<p>1) I have a crap GPA (2.5), with lot's of Cs and two Ds. I will attempt to attach an explanation of my crap GPA in an addendum, but there's no real reason for it to be that low aside from my lack of effort, and I don't think it will make much of a difference. </p>
<p>2) I'm taking Kaplan's Advanced LSAT Preparation Course because my diagnostic test was a 161. Conservatively, I should be able to improve by at least 6 points (or at least I'd hope so after paying $1000+ and doing all this work.) I'm shooting for a 168. But lets say I don't do well and I get a 165. I don't think it changes my question significantly. </p>
<p>From what I've read, GPA and LSAT are the major factors of law school admissions with "soft factors" such as personal statements, ECs, and recommendations comprising maybe 10-15% of the judgment. I've also read that the ranking of the law school you attend is a huge deal. I don't want to invest time and effort into a law school unless employers are impressed by the school. </p>
<p>That being said, I'm thinking about putting off law school apps and doing a Masters in General History, which is a favorite subject of mine that I did not get a chance to study at all in college. I believe that I am more than capable of doing very well and demonstrating a high level of academic ability in grad school. </p>
<p>I suppose the alternate COA is to try to get into a 3rd or 4th tier school and then transfer from there into a better school. However, I'm wary of this option because transfers are not guaranteed, and by that point in time, I'd already be many thousands of dollars into debt. Plus, I"m not sure 2.5 is enough even for a 4th tier school. </p>
<p>Should I go for the grad school first? Should I forget about law school entirely? Let me know. You guys have never let me down before, and I would like to thank you in advance for the candid responses that I expect to follow.</p>
<p>EDIT: I did not know that the S-Word was an expletive here.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the Master's is unlikely to make a huge difference and transfer odds are so poor that it's a bad idea to go into law school with that intention.</p>
<p>What about a PhD? Also, is taking the LSAT good for any anything besides law school apps? I heard that business schools like to see it. Is it good for people who are looking to find work as paralegals?</p>
<p>A PhD is a boost if you're already numerically qualified, but spending 4+ years just to try to get into law school is not a good investment. I've never heard of it being useful for other graduate schools. It is almost certainly a BAD idea for a prospective paralegal, since it demonstrates that they are either a backup career because you did poorly or a temporary job because you did well. (Taking the MCAT is a similarly bad idea for a prospective biology grad student.)</p>
<p>Do you have any statistics on transfer odds? Are transfer acceptance rates to top 100 schools lower than their acceptance rates of undergrads? Also, your language regarding Masters and PhD degrees is similarly vague. What is a "boost," or "not a huge difference"?</p>
<p>Since my high school GPA is now useless, I assume that after enough post-undergrad work that my undergrad GPA will similarly become useless. Am I wrong in this analysis?</p>
<p>If you have not done so, I would recommend purchasing a copy of Richard Montauk's How to Get into the Top law schools (as it covers everything from soup to nuts) and Anna Ivey's book, The Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions.</p>
<p>Chapter 5 is making the most of your credentials and there is a section for overcoming your graduate record after the fact. Here is what some admissions officers have said about overcoming a weak undergrad record</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>A person with a mediocre undergrad record should not two things. 1st you'll need solid work experience to rehabilitate your situation. Second, taking additional courses after your undergraduate program can also help. the course should be part of a in-depth, prolonged program at a serious school. This is usually found with a master's-level (or higher) work but can sometimes include a nondegree program of study- *Faye Deal, Stanford *</p>
<p>There are many ways to overcome a weak undergraduate record, but it is difficult to do so immediately after college. The 2 best are to complete a challenging graduate program or to take on a challenging job for at least several years. Derek Meeker, Penn</p>
<p>There are 2 ways to compensate for a mediocre undergraduate record: an outstanding lSAT and some significant experience out in the world. These can serve as counterweights to the college GPA. * Jim Mulligan, Columbia*
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Instead of trying to go to a masters program (where there is a bit of a catch-22 as you will get into a good, serious program if you have a good undergrad record), you could benefit by working a few years (as you do need to put some distance between your undergrad GPA).</p>
<p>Sybbie719 -- These book sound helpful. What do they say about a candidate with a good GPA (3.6+), outstanding ECs and LORs but a low LSAT (153)? Assuming the goal is a school in the 80-100 rankings, not a T14...</p>
<p>"Not huge" is a polite way of saying "basically nothing," and "boost" should be viewed within the context of the VERY next few words, which is "if you're already numerically qualified."</p>
<p>I meant to say chapter 8, not chapter 5. Right after academics, they talk about LSAT and work experience. If you are considering law school it is a very well spent $25.</p>
<p>I think that if you have a 153 on the LSAT that it may be in your best interest to see how the schools you have in mind view multiple SAT scores and then retake.</p>
<p>According to Susan Palmer, Admissions at UVA,
[quote]
if standardized tests have nto been a good predictor of your academic performance in the past, be sure to make this clear. Thus, if you had a 1000 SAT combined score with a 3.9 in a tough major at JHU, we will take your undertesting into account.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>She also says</p>
<p>
[quote]
The importance of LSAT scores varies, of acourse, according to the nature of each applicant's candicacy, but it is importance due in part to its being a stastically validated predictor of (first year) las school performance.
<p>Thanks, Sybbie719. This kid has a strong academic record, but didn't do that great on the SATs either. The kid's record of undertesting is definitely going to have to be faced in the law school application process. </p>
<p>This kid's first choice schools aren't that high in the rankings, so perhaps it will work out.</p>
<p>So eerily I am in the exact situation as the question posted. I have a 163 on my LSAT and a 2.5 GPA at UCLA. What exactly would a good job be to constitute an annulment of my gpa? The only jobs really available at the moment; (since my major is Poly Sci) are entry level marketing and sales, real estate, and teaching. Any of these sound good? If not please let me know!</p>
<p>lots of jobs could work. All the ones you mentioned would be fine--the goal is to do something that gives you the chance to be a leader/innovator and, possibly, to get a good recommendation from your supervisor (if you're in a situation where you can tell the person you're planning to leave).</p>
<p>If it's something that fits into a given area of law you'd like to practice, so much the better. For example, if you want to do education or child advocacy work, teaching is great (but programs like teach for america are competitive, and they might not look highly on you given your GPA).</p>
<p>There are lots of options--you could join the Peace Corps or Americorps, work overseas, be a paralegal at a law firm or legal clinic, work for a state or local politician, etc. I know someone who got into a T14 school (don't know GPA/LSAT) after being a process server for a while--he definitely knew a bit about legal practice from an unconventional angle, and was eager to take part in a different part of the profession!</p>
<p>I didn't have the best GPA either, I did enjoy the fraternity life and sadly my grades reflected it. I have been out of school for many years and have been told by schools from top tier to third and fourth tier schhols that if I have a high enough LSAT I will get in. This includes The University of Chicago, Stanford and Northwestern. I've seen students with 4.0 GPAS and 180 LSATs fall flat on their tushes. Conversely, I've seen students who were wait listed, get in and finish in the top of their classes and secure coveted positions. I probably have an advantage because of the time I've been out of college. I've also heard that transfers are never a sure bet. Moreover, you form bonds and friendships in school and it is hard to start over at a new school. I know, I had to do it in undergrad. Lastly, I have heard it's better to finish higher at a lower tier school than it is middle of the pack or toward the bottom in a first tier school as far as employment goes. I know at my age the big firms don't want me, absent special circumstances. That suits me because I don't want to work 80-100 hours/wk for someone else. I would have done it in my 20s or 30s, but not in my 50s.</p>