT medians have always been lower.

Why would OP have a great shot at H, but not necessarily at S?

[FSK]

Go work for two years. With your numbers/school, you should get bites at Big Banks/MBB.

[BigZuck]

You're in at Harvard and at least WL at Stanford.

From reading this site, I have been under the impression that SLS is pickier than HLS, but why is that when S's medians are typically lower? The GPA median of 3.9 (higher than H's) is a change, but the LSAT medians have always been lower.

Why would OP have a great shot at H, but not necessarily at S?

cuz they care less about numbers and more about "ECS" than Harvard does

[bl1nds1ght]

You're in at Harvard and at least WL at Stanford.

From reading this site, I have been under the impression that SLS is pickier than HLS, but why is that when S's medians are typically lower? The GPA median of 3.9 (higher than H's) is a change, but the LSAT medians have always been lower.

Why would OP have a great shot at H, but not necessarily at S?

cuz they care less about numbers and more about "ECS" than Harvard does

That's kind of what I thought. Thanks for answering.

[Kratos]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 9&t=170051

[malleus discentium]

You're a strong candidate for a Hamilton fellowship at CLS (although far from guaranteed, they only give out 20-25 per year), which is a full ride. That would probably wind up your best option if you want private sector work. You're in at Harvard and at least WL at Stanford. You should clean up with full named scholarships at many of the T14, although anticipate yield protect WL at UVA, Penn and potentially Michigan unless you have a compelling reason to attend/write a persuasive school-specific statement. Congrats on great numbers and chances.

No one gives a shit about your extracurriculars. Your letters of rec will have some consequence to distinguish you from other top candidates at YS. On that note, make sure to apply to Yale as well.

For admissions, sure. But I had exactly the same numbers as OP and got no named scholarships at Columbia, only 75K at Chi and a WL at NYU. My softs were probably weaker than OP's, but having weak softs does hurt scholarship chances.

[jbagelboy]

You're a strong candidate for a Hamilton fellowship at CLS (although far from guaranteed, they only give out 20-25 per year), which is a full ride. That would probably wind up your best option if you want private sector work. You're in at Harvard and at least WL at Stanford. You should clean up with full named scholarships at many of the T14, although anticipate yield protect WL at UVA, Penn and potentially Michigan unless you have a compelling reason to attend/write a persuasive school-specific statement. Congrats on great numbers and chances.

No one gives a shit about your extracurriculars. Your letters of rec will have some consequence to distinguish you from other top candidates at YS. On that note, make sure to apply to Yale as well.

For admissions, sure. But I had exactly the same numbers as OP and got no named scholarships at Columbia, only 75K at Chi and a WL at NYU. My softs were probably weaker than OP's, but having weak softs does hurt scholarship chances.

I agree wrt named scholarships: what I meant is that OPs perceived lack of extracurriculars, in the face of all their other positive softs, for a couple years of college wont impact their application. I wasn't suggesting that no extracurricular activity can have value.