<p>It's true that life isn't fair, and it's true that this is an unfair policy.</p>
<p>The alternative, however -- pretending that A+'s are meaningless -- is also unfair.</p>
<p>(Let me just preface this by saying that I completely agree with the first part of your post, bluedevilmike. I'm just being a little bit antagonistic with the second sentence, which is rather superfluous on my part.)</p>
<p>I don't think the A+ issue is that big of a deal (I went to a school that didn't give them), but if we want to split hairs, I do think that it's less fair to calculate them than it would be to ignore them (not calculating them in the GPA isn't the same as pretending that they're meaningless). Reason being that if they're not calculated by LSAC but a student has in fact received them, her hard work can still be seen on her transcript. For the sake of argument, imagine two students, both exceptional, one at a school that offers A+'s and the other at one that doesn't. The first earns straight A+'s, the second earns straight A's. Their LSAC GPAs will be pretty different, even though the students could be perfectly equal. To me, it makes for the most even playing field to cap GPA at 4.0, given that any A+'s will show up on the transcript.</p>
<p>Again: I really don't think this is a big deal. Obviously my example was ridiculous, as no student with a 4.0 is going to be "punished" for that, no matter how the system is set up. As the link a few posts up illustrates, it's probably not going to make or break anything. Plus, this is hardly the only "injustice" in recalculation (as other posts have mentioned...schools on different grading systems, schools that have harsh curves, schools without pluses and minuses, etc.). In general, I really appreciate the recalculation. If it happens to bring your GPA down a bit, then you're probably not really getting shafted, you're just losing some random advantage that most other students didn't have in the first place (or are also losing).</p>
<p>Just splitting hairs, like I said.</p>
<p>I can't "prove" what I am about to say. I admit that....my observations are entirely anecdotal, but...FWIW...</p>
<p>Law schools which are part of universities that don't give A+s aren't impressed by A+s from a lower ranked school. So, using an extreme example--one I admit is extreme--a faculty member at Yale Law School isn't going to say to himself when he reads a file "Oh, this person with a 3.9 at Yale College--which doesn't give A+s--is obviously inferior to this student at Old Widget, which does. The Old Widget student has a 4.03--with that B- in freshman year. That "dumb" Yalie "only" has a 3.97 due to that B+ in freshman year. Obviously, that Old Widget student is SO superior!!!</p>
<p>It really doesn't work that way..and if you don't believe me, that's fine.</p>
<p>does lawschoolnumbers.com have a calculator cause i cant find one >_<</p>
<p>Can someone please be kind and tell me my chances at a top law school...I graduated from University of Maryland College Park with 3.79 (LSAC GPA) with double major in Finance and Economics (I did a thesis honors program in economics). Currently I am working at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on a 2 year contract and plan on going to law school (JD/MBA) in Fall 2009. I am a women, international student from India. What do you think my chances are a t a top law school? Thanks!</p>
<p>No LSAT exam?</p>
<p>oops forgot that crucial piece of info...165 LSAT though i am considering taking it again...should i?</p>
<p>Top as in upper 14?</p>
<p>Yes..top 20...</p>
<p>Yale- Unlikely but possible. If you have amazing soft factors then it is possible.
Harvard- Limited Possibility of Acceptance (more so than Yale)<br>
Stanford- Same as Harvard<br>
Berkley- You're above their 75th for LSAT and your GPA is within their 25-75 range. In.
Columbia- Soft Factors will determine your admittance. (Recs, etc.)
-UPenn- Probable if you have good recommendation letters.
-UChicago- Soft factors will determine your admittance. Your GPA is above their 25-75th percentile range so that should help.
-Virginia- In
Georgetown- In
-UCLA- In
-Duke- In
-Cornell- In
-USC- Definitely in.
You would also be likely to gain admittance at the University of Michigan Law school.
As was stated earlier, your stats are great. You're more than likely to get into at least a few T14s. Your recs should determine if you get into the most selective of the T14s.</p>
<p>What do you think you'd gain on a retake? I'd say your are reaching but that is just from this past cycle. You could make it. Roark gives good information. There are stats posted for public to chew on. Have you searched out the data? One unknown factor speaking to the future is the strength of this cycle of job offers. I mean you are in financials and if there is a rush to programs things will change.</p>
<p>"oops forgot that crucial piece of info...165 LSAT though i am considering taking it again...should i?"
You have a good GPA. I would retake the LSAT if you have reason to believe that you would score significantly higher due to better preparation. (An 5-10 point boost would be significant, although that varies by person).
Your GPA won't hold you back from all but the most prestigious universities.
Your soft factors seem pretty solid. Perhaps even better than the average candidate. Do you know if you'll be receiving high recommendations?</p>
<p>thanx for ur response Roark ur post was very encouraging....since I just began my job its too early to say if i'll have high recommendations but mostly they will be from my bosses who are highly academic people like ex Governor of Central Bank of England etc...do you think i should get recommendations from professors or the people i work with...also i am not a good test taker and 165 was a stretch for me so doing better than that on the LSAT is unlikely...</p>
<p>Hazmat can u please guide me to the information you are referring to so i can have a look at it too...thanx!</p>
<p>Glad you are realistic about a retake. Also you have a fine job and can make the most of your contacts.</p>