<p>Its my junior year at undergrad and so far I unfortunately have a 3.2 GPA. I'm loading on classes to try and bring my GPA up by senior year but I dont know how high I can bring it - even with straight As.
However, I'm pretty confident about the LSATs. I know I can get a 170+.
My question is, to what extent can my LSATs make up for a lower GPA?
Say someone gets a 175+ on their LSATs, around how low can their GPA be in order to get into a top school?</p>
<p>Unlike college admissions, standardized test scores are extremely crucial for law school applications. If you can ace the LSAT I'd say you have a good chance just about anywhere, but that low GPA will put a damper on you.</p>
<p>To the OP:</p>
<p>Many people are confident about the LSATs, and many people say they "know they can get a 170+". It's not that simple. I know plenty of people who were confident walking into the LSATs and were even achieving practice scores in the 170s range but ended up with disappointing scores. It is NOT uncommon to see someone end up with a score 5 points or more lower than their average practice score, even if that person was consistent in their practice. Lots of factors can play into this: test-day nervousness, less-than-ideal testing conditions, lack of sleep, illness, over-confidence, or sheer bad luck. Don't ever count on getting a certain score.</p>
<p>To answer your hypothetical and also to address post #2's assertion that acing the LSAT will give you a good chance anywhere (not true; I knew somebody with a 180 LSAT but 3.0 GPA who only gained admission to GULC), if someone were to get a 175+ LSAT, then he could be forgiven for a relatively low GPA. A quick glance at the (admittedly self-reported, so perhaps somewhat unreliable) graphs on LSN</a> :: Welcome to LawSchoolNumbers.com suggests that a 175+ LSAT with a 3.2 GPA can still make it into the lower T-14 schools. Keep in mind, though, that the number of people getting into schools like GULC, UVA, or Cornell with these sorts of stats is low. Such students were probably URM or had enough going for them outside of the numbers to push them over. A 175+ LSAT and 3.2 or lower GPA probably has little shot at HYS or Columbia unless he has URM status.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that all of the T-14 schools have their 25th percentile GPA sitting around or above 3.5. As a rule of thumb, if either your GPA or LSAT is below the 25th percentile, then your chances are much slimmer.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm pretty confident about the LSATs. I know I can get a 170+.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How do you "know" you can score in the 170s?</p>
<p>"I'm loading on classes to try and bring my GPA up by senior year but I dont know how high I can bring it - even with straight As."</p>
<p>I second most of what has been said here. But most importantly, do <em>not</em> overload. This immediately caught my eye, as it is a recipe for failure. Again, do not overload. Your goal should be to make slow and steady progress. 3 to 4 classes with As will help you much more than 5 or 6 classes with Bs. </p>
<p>All that said, if you get above a 170 in the LSAT (which as people commented is not easy and ought not be assumed), then you should be able to find a place at a top 20 school, provided you do a good job with the rest of your application (and that you are a girl or an URM).</p>
<p>Why "if you are a girl?" Most law school student bodies are at least 50% female. That's not true at a very few top schools, but even at those it's above 40%. Being female hasn't been an advantage in admissions for at least a dozen years.</p>
<p>dreamygirl - no offense, but if you have a 3.2 it seems irrational to be sure that you can score in the top 2% of all LSAT takers. FWIW, I studied for a VERRRRRY long time with an average on practice tests of 173, took the real thing and got a 170 (then retook and did quite a bit better). Point of the story is I was quite confident I would get above a 170, and it just didn't work out that way. And from what I hear, I was one of the lucky ones since most people expect 170+ and come away very disappointed. The real thing (especially nerves/time) is just much different from any other test/practice tests.</p>
<p>That said, you should check out lawschoolnumbers.com and use their search engine to get a feel of what'll "work." Even with a 180, a 3.2 will not get you into Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley. You have a slim chance at Columbia and NYU, but you'll likely be WL'd and have to hope that you'll get in. </p>
<p>At least though you can be happy that LSAT is immensely more important than GPA. It's just that the strongest applicants have a great LSAT and a great GPA...</p>
<p>I was recently looking through a law school admissions book. One student who had a similar GPA and scored a 174 on the LSAT was rejected by Yale. If you're shooting for higher ranked law schools, not sure the LSAT will make up for a low GPA.</p>
<p>Laughing at the “if you have a 3.2 it seems irrational to be sure that you can score in the top 2% of all LSAT takers” comment, I have a 3.08 GPA, 180 LSAT. GPA is based on how much academic work you did in college, not how well you can reason. If you can get a great LSAT, they’ll know you’re ‘smart’ in the way they’re looking for, so they’ll look to your personal statement and other activities to find some excuse for the low GPA besides just being a slacker. Give them an argument as to why you’ll do better in law school that you did in college. If you’re honest and convincing (the latter based primarily on the same abilities that are tested by the LSAT), you’ll get in.</p>
<p>If you can score a 180, you’ll be welcomed with open arms by schools the like of Columbia, NYU, and the University of Chicago.</p>
<p>Yale, Harvard, and Stanford, far less likely.</p>
<p>Scoring a 180 on the LSAT for me is like cow flyings in mid-air. Impossible, but thats just my humble self evalution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not all. I think Cornell’s 25th percentile was like a 3.25 or something. It’s also the most expensive (tuition-wise) of the top14. Those two might be related.</p>
<p>And by the way, the LSAT tests you on the LSAT. Thus the logic follows that practice makes perfect.</p>
<p>I also have a somewhat lower GPA than 3.5, I was wondering if “acing” the LSAT how much time one would really truly need? Can there be any way to enhance or counterbalance a GPA by taking more classes after graduation somewhere? Given that the GPA is sealed insofar as admitting purposes go for law school, is there any “way” to offset the GPA after graduation? And if so, what would possibly work?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is false generally and specifically in the case of the LSAT. It’s false generally because, as Belichick often reminds his players, “Perfect practice makes perfect.” Bad practice just reinforces bad habits.</p>
<p>It’s false specifically in the case of the LSAT because most LSAT takers have an innate “ceiling” with regard to their standardized taking skills. Telling anybody who got a 179 or less that they didn’t practice hard enough isn’t just wrong – it’s insulting.</p>
<p>Where are you getting a 3.25 25th percentile for Cornell? I just checked the BCG guide to law schools and it’s above a 3.5 for Cornell.</p>
<p>It’s a test. There’s no such thing as a “ceiling”. They ask questions, you answer. It’s not rocket science. And anyways, since when was a 179 a bad score? Give a monkey 40,000 practice tests to do and I guarantee you its “after” score will be significantly higher than its “before” score.</p>
<p>Your statement was, “practice makes perfect.” By that logic, everybody should be able to practice themselves up to a 180, hence my usage of the rest of the spectrum as the counterexample.</p>
<p>I GUARANTEE you you are wrong about the monkey exam. Tell you what. You organize the experiment and conduct it. If you’re right, I’ll pay for your time, expenses, and monkey rentals.</p>
<p>all you have to do is find a match here…</p>
<p>[2009</a> Raw Data Law School Rankings : State (Ascending)](<a href=“2020 Law School Rankings - State (Bar Only) (Low to High)”>2020 Law School Rankings - State (Bar Only) (Low to High))</p>
<p>S is in the honors program at a state university. He’s an economics major. His GPA has been running above about a 3.6. He was in a car accident this past December (totalled his car, knocked a little silly, but not seriously hurt). However, it was during final exam week. He had two exams the next day, and he seriously bombed one. Just couldn’t study for it that night – bad headache. So, he got a D in that class. He’s retaking the class now, with an A, and using grade forgiveness that his university offers, which brings his GPA back up again where it’s always been. However, we discovered as we started looking into what’s going to be required for law school applications that the organization that collects all the scores from transcripts will figure in that original D. That’s a huge hit to his GPA for one class, one exam, in a very bad week. Is there an opportunity to address that anywhere (giving a copy of the police report on the accident, for instance) or will school’s summarily place his application in a reject pile without looking at the whole transcript, just looking at the GPA? Essentially, he’ll go from like a 3.6 to a 3.2. Based on past standardized testing and his addiction to logic games his whole life (he’s driving his game theory teacher crazy, LOL, by figuring things out too quickly), I think his LSAT will be pretty high. Anyone having anecdotal info that supports looking at everything v.s. just that single gpa number? Sigh …</p>
<p>zebes</p>
<p>They factor in his LSAT score before he hits the ‘reject pile.’</p>
<p>Also, looking at the low-end GPA acceptances in the link I posted might make you guys relax a little. :)</p>