2.9GPA, 158LSAT, already got in American & ASU Forum

[Troianii]

So that's why I'm asking again about chances, because conventional wisdom doesn't seem to apply to me - at least not so far this cycle.

Strongly disagree with this point, which seems to be the premise of your OP.

ASU's 25th% LSAT was 158 last cycle. It's really not surprising at all that a URM/military combo applicant would sneak in by hitting that 25th%. Certainly not wisdom-defying.

And to be clear, ASU with no ties is not a good safety, as you suggest. You should be 100% committed to making a successful retake happen at this point. Imagine cracking the mid-160s and going to a school with national reach, like cornell, for free.

Hmmm. Thanks for the advice, and I'll think on it. Sometimes it takes time for advice you don't want to hear to fully sink in, so I'll take that on consideration.

So ASU's 25th% was 158... BC's was 159, BU 160. Do you think that suggest that I have a slim to fair shot at those two then?

the whole reason why I even bothered to ask was because my acceptance to ASU balks traditional wisdom as it is

Glad you affirmed my point above. This notion is wrong, in my opinion.[/quote]

Yup - that was my running presumption, since I'd heard multiple times I really have no shot at similarly ranked schools - BC, BU, Iowa, Emory, Minnesota, etc.

[Clemenceau]

So that's why I'm asking again about chances, because conventional wisdom doesn't seem to apply to me - at least not so far this cycle.

Strongly disagree with this point, which seems to be the premise of your OP.

ASU's 25th% LSAT was 158 last cycle. It's really not surprising at all that a URM/military combo applicant would sneak in by hitting that 25th%. Certainly not wisdom-defying.

And to be clear, ASU with no ties is not a good safety, as you suggest. You should be 100% committed to making a successful retake happen at this point. Imagine cracking the mid-160s and going to a school with national reach, like cornell, for free.

Hmmm. Thanks for the advice, and I'll think on it. Sometimes it takes time for advice you don't want to hear to fully sink in, so I'll take that on consideration.

So ASU's 25th% was 158... BC's was 159, BU 160. Do you think that suggest that I have a slim to fair shot at those two then?

Not really. Personally I think being below both 25ths is pretty close to a death sentence at just about any school.

[AReasonableMan]

Whatever bro. You're posting in other people's "chance me" threads like you've got all the answers anyway. What difference does it make if I tell you you've got x% here and y% there? I thought I'd help you out by telling you that your life is probably going to end up shitty if you attend any school with your stats, ranked 26th or otherwise. Not only is it going to end up shitty, it's going to end up shitty practicing in a state that you don't want to be in.

ya, if I attend law school with a 158 LSAT, regardless of which school I do, my life will suck. Riiiight... b/c studying to essentially hack a learnable test really is going to mean so much more in regards to my ability to perform at law school and in the profession.

He isn't saying it has anything to do with your ability to take law school exams, and practice law. He's talking about the opportunities you'll have to practice law. The employment number differentials are night and day, and for the most part it's already predetermined how many students at x and y school will get good jobs.

What he's trying to say is a 158 is in "trap school" territory where your school is a T1 with T1 competition but TTT type employment outcomes. American is the biggest trap school in the country. Due to its T1 status, you're probably better off going to a TTT where you'll have a higher chance of finishing in the top 10%.

Does the T1 go down to 71 these days? Grade inflation is apparently everywhere.

Seriously OP, have you looked at American's employment stats? Why would you even apply there?

With an acceptance from ASU, American isn't even something I'm considering at this point. The reason why I even bothered to mention American is because I seem to be doing much better than conventional wisdom suggests. With my stats and URM status, this predictor has me as "consider" for American, and "deny" for ASU, and I got my acceptance from both about two weeks after submitting them. Again, with an acceptance from ASU the only way I'd even consider American is with a full ride + stipend is IF I didn't already have outside funding (which I do), so American isn't even in play for me anymore. And, really, ASU is a pretty good safety school if you ask me.

http://www.lawschoolpredictor.com/wp-co ... ograms.htm

Paul Campos is a leading law professor. I wouldn't brush off his advice that lightly. Most law professors mean well and are great at what they do, but have interests that don't include things like legal employment and rankings. To have an actual insider is a lot to look past. I don't really know what T1's are today. I haven't really looked since 2012.

As a URM as long as you hit one median then you're a net gain from a rankings perspective. Idk how much schools care about rankings, but it'd be a pity not to improve 6 or 7 points.

[pancakes3]

Whatever bro. You're posting in other people's "chance me" threads like you've got all the answers anyway. What difference does it make if I tell you you've got x% here and y% there? I thought I'd help you out by telling you that your life is probably going to end up shitty if you attend any school with your stats, ranked 26th or otherwise. Not only is it going to end up shitty, it's going to end up shitty practicing in a state that you don't want to be in.

is that really so bad- non-t14? You scared me.

Look, you've got to be realistic with your stats, your finances, and what you want to do with your life. Debt is real, and it can be potentially crushing. The forced curve in law school is no joke, and even people in the T14 strike out and don't land biglaw/similarly lucrative jobs. Law degrees are not portable. Career trajectories (especially with respect to where you start your career) are pretty set also. It's roll of the die after roll of the die. It's just not a very smart idea to take your very first step towards becoming a "successful lawyer" - however you want to define it - by not doing everything in your power to maximize your chances.

Plus, whatever school that's accepting a 2.9/158 - URM/ex-Military or not is going to:
a) have unattractive employment prospects
b) charge sticker

Yeah, whatever the raw employment percentages are, consider that legal salaries are bimodal. Missing out on biglaw and that 160k paycheck means you're staring down the barrel of 60k at best at a small firm practicing in the areas that small firms practice and you'll never have the opportunity to pull yourself by the bootstraps into that 160k bracket. You're stuck doing small-firm work for the rest of your life in the state that you chose to start your career.

[sd1111]

Whatever bro. You're posting in other people's "chance me" threads like you've got all the answers anyway. What difference does it make if I tell you you've got x% here and y% there? I thought I'd help you out by telling you that your life is probably going to end up shitty if you attend any school with your stats, ranked 26th or otherwise. Not only is it going to end up shitty, it's going to end up shitty practicing in a state that you don't want to be in.

is that really so bad- non-t14? You scared me.

Look, you've got to be realistic with your stats, your finances, and what you want to do with your life. Debt is real, and it can be potentially crushing. The forced curve in law school is no joke, and even people in the T14 strike out and don't land biglaw/similarly lucrative jobs. Law degrees are not portable. Career trajectories (especially with respect to where you start your career) are pretty set also. It's roll of the die after roll of the die. It's just not a very smart idea to take your very first step towards becoming a "successful lawyer" - however you want to define it - by not doing everything in your power to maximize your chances.

Plus, whatever school that's accepting a 2.9/158 - URM/ex-Military or not is going to:
a) have unattractive employment prospects
b) charge sticker

Yeah, whatever the raw employment percentages are, consider that legal salaries are bimodal. Missing out on biglaw and that 160k paycheck means you're staring down the barrel of 60k at best at a small firm practicing in the areas that small firms practice and you'll never have the opportunity to pull yourself by the bootstraps into that 160k bracket. You're stuck doing small-firm work for the rest of your life in the state that you chose to start your career.

Thanks for your explaination!Only what you state-the true situation-just scared me further!!!!hahahahahaha
I just do not want to ge bald when I graduate......

[Troianii]

Look, you've got to be realistic with your stats, your finances, and what you want to do with your life. Debt is real, and it can be potentially crushing. The forced curve in law school is no joke, and even people in the T14 strike out and don't land biglaw/similarly lucrative jobs. Law degrees are not portable. Career trajectories (especially with respect to where you start your career) are pretty set also. It's roll of the die after roll of the die. It's just not a very smart idea to take your very first step towards becoming a "successful lawyer" - however you want to define it - by not doing everything in your power to maximize your chances.

Plus, whatever school that's accepting a 2.9/158 - URM/ex-Military or not is going to:
a) have unattractive employment prospects
b) charge sticker

Yeah, I've got outside funding so all this talk about debt is pretty much a non-issue - probably one more reason why you should steer away from non-answers. I mean really, I appreciate your input, but its actually useless, because I have outside funding - again, why you should answer questions that were asked.

Yeah, whatever the raw employment percentages are, consider that legal salaries are bimodal. Missing out on biglaw and that 160k paycheck means you're staring down the barrel of 60k at best at a small firm practicing in the areas that small firms practice and you'll never have the opportunity to pull yourself by the bootstraps into that 160k bracket. You're stuck doing small-firm work for the rest of your life in the state that you chose to start your career.

And your analysis of the bimodal salary distribution is the usually overly-generic banter. 17% fall around the 160k band, 50% fall within the 40-65k band. About another 8% fall below the 40-65k band, leaving a somehow forgotten 25% falling in between the two main bands: mid law exists. And I should hardly need to mention that the bimodal chart includes graduates from Cooley and the like, and unless you're going to try to tell me that about 17% of Cooley grads start out at around 160k, then the bimodal chart isn't itself a good indication of what prospects graduates from T1s are looking at. Really just don't know why so many people seem to think that.

It's just not a very smart idea to take your very first step towards becoming a "successful lawyer" - however you want to define it - by not doing everything in your power to maximize your chances.

This is quite presumptuous, and I'm just going to leave it at that.

[Phoenix97]

Post removed...

[Troianii]

Paul Campos is a leading law professor. I wouldn't brush off his advice that lightly. Most law professors mean well and are great at what they do, but have interests that don't include things like legal employment and rankings. To have an actual insider is a lot to look past. I don't really know what T1's are today. I haven't really looked since 2012.

I think you misunderstood. I wasn't brushing off his advice, Paul simply asked why I'd even bother applying to American and somehow mistakenly thought I'd said it was T1. I didn't say it was T1, and in retrospect he has a point with American's job figures.

As a URM as long as you hit one median then you're a net gain from a rankings perspective. Idk how much schools care about rankings, but it'd be a pity not to improve 6 or 7 points.

I agree, it'd be great to improve 6+ points, but again you've got to be realistic. The overwhelming majority of those who retake the LSAT study their butts off, and the average increase is 1.9. A 6pt bump is a great ideal, but its hardly something to realistically expect but, like I said, I plan on retaking in February, and if I get enough of a bump to make a difference I'll wait and re-apply, but no I'm not set on taking a year off and re-applying. It hardly makes sense to plan on that when it's always a backup to waiting to hear where I get in, right?

[Troianii]

Never commented on one of these "chance me" threads because I do not feel I possess the knowledge or experience sufficient to do so; however, being that I possess basic common sense, I do feel qualified to throw my two cents in here.

You came here for advice. People gave you advice...yet you're rudely dismissing them because it is not the precise brand of advice you were seeking?

While I think it is pretty silly for someone to speculate on whether or not you're going to have a "shitty life", I do think you are approaching this issue in a very immature and ignorant manner.

I think this may be one of those things where stuff doesn't come across via text as its intended - there's only one poster here that I felt I was just outright dismissing, b/c their advice was crap. The rest was answering questions or explaining - if I came across as brazen, well.... oops. *shrug*

First: While your life may not end up "shitty", it could be drastically different than what you could achieve if you actually strive for your full potential. If the test is as learnable as you are asserting, why didn't you just opt to retake it in December? Have you ever concerned that perhaps LSAC is quite aware of the fact it is learnable, and that they are testing whether potential law students have the drive, focus, motivation, and determination to excel at it? It may be a strategic method of discovering people who have a natural aptitude for logic OR those who may lack the aptitude, but are willing to work hard in order to close the gap...perhaps that is why applicants have the option of taking it multiple times? So...what does that say about your douchey "Pssssh, whatever bro lolz" attitude toward it?" Is that the kind of lawyer YOUR would want?

This is mostly just personal circumstances. I would have done the December retake, but this just so happened to be the most challenging semester I've had yet with a course overload, capstone, etc., and it wouldn't even be worth the money spent on the test to do a retake when I didn't have the time to properly prepare. Like I've said, I plan on a February retake after studying in late December and through January, and whether or not I take a year off depends on the progress I make by that point. A major part of this is this: I'm already going to be 30 when I graduate from law school. If I were a 21yo undergrad I'd have a very different perspective on this, but the older you get, the less sense it makes to take time off.

Second: If being an URM is something that has impacted your life (i.e. you're not white passing), you should know that academics is one of the areas where we have some sort of advantage. You have the possibility of attending a law school that many white applicants with your GPA and a higher LSAT would never have a chance of being accepted to. The law school you attend could VERY POSSIBLY be the difference between making $60,000/yr and $160,000/yr. This test will literally determine your economic circumstances for the rest of your life.
All sociological and historical explanations as aside...for many of us, the URM boost is a life raft we're being thrown as we leap from a sinking ship...and if you swim a few more yards, you can grab one that is not partially deflated; yet your response is essentially "TL;DR"?

:/ I actually don't plan on biglaw. Really, I don't want big law - my first choice is working for the federal government, second choice is local government, third choice is midlaw, fourth choice is biglaw. 60k is absolutely fine by me - I'm not going into law for the $, I actually want to practice law, and 60k is enough for me to live off of, especially since with the outside funding I have I don't have to worry about getting a job that will enable me to pay off massive debt.

Third: I'm all for riding the URM boost all the way to the bank...but at least hop on the train knowing you did all you could to get there.
Have some self-respect. Don't just half-ass your way to the end and say "Whelp, I'm an URM, so I'll get where I need to go from here and I'm not gonna wait." I mean, if you seemed sincere about your efforts, it would be one thing. But so far, you've basically said "Eh, sure I could do better...but I don't wanna." It comes across very poorly to everyone who has literally thrown everything they had into achieving their law school ambitions.

Again, I plan on a retake, but I'm not going to take a year off on the assumption that I'll get an 8+ boost that 1/10th of retakers get without any indication from the February LSAT that it's even a realistic possibility.

Thanks for the advice.

[Phoenix97]

Post removed...

[Troianii]

Paul Campos is a leading law professor. I wouldn't brush off his advice that lightly. Most law professors mean well and are great at what they do, but have interests that don't include things like legal employment and rankings. To have an actual insider is a lot to look past. I don't really know what T1's are today. I haven't really looked since 2012.

I think you misunderstood. I wasn't brushing off his advice, Paul simply asked why I'd even bother applying to American and somehow mistakenly thought I'd said it was T1. I didn't say it was T1, and in retrospect he has a point with American's job figures.

As a URM as long as you hit one median then you're a net gain from a rankings perspective. Idk how much schools care about rankings, but it'd be a pity not to improve 6 or 7 points.

I agree, it'd be great to improve 6+ points, but again you've got to be realistic. The overwhelming majority of those who retake the LSAT study their butts off, and the average increase is 1.9.

So, the LSAT is learnable to the point where you believe it is a poor indicator of future academic and career potential...but also so unlearnable that you believe that a majority of people who retake are unable to achieve anything beyond a two point increase...?

No. It's learnable, meaning that someone taking a year off to study, getting a tutor, etc., w/e, is not going to improve how well they will do in law and the legal field by studying for the LSAT apart from improving their admissions prospects. And yeah, I believe that the average bump for people who had a 158 and retake it is a 1.9, because that's what the LSAC data indicates.

http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... erdata.pdf

[BigZuck]

I suspect there's quite a few logical fallacies here but I would be very surprised if the overwhelming majority of LSAT retakers study their butt off or do anything even close to the level of prep TLS advises.

[Troianii]

I suspect there's quite a few logical fallacies here but I would be very surprised if the overwhelming majority of LSAT retakers study their butt off or do anything even close to the level of prep TLS advises.

Haha that may well be the case but, again, I plan on a February retake and if a month and a half of hard studying (roughly 200-240 total) can get me at least a 4pt bump, I'll definitely consider taking a year off. But that's something to figure out in 2016, not today.

[Phoenix97]

Post removed...

[Phoenix97]

Post removed...

[Troianii]

I suspect there's quite a few logical fallacies here but I would be very surprised if the overwhelming majority of LSAT retakers study their butt off or do anything even close to the level of prep TLS advises.

Haha that may well be the case but, again, I plan on a February retake and if a month and a half of hard studying (roughly 200-240 total) can get me at least a 4pt bump, I'll definitely consider taking a year off. But that's something to figure out in 2016, not today.

Glad you're at least considering it.

That's actually nothing new haha. The thing is it matters how much of a boost I can get - I know I can get a boost, but outside of the t14, my top choices are BU and BC. I actually have zero interest in Georgetown, so the jump I'd have to make would be enough to jump a lot. The next school I'd consider over BU or BC is Cornell, MAYBE Vanderbilt - but to be able to get to their medians I'd need an 11pt jump, and 90% of retakers get less than an 8pt jump so... anyways, I hope it's making sense why I'm skeptical about taking a year off. IF i get into BU or BC this cycle, then to have a solid shot at a better school I'd actually prefer over those two, I'd need to get a boost which is by no means reasonable to EXPECT even with time off. That's the issue.

[Clearly]

Graduating at thirty, took two years off to get WE and retake, improved 12 points, have same gpa, got t14 and job I wanted. Taking questions.

[Phoenix97]

Post removed...

[Mullens]

What are your career goals and why do you want to go to law school? Any advice about where you should attend really comes down to the answer to those two questions, which are, of course, related. Applying to a smattering of regional schools almost never makes sense, even for someone with "no place to call home."

It's a good thing you're asking for advice at all, but I think you need to be more receptive to what some people are telling you and ignore some of your own logical conclusions you seem certain are correct. For example, when you make the conclusion that midlaw exists as a large portion of legal employment because there's some salary gap between 60k and 160k, your ignorance as a 0L is readily apparent. There are several factors you've entirely failed to consider (regional biglaw doesn't pay 160k in secondary/tertiary cities, some are boutiques that require biglaw/patent credentials, insurance defense firms) that undermine your theory that midlaw is some large part of legal employment that actual lawyers and law students who have conducted a thorough job search have just been blind to. You'd be better served considering advice humbly rather than fighting back at every suggestion that contradicts with your limited knowledge.

[Ken Kesey]

Honestly, what even makes you think you'll be successful at law school? You have terrible numbers. If you want to be a prosecutor or small time general practitioner then I can see going to law school, but really I would only go if you have some especially strong desire for law school.

[Phoenix97]

Post removed...

[Ken Kesey]

Honestly, what even makes you think you'll be successful at law school? You have terrible numbers. If you want to be a prosecutor or small time general practitioner then I can see going to law school, but really I would only go if you have some especially strong desire for law school.

Geez...why is there always that one guy who does this?

Person one: [Offers constructive criticism]

Person two: [Offers genuine advice]

That one guy: "Yeah, and you're a dumb piece of shit."

*crickets chirping*

*distant cough*





Not nice or necessary.

OP, I think you should pursue whatever dream or goal you've been striving for...but you may be better served by thinking a bit harder about your maximum potential and not rush forward simply because you think thirty is some mystical age when everything goes downhill and people are supposed to give up on developing themselves.

I'm sorry I try to inject a modicum of reality into someone's dreams.

[Troianii]

Honestly, what even makes you think you'll be successful at law school? You have terrible numbers. If you want to be a prosecutor or small time general practitioner then I can see going to law school, but really I would only go if you have some especially strong desire for law school.

Bwahaha! Thank you - no thread is complete without at least two sour sallies. Much gracias!

[Troianii]

Graduating at thirty, took two years off to get WE and retake, improved 12 points, have same gpa, got t14 and job I wanted. Taking questions.

Wow - that's awesome! Congrats man! I hope I can improve by even near as much, I'm just skeptical (based on statistics) as to how likely it is. I know there a quite a few cases of people making significant improvements, and it's just somewhat hit or miss. I mean, if I were told "take a year off and you'll get a 10pt bump, I'm there, I'm just skeptical as to how LIKELY it is. I know it's possible but in any case, like I said, worth considering if it seems probable. But I'd need an 11pt jump to have a reasonable shot at a school I'd prefer over BC or BU, so again it's possible but hell, it's possible to come out of a t2 with a biglaw job - just not likely, you know? Trying to be realistic is all.

Thanks for the bit you added. Any advice on how study habits on how to get a significant (8+) bump over six months of studying?

[Troianii]

What are your career goals and why do you want to go to law school? Any advice about where you should attend really comes down to the answer to those two questions, which are, of course, related. Applying to a smattering of regional schools almost never makes sense, even for someone with "no place to call home."

It's a good thing you're asking for advice at all, but I think you need to be more receptive to what some people are telling you and ignore some of your own logical conclusions you seem certain are correct. For example, when you make the conclusion that midlaw exists as a large portion of legal employment because there's some salary gap between 60k and 160k, your ignorance as a 0L is readily apparent. There are several factors you've entirely failed to consider (regional biglaw doesn't pay 160k in secondary/tertiary cities, some are boutiques that require biglaw/patent credentials, insurance defense firms) that undermine your theory that midlaw is some large part of legal employment that actual lawyers and law students who have conducted a thorough job search have just been blind to. You'd be better served considering advice humbly rather than fighting back at every suggestion that contradicts with your limited knowledge.

Thanks - I somehow always appreciate what you add.

Like I've said, I'm mostly resistant because more people get midlaw than biglaw, but again I'd prefer to work for government, preferably federal but I'm okay with local, and midlaw is a third choicw, before big law. I'm more concerned about quality of life than $ - w/o getting into specifics, I already have a set income that is enough to pay for rent basically anywhere. And I'd rather work in a job I love for 50-60k than biglaw for big bucks - and I've got outside funding, so paying for loans isn't a major concern (though I might have some after graduation, it'll be low - well under 100k). I'm open to moving, but I'd prefer to work in New England in the Boston area or north of it.

And I don't mean to be an ass, but some advice is just about $ which isn't even a concern.