Top Law Schools

My stats are a 3.62 GPA from WM with a 164 December LSAT score. I submitted my applications pretty late (Jan 9.) to Boston College and University, University of Illinois, Fordham, and William and Mary. I am pretty pessimistic about my chances. Would the fact that I submitted my applications pretty late into the cycle make me uncompetitive? And to be honest my personal statement was not great, it was ok. Furthermore, if your stats are in the 50% - 75% percentile, what does that mean in terms of competitiveness? And overall what are my chances?

Check out http://www.mylsn.info for chances

.

I predict you'll be accepted to all the schools and get a full ride at UIUC, barring any major application blunders.

A 164 is not a bad score. I think that puts you around the 90th percentile (not a bad place to be).

You could choose a strong regional school you have ties too, get a significant scholarship, and perform in the top quarter of the class Statistically speaking if your LSAT is higher than the median at your school, you'll likely get better grades than most of you classmates- no guarantee but you are obviously smart enough considering your LSAT; just work your butt off.

It's not a bad route provided you get significant scholarships and don't care about geographic mobility. If your goal is big law, you'll need to perform extremely well and don't expect to attain big law in new york if you are attending U of Illinois, for example.

georgetownhopeful893 wrote: if your LSAT is higher than the median at your school, you'll likely get better grades than most of you [sic] classmates

This is such flawed thinking that has been discredited ad nauseum on TLS.

Dirigo wrote:

georgetownhopeful893 wrote: if your LSAT is higher than the median at your school, you'll likely get better grades than most of you [sic] classmates

This is such flawed thinking that has been discredited ad nauseum on TLS.

Ya that's a horrible mindset that has been disproven too many times to have any credit.

However, I will say that I don't think he needs to retake, based on the schools he's listed. 164 isn't a bad score. There's a difference between a bad LSAT, and a TLS bad LSAT. 164 is like 88th percentile. For the schools he's listed., that's good enough. However, definitely don't go in thinking "I'm better than everyone else cuz of my LSAT score." The grades are gonna go to who earns them the most and I mean that as literally as possible. Nothing pre-law school is gonna have any determinant on law school grades.

Dirigo wrote:

georgetownhopeful893 wrote: if your LSAT is higher than the median at your school, you'll likely get better grades than most of you [sic] classmates

This is such flawed thinking that has been discredited ad nauseum on TLS.

I found this- http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... -13-03.pdf

But I suppose I'll have to search the TLS forums and enlighten myself

georgetownhopeful893 wrote:

Dirigo wrote:

georgetownhopeful893 wrote: if your LSAT is higher than the median at your school, you'll likely get better grades than most of you [sic] classmates

This is such flawed thinking that has been discredited ad nauseum on TLS.

I found this- http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... -13-03.pdf

But I suppose I'll have to search the TLS forums and enlighten myself

A median correlation coefficient of .37 isn't that strong, and to the extent it means anything it certainly doesn't mean that you are likely to finish ahead of most of your classmates. Unless you mean that very literally he has a 51% chance to finish ahead of 51% of his classmates than you're probably right.

The thing is, success in law school isn't determined by your LSAT, it's determined by your ability to take law school exams, and they're not the same or even very similar. There are definitely some people who go in with a higher LSAT than most and excel with ease. But there are plenty of people who don't. And there are plenty of people who outperform their LSAT score (probably most people who end up transferring, because most end up at schools they wouldn't have been accepted to based on LSAT). You just can't know ahead of time which category you're going to be in.

Yeah, I get that a correlation exists. I think a 170 would be way more capable of succeeding on law school exams if the school median was a mere 158 (*however, see anecdote at end) , despite the LSAT and 1L exams being different beasts. But oftentimes, the spread for an entering class at law schools is not that large.

Take Illinois, for example. The 25-50-75 is 158-161-163. That's a spread of only 5 points. OP has a 164, so is above the 75th percentile. However, the difference between a 161 and a 164 is only 3-5 questions on the LSAT. The 161 could have flubbed one game, while the 164 got a lucky break on that game. It's preposterous to say that a 164 is significantly more capable of success on 1L exams than a 161. That's why one should always assume median grades (especially with how law school curves are set up) and outcomes when choosing a school. It would be foolishly special snowflake to assume otherwise.

*Anecdote: my friend attended a school with a median of 158, while she had a 169. She got stuck with median grades. You really cannot predict performance on 1L exams.

I'd say though there is some predictive ability in the LSAT.....since law schools do not take the GRE in place of the LSAT or accept GRE scores.

Almost all other graduate programs do use the GRE ( even b schools you can take the GRE instead of the GMAT) as a standardized test for applicants even though it is much more widely used. Someone looking to get a PHD in History and another applicant trying to get into grad school for engineering both have to take the GRE even though the two programs are very widely different.

While not perfect, I think Law schools see the LSAT as a better predictor of critical thinking skills needed in LS rather than the GRE, or else they likely would have started accepted GRE's by now

We all understand that the LSAT is an aptitude test. Obviously a 170 has more potential to succeed in law school and pass the bar than a 150. But having an above 75th% LSAT does not mean you are likely to be ranked in the top 25% of the class after 1L grades.
LSAT scores are indicative of success in the most macro of senses, but when LSATs are used by 0Ls to predict 1L class rank, that's a very dangerous assumption that shouldn't be used to justify attending one school over another.

Thank you all for the replies. When I said "If your stats are in the 50% - 75% percentile, what does that mean in terms of competitiveness?", I meant in terms of admissions.

topgun808 wrote:Thank you all for the replies. When I said "If your stats are in the 50% - 75% percentile, what does that mean in terms of competitiveness?", I meant in terms of admissions.

It means you'll very likely be admitted. I don't know what more you're asking, especially since someone posted the mylsn.info link. Even then, your chances are more optimistic than mylsn shows because medians at the schools you mentioned have fallen in the past couple years.
Oh and most PS's are unextraordinary so don't worry about that. Schools will base their decision almost solely on your stats.

Post removed.

You guys are ignoring the +-3 margin of error on the LSAT. This correlation data isn't. Remember that the +-3 accounts for the 3 points difference between say Stanford and GULCs LSAT medians... Or Alabama's and Cornell's....