Top Law Schools

GPA: Currently 3.94 however, first year was spent at a different school and my GPA was very low (3.3) so my GPA will need to be recalculated.
Year: Junior
Major: Psychology
Generic extracurricular activities. VP of a club, treasurer of another, tutoring, and a lot of volunteering work but nothing that unique...
LSAT: Have not yet taken it.... I hope to do well and will be studying a lot everyday.
Unfortunately I do not have work experience (I know that Northwestern prefers it.)

*Question: Also, Chicago and Northwestern would be my absolute top choices. Would it be beneficial to apply ED to one of them?

impossible to say until you have an lsat score and an lsac gpa

Get 168+ on the LSAT and ED to NU, don't ED to Chicago. ED to NU = full ride, ED to Chicago = full sticker. NU > Chi IMO anyway.

PeanutsNJam wrote:Get 168+ on the LSAT and ED to NU, don't ED to Chicago. ED to NU = full ride, ED to Chicago = full sticker. NU > Chi IMO anyway.

Really? Why do you say that? (Not the thing about full ride beating sticker, but about NU>Chicago)

I'm curious because I'm debating with myself on whether I should have applied/ should apply to NU

Currently 3.94...

Not relevant.

my GPA will need to be recalculated.

Then do it.

Then estimate your GPA after a full senior year of ~3.9.

(Yes, that means take a gap year so you can boost your cumulative, i.e., LSAC GPA.)

lol

GPA: Unknown
LSAT: Unknown
Generic softs

Can I get into top law schools?

LOL yea bro, you're a lock for both...

.

musedreverie wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:Get 168+ on the LSAT and ED to NU, don't ED to Chicago. ED to NU = full ride, ED to Chicago = full sticker. NU > Chi IMO anyway.

Really? Why do you say that? (Not the thing about full ride beating sticker, but about NU>Chicago)

I'm curious because I'm debating with myself on whether I should have applied/ should apply to NU

chi is a better school
doesn't make sense not to throw an app to nu though, see what they offer

musedreverie wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:Get 168+ on the LSAT and ED to NU, don't ED to Chicago. ED to NU = full ride, ED to Chicago = full sticker. NU > Chi IMO anyway.

Really? Why do you say that? (Not the thing about full ride beating sticker, but about NU>Chicago)

I'm curious because I'm debating with myself on whether I should have applied/ should apply to NU

Chicago has better placement, but Evanston >>> Hyde park and many people would prefer the atmosphere and culture at NW more

what a terrific rationale

sure, 13% higher lt/ft/jd
9% higher bl+fc

BUT THE ATMOSPHERE YOU GUYS

Brut wrote:what a terrific rationale

sure, 13% higher lt/ft/jd
9% higher bl+fc

BUT THE ATMOSPHERE YOU GUYS

9% bl/fc would be worth it just so you don't have to live on the south side

Mack.Hambleton wrote:

musedreverie wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:Get 168+ on the LSAT and ED to NU, don't ED to Chicago. ED to NU = full ride, ED to Chicago = full sticker. NU > Chi IMO anyway.

Really? Why do you say that? (Not the thing about full ride beating sticker, but about NU>Chicago)

I'm curious because I'm debating with myself on whether I should have applied/ should apply to NU

Chicago has better placement, but Evanston >>> Hyde park and many people would prefer the atmosphere and culture at NW more

NU is in downtown Chicago, not Evanston.

Brut wrote:

musedreverie wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:Get 168+ on the LSAT and ED to NU, don't ED to Chicago. ED to NU = full ride, ED to Chicago = full sticker. NU > Chi IMO anyway.

Really? Why do you say that? (Not the thing about full ride beating sticker, but about NU>Chicago)

I'm curious because I'm debating with myself on whether I should have applied/ should apply to NU

chi is a better school

If someone is accepted to both Chi and NU, yeah Chi has better employment but NU will invariable offer much more scholarship money (if you're Chi medians you're probably in at NU ED).

I think NU's +money equates to Chi's +9% bl/fc.

If you remove scholarship, location, and employment stats from comparisons (those three are the most important), I'd pick NU any day.

If I'm getting the same money offer from both schools, then yeah I'd pick Chi of course.

PeanutsNJam wrote:

Brut wrote:

musedreverie wrote:

PeanutsNJam wrote:Get 168+ on the LSAT and ED to NU, don't ED to Chicago. ED to NU = full ride, ED to Chicago = full sticker. NU > Chi IMO anyway.

Really? Why do you say that? (Not the thing about full ride beating sticker, but about NU>Chicago)

I'm curious because I'm debating with myself on whether I should have applied/ should apply to NU

chi is a better school

If someone is accepted to both Chi and NU, yeah Chi has better employment but NU will invariable offer much more scholarship money (if you're Chi medians you're probably in at NU ED).

I think NU's +money equates to Chi's +9% bl/fc.

If you remove scholarship, location, and employment stats from comparisons (those three are the most important), I'd pick NU any day.

If I'm getting the same money offer from both schools, then yeah I'd pick Chi of course.

Chicago has a definite employment advantage in some areas. If you're going purely off of numbers and assume equal cost, it makes sense to pick Chi over NU.

That said, I don't think it is crazy to pick NU over Chi if you like the school/location/etc. significantly better. Law school is 3 years of your life. To be fair, I'm headed to NU and would have most likely picked Chi at equal cost. It wouldn't be totally insane to do the opposite though.

Advice to OP: get an lsdas gpa of 3.5 or better (preferably 3.6), get a 170+ LSAT score, consider taking a year off, and ED NU.