Top Law Schools

Hey all,

I'm 28 years old working in a small environmental consulting firm as an associate in the public affairs and policy division. GPA was 2.89 in ecology at a large public university - I had undiagnosed health issues throughout college and had not done serious soul searching for my career as well (mistakenly pressuring myself into thinking I wanted med school), which resulted in those grades. I went on for a masters in public health with a concentration in biostats and had a 3.5. There I grew up a little and I had a major personal career breakthrough and now want to go into environmental law - not sure if litigation or policymaking.

I'm getting a grasp of the terminology here / lay of the legal world re: tiers and systems. I understand that I'm not eligible for top tier (and perhaps not middle tier) schools and that a large part of the equation is missing (LSAT score - have not taken it), but how do masters/advanced degree programs figure into the acceptance equation? I've heard tell that admissions folks only look at undergrad GPAs but would like guidance.

A part of why I'm asking here and not elsewhere is that I'd like to get some perspective on where I could realistically land should I do well on my LSAT. I've used MyLSN but am having some trouble interpreting the site. I've looked at Inside the Law School Scam and learned a lot there too.

The reason I want to go to law school is to be somewhat more ahead of the curve rather than always playing catchup. Maybe this is naive, but it's the truth.

Thanks for your patience and time - this site is a great resource.

If you get a high LSAT score (say, 173+), you may have a shot at the lower T14. If the general wisdom here is correct, Northwestern is particularly kind to applicants who are super splitters (very low GPA, very high LSAT) and have work experience. In general, that GPA isn't going to do you any favors, but, from what I understand, admissions will factor in your distance from undergrad to some extent. I think it's true that admissions will "only look at undergrad GPAs," with an emphasis of the GPA part. They will certainly "look at" the fact that you got a masters degree, but it is probably not going to be a game-changer, and the GPA you got in the masters program is basically irrelevant, in all likelihood, given that (1) masters programs are all over the map w/r/t grading and (2) schools only report undergrad GPA stats of the incoming class so there's no incentive to admit people with high graduate GPAs. The masters GPA might be helpful to the extent that it shows academic improvement since undergrad ... but, then again, it's hard to tell whether it *does* show improvement since undergrad, given that 3.5 doesn't really mean anything without knowing how it compares with others in your program (admissions will be able to see where your undergrad GPA put you, percentile-wise ... not so for masters programs, as far as I know).

I know you didn't explicitly ask, but since you mentioned why you're going to law school ... I'm not sure exactly what you mean by wanting to be "ahead of the curve," but I would be very hesitant to go to any law school, let alone a mid- or low-tier law school, unless you have very clear career goals that require a law degree and are getting a significant scholarship.

cbbinnyc,

Thank you for your response - it's provided a great deal of insight and gives me a useful framework.

To your point about the reasons for going to law school, I agree. I appreciate that note, as naivete can be dangerous. And I've got a lot of it right now. The articles, hidden statistics, and stories from graduates whose degrees are not doing them any favors is enough to discourage a lot of people from entering. But in the course of my work at the company, I'm having some sort of existential debate within. Can it be resolved with law school? I don't know. I never thought I'd have an interest in going into law, so I'm on this forum because I need to learn the environment in any way that I can.

Ideally, I'd continue to work in my company as an attorney with advisory capabilities. They have treated me well. They may also be able to offset some of the cost if I can make my case properly. However, since I'm relatively new (6 months in), I'm in a bit of a Catch-22 because any contacts in environmental policymaking or litigation that I want to talk to would come from the company. I feel that I need to establish more interpersonal capital there before indicating that I want to go back into the fray.

Thanks again. Lots to consider.