<p>So, my LSAT test didn't go nearly as well as I would have liked. I knew walking out it didn't go well and, in fact, it fell below my practice test scores (unsurprisingly I guess). </p>
<p>My question is, can other factors make up for a low LSAT score? Consider the following:
- Currently law student at a top 5 law school in England
- Top 1/3 of class
- US GPA of 3.5-3.6
- Head Editor of the International Law section for the Law Review
- Winner of 1st year moot; competitor for the University team for the European-wide European Human Rights Moot
- Regular attendee to the Gender and Law Research Center's academic conferences
- Have written articles (both short and long) for the Gender and Law Research Center's academic blog
- Letters of Recommendation from the Head of the Law School and Head of LLB Studies
- Worked for a state-wide marriage equality campaign as manager of the coalition outreach program; volunteer recruitment and fundraising; running phone banks; general campaign stuff
- Worked for the Brooklyn DA's office as an ECAB intern </p>
<p>Unfortunately, law schools only care about GPA and LSAT. The other stuff just won’t factor in. Take the time to go over your test and figure out where you went wrong. Then try again for a better score. </p>
<p>If the LSAT is supposed to be indicative of how well one might perform in law school (to my understanding there is a good, but not exact correlation), then surely one’s grades from a law school ought matter more than the LSAT? </p>
<p>So, if the LSAT is supposed to give the admissions committee a rough guide as to one’s potential for performance in law school, then would it not be counter intuitive (and in fact illogical?) to look at the LSAT as being indicative of any such thing in such cases? Surely performance in an actual law school tells the admissions committee far more information than the LSAT? </p>
<p>Penn, for example, gives advanced standing to students coming in who have already earned their law degrees; and surely if one would be a competitive applicant for LLM admission, should they not also be a competitive applicant for JD applications? </p>
<p>Sadly, between my dissertation, regular course work, GRE prep, polishing of my writing sample, and PhD personal statements, I wouldn’t have time to restudy for and retake the LSAT until February, at which point most schools would not accept it? </p>
<p>Take it from the dean of Harvard Law School, who has stated (within the last few weeks) that the school prefers people who have 1-2 years of work experience because then they have some knowledge about what they’re studying and have more that is relevant for future careers.</p>
<p>The other things WILL factor in. Your grades and LSAT score are certainly the most important things, but other things do matter if it’s a close call among candidates for admission.</p>
<p>@NYU2013: I’m no proponent of the way law schools conduct business, but it is how it is. Law schools are driven by student spending, which correlates very highly with USNWR rankings. USNWR ranks according to GPA and LSAT, and not by “soft” factors. Accordingly, law schools care about GPA and LSAT and not soft factors like internships and letters of recommendation and attendance at conferences. Employers may well care about that stuff though, so if you can get into a decent school all that will still help you.</p>
<p>I am a little curious why you’re going for a JD though. If you already have the LLB, you’d generally be better off going for an LLM here. That’s a one year degree instead of a 3 year degree and still makes you eligible for practice. Also, do you have US citizenship or a way to get it? If not, it may not be worth pursuing a US law degree at all. </p>
<p>The numbers you’ve cited, Demos, don’t really tell us much. It tells us what the usual case is - we’re all already aware that the t14 have high LSAT and high GPA. But, this only tells us what’s usually the case. And, in most cases, what’s usually the case is that the applicant doesn’t have a law degree. I’m clearly not asking about what’s usually the case (I could have Googled that myself, and in fact, have). My question is on what’s not the usual case - i.e when an applicant is unusual how does the admissions committee consider this or that situation?</p>
<p>I’m applying for joint JD/PhD programs, I have no interest in practising so the fact that the LLM is sufficient doesn’t concern me. In fact, I wouldn’t even need an LLM to practice in NY or CA. Yes, I have US citizenship. Should I not get into any JD programs, then I’ll pursue an LLM. </p>
<p>Now, if you had something like an Olympic Medal, a Rhodes Scholarship, a M.D., grew up in an orphanage, or if you were the scion of a world leader, then you would be a whole lot more atypical.</p>
<p>@NYU2013: The numbers cited tell quite a lot. For example, they show what schools’ yield protection thresholds are, what their acceptance thresholds are, how often they dip below those thresholds, whether they do so for non-URMs, and so on. All information of great importance to a prospective applicant like yourself. The short of it is, you are not special in the eyes of law school admissions. Sorry if that’s not what you wanted to hear. </p>
<p>If you’re not interested in practicing, why do you care what school you go to? The best schools are the best because of their job placement. If you have money to burn and don’t care about a return on the investment, there’s no reason to go to a top school. You’ll get basically the same education anywhere in the top 50 or so. </p>