<p>
[quote]
Considering my background? Sure, I came from a pretty obscure college; however, that misses the point. I came from there with a 3.92. If gabe came from CCC with a 3.9 or a 4.0, like a lot of these other CCers, I would not be saying this!</p>
<p>Bottom line: a 3.5 is not going to cut it for HYS. Heck, it probably will not cut it for the top 10. If Gabe wants a shot, he need straight As for the next two years. Knowing No</p>
<p>
[quote]
First of all, my overall community college gpa will be almost two points higher than a 3.5. I had a 3.0 my first year; ever since then my grades have been stellar: They look at your yearly gpa.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uhh.. no... since law schools are concerned about rankings, and since cum. GPA is what counts toward those rankings, the overall GPA matters. For disabuse, read any law school admissions book, especially those that deal with HYS admissions. Anna Ivey is a good place to start.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, I don't think you know very much about the Cal philosophy department.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not care about what you think. I know these guys pretty well, and I am pretty darn sure they are harsh with grading. I know students much more brilliant than you who struggled to earn A-s in Roush's epistemology course at Rice; take a second look at Cal's course catalogue, she is teaching the same course there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Second, you certainly don't know very much about me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You know what? I really do not care. I have seen brighter students than you transfer into Cal philosophy, and they are not faring too well. Kudos to you if you are an exception to the rule. I hope you do well (seriously).</p>
<p>But the difference is you are making your assumptions based solely on GPA. Im pretty sure that if this person got a 177-180 on their LSAT the GPA discrepancy would be much less relevant. You are making an assumption on the first 2 years of school and your'e not paying any mind to the LSAT, EC's, or possible work experience. Nonetheless, for the sake of argument my whole point is you have no right to say that someone has no chance at Harvard when in essence you only know one quarter of the whole story. (The other 25% being next 2 years of college and say 50% going to the LSAT) You arent Nostradamus, you shouldnt try to be and the remarks such as that which started this whole thing was truly unwarranted and served no purpose but for you to demean someone else for no obvious reason, given you know very little of their situation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Uhh.. no... since law schools are concerned about rankings, and since cum. GPA is what counts toward those rankings, the overall GPA matters.
[/quote]
I said they look at yearly gpa, not that overall GPA doesn't matter. It's a fact that LSAC lists yearly gpas. </p>
<p>You should chill out; your crude personal attacks are not useful here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I said they look at yearly gpa, not that overall GPA doesn't matter. It's a fact that LSAC lists yearly gpas.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, and the yearly GPA is not nearly as significant as the cum. GPA. Not even close. Go ahead and prove me wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
your crude personal attacks are not useful here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Neither are yours.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Im pretty sure that if this person got a 177-180 on their LSAT the GPA discrepancy would be much less relevant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1) That is a pretty controversial assumption.
2) A 180 is not enough to compensate for a 3.5.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are making an assumption on the first 2 years of school and your'e not paying any mind to the LSAT, EC's, or possible work experience
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No law school in the top 14, except for Yale, Stanford, and Northwestern, cares for ECs or work experience.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nonetheless, for the sake of argument my whole point is you have no right to say that someone has no chance at Harvard when in essence you only know one quarter of the whole story.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are making a strawman out of my argument. I said that it is frivolous to discuss this right now. Get the numbers and then talk. Right now, he does not have a shot.</p>
<p>Well, according to lsac.org it seems that the 180 does make up for the discrepancy in the GPA (3.5 180)</p>
<p>And had he had a 3.9 it still would be "frivolous" to talk about it, simply because he hasnt taken the LSAT or completed his last two years of school. So either way you were speaking way too hastily. I mean it makes no sense for you or me to say that he would or wouldnt be accepted simply because of what we know after the 1st two years of college</p>
<p>
[quote]
So either way you were speaking way too hastily.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I made a temporal reference to the present, so the notion of "hastiness" is useless.</p>
<p>Once again, since one's freshman and sophomore year GPA plays an impact in the cum. GPA, this kid is not earning a 3.8+ when he graduates unless he attains straight As, which is very unlikely at Cal. </p>
<p>Do not show me what the LSAC states. Go to lsn.com (lawschoolnumbers) and search up the data by yourself. There are no 180s with -3.65s getting accepted.</p>
<p>My judgment might be "hasty," but attempting to support gabe by demonstrating that he could earn a 180 is possibly the worst defense ever conceived.</p>
<p>Quote from nspeds:</p>
<p>"you are going to need at least a 3.9 and a 170 from Cal if you want a chance at HLS coming straight from graduation."</p>
<p>This is exactly my point. Gabe, you need to chill out. You're wrong! Deal with it.</p>
<p>I am not attempting to support Gabe or otherwise. All I am saying is you have too few parts of the equation right now to make such a judgement and I think even you can agree with me on that.</p>
<p>And the website has some flaws. I mean a kid with a 3.5 180 cant get in but one with a 3.35 164 is accepted huh, or the one with the 3.12 164, and my personal-favorite Mr. 2.0 151 is accepted eh? The site depends too heavily on people's honesty</p>
<p>Well, to be honest, I could very well be wrong.</p>
<p>Technically, anyone in the top 25 has a shot if they have a 3.85+. Technically, any one in the 25th/75th percentile for HLS has a shot. The problem is that they occupy the second-worst (or best, depending on how you look at it) group of applicants. In such a group, the adcom is looking for a reason to accept you, which is rather difficult to demonstrate.</p>
<p>If you are above the 75th percentile, the adcom looks for a reason to reject (ie. being a convict). If you are below the 25th, the adcom skims through your application, looking for a Pullitzer or a Rhodes or something of the sort.</p>
<p>Schools like Cal, Cornell, and UMich are tough schools from which to apply to top law schools simply by virtue of the size of their student-body. You can point to that profile on HLS's site all you want. Having 30-something students out of a gigantic student-body attend HLS is nothing impressive, especially since a school like Georgetown has 33 and we have only around 6,800 undergrads. </p>
<p>I mean, look at UT-Austin. They have, I think, 44 students at HLS. They also have 60,000 bloody undergrads. UT-Austin has more at HLS than Cal, UMich, and Georgetown. Would one choose UT over the latter schools? If plan II, maybe. If not, heck no.</p>
<p>Edit: And yes, I am aware of my assumption that that more students apply from Cal than from GTown and so forth. With twice the student-body, Cal probably has more applicants. It would be very surprising if they did not.</p>
<p>If you ask me, the best thing for one to do, given they are capable family and money-wise is to go to the best undergrad you can go to, get the best grades at what youre best at, get the best LSAT you can, and all of that will lead you to the Law School that is best for you.</p>
<p>Im pretty sure though it will change in some ways before I am really contemplating ever attending law school</p>
<p>Since you guys seem to know some things about Law admissions and graduate school, I have a question for you. I took 21 CC units in Spring and I know I have A's for 20 of those units. The last unit is a martial arts class that I'm not sure if I'll get an A in. Reason being that, with a group of six others, I opted out of an optional testing fee and I don't know if they'll hold that against me. So if I don't get an A my cumulative GPA will drop to 3.9 something. </p>
<p>If I don't get an A in that class:
For the purpose of graduate school admissions can I write the class off (since it's a 1 unit, recreational sort of class) and assume my 3.9 will hold the same weight as a 4.0? Or will they look at it as a 3.9 regardless?</p>
<p>I dont know, but I'd hope that Law Schools would pay no mind to it, but it's still technically 3.9. But honestly man if you just keep gettin A's it shouldnt affect your admission status. And again, its nice to see a CC cat getting straight A's</p>
<p>
[quote]
you are going to need at least a 3.9 and a 170 from Cal if you want a chance at HLS coming straight from graduation.
[/quote]
That statement is absolutely false. Nspeds himself refuted it with his latest post. Nice try Kyle.
</p>
<p>i did not read what anyone else told you, but my advice, if you have the money, you have the grades, go to the school you want to go to, if you want to save money, go to CC but honestly you LITERALLY get one fourth of the college experience then everyone else, because while everyone is hanging out and meeting people freshmen and sophomore year you are at home, but jr and sr year when everyone else is studying and their is the occasional party, thats what you will participate in, not to say you wont make friends jr and sr year at all do not get me wrong, it is still awesome, i am just saying, freshmen and sophomore year bonds are made, dorms are lived in, food and secrets are shared (yeah from the secrets part you can tell im a girl) but i am saying jr and sr year everyone buckles down, its still the college experience but a completely different one</p>