Chance me at T8: 175+, 3.3x Forum

[Chinston Wurchill]

LBJ, except the numbers don’t really support your argument. When you do a 177-179 and 3.1-3.2 on MyLSN, Harvard becomes 50-50 (granted with a sample of 4, that’s why I included a larger range initially). Point is, numbers should say at at least a 20% chance at Harvard as is. But understood on your point about my business background. In how I weight it though, those sorts are only half of my total. I think I got a good life story about hardship, growing up with opioids and ultimately losing a parent right before college because of it. Plus part time volunteer experience with americorps I forgot to put on there, which was service related to helping people with opioid problems.

@cavalier, just preferences and location. I guess duke would be 9 for me.

Let's look at the whole dataset because a sample size of 4 is like, totally irrelevant, as you point out: If you run through MyLSN to 2012 with those numbers (reasonable IMO--law school apps are up since Trump came in, especially HLS's), you're not over 50% at *any* T14 except Georgetown, I think? Run it back to 2003 (again, I think the older data might tell you something, given the spike in law school apps), you get a bigger sample and a similar story.

Not trying to burst your bubble, and this is all just prognostication, just think your attitude should be more like "I'm writing 'Why XYZ school' apps for every single T14," not "With my 178 I've got a shot at Harvard."

I just don’t agree with your assessment of the data. 2003-2011 was Great Recession, higher demand for law school, and Harvard was less splitter friendly (a simple look and you can see HLS didn’t take anyone below 3.75 from 2003 on until 2013 when they slowly start taking people with lower GPAs. After 2012 it’s 40% chance and even 2 people got waitlisted. Only 1 got rejected. Before then, it’s still 20% chance. No matter how you choose to look at it, you the data doesn’t support a conclusion that Harvard is “definitely out.” Unlikely? Sure. But with decent softs, a good life story, and applying early as can be next cycle, I just don’t see the zero chance argument.

I'm looking at 3.1-3.3, 177-179 in MyLSN. 2012-2020 for Harvard, we have data for 11 students. If you think that's a decent sample size, OK, but I don't.

Explained why I thought 2003+ data could be helpful in my prior post. Reread it, Google "Harvard law application spike," and feel free to compare the application numbers now to pre-Recession figures, come to your own conclusions RE its usefulness.

Didn't say OP has "zero chance," just that s/he would have an unpredictable cycle and should focus on getting into *a* T14, because Harvard is very unlikely.

I think that’s reasonable. I have read about the recent spike as well. We’re on the same page.

[DOJ1111]

One of the lawyers I work with got into Stanford with a 170 (not a URM, this would have been about ~8 years ago) and when I expressed shock, she told me one of her peers who got in with a 169 clerked for a Supreme Court Justice (won't name who here). Needless to say, she encouraged me to up my app game and apply to much better schools. I don't think your chances of getting into your top schools are 0, especially if you have a very compelling PS and a great LSAT score.

There appears to be a very clear reason you can point to as to why you did poorly in UG, and how that has motivated your interest in social justice causes. The thing about grief is that dealing with it doesn't happen in a neat timeline. I think people on admissions committees on average could connect to that life experience and understand how it might have impacted your life far more than the average person on this forum (much younger I would imagine with less of life's scrapes and bruises to cull from). If your PS is authentic and a stellar piece of writing I don't see why you wouldn't have a serious shot at one of your top schools. Stay positive.

Since you still have a bit of time before applying next year, maybe consider developing a closer relationship with a recommender to take the LORs to stellar - it could fill in a larger picture for admissions if the recommenders can address a question mark in your application and just put it to bed completely. Since there is a lot of focus here on the IB experience, maybe consider addressing that as your way to save money for law school.

[cavalier1138]

One of the lawyers I work with got into Stanford with a 170 (not a URM, this would have been about ~8 years ago) and when I expressed shock, she told me one of her peers who got in with a 169 clerked for a Supreme Court Justice (won't name who here). Needless to say, she encouraged me to up my app game and apply to much better schools.

This doesn't seem particularly applicable to the OP's situation (or anyone else with a low GPA, frankly). 170 is just below median at Stanford today, and eight years ago, it was the median LSAT. Stanford has always been more selective about GPA than LSAT. And an apocryphal story about someone with a 169 getting a SCOTUS clerkship isn't all that weird either, since LSAT doesn't have anything to do with clerkship opportunities.

I'm also not sure why you think the OP is that much older than the average applicant. Their initial post says they have 1.5 years of work experience; that actually makes them younger than the average 1L. Yes, work experience, etc. can offset a weak GPA, but the OP doesn't have enough time out of school to be considered a non-traditional candidate. A better LOR isn't going to change anything this (or any) cycle.

[DOJ1111]

One of the lawyers I work with got into Stanford with a 170 (not a URM, this would have been about ~8 years ago) and when I expressed shock, she told me one of her peers who got in with a 169 clerked for a Supreme Court Justice (won't name who here). Needless to say, she encouraged me to up my app game and apply to much better schools.

This doesn't seem particularly applicable to the OP's situation (or anyone else with a low GPA, frankly). 170 is just below median at Stanford today, and eight years ago, it was the median LSAT. Stanford has always been more selective about GPA than LSAT. And an apocryphal story about someone with a 169 getting a SCOTUS clerkship isn't all that weird either, since LSAT doesn't have anything to do with clerkship opportunities.

I'm also not sure why you think the OP is that much older than the average applicant. Their initial post says they have 1.5 years of work experience; that actually makes them younger than the average 1L. Yes, work experience, etc. can offset a weak GPA, but the OP doesn't have enough time out of school to be considered a non-traditional candidate. A better LOR isn't going to change anything this (or any) cycle.

Sharing the story wasn't meant to indicate that an LSAT score is a deciding factor for clerkships, but rather was more about the bigger idea that one shouldn't believe that a number is going to hold them back from living the life they want to live. It was meant as an encouragement.

I also wasn't implying that the poster was older than the average applicant. My comment was about the people in admissions being able to connect the dots on the OP's story (and its connection to why he did poorly in UG) due to having lived more life vs the average person on this forum. Losing a parent is a very significant, life-changing event for a person, and it is impossible to understand the gravity and how it might affect a person until you go through it yourself. It's also not something that most people tend to experience until later in life (i.e. more common occurrence among people reading applications versus those opining here).

[cavalier1138]

One of the lawyers I work with got into Stanford with a 170 (not a URM, this would have been about ~8 years ago) and when I expressed shock, she told me one of her peers who got in with a 169 clerked for a Supreme Court Justice (won't name who here). Needless to say, she encouraged me to up my app game and apply to much better schools.

This doesn't seem particularly applicable to the OP's situation (or anyone else with a low GPA, frankly). 170 is just below median at Stanford today, and eight years ago, it was the median LSAT. Stanford has always been more selective about GPA than LSAT. And an apocryphal story about someone with a 169 getting a SCOTUS clerkship isn't all that weird either, since LSAT doesn't have anything to do with clerkship opportunities.

I'm also not sure why you think the OP is that much older than the average applicant. Their initial post says they have 1.5 years of work experience; that actually makes them younger than the average 1L. Yes, work experience, etc. can offset a weak GPA, but the OP doesn't have enough time out of school to be considered a non-traditional candidate. A better LOR isn't going to change anything this (or any) cycle.

Sharing the story wasn't meant to indicate that an LSAT score is a deciding factor for clerkships, but rather was more about the bigger idea that one shouldn't believe that a number is going to hold them back from living the life they want to live. It was meant as an encouragement.

I also wasn't implying that the poster was older than the average applicant. My comment was about the people in admissions being able to connect the dots on the OP's story (and its connection to why he did poorly in UG) due to having lived more life vs the average person on this forum. Losing a parent is a very significant, life-changing event for a person, and it is impossible to understand the gravity and how it might affect a person until you go through it yourself. It's also not something that most people tend to experience until later in life (i.e. more common occurrence among people reading applications versus those opining here).

Since you don't know the age or life experience of those opining here (much less the average age of adcomms), I'm still not sure how you reached any of those conclusions.

The OP's PS might give them a little boost, but generally speaking, it probably won't let them perform substantially above their numbers. No one is claiming that these numbers affect anything in their life besides admissions; that's just how the process works. And I'm still confused about how sharing the story of someone who performed as their numbers predicted in the admissions cycle is supposed to be comforting.

[Chinston Wurchill]

I guess I am just going to have to wait and see! I will let y'all know what happens...

[FND]

Losing a parent is a very significant, life-changing event for a person, and it is impossible to understand the gravity and how it might affect a person until you go through it yourself

Nobody cares

[The Lsat Airbender]

Losing a parent is a very significant, life-changing event for a person, and it is impossible to understand the gravity and how it might affect a person until you go through it yourself

Nobody cares

I was like "wow, harsh" before I scrolled back up and re-read the bombast you quoted this from