Top Law Schools

a lot of people here say things like "well my gpa is 3.4 but my lsat is 173 - should i retake the lsat and try to get a 175?' and this causes me to ask - do law schools really view your gpa and your lsat equally??? that is to say, wouldnt a rational person give a bit more weight to a number that reflects 4 years of work as oppossed to 4 hours?

this is a very general question, and im sure its been asked before, so i apologize, but im new here.

i guess my real question is - isnt low gpa high lsat a bigger problem than high gpa low lsat?

how do these people think?

Here are the reasons LSAT is generally valued more:

1) It's curved, and high numbers are quite rare. There are a lot more high GPAs than high LSATs. There are way more GPAs of a 3.5+ (or whatever you want to call a good GPA) than there are LSATs of 170 or more. This means there's more demand for the high LSAT, and also speaks to the relative difficulty of getting a high score.

2) GPAs are so contextual. Institution, major, courseload, workload, professors, family stuff, extracurriculars.....you can't just say a 3.6 is better than a 3.5 without considering all of that, and there's basically no way to consider all of that. The LSAT - well, there are obviously differing levels of preparation and all that, but it's a much more even playing field.

3) LSAT, frankly, is designed to measure an applicant's ceiling. It doesn't do it all that well, but it does it better than GPA, which can be easily attained by students who set out to maximize it. Anybody can get a 3.5, but not everybody can get a 170 LSAT.

Here's how I look at it: LSAT measures capabilities, GPA measures work ethic. You'll need both to get into the very best schools.

The lsat is the most important of the two. But it is also the only changeable variable. You can retake the lsat and get a considerable higher score but we all know that bringing your GPA up in your senior year from 3.4 to 3.9 is almost impossible. I would definitely prefer to have a high Lsat and a lower gpa than the other way around.

You have to remember that all schools are different, and the GPA not only reflects how hard you worked but also the respectability of your institution. With all the grade inflation going around, a 3.4 in one school is not the same as a 3.4 from another school. That's why the LSAT is more important, because it places everybody in a "level" playing field. ("level" = because not everybody does well on standardized tests)

i think the answer is... no

most people i think will tell you they'd much rather have a high LSAT and low GPA

plz correct me if i am wrong...

dudeman101 wrote:i think the answer is... no

most people i think will tell you they'd much rather have a high LSAT and low GPA

plz correct me if i am wrong...

Nop, I can't say you are wrong...

-

To the OP: You have it all mixed up. The LSAT, in my opinion, is the most important factor in the admission process because it is the most objective measurement of applicants' logical and analytical skills. GPA is an important factor but highly subjective, even after the LSDAS has tried to sort of 'even things out.' That said, most splitter-friendly schools are more impressed with high lsat/low gpa than vice versa. Make the LSAT your b**** and doors will open up for you. Good luck

markakis wrote:To the OP: You have it all mixed up. The LSAT, in my opinion, is the most important factor in the admission process because it is the most objective measurement of applicants' logical and analytical skills. GPA is an important factor but highly subjective, even after the LSDAS has tried to sort of 'even things out.' That said, most splitter-friendly schools are more impressed with high lsat/low gpa than vice versa. Make the LSAT your b**** and doors will open up for you. Good luck

This is one of the myths I've found popping up among new users on TLS.

LSDAS does not "even things out" according to the strength of one's institution or program. It merely adds every college course you've ever taken and spits out an average. 4.0 at Princeton still equals 4.0 at Big State U.

ari20dal7 wrote:Here are the reasons LSAT is generally valued more:

1) It's curved, and high numbers are quite rare. There are a lot more high GPAs than high LSATs. There are way more GPAs of a 3.5+ (or whatever you want to call a good GPA) than there are LSATs of 170 or more. This means there's more demand for the high LSAT, and also speaks to the relative difficulty of getting a high score.

2) GPAs are so contextual. Institution, major, courseload, workload, professors, family stuff, extracurriculars.....you can't just say a 3.6 is better than a 3.5 without considering all of that, and there's basically no way to consider all of that. The LSAT - well, there are obviously differing levels of preparation and all that, but it's a much more even playing field.

3) LSAT, frankly, is designed to measure an applicant's ceiling. It doesn't do it all that well, but it does it better than GPA, which can be easily attained by students who set out to maximize it. Anybody can get a 3.5, but not everybody can get a 170 LSAT.

Here's how I look at it: LSAT measures capabilities, GPA measures work ethic. You'll need both to get into the very best schools.

I guess I should have made my Q more specific - take this hypothetical - assume its a one-to-one comparison of two applicants in front of the adcomm. they went to the same school, same major, same courseload, neither wrote an addedum explaining their deficiencies etc. All factors are dead equal, except that applicant A has a high gpa and a low lsat score and applicant B has a low gpa and a high lsat score...you are the adcomm what do you say?

bne2103 wrote:

ari20dal7 wrote:Here are the reasons LSAT is generally valued more:

1) It's curved, and high numbers are quite rare. There are a lot more high GPAs than high LSATs. There are way more GPAs of a 3.5+ (or whatever you want to call a good GPA) than there are LSATs of 170 or more. This means there's more demand for the high LSAT, and also speaks to the relative difficulty of getting a high score.

2) GPAs are so contextual. Institution, major, courseload, workload, professors, family stuff, extracurriculars.....you can't just say a 3.6 is better than a 3.5 without considering all of that, and there's basically no way to consider all of that. The LSAT - well, there are obviously differing levels of preparation and all that, but it's a much more even playing field.

3) LSAT, frankly, is designed to measure an applicant's ceiling. It doesn't do it all that well, but it does it better than GPA, which can be easily attained by students who set out to maximize it. Anybody can get a 3.5, but not everybody can get a 170 LSAT.

Here's how I look at it: LSAT measures capabilities, GPA measures work ethic. You'll need both to get into the very best schools.

I guess I should have made my Q more specific - take this hypothetical - assume its a one-to-one comparison of two applicants in front of the adcomm. they went to the same school, same major, same courseload, neither wrote an addedum explaining their deficiencies etc. All factors are dead equal, except that applicant A has a high gpa and a low lsat score and applicant B has a low gpa and a high lsat score...you are the adcomm what do you say?

How high and how low (for both)? Who helps our reportable numbers more?

I still think high LSAT wins the battle at most schools. USNWR assigns higher value to LSAT percentiles, I believe. Like 15% to LSAT and only 10-12% to GPA.

you can always retake the lsat.
you cant retake that first semester in college where you registered for the 7am class and ended up with a D.

i would trade a high gpa for a high lsat any day.

Most adcomms take the high lsat splitter. LSAC has sold the schools on the LSAT as a predictor of law school success, and the schools have bought into it. Take a glance at the LSAC research page, and you will find numerous statistical studies that back this up.

-

Yeah, the LSAT generally wins, but it depends on how high and how low, and on the school. If the high GPA splitter's LSAT is above the 25th, then that's an OK position (4.0/164 at UCLA or something like that). But there seems to be a big difference between a 3.2/172 and a 2.5/172......

Short answer, LSAT generally means more than GPA. TTTLS is one hundred percent right, though: all about the school and the specific numbers in question.

TTTLS, I wouldn't go that far on Penn - I think we've got a couple 3.1/17X types going there. But yeah, you generally need both to crack T6.

TTT-LS wrote:

bne2103 wrote:I guess I should have made my Q more specific - take this hypothetical - assume its a one-to-one comparison of two applicants in front of the adcomm. they went to the same school, same major, same courseload, neither wrote an addedum explaining their deficiencies etc. All factors are dead equal, except that applicant A has a high gpa and a low lsat score and applicant B has a low gpa and a high lsat score...you are the adcomm what do you say?[/color]

Yale through Penn - no shot. You need high GPA and LSAT.
Boalt: high GPA wins.
Michigan: too close to call.
Virginia: high LSAT wins.
NU: same
Duke: high GPA
Cornell: high LSAT
GULC: same
Vanderbilt: same
UCLA: high GPA
Texas: same
USC: ???
GW: high LSAT
Wash. U: same

The point is, there is no single answer. The answer to your question is school-specific.

Just to nitpick, I think high GPA wins out at Vanderbilt and high LSAT at Texas, though neither of them are of the totally dedicated to one factor over the other like Boalt.

Probably high GPA at USC though they are not totally unfriendly to splitters. Their admissions graphs seem kinda similar to Cornell's or Vanderbilt's, though kinder all around.

TTT-LS wrote:

bne2103 wrote:I guess I should have made my Q more specific - take this hypothetical - assume its a one-to-one comparison of two applicants in front of the adcomm. they went to the same school, same major, same courseload, neither wrote an addedum explaining their deficiencies etc. All factors are dead equal, except that applicant A has a high gpa and a low lsat score and applicant B has a low gpa and a high lsat score...you are the adcomm what do you say?[/color]

Yale through Penn - no shot. You need high GPA and LSAT.
Boalt: high GPA wins.
Michigan: too close to call.
Virginia: high LSAT wins.
NU: same
Duke: high GPA
Cornell: high LSAT
GULC: same
Vanderbilt: same
UCLA: high GPA
Texas: same
USC: ???
GW: high LSAT
Wash. U: same

The point is, there is no single answer. The answer to your question is school-specific.

is there a reason that some schools like over the other?

`

...

definitely a matter of relative scarcity. since usnews forces schools to emphasize both, they naturally go hard after the scarce one (lsat) while kinda sorta pushing the one that's incredibly easy to build up, all while trying to get a class of people they actually like.