3.3 / 165, K-JD Forum

[CoGar]

Graduating from a state university with a 3.3 dual major in Criminology and Psychology. Softs/WE include CPA Internship, Political Research Analysts at communication firm, Runner at law firm, and Research Assistant for a criminology prof. Pre-Law Society, Presidents List, some club memberships

Got a 165 on LSAT. What is my best case scenario. Outside the T20 I'm interested in BU, BC, and Fordham - shots at $$ from these??\

Non URM if that means anything, K-JD as listed in title

Thanks so much!

[cavalier1138]

Softs are pretty irrelevant. If you want a shot at a T20, you'll probably need to bring that score up into the 170s.
I think you should have a shot at money from the other schools you mentioned, but since you're a splitter, the scholarship amount isn't very predictable.

That said, what are your career goals and where do you want to practice?

[CoGar]

That said, what are your career goals and where do you want to practice?

A large market on the east coast is my primary goal. ie. Boston, NYC, DC. As for what type of law that is very much still in the air. Big law seems rather enticing but is definitely a long shot coming from outside T14 as I most likely will be. Beyond that my undergrad focus is white collar crime and can see my self working both sides of this, prosecuting or defense.

[Nachoo2019]

That said, what are your career goals and where do you want to practice?

A large market on the east coast is my primary goal. ie. Boston, NYC, DC. As for what type of law that is very much still in the air. Big law seems rather enticing but is definitely a long shot coming from outside T14 as I most likely will be. Beyond that my undergrad focus is white collar crime and can see my self working both sides of this, prosecuting or defense.

Jobs in white collar crime are just as tough, if not tougher to land than big law jobs. I would suggest you start researching exactly what agencies you would want to work in and see where they hire from/what kinds of grades you would need depending on the school

[mornincounselor]

Softs are pretty irrelevant. If you want a shot at a T20, you'll probably need to bring that score up into the 170s.
I think you should have a shot at money from the other schools you mentioned, but since you're a splitter, the scholarship amount isn't very predictable.

That said, what are your career goals and where do you want to practice?

Disagree on these points. While getting a 170 would clearly be good it isn't required to get money from schools in the top 20. Applicants with <= a 3.3 GPA range have gotten six figures of aid from schools like Emory and WashU this cycle with 167s. I know of some applicants with that GPA and 168s and 169s which have received nearly full tuition scholarships from WUSTL.

Conversely, BU and Fordham (which despite their less impressive US News number boast higher large firm employment rates than many of the t20 schools -- again encouraging one to take a much deeper dive into the actual numbers as opposed to being persuaded by the judgements of some silly publication) tend to give out significantly less scholarship money to those same applicants I mention.

I agree the amount varies from student to student, but this is because these schools claim to award most of their scholarships (for students in these GPA/LSAT ranges) on the basis of need. So while it does vary, it is fairly easy to predict based on one's (or their parent's) income.

That said, you should of course aim for the highest score you can get, apply broadly to have leverage for negotiation and have hopeful practice areas and employment data be the driving factor in your decision moving forward.

[CoGar]

Disagree on these points. While getting a 170 would clearly be good it isn't required to get money from schools in the top 20. Applicants with <= a 3.3 GPA range have gotten six figures of aid from schools like Emory and WashU this cycle with 167s. I know of some applicants with that GPA and 168s and 169s which have received nearly full tuition scholarships from WUSTL.

Conversely, BU and Fordham (which despite their less impressive US News number boast higher large firm employment rates than many of the t20 schools -- again encouraging one to take a much deeper dive into the actual numbers as opposed to being persuaded by the judgements of some silly publication) tend to give out significantly less scholarship money to those same applicants I mention.

I agree the amount varies from student to student, but this is because these schools claim to award most of their scholarships (for students in these GPA/LSAT ranges) on the basis of need. So while it does vary, it is fairly easy to predict based on one's (or their parent's) income.

That said, you should of course aim for the highest score you can get, apply broadly to have leverage for negotiation and have hopeful practice areas and employment data be the driving factor in your decision moving forward.

Thanks for that much more reassuring outlook than the typical pompous 170 or bust mindset. Looks like step number two is to hone in on areas i'd like to practice. I have been ready almost all the "Typical Day" threads hoping to gain some insight on what its like at certain sized firms, certain markets, and doing certain specialized work. Thanks agin

[lolRCscrewyou]

Disagree on these points. While getting a 170 would clearly be good it isn't required to get money from schools in the top 20. Applicants with <= a 3.3 GPA range have gotten six figures of aid from schools like Emory and WashU this cycle with 167s. I know of some applicants with that GPA and 168s and 169s which have received nearly full tuition scholarships from WUSTL.

Conversely, BU and Fordham (which despite their less impressive US News number boast higher large firm employment rates than many of the t20 schools -- again encouraging one to take a much deeper dive into the actual numbers as opposed to being persuaded by the judgements of some silly publication) tend to give out significantly less scholarship money to those same applicants I mention.

I agree the amount varies from student to student, but this is because these schools claim to award most of their scholarships (for students in these GPA/LSAT ranges) on the basis of need. So while it does vary, it is fairly easy to predict based on one's (or their parent's) income.

That said, you should of course aim for the highest score you can get, apply broadly to have leverage for negotiation and have hopeful practice areas and employment data be the driving factor in your decision moving forward.

Thanks for that much more reassuring outlook than the typical pompous 170 or bust mindset. Looks like step number two is to hone in on areas i'd like to practice. I have been ready almost all the "Typical Day" threads hoping to gain some insight on what its like at certain sized firms, certain markets, and doing certain specialized work. Thanks agin

Seriously, I get so annoyed with the "Retake until you get a 170" mindset. They may be true if you have nothing to offer as an applicant other than a high LSAT score, but if you are a well rounded applicant, you can still get into T-14s WITH money.

[cavalier1138]

Seriously, I get so annoyed with the "Retake until you get a 170" mindset. They may be true if you have nothing to offer as an applicant other than a high LSAT score, but if you are a well rounded applicant, you can still get into T-14s WITH money.

Splitters get unpredictable money offers from T-14 schools. And since 165 doesn't actually make the OP a splitter at most of the T-14, they would likely be looking at no money (if they got in at all) without some sort of insane life story that just happened to pluck someone's heartstrings at just the right frequency. "Well-rounded" only matters if your numbers are good enough in the first place.

I'll freely admit that I didn't bother looking up T20 scholarship info, and it sounds like the OP is much better situated to get good money from WashU, etc. than I thought. But even admission to most T-14 schools is going to be iffy with a 3.3 and a mediocre (for that tier) LSAT score.

[mornincounselor]

I'm coming to disfavor the reliance by this forum on the t14 categorization. Certainly, some of these schools are set apart from the rest by way of their consistently strong employment statistics. However, it seems people generally live for simplification, and (in much the same way US News generally does) this distinction allows people to short change the law school investigative process.

Let's say UT were to suddenly and permanently change places with GULC. What would the implications be? Would there now suddenly be a "New t14"? Or would users begin to say "t13" or would there then exist a legal fictitious t14 which still counted GULC in and UT out. The answer to that question is irrelevant, but it goes to show one of the imperfections of the distinction.

The schools ranked within the top 14 spots of US News's World Report include (1) elite national schools (HYS); (2) strong national schools and weak national schools (I'll let someone better versed here draw those distinctions); (3) elite regional schools (GULC, Michigan). There are also some elite regional schools just outside the top 14 spots (UT, UCLA, USC, Vandy). Then we have strong regional schools (strong referring here to their propensity to place into BL jobs) and cost-effective regional schools, and a whole host of other schools.

In short, without this t14 shorthand applicants are forced to look critically at the vital figures (costs, employment data, types of jobs, regions of jobs, debt, debt-to-job ratio, debt-to-salary ratio) and I believe this is what applicants should be looking at not some magazine's designation of the top x schools.

--

[jnwa]

Disagree on these points. While getting a 170 would clearly be good it isn't required to get money from schools in the top 20. Applicants with <= a 3.3 GPA range have gotten six figures of aid from schools like Emory and WashU this cycle with 167s. I know of some applicants with that GPA and 168s and 169s which have received nearly full tuition scholarships from WUSTL.

Conversely, BU and Fordham (which despite their less impressive US News number boast higher large firm employment rates than many of the t20 schools -- again encouraging one to take a much deeper dive into the actual numbers as opposed to being persuaded by the judgements of some silly publication) tend to give out significantly less scholarship money to those same applicants I mention.

I agree the amount varies from student to student, but this is because these schools claim to award most of their scholarships (for students in these GPA/LSAT ranges) on the basis of need. So while it does vary, it is fairly easy to predict based on one's (or their parent's) income.

That said, you should of course aim for the highest score you can get, apply broadly to have leverage for negotiation and have hopeful practice areas and employment data be the driving factor in your decision moving forward.

Thanks for that much more reassuring outlook than the typical pompous 170 or bust mindset. Looks like step number two is to hone in on areas i'd like to practice. I have been ready almost all the "Typical Day" threads hoping to gain some insight on what its like at certain sized firms, certain markets, and doing certain specialized work. Thanks agin

Seriously, I get so annoyed with the "Retake until you get a 170" mindset. They may be true if you have nothing to offer as an applicant other than a high LSAT score, but if you are a well rounded applicant, you can still get into T-14s WITH money.

With a 3.3 and a sub 167 you can be as well rounded as a circle, you probably wont get into a t14 and you almost certainly wont get a lot of money. Also even if youre a nobel prize winning olympian, its still worth it to get your LSAT up if possible. If you had the chance to raise your GPA by .5 you wouldnt shun it because the rest of your app is already sterling.

[lolRCscrewyou]

Disagree on these points. While getting a 170 would clearly be good it isn't required to get money from schools in the top 20. Applicants with <= a 3.3 GPA range have gotten six figures of aid from schools like Emory and WashU this cycle with 167s. I know of some applicants with that GPA and 168s and 169s which have received nearly full tuition scholarships from WUSTL.

Conversely, BU and Fordham (which despite their less impressive US News number boast higher large firm employment rates than many of the t20 schools -- again encouraging one to take a much deeper dive into the actual numbers as opposed to being persuaded by the judgements of some silly publication) tend to give out significantly less scholarship money to those same applicants I mention.

I agree the amount varies from student to student, but this is because these schools claim to award most of their scholarships (for students in these GPA/LSAT ranges) on the basis of need. So while it does vary, it is fairly easy to predict based on one's (or their parent's) income.

That said, you should of course aim for the highest score you can get, apply broadly to have leverage for negotiation and have hopeful practice areas and employment data be the driving factor in your decision moving forward.

Thanks for that much more reassuring outlook than the typical pompous 170 or bust mindset. Looks like step number two is to hone in on areas i'd like to practice. I have been ready almost all the "Typical Day" threads hoping to gain some insight on what its like at certain sized firms, certain markets, and doing certain specialized work. Thanks agin

Seriously, I get so annoyed with the "Retake until you get a 170" mindset. They may be true if you have nothing to offer as an applicant other than a high LSAT score, but if you are a well rounded applicant, you can still get into T-14s WITH money.

With a 3.3 and a sub 167 you can be as well rounded as a circle, you probably wont get into a t14 and you almost certainly wont get a lot of money. Also even if youre a nobel prize winning olympian, its still worth it to get your LSAT up if possible. If you had the chance to raise your GPA by .5 you wouldnt shun it because the rest of your app is already sterling.

Plenty of people get in with (big) money at T-14s with lower than a 167, me being one of them. But, like I said, if you're relying on the LAST to be the star of your app then perhaps putting your life on hold and breaking 170 is the best choice.

[jnwa]

Disagree on these points. While getting a 170 would clearly be good it isn't required to get money from schools in the top 20. Applicants with <= a 3.3 GPA range have gotten six figures of aid from schools like Emory and WashU this cycle with 167s. I know of some applicants with that GPA and 168s and 169s which have received nearly full tuition scholarships from WUSTL.

Conversely, BU and Fordham (which despite their less impressive US News number boast higher large firm employment rates than many of the t20 schools -- again encouraging one to take a much deeper dive into the actual numbers as opposed to being persuaded by the judgements of some silly publication) tend to give out significantly less scholarship money to those same applicants I mention.

I agree the amount varies from student to student, but this is because these schools claim to award most of their scholarships (for students in these GPA/LSAT ranges) on the basis of need. So while it does vary, it is fairly easy to predict based on one's (or their parent's) income.

That said, you should of course aim for the highest score you can get, apply broadly to have leverage for negotiation and have hopeful practice areas and employment data be the driving factor in your decision moving forward.

Thanks for that much more reassuring outlook than the typical pompous 170 or bust mindset. Looks like step number two is to hone in on areas i'd like to practice. I have been ready almost all the "Typical Day" threads hoping to gain some insight on what its like at certain sized firms, certain markets, and doing certain specialized work. Thanks agin

Seriously, I get so annoyed with the "Retake until you get a 170" mindset. They may be true if you have nothing to offer as an applicant other than a high LSAT score, but if you are a well rounded applicant, you can still get into T-14s WITH money.

With a 3.3 and a sub 167 you can be as well rounded as a circle, you probably wont get into a t14 and you almost certainly wont get a lot of money. Also even if youre a nobel prize winning olympian, its still worth it to get your LSAT up if possible. If you had the chance to raise your GPA by .5 you wouldnt shun it because the rest of your app is already sterling.

Plenty of people get in with (big) money at T-14s with lower than a 167, me being one of them. But, like I said, if you're relying on the LAST to be the star of your app then perhaps putting your life on hold and breaking 170 is the best choice.

http://mylsn.info/a9f6la/

The data on my lsn begs to differ. If your softs managed to get you money at a t14 despite being below both 25ths then thats great for you, however that is most definitely the exception and not the rule. Im not sure what you mean by expecting the LSAT to be the "star" of your apps. The kind of softs that would help turn sub 25th numbers into big scholarships are much harder to attain and would be more likely to put your life on hold than a couple of points on the LSAT

[lolRCscrewyou]

Disagree on these points. While getting a 170 would clearly be good it isn't required to get money from schools in the top 20. Applicants with <= a 3.3 GPA range have gotten six figures of aid from schools like Emory and WashU this cycle with 167s. I know of some applicants with that GPA and 168s and 169s which have received nearly full tuition scholarships from WUSTL.

Conversely, BU and Fordham (which despite their less impressive US News number boast higher large firm employment rates than many of the t20 schools -- again encouraging one to take a much deeper dive into the actual numbers as opposed to being persuaded by the judgements of some silly publication) tend to give out significantly less scholarship money to those same applicants I mention.

I agree the amount varies from student to student, but this is because these schools claim to award most of their scholarships (for students in these GPA/LSAT ranges) on the basis of need. So while it does vary, it is fairly easy to predict based on one's (or their parent's) income.

That said, you should of course aim for the highest score you can get, apply broadly to have leverage for negotiation and have hopeful practice areas and employment data be the driving factor in your decision moving forward.

Thanks for that much more reassuring outlook than the typical pompous 170 or bust mindset. Looks like step number two is to hone in on areas i'd like to practice. I have been ready almost all the "Typical Day" threads hoping to gain some insight on what its like at certain sized firms, certain markets, and doing certain specialized work. Thanks agin

Seriously, I get so annoyed with the "Retake until you get a 170" mindset. They may be true if you have nothing to offer as an applicant other than a high LSAT score, but if you are a well rounded applicant, you can still get into T-14s WITH money.

With a 3.3 and a sub 167 you can be as well rounded as a circle, you probably wont get into a t14 and you almost certainly wont get a lot of money. Also even if youre a nobel prize winning olympian, its still worth it to get your LSAT up if possible. If you had the chance to raise your GPA by .5 you wouldnt shun it because the rest of your app is already sterling.

Plenty of people get in with (big) money at T-14s with lower than a 167, me being one of them. But, like I said, if you're relying on the LAST to be the star of your app then perhaps putting your life on hold and breaking 170 is the best choice.

http://mylsn.info/a9f6la/

The data on my lsn begs to differ. If your softs managed to get you money at a t14 despite being below both 25ths then thats great for you, however that is most definitely the exception and not the rule. Im not sure what you mean by expecting the LSAT to be the "star" of your apps. The kind of softs that would help turn sub 25th numbers into big scholarships are much harder to attain and would be more likely to put your life on hold than a couple of points on the LSAT

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I wasnt speaking about this particular applicant specifically, I meant the general "170 or don't go to law school" attitude that poisons many TLS posts.

And I I meant exactly what I wrote: if the LSAT is going to be the strongest portion of your app then yeah, a 170 is optimal. However, if one has excellent letter of recs, an eloquent p.s., a decent GPA, and relevant work experience/internships, telling them 170+ or bust is just silly.

[mornincounselor]

Disagree on these points. While getting a 170 would clearly be good it isn't required to get money from schools in the top 20. Applicants with <= a 3.3 GPA range have gotten six figures of aid from schools like Emory and WashU this cycle with 167s. I know of some applicants with that GPA and 168s and 169s which have received nearly full tuition scholarships from WUSTL.

Conversely, BU and Fordham (which despite their less impressive US News number boast higher large firm employment rates than many of the t20 schools -- again encouraging one to take a much deeper dive into the actual numbers as opposed to being persuaded by the judgements of some silly publication) tend to give out significantly less scholarship money to those same applicants I mention.

I agree the amount varies from student to student, but this is because these schools claim to award most of their scholarships (for students in these GPA/LSAT ranges) on the basis of need. So while it does vary, it is fairly easy to predict based on one's (or their parent's) income.

That said, you should of course aim for the highest score you can get, apply broadly to have leverage for negotiation and have hopeful practice areas and employment data be the driving factor in your decision moving forward.

Thanks for that much more reassuring outlook than the typical pompous 170 or bust mindset. Looks like step number two is to hone in on areas i'd like to practice. I have been ready almost all the "Typical Day" threads hoping to gain some insight on what its like at certain sized firms, certain markets, and doing certain specialized work. Thanks agin

Seriously, I get so annoyed with the "Retake until you get a 170" mindset. They may be true if you have nothing to offer as an applicant other than a high LSAT score, but if you are a well rounded applicant, you can still get into T-14s WITH money.

With a 3.3 and a sub 167 you can be as well rounded as a circle, you probably wont get into a t14 and you almost certainly wont get a lot of money. Also even if youre a nobel prize winning olympian, its still worth it to get your LSAT up if possible. If you had the chance to raise your GPA by .5 you wouldnt shun it because the rest of your app is already sterling.

Plenty of people get in with (big) money at T-14s with lower than a 167, me being one of them. But, like I said, if you're relying on the LAST to be the star of your app then perhaps putting your life on hold and breaking 170 is the best choice.

http://mylsn.info/a9f6la/

The data on my lsn begs to differ. If your softs managed to get you money at a t14 despite being below both 25ths then thats great for you, however that is most definitely the exception and not the rule. Im not sure what you mean by expecting the LSAT to be the "star" of your apps. The kind of softs that would help turn sub 25th numbers into big scholarships are much harder to attain and would be more likely to put your life on hold than a couple of points on the LSAT

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I wasnt speaking about this particular applicant specifically, I meant the general "170 or don't go to law school" attitude that poisons many TLS posts.

And I I meant exactly what I wrote: if the LSAT is going to be the strongest portion of your app then yeah, a 170 is optimal. However, if one has excellent letter of recs, an eloquent p.s., a decent GPA, and relevant work experience/internships, telling them 170+ or bust is just silly.

Well, you just conceded your point, because it is unequivocally true that the LSAT is the most important aspect of any student's application. I disagree with the 170 number, but I do maintain a general "high 160's or don't go" mentality for splitters without family money. Softs cannot make up for a bad LSAT, we have years and years of information to back that point up. It's fact.

[lolRCscrewyou]

Seriously, I get so annoyed with the "Retake until you get a 170" mindset. They may be true if you have nothing to offer as an applicant other than a high LSAT score, but if you are a well rounded applicant, you can still get into T-14s WITH money.

With a 3.3 and a sub 167 you can be as well rounded as a circle, you probably wont get into a t14 and you almost certainly wont get a lot of money. Also even if youre a nobel prize winning olympian, its still worth it to get your LSAT up if possible. If you had the chance to raise your GPA by .5 you wouldnt shun it because the rest of your app is already sterling.

Plenty of people get in with (big) money at T-14s with lower than a 167, me being one of them. But, like I said, if you're relying on the LAST to be the star of your app then perhaps putting your life on hold and breaking 170 is the best choice.

http://mylsn.info/a9f6la/

The data on my lsn begs to differ. If your softs managed to get you money at a t14 despite being below both 25ths then thats great for you, however that is most definitely the exception and not the rule. Im not sure what you mean by expecting the LSAT to be the "star" of your apps. The kind of softs that would help turn sub 25th numbers into big scholarships are much harder to attain and would be more likely to put your life on hold than a couple of points on the LSAT

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I wasnt speaking about this particular applicant specifically, I meant the general "170 or don't go to law school" attitude that poisons many TLS posts.

And I I meant exactly what I wrote: if the LSAT is going to be the strongest portion of your app then yeah, a 170 is optimal. However, if one has excellent letter of recs, an eloquent p.s., a decent GPA, and relevant work experience/internships, telling them 170+ or bust is just silly.

Well, you just conceded your point, because it is unequivocally true that the LSAT is the most important aspect of any student's application. I disagree with the 170 number, but I do maintain a general "high 160's or don't go" mentality for splitters without family money . Softs cannot make up for a bad LSAT, we have years and years of information to back that point up. It's fact.

I did not concede my point because you are talking about something different than I. I already said I was addressing the applicant pool as a whole and just the general toxicity that comes with those who believe anything less than a 170 is a failure for all. Generally it is very much possible to get into Top 20 law school with a mid or even low 160 LSAT score. If you're GPA is less than mediocre then yeah, the LSAT will be your make or break.

What is your definition of a "bad LSAT"? Certainly not a 165 I hope, given that is in the 90th percentile. Even going as low as a 163 will put you almost in the 88th percentile. Good softs and a good GPA can absolutely not only make up for a low-mid 160s LSAT score, but make an applicant worthy of scholarship money.

[cavalier1138]

I did not concede my point because you are talking about something different than I. I already said I was addressing the applicant pool as a whole and just the general toxicity that comes with those who believe anything less than a 170 is a failure for all. Generally it is very much possible to get into Top 20 law school with a mid or even low 160 LSAT score. If you're GPA is less than mediocre then yeah, the LSAT will be your make or break.

What is your definition of a "bad LSAT"? Certainly not a 165 I hope, given that is in the 90th percentile. Even going as low as a 163 will put you almost in the 88th percentile. Good softs and a good GPA can absolutely not only make up for a low-mid 160s LSAT score, but make an applicant worthy of scholarship money.

But what percentile does it fall in for the school?

For the entire T-14, a 165 is either right at or below the 25th percentile mark. So unless it's accompanied by a really solid GPA (and the OP does not have that either), it's a coin toss that someone with those numbers will get admitted, much less get money. I'm glad you had a different experience, but I'm also relatively certain that you had a much higher GPA than the OP in this thread.

Yes, people on these boards tend to downplay the role of softs, but it's the right move to a certain extent. Your softs are only helpful in pushing you just over the edge. So if your numbers alone justify admission, some really good softs might get you a bit of money. Or if you got a bit of money, a really good soft might push them to give you more. But LSAT/GPA is 90% of the admissions decision, with more weight being put on the LSAT.

Edit: Also, just out of curiosity, are you a URM?

[lolRCscrewyou]

I did not concede my point because you are talking about something different than I. I already said I was addressing the applicant pool as a whole and just the general toxicity that comes with those who believe anything less than a 170 is a failure for all. Generally it is very much possible to get into Top 20 law school with a mid or even low 160 LSAT score. If you're GPA is less than mediocre then yeah, the LSAT will be your make or break.

What is your definition of a "bad LSAT"? Certainly not a 165 I hope, given that is in the 90th percentile. Even going as low as a 163 will put you almost in the 88th percentile. Good softs and a good GPA can absolutely not only make up for a low-mid 160s LSAT score, but make an applicant worthy of scholarship money.

But what percentile does it fall in for the school?

For the entire T-14, a 165 is either right at or below the 25th percentile mark. So unless it's accompanied by a really solid GPA (and the OP does not have that either), it's a coin toss that someone with those numbers will get admitted, much less get money. I'm glad you had a different experience, but I'm also relatively certain that you had a much higher GPA than the OP in this thread.

Yes, people on these boards tend to downplay the role of softs, but it's the right move to a certain extent. Your softs are only helpful in pushing you just over the edge. So if your numbers alone justify admission, some really good softs might get you a bit of money. Or if you got a bit of money, a really good soft might push them to give you more. But LSAT/GPA is 90% of the admissions decision, with more weight being put on the LSAT.

Edit: Also, just out of curiosity, are you a URM?

Nope, I just poured my soul into my personal statement and I guess that was enough. My GPA was at the median GPA for most of the T-14s (although it was very high compared to other undergrads at my institution, so perhaps that helped). Internships go a long way as well

[cavalier1138]

I did not concede my point because you are talking about something different than I. I already said I was addressing the applicant pool as a whole and just the general toxicity that comes with those who believe anything less than a 170 is a failure for all. Generally it is very much possible to get into Top 20 law school with a mid or even low 160 LSAT score. If you're GPA is less than mediocre then yeah, the LSAT will be your make or break.

What is your definition of a "bad LSAT"? Certainly not a 165 I hope, given that is in the 90th percentile. Even going as low as a 163 will put you almost in the 88th percentile. Good softs and a good GPA can absolutely not only make up for a low-mid 160s LSAT score, but make an applicant worthy of scholarship money.

But what percentile does it fall in for the school?

For the entire T-14, a 165 is either right at or below the 25th percentile mark. So unless it's accompanied by a really solid GPA (and the OP does not have that either), it's a coin toss that someone with those numbers will get admitted, much less get money. I'm glad you had a different experience, but I'm also relatively certain that you had a much higher GPA than the OP in this thread.

Yes, people on these boards tend to downplay the role of softs, but it's the right move to a certain extent. Your softs are only helpful in pushing you just over the edge. So if your numbers alone justify admission, some really good softs might get you a bit of money. Or if you got a bit of money, a really good soft might push them to give you more. But LSAT/GPA is 90% of the admissions decision, with more weight being put on the LSAT.

Edit: Also, just out of curiosity, are you a URM?

Nope, I just poured my soul into my personal statement and I guess that was enough. My GPA was at the median GPA for most of the T-14s (although it was very high compared to other undergrads at my institution, so perhaps that helped). Internships go a long way as well

Look, I don't want to make this some sort of weird call-out, but I just took a glance at your profile to see if you had indicated where you were going to school. Your post history actually says that you are a URM (you identified yourself as being Mexican-American), and that does make a difference. The OP isn't a URM, so numbers that worked for you may not end up working for them.

The numbers simply don't bear out your claim that a non-URM applicant to the T-14 is going to be getting significant scholarship offers with both GPA and LSAT below (or right at) the 25th percentile mark.

[Mullens]

I did not concede my point because you are talking about something different than I. I already said I was addressing the applicant pool as a whole and just the general toxicity that comes with those who believe anything less than a 170 is a failure for all. Generally it is very much possible to get into Top 20 law school with a mid or even low 160 LSAT score. If you're GPA is less than mediocre then yeah, the LSAT will be your make or break.

What is your definition of a "bad LSAT"? Certainly not a 165 I hope, given that is in the 90th percentile. Even going as low as a 163 will put you almost in the 88th percentile. Good softs and a good GPA can absolutely not only make up for a low-mid 160s LSAT score, but make an applicant worthy of scholarship money.

But what percentile does it fall in for the school?

For the entire T-14, a 165 is either right at or below the 25th percentile mark. So unless it's accompanied by a really solid GPA (and the OP does not have that either), it's a coin toss that someone with those numbers will get admitted, much less get money. I'm glad you had a different experience, but I'm also relatively certain that you had a much higher GPA than the OP in this thread.

Yes, people on these boards tend to downplay the role of softs, but it's the right move to a certain extent. Your softs are only helpful in pushing you just over the edge. So if your numbers alone justify admission, some really good softs might get you a bit of money. Or if you got a bit of money, a really good soft might push them to give you more. But LSAT/GPA is 90% of the admissions decision, with more weight being put on the LSAT.

Edit: Also, just out of curiosity, are you a URM?

Nope, I just poured my soul into my personal statement and I guess that was enough. My GPA was at the median GPA for most of the T-14s (although it was very high compared to other undergrads at my institution, so perhaps that helped). Internships go a long way as well

Look, I don't want to make this some sort of weird call-out, but I just took a glance at your profile to see if you had indicated where you were going to school. Your post history actually says that you are a URM (you identified yourself as being Mexican-American), and that does make a difference. The OP isn't a URM, so numbers that worked for you may not end up working for them.

The numbers simply don't bear out your claim that a non-URM applicant to the T-14 is going to be getting significant scholarship offers with both GPA and LSAT below (or right at) the 25th percentile mark.

That's amazing. "You don't need a 170 to go to a T14, OP! (Just somehow become a URM and redo undergrad to get a 3.8+)." Great advice for the OP here. While it's true in the abstract that it's possible to get into a T14 as a reverse-splitter or with other factors, it is almost never the best path as a higher LSAT score can almost always open more doors and lead to more money.

OP, if you're serious about a legal career and want a real shot at biglaw in an east coast city then it's time to get serious about the LSAT. Plan to retake it as many times as you need to position yourself best. There's no point in limiting your career options before you even start law school when you can take the opportunity now to invest in yourself and your future.

[lolRCscrewyou]

I did not concede my point because you are talking about something different than I. I already said I was addressing the applicant pool as a whole and just the general toxicity that comes with those who believe anything less than a 170 is a failure for all. Generally it is very much possible to get into Top 20 law school with a mid or even low 160 LSAT score. If you're GPA is less than mediocre then yeah, the LSAT will be your make or break.

What is your definition of a "bad LSAT"? Certainly not a 165 I hope, given that is in the 90th percentile. Even going as low as a 163 will put you almost in the 88th percentile. Good softs and a good GPA can absolutely not only make up for a low-mid 160s LSAT score, but make an applicant worthy of scholarship money.

But what percentile does it fall in for the school?

For the entire T-14, a 165 is either right at or below the 25th percentile mark. So unless it's accompanied by a really solid GPA (and the OP does not have that either), it's a coin toss that someone with those numbers will get admitted, much less get money. I'm glad you had a different experience, but I'm also relatively certain that you had a much higher GPA than the OP in this thread.

Yes, people on these boards tend to downplay the role of softs, but it's the right move to a certain extent. Your softs are only helpful in pushing you just over the edge. So if your numbers alone justify admission, some really good softs might get you a bit of money. Or if you got a bit of money, a really good soft might push them to give you more. But LSAT/GPA is 90% of the admissions decision, with more weight being put on the LSAT.

Edit: Also, just out of curiosity, are you a URM?

Nope, I just poured my soul into my personal statement and I guess that was enough. My GPA was at the median GPA for most of the T-14s (although it was very high compared to other undergrads at my institution, so perhaps that helped). Internships go a long way as well

Look, I don't want to make this some sort of weird call-out, but I just took a glance at your profile to see if you had indicated where you were going to school. Your post history actually says that you are a URM (you identified yourself as being Mexican-American), and that does make a difference. The OP isn't a URM, so numbers that worked for you may not end up working for them.

The numbers simply don't bear out your claim that a non-URM applicant to the T-14 is going to be getting significant scholarship offers with both GPA and LSAT below (or right at) the 25th percentile mark.

That's amazing. "You don't need a 170 to go to a T14, OP! (Just somehow become a URM and redo undergrad to get a 3.8+)." Great advice for the OP here. While it's true in the abstract that it's possible to get into a T14 as a reverse-splitter or with other factors, it is almost never the best path as a higher LSAT score can almost always open more doors and lead to more money.

OP, if you're serious about a legal career and want a real shot at biglaw in an east coast city then it's time to get serious about the LSAT. Plan to retake it as many times as you need to position yourself best. There's no point in limiting your career options before you even start law school when you can take the opportunity now to invest in yourself and your future.

Great advice for the OP here.

I wonder how many more times I have to write that my original comment wasn't actually advice for it to be read and comprehended. It wasnt meant to be advice for the OP, just a nod in agreement to the person who replied. Instead, it is now being dragged out so big thanks to that, I'm sure it is super useful for OP.

[lolRCscrewyou]

I did not concede my point because you are talking about something different than I. I already said I was addressing the applicant pool as a whole and just the general toxicity that comes with those who believe anything less than a 170 is a failure for all. Generally it is very much possible to get into Top 20 law school with a mid or even low 160 LSAT score. If you're GPA is less than mediocre then yeah, the LSAT will be your make or break.

What is your definition of a "bad LSAT"? Certainly not a 165 I hope, given that is in the 90th percentile. Even going as low as a 163 will put you almost in the 88th percentile. Good softs and a good GPA can absolutely not only make up for a low-mid 160s LSAT score, but make an applicant worthy of scholarship money.

But what percentile does it fall in for the school?

For the entire T-14, a 165 is either right at or below the 25th percentile mark. So unless it's accompanied by a really solid GPA (and the OP does not have that either), it's a coin toss that someone with those numbers will get admitted, much less get money. I'm glad you had a different experience, but I'm also relatively certain that you had a much higher GPA than the OP in this thread.

Yes, people on these boards tend to downplay the role of softs, but it's the right move to a certain extent. Your softs are only helpful in pushing you just over the edge. So if your numbers alone justify admission, some really good softs might get you a bit of money. Or if you got a bit of money, a really good soft might push them to give you more. But LSAT/GPA is 90% of the admissions decision, with more weight being put on the LSAT.

Edit: Also, just out of curiosity, are you a URM?

Nope, I just poured my soul into my personal statement and I guess that was enough. My GPA was at the median GPA for most of the T-14s (although it was very high compared to other undergrads at my institution, so perhaps that helped). Internships go a long way as well

Look, I don't want to make this some sort of weird call-out, but I just took a glance at your profile to see if you had indicated where you were going to school. Your post history actually says that you are a URM (you identified yourself as being Mexican-American), and that does make a difference. The OP isn't a URM, so numbers that worked for you may not end up working for them.

The numbers simply don't bear out your claim that a non-URM applicant to the T-14 is going to be getting significant scholarship offers with both GPA and LSAT below (or right at) the 25th percentile mark.

You're right, that is a weird call out. I asked the schools that I was admitted to if they would consider me URM or not given I am not even half M.A. (for scholly negotiations), and they said no that they would record me as Caucasian. If they did not give me URM status, I'm not going to claim it. With that said, I fully acknowledge that could just be a cover story to look better and then just record me as MA anyways

No where did I say both GPA and LSAT at the 25th would get big money. In fact, I have said multiple times that a strong GPA may be needed with a lower LSAT. My initial post was an agreement with the comment about the harming rhetoric found on TLS in regards to LSAT scores and not directed to OPs situation (which I have already said).

I'm not going to carry on with this conversation because this is certainly less than helpful for the OP. A simple agreement is turning into a shit show by others and that is not helpful at all for this OP. However, while a superb LSAT will definitely open doors, it is not the only route that will do so and that will always be true.