<p>I am graduating summa cum laude from UCLA with a major in history.</p>
<p>Good recommendations from well-known historians.</p>
<p>LSAC GPA, so far: 4.04; lowest it can be by graduation is 3.95.</p>
<p>Want to apply to: Yale, Harvard, Stanford, U Chicago, NYU, and Columbia (most likely Georgetown now too).</p>
<p>I want to go to Yale-- top choice.</p>
<p>LSAT: (surprising actually, but I usually score better on the actual exams rather than on practices) 174. BTW, if you want to do well on the LSAT, I suggest you get a private tutor package from PowerScore ALONG with the actual class to help you once a week for a couple of months.</p>
<p>So do I have a good chance at Yale? 50/50? I know the "criteria" is met, but Yale is so picky, I don't know WHAT to do.</p>
<p>I still have two quarters, so if any of you have suggestions, don't hesitate.</p>
<p>hmmmm..... ever think of applying for a Rhodes/Marshall/Truman/Fulbright scholarship? Winning a prestigious post-graduate fellowship like that is about the only other thing I can think of that would make you look any better than you already do. Other than that, just don't get hit by a bus crossing the street. Congratulations, you look like you've got the whole package-- grades, LSAT, minority status. I'm very jealous. Good luck!</p>
<p>go to lawschoolsnumbers.com and you will see how set you are. Like, Chicago and Columbia are like low matches for your. Your numbers are insanely high. These schools will grab you in my opinion. Not only are they getting a really high scorer in both departments (GPA and lsat), but they are getting a minority, which always helps. </p>
<p>Well, I am thinking of applying for either Marshall or Rhodes (yeah, it's even harder to get that then Yale, LOL) scholarship-- but, I would have to first pursue the British post-undergrad education and then law. . .I'm not sure if I want to pursue a higher degree in history.</p>
<p>Well, hopefully I won't be further living proof of the immense difficulty of admissions to a school like Yale.</p>
<p>The only "negative" thing is that, aside from scholarship and academic associations, I haven't participated in many extracurricular activities. But I've heard that not much weight is put on these. . .</p>
<p>BTW, will law schools take into consideration the bad curve on the June LSAT? (i.e. a 172 was like the 92nd percentile).</p>
<p>I'm glad to hear about the Rhodes/Marshall application. Good luck with that. And I don't know anything about the LSAT curve, but for a 172 to only be the 92nd percentile? That seems incredibly unfair..... but no, I don't think 'they' (esp. Yale) would cut you any slack score-wise. Why should they? Besides, it's in the nature of a curve to potentially screw everyone over. There are still people out there, albeit far fewer now than in the past, who got in the 98th-99th percentile, and you'll still have to compete with them. </p>
<p>I wonder what happened with that mean curve, though. You think a lot more test-takers used professional tutors/study courses and everyone ended up scoring higher? That figures, with the emergence of a commercialized standardized test industry these days...... </p>
<p>But I don't mean to denigrate your accomplishments, either. I and millions more like me would give an arm and a leg to be in your position. You'll definitely have several outstanding law schools to choose from, so you're career isn't stillborn if you don't get into Yale. Best of luck to you.</p>
<p>I agree with Stacy that nothing is a shoo-in</p>
<p>there is a similar thread about a student who wants to attend harvard that was posted on the parents forum. The parents (most who are practicing lawyers) gave their responses:</p>
<p>A bit of hyperbole of course, but no-- you're wrong. The scale for this LSAT brought a 170 to like a 92nd percentile; my score alone only put me in the 95th.</p>
<p>With respect, you are confusing some numbers. It is not at all unusual for the 98th percentile to be around 171 and the 99th to pick up around a 172. The fact that the scale to 170 was -8 does not translate to a 170 being in the 92 percentile. Surely, your 174 was 99th percentile. Do you really think that a drop of 2 points to a 172 would operate to decrease the percentile 92?</p>
<p>Sometimes the scale isn't as brutal (but with the emergence of popularity of all these testing companies, so many are doing better), but this time it was. </p>
<p>But of course, we don't want to lead people on-- the scale may not be as bad as it was in the next administration(s) or, it could be worse.</p>
<p>But in this administration, I didn't do as well as the many who got better scores than me-- which is why I ended up with 95%.</p>
<p>Have you actually checked your account on LSAC for LSAT Information, which includes the pencentile of yoour score? If you continue to think a score of 174 places you in the 95th percentile on the June test, you apparently have not. </p>
<p>Dude, did you take the June LSAT? If you notice, the most recent scale displayed on the PowerScore (not LSAC) website is for the 2002 administration- NOT the JUNE 2007 administration. </p>
<p>Dude, I am well aware of the link you posted. You will notice that it does not reflect the percentile for the raw score. </p>
<p>I do not question that his RAW score was a 95. This does not mean that he scored in the 95th percentile of test takers, simply that he answered 95 of 100 questions correctly. For this to equate to the 95th percentile, 5 of 100 test takers would have to score better than the raw score of 95. This simply did not happen on this test. The explanation on the Powerscore site is still a valid explanation of the way the scores are converted. </p>
<p>Again, Dude, it is really very simple, the percentile is not the raw score, but how well he did in relationship to other test takers.</p>
<p>A 174 is a really, really great score. It places him into the 99th percentile of those who take the LSAT.</p>
<p>percent correct does not equal percentile. getting 95% of the questions right doesn't mean you are in the 95 percentile. percentile doesn't refer to the amount of questions you got right -- it refers to how you did in comparison to others taking the tests. from what i can tell looking at these links, there seems to be a confusion between raw school/% right vs. percentile.</p>
<p>the whole reason the raw score is converted to the 120-180 scale is to take into account variations in the difficulty of the exam -- same is true with the sat and the 200-800 scale. its called "equating" -- and standardized tests would be meaningless without it. a 174 on one test date has to mean the same as a 174 on another test date or the test is meaningless. you can argue about whether that ends up being true in reality or not -- i have no way of judging that (other than the moanings of test takers who feel for sure that they have been sighted :) )</p>
<p>and as for the original question -- i'm not really sure why or what you are asking. obviously you are presenting excellent credentials on your application. no one, other than the YLS admissions office, can give you any assurance as to how likely you are to get in. just remember YLS isn't the only fine law school -- apply to others as well -- and you will likely have great success in your law school application process.</p>
<p>Alright- thanks for clearing that up unbelievablem. But I do think that with the experimentation section (and the test overall) that it was more difficult than previous administrations. ;)</p>
<p>I guess scholarship applications are the best way to go. Thanks everyone.</p>
