Top Law Schools

I am currently Columbia Undergrad, going for applied mathematics. I am also an Air Force intelligence vet. Unfortunately I think I will graduate with a GPA between 3.0 and 3.5. Will Columbia, military and STEM make up for a low GPA?

beika wrote:I am currently Columbia Undergrad, going for applied mathematics. I am also an Air Force intelligence vet. Unfortunately I think I will graduate with a GPA between 3.0 and 3.5. Will Columbia, military and STEM make up for a low GPA?

nope. sorry bud.

depends on how low gpa and how high your lsat is but no you're not dead in the water yet.

still an uphill battle though and $$ will be tough

.

bpolley0 wrote:Yeah because someone who got a 4.0 in liberal studies/ Sociology/ any of the other useless leftist rip off majors from your local community college is equivalent to someone who got a 3.x in Applied Mathematics.

This is the stupidest, saddest, most tired flame on this site, and also not responsive to the OP's question.

Military seems to be helpful. I don't know how far it will get you, but there often seems to be some boost. But the biggest thing that will make up for a sub-3.5 GPA is a stellar LSAT.

Also (and this is really directed at the post I'm quoting above), if your GPA is low because you didn't study or you didn't like math, do not address that in an application. You're not going to tell adcomms anything that will help you. "I didn't like applied math/didn't study hard enough which is why I have a lower GPA, but I like law/will study hard in law school so the GPA doesn't represent my potential for law school" is incredibly unconvincing. I think GPA addendums can be helpful, but almost exclusively if there was some kind of life event outside of your control (you got cancer, your family lost their house, or similar) that affected your grades, especially if you can point to higher grades from a time not affected by that life event.

.

I doubt Columbia and STEM will have any real impact. But military might get a bump, there's a veterans thread around here somewhere.

bpolley0 wrote:Those majors offer 0 utility to the productive capacity of the economy and while they may stroke your feelings/ ego they really have no value and, more importantly, indebt thousands of people every year to the federal government.

How wouldn't that help- addressing the exact reason WHY you had a low GPA? It is the why that is more important than a number. Certainly law school committees have the ability to critically think and aren't just using a filter to decrease the amount of time they have to spend looking over applications? Correct?

That's nice that you think entire realms of academic endeavor have no value, but some people see education more broadly.

I actually think adcomms probably use a lot of filters to reduce time spent looking at applications, out of necessity as much as anything else. But seriously, how is saying "I didn't study hard which is why my GPA isn't higher" helpful in any way? It doesn't flatter the applicant because it's them admitting they were a slacker, and it doesn't suggest any reason why adcomms should be confident that the applicant will do better in law school, which is presumably why adcomms want to know about GPA in the first place. The only reason to write an addendum is to be able to give adcomms a concrete reason to believe that the GPA isn't representative of the applicant's future potential, and "I didn't study" or "I didn't like this major" doesn't do that. Even the usual "I struggled with the transition to college but turned it around by senior year as you can see by my upward trend" isn't helpful, since an adcomm can look at a transcript and figure that out on their own. "My GPA is low because my professors were terrible" is an absolutely awful idea for an addendum and would make an applicant look like they make excuses and can't take responsibility for their actions.

I mean, if there's a good outside reason why you couldn't study hard, that's different ("During my time at Columbia UG I worked 30-40 hrs a week on top of a full courseload because I had to support my three orphaned siblings" - though presumably this would be evident in other parts of your application, too), but that didn't seem to be what you were suggesting.

.

beika wrote:I am currently Columbia Undergrad, going for applied mathematics. I am also an Air Force intelligence vet. Unfortunately I think I will graduate with a GPA between 3.0 and 3.5. Will Columbia, military and STEM make up for a low GPA?

Never know until you try. I got into UT law with a 2.6/170 after a 20-year career in the Navy. My undergrad was in computer science engineering, and I also have a master's in applied physics (with a much better GPA). I don't know whether I would have been accepted at any higher-ranked schools since I only applied to UT and one fallback, but I don't think that UVA or Northwestern would have been completely off the table.

tl;dr Don't write yourself off - make them tell you 'no'.

@bpolley - first, we're never going to agree about the value of the majors you call "gabllyguck," which I think is rather insulting, so there's no point in going further.

Second, a 3.0-3.5 isn't an obvious elephant in the room that needs to be explained. It's just kind of ordinary. So no, don't provide anything if you're just going to make excuses, which is what "I just didn't study hard in UG (but will now I swear)" looks like.

Third, if you think it's ever going to be productive to say that your GPA is low because your professors were bad, I don't think there's much help for you. That's the ultimate in making excuses. It doesn't matter whether it's the truth or not, part of the application process is to show that you know what you should and shouldn't say in what context.

Finally, do you think law schools actually do seriously holistic review of the majority of candidates? I'm not talking about what they should do, but what they actually do, which is what the OP and all other applicants have to contend with.

.

To the original inquiry, you probably won't have a very good shot at HYS, regardless of LSAT, and money will be difficult to get, but you should certainly have T14 options if you get a good LSAT score. To echo other posters, Columbia and STEM will probably be negligible, but military might give a small bump.

As to the GPA addendum conflict, 3.0-3.5 is a pretty big range so it's hard to say whether an addendum is a good idea. If you are closer to the 3.5 end, an addendum is probably not necessary unless you have a very compelling explanation. If you are closer to the 3.0 range, an addendum is probably a good idea, since it will stick out. Whatever you decide, I agree 100% with Nony (not that you ever asked for advice about writing an addendum, but FWIW ...) Don't write about not studying hard enough, don't write about not being interested in X subject, and definitely do not say anything negative about professors. As Nony said, the point of an addendum is to show the adcomms why your GPA is not representative of your academic capabilities. You will undoubtedly have professors in law school who you don't like or who just are not good teachers. You will also likely have classes that you are not interested in (in fact this scenarios is much more likely in law school, where you have many required classes, versus college where you have a lot of latitude in choosing what to study).

beika wrote:I am currently Columbia Undergrad, going for applied mathematics. I am also an Air Force intelligence vet. Unfortunately I think I will graduate with a GPA between 3.0 and 3.5. Will Columbia, military and STEM make up for a low GPA?

At NU, definitely.
At UCB, probably.
Everywhere else, possibly.

Also, if you have GI Bill left, save it if you think your going to a public school (Mich, UCB, UVA).

If thats a 3.5 - you're not screwed, if that's a 3.0, you prob are.

Columbia, Military and Stem are all nice, but if you want to go to t-14 you'll need to break a 170. The lower your GPA is, the higher you need your LSAT to be. You're shut out of HYSB... depending on your GPA prob very low chances at CCN.

At this point you need to just kill the LSAT.

GL!

A. Nony Mouse wrote:@bpolley - first, we're never going to agree about the value of the majors you call "gabllyguck," which I think is rather insulting, so there's no point in going further.

Second, a 3.0-3.5 isn't an obvious elephant in the room that needs to be explained. It's just kind of ordinary. So no, don't provide anything if you're just going to make excuses, which is what "I just didn't study hard in UG (but will now I swear)" looks like.

Third, if you think it's ever going to be productive to say that your GPA is low because your professors were bad, I don't think there's much help for you. That's the ultimate in making excuses. It doesn't matter whether it's the truth or not, part of the application process is to show that you know what you should and shouldn't say in what context.

Finally, do you think law schools actually do seriously holistic review of the majority of candidates? I'm not talking about what they should do, but what they actually do, which is what the OP and all other applicants have to contend with.

To add to that, a 3.0-3.5 from Columbia undergrad in a stem field with military exp isn't that ordinary. The fact is that law schools might care for those things, but there will inevitably be a candidate with better grades, and since law school is primarily a numbers game, OP might be the absolute best law candidate in the world, but because of the current system, it won't matter.

.

bpolley0 wrote:

gnomgnomuch wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:@bpolley - first, we're never going to agree about the value of the majors you call "gabllyguck," which I think is rather insulting, so there's no point in going further.

Second, a 3.0-3.5 isn't an obvious elephant in the room that needs to be explained. It's just kind of ordinary. So no, don't provide anything if you're just going to make excuses, which is what "I just didn't study hard in UG (but will now I swear)" looks like.

Third, if you think it's ever going to be productive to say that your GPA is low because your professors were bad, I don't think there's much help for you. That's the ultimate in making excuses. It doesn't matter whether it's the truth or not, part of the application process is to show that you know what you should and shouldn't say in what context.

Finally, do you think law schools actually do seriously holistic review of the majority of candidates? I'm not talking about what they should do, but what they actually do, which is what the OP and all other applicants have to contend with.

To add to that, a 3.0-3.5 from Columbia undergrad in a stem field with military exp isn't that ordinary. The fact is that law schools might care for those things, but there will inevitably be a candidate with better grades, and since law school is primarily a numbers game, OP might be the absolute best law candidate in the world, but because of the current system, it won't matter.

What a pathetic admission we have concluded upon- I think the top law schools should come out in concert and suggest to all current undergraduates they should major in underwater basket weaving and communications at Kaplan to guarantee their spot on the Supreme Court.

What's your problem with liberal arts? I'm not a HUGE fan, but i can see their worth. Hell, I majored in political science, took a few stats/math/econ courses along the way and came out of undergrad much better of than many of my friends doing stem/business.

.

Eh, you've been pretty insulting to the humanities here.

.

bpolley0 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Eh, you've been pretty insulting to the humanities here.

Not sure how the entire field of humanities is somehow insulted by my reference to sociology, liberal studies, underwater basket weaving, and communications not being as intellectually rigorous as other majors. In fact, I would argue it's factual based on their average Lsat scores. When all else fails, appeal to emotion.

Okay, then you're insulting only selected majors, including nonexistent ones.

sure, I think the veteran status and serious college help you a little. But what do you mean by "make up"? And how low is the GPA? If you're 3.4 and you swing a 173+, sure, you're T6 eligible or a decent scholarship at T14. If you're 3.2, even with your service record and college you're still scraping the barrel, as in, maybe Penn at sticker or $60k at NU. And this is all assuming you crack 170.

We can't give this kind of advise without more input, as in, an LSAT score.

.

bpolley0 wrote:

gnomgnomuch wrote:

bpolley0 wrote:

gnomgnomuch wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:@bpolley - first, we're never going to agree about the value of the majors you call "gabllyguck," which I think is rather insulting, so there's no point in going further.

Second, a 3.0-3.5 isn't an obvious elephant in the room that needs to be explained. It's just kind of ordinary. So no, don't provide anything if you're just going to make excuses, which is what "I just didn't study hard in UG (but will now I swear)" looks like.

Third, if you think it's ever going to be productive to say that your GPA is low because your professors were bad, I don't think there's much help for you. That's the ultimate in making excuses. It doesn't matter whether it's the truth or not, part of the application process is to show that you know what you should and shouldn't say in what context.

Finally, do you think law schools actually do seriously holistic review of the majority of candidates? I'm not talking about what they should do, but what they actually do, which is what the OP and all other applicants have to contend with.

To add to that, a 3.0-3.5 from Columbia undergrad in a stem field with military exp isn't that ordinary. The fact is that law schools might care for those things, but there will inevitably be a candidate with better grades, and since law school is primarily a numbers game, OP might be the absolute best law candidate in the world, but because of the current system, it won't matter.

What a pathetic admission we have concluded upon- I think the top law schools should come out in concert and suggest to all current undergraduates they should major in underwater basket weaving and communications at Kaplan to guarantee their spot on the Supreme Court.

What's your problem with liberal arts? I'm not a HUGE fan, but i can see their worth. Hell, I majored in political science, took a few stats/math/econ courses along the way and came out of undergrad much better of than many of my friends doing stem/business.

I have absolutely no problem with liberal arts. I personally have read a lot of philosophy on my own. I just don't think you are comparing apples with apples when looking at someone who majored in Econ from Columbia and art from Kaplan. Under the current theoretical framework we are working under, if the person from Columbia had a 3.4 and the person from Kaplan had a 3.8, then we would admit the Kaplan person and throw out the Columbia grad's resume, all things held equal. I find that perplexing.

I will say; however, that a lot of people who have liberal art degrees have issues in the labor market due to the fact the skills that are taught are of little value in terms of producing a good or service that other people demand. I.E. that is great you understand Stoicism but that doesn't aid your ability to produce a profit. Obviously this isn't in absolutes as you could certainly argue the ability to digest complex information and simplify it is a skill that is valuable.

Well I mean, if you live your entire life thinking that the only thing that matters is the ability to produce a profit then you have somewhat of a point. And you're taking two extremes. If the difference is a bio major with a 3.5 GPA from Harvard, and a political science major with a 3.8 from Kansas state I'd pick the KSU graduate - who has shown the ability to consistently produce A level work for 4 years. You're putting entirely too much emphasis on prestige and the assumption that a major is or won't be hard.

You can't equate grades, life circumstances, professors etc etc across majors in one university, let alone the entire U.S. That's why adcoms take GPA's at face value and the rest of the application is your LSAT and p.s, w/e etc. Don't forget at Harvard, 25% of students entering have a GPA that's below a 3.8 (or whatever the 25th is.) So, it's not like there is no leeway for excellent candidates who don't have the grades. It's just that there are SO many candidates out there already who have the grades, that those who are accepted with a GPA that's low for Harvard are truly exceptional, and have differentiated themselves in some other manner.