Top Law Schools

172 (first and only attempt), 3.9 GPA from Ivy.

Got a chance at Harvard, Yale, Stanford?

How about Columbia, NYU?

I'd say you definately have a shot at HYS, but you could easily be shut out of all three. You're a lock at NYU and on the border at Columbia.

I say out at YS, waitlist at HC, in at N.

...suppose I should also add: white guy, a few years of interesting work experience, good recs

Winerack wrote:...suppose I should also add: white guy, a few years of interesting work experience, good recs

If it really is work experience that's both interesting and responsible (that is, demonstrating great responsibility) then that's going to be a real bonus as long as you highlight it properly.

I'm going to say you're probably IN at NYU, and either WL or IN at Columbia. I also think you have a real chance at getting IN one of HYS, but a lot there will be riding on the quality of your app (PS strength, resume/WE, etc.), and making sure you apply EARLY. Applying before the end of November gives you a much much better chance than applying in January or February.

I would recommend applying to Chicago also, unless you're really sure you don't want to go there; you can also apply to MVP (writing "Why X?" addendums for each so you don't get YP'd) as safeties and for scholarship money, since with your stats they'll all likely throw $$$ at you.

Hmm, good point about Chicago.

Would applying ED at Columbia make much of a difference?

Winerack wrote:Hmm, good point about Chicago.

Would applying ED at Columbia make much of a difference?

Don't ED at Columbia. WE, Ivy 3.9 and 172 puts you in there via RD.

Throw an app at T6 and take your pick once they get back to you.

Is the ivy the Harvard Princeton type, or is it the Dartmouth Brown type?

columbia rd is not sure thing, its a decent chance though. but if you are set on cls then go with ed since i'd say rd is at best 50/50.

is there some magical cut off in ppl's minds that make one set of numbers really shaky and another really solid? i mean, just from a perception standpoint.

ie if OP's GPA were .1 higher and LSAT were 1 higher, it seems as if that would make a world of difference at his chances at T6.

DoubleChecks wrote:is there some magical cut off in ppl's minds that make one set of numbers really shaky and another really solid? i mean, just from a perception standpoint.

ie if OP's GPA were .1 higher and LSAT were 1 higher, it seems as if that would make a world of difference at his chances at T6.

OP has a 3.9, I really don't think he'd do that much better if it were any higher. At this point it's more a matter of LSAT, and at the T6 every point is going to matter, sure.

OP has median LSAT for Columbia and a very strong GPA. I said "WL" was possible because at a median (and LSAT is very important) applicants are more likely to end up being judged by soft factors than people with above-median numbers. I think that's the difference you're trying to figure out; being at a school's median makes things more dependent on the rest of the app, while being above median in both categories, by even a small amount, can push you very close to being auto-admit.

So I don't think OP is auto-admit, but with 1-2 extra LSAT points he would be. As it is I'd judge him as likely but not certain.

Yeah, to be perfectly clear, I don't think that OP is auto-admit at CLS. I'd still bet a lot that he's going to get in via RD.

More importantly, OP really does have a shot at YHS if the rest of his application is solid, so EDing at CLS is just foolish. Reach for the stars, big guy.

what foch said.

vanwinkle wrote:

DoubleChecks wrote:is there some magical cut off in ppl's minds that make one set of numbers really shaky and another really solid? i mean, just from a perception standpoint.

ie if OP's GPA were .1 higher and LSAT were 1 higher, it seems as if that would make a world of difference at his chances at T6.

OP has a 3.9, I really don't think he'd do that much better if it were any higher. At this point it's more a matter of LSAT, and at the T6 every point is going to matter, sure.

OP has median LSAT for Columbia and a very strong GPA. I said "WL" was possible because at a median (and LSAT is very important) applicants are more likely to end up being judged by soft factors than people with above-median numbers. I think that's the difference you're trying to figure out; being at a school's median makes things more dependent on the rest of the app, while being above median in both categories, by even a small amount, can push you very close to being auto-admit.

So I don't think OP is auto-admit, but with 1-2 extra LSAT points he would be. As it is I'd judge him as likely but not certain.

your reasoning is sound and makes sense. dont know if thats how adcomms really view it haha, but i sure hope you're right as then any point above median is a significant boost.

and, as a side note, i believe there is a big difference between a 3.9 and a 4.0 that you would not find when comparing a 3.8 to a 3.9, albeit on a more subconscious level. 4.0 screams perfection

DoubleChecks wrote:and, as a side note, i believe there is a big difference between a 3.9 and a 4.0 that you would not find when comparing a 3.8 to a 3.9, albeit on a more subconscious level. 4.0 screams perfection

If you go to Law School Numbers and pull up last year's graph for HLS, there's this obvious diagonal line that forms between LSAT and GPA acceptances. In the 170-174 range, they'll take people between 3.9-4.0; At 175 there start being acceptances in the 3.8s; at 177+ there's a couple acceptances in the 3.5-3.6 range that aren't labeled URM, and a lot more in the 3.7-3.8 range.

Looking at CLS it's even more stark. At 171 there's acceptances in the 3.8-3.9 range; at 173 there are a bunch of acceptances between 3.7-3.8. Obviously having a 4.0 is better, but it's certainly not necessary if your LSAT is high enough. Even at the top Ivy schools the difference from 3.9 to 4.0 doesn't appear critical, unless you're below a 172 LSAT, and OP doesn't have to worry about that.

I agree that a 4.0 does scream perfection, but it's not like there's that many kids out there that have 4.0s to fill all the spots at top schools, and even those that do often still don't do as well on the LSAT as you'd think. I think 4.0 would be more of a difference if more kids have it, but there's just not enough 4.0/17x students for even HLS to be seriously looking down on kids because they don't have a 4.0.

vanwinkle wrote: If you go to Law School Numbers and pull up last year's graph for HLS, there's this obvious diagonal line that forms between LSAT and GPA acceptances. In the 170-174 range, they'll take people between 3.9-4.0; At 175 there start being acceptances in the 3.8s; at 177+ there's a couple acceptances in the 3.5-3.6 range that aren't labeled URM, and a lot more in the 3.7-3.8 range.

eh, there are like 2 ppl w/ a 176 that have a 3.8x GPA, but its 3.86 and 3.88, pretty high in the 3.8's. even for 177 its a 3.86 and a 3.87. for 175, there are no 3.8x's. so while of course the higher your LSAT, the lower your GPA would need to be, i would say OP lucked out (figuratively speaking) in getting his 3.9 because that seems to be the general cutoff point until you get really high (like 177+) before having any 3.8x should make you feel more comfortable.

but if there's such a small margin of error for the GPA, so to speak, id imagine every .01 counts when shooting for HLS.

Heard back from two so far:

In at NYU
In at HLS

Winerack wrote:Heard back from two so far:

In at NYU
In at HLS

Congratulations!

vanwinkle wrote:

DoubleChecks wrote:and, as a side note, i believe there is a big difference between a 3.9 and a 4.0 that you would not find when comparing a 3.8 to a 3.9, albeit on a more subconscious level. 4.0 screams perfection

If you go to Law School Numbers and pull up last year's graph for HLS, there's this obvious diagonal line that forms between LSAT and GPA acceptances. In the 170-174 range, they'll take people between 3.9-4.0; At 175 there start being acceptances in the 3.8s; at 177+ there's a couple acceptances in the 3.5-3.6 range that aren't labeled URM, and a lot more in the 3.7-3.8 range.

Looking at CLS it's even more stark. At 171 there's acceptances in the 3.8-3.9 range; at 173 there are a bunch of acceptances between 3.7-3.8. Obviously having a 4.0 is better, but it's certainly not necessary if your LSAT is high enough. Even at the top Ivy schools the difference from 3.9 to 4.0 doesn't appear critical, unless you're below a 172 LSAT, and OP doesn't have to worry about that.

I agree that a 4.0 does scream perfection, but it's not like there's that many kids out there that have 4.0s to fill all the spots at top schools, and even those that do often still don't do as well on the LSAT as you'd think. I think 4.0 would be more of a difference if more kids have it, but there's just not enough 4.0/17x students for even HLS to be seriously looking down on kids because they don't have a 4.0.

Hey VanWinkle,

I looked at the chart for HLS. Wouldn't you say that 174 seems more of a cutoff for sub 3.9s than 175? It seems to me that at 174 they strongly consider 3.8+, and at 175 they'll consider people in the 3.7s. Thoughts?