<p>I think the thing missed here is that a 146 LSAT does not really suck. Most of the posters on college message boards in my opinion lie about their LSATs or consider practice LSATs the same as a real score, which they in no way are.</p>
<p>The median score for the test is 150 (which i got exactly my first time taking it, and i had studied for 6 months with a private tutor already.) The thing is that the LSAT is a self selecting test that only the top 4% or so students ever really take (even though many more say that they will)</p>
<p>I would personally not belittle my son’s 146 as it is slightly below the average of the self selecting test takers, however these are not the simple dolts that are taking the GRE, these are competitive candidates to law school, and the fact that your son scored a 146 is by no means a fault.</p>
<p>Badvegan, a 146 score does put you in the bottom third of law school applicants,which is a rather select group. That may be true but irrelevant.</p>
<p>Practically speaking, it will only get you admitted to a small handful of law schools ( maybe 4-5 schools). Moreover, the schools that will take you are the bottom feeders of lawschools. For my son, who has a “guaranteed” job, it isn’t that much of a problem. For folks seeking legal positions upon graduations, it could be a disaster.</p>
<p>All I was trying to say with this thread is that law school admission is primarily a number game…period. Yes, they will use certain soft factors in order to differentiate candidates with similar scores unless you are an URM,which will help. Folks seem to need scores thast will get them admitted without resorting to soft factors. Once they have those scores and GPAs then the soft factors might be important for the margins. AT least this is what my son experienced. Perhaps if he were an underrepresented minority, wrote a book, won a Pulitizer prize, was the navy seal that took out Bin Laden etc., things would have been different.</p>
<p>Interestingly, when my son attended the law school career fair at Penn State, every admission officer was impressed with his CPA status because, as they said, it shows that he could pass a tough exam like the bar exam. However, despite what they said to him, this certainly didn’t help in admission.</p>
<p>In fact, I and my son met the head of admission at University of Baltimore. We really hit it off. I had a frank discussion with him about my son’s scores and background. He encouraged my son to apply there and then promtly rejected him. LOL. He probably felt guilty since the rejection letter was one of the nicest rejection letters that I have seen. Believe me, he knew that my son was going to be rejected at the outset, as did the other admission reps.</p>
<p>I am not faulting them either. This is not a blame posting. Their job was to get as many applicants as possible because it helps in the rankings. I get it.</p>
<p>From what you’ve told us about your son he might be too smart to be a lawyer. He might be the type that builds a business and hires lawyers as needed.</p>
<p>Stephen, frankly, I have advised against law school for him to no avail. He has a plan of what he wants to do with his life and will not alter his course!</p>
<p>It’s things like this that dissuaded me from pursuing law school in the first place. I do think it’s a bit silly how much GPA and LSAT scores contribute to admission/rejection. A lot of really intelligent people are shoddy test takers or had low GPAs due to extenuating factors in their UG education.</p>
<p>Anyone know why law schools like numbers over substance? I honestly think that, to truly be an effective and brilliant lawyer, you don’t necessarily have to be an “on-paper” genius, but should have impressive communication/writing skills and be able to speak eloquently and confidently. So many people I know who have tiny, meek voices and have trouble speaking up in front of people got into great law schools just because they had good grades.</p>
<p>I guess that’s how it works though. Oh well.</p>
<p>Zelda, none of the law schools claim that GPA and test scores are predictive of who will be a good lawyer (and the traits you are cite are relevant for a litigator but not so much for all the other fields of law.) They claim that GPA and test scores are highly predictive of who will do well in law school which is an entirely different claim.</p>
<p>It’s not numbers over substance- it’s that the number are predictive, and the soft factors are not. The OP’s kid could have a CPA, passed all three levels of the CFA, have his Series 7 license, and be a licensed pilot and A&P mechanic (all of which require difficult tests). But none of these are as predictive of first year law school performance as the LSAT; hence- not relevant in law school admissions.</p>
<p>First, law schools are ranked partly based on the numbers of their students. US News makes no adjustments for college, major, extracurriculars, or personality, so law schools have an incentive not to adjust for these things either.</p>
<p>Second, law firms, judges, and other employers are extremely hierarchical in their hiring out of law school. So long as this is the case, law schools have no reason to alter their admissions system, since it is basically functioning.</p>
<p>These may or may not be coincidental.</p>
<hr>
<p>Unlike the SAT, the LSAT is scaled in such a way that Harvard, Yale, etc. cannot actually fill their class with perfect scores (or scores that are indistinguishable from perfect). That means that scoring in the upper ranges actually is very rare.</p>
<p>I am a law professor at a school that ranks near the bottom of the second tier. I can tell you that the US News rankings frenzy is even more pronouned in law schools than it is in undergraduate schools – and median LSAT is a significant factor in the rankings. So, law schools are forced to hold the line on these test scores or risk seeing their ranking fall. We sometimes hold our noses as we admit kids with low GPA’s and high test scores, knowing that they are likely to screw around in law school as much as they did in college. I would much prefer to take the kid with high undergraduate grades and a lower LSAT. </p>
<p>That said, there is some correlation between LSAT score and law school performance, particularly when looking at scores below 150. Many bright individuals are not cut out to be lawyers. I have had students who excelled in demanding undergrad subjects like math and chemistry. However, when called upon to analyze a legal issue and present that analysis clearly in writing or orally, some of them just never “get it.” It doesn’t mean they aren’t intelligent, but they don’t have the kind of intelligence necessary to succeed in law school (and pass the bar exam). </p>
<p>I recognize, however, that some people score low on the LSAT simply because they are poor test-takers. Fortunately, there are some law schools willing to take a risk on these folks. If they do well in their first year, there’s a good chance they can transfer to a more highly-ranked law school. </p>
<p>Taxguy – it sounds like your son may fall into this category. So, I urge him to work hard in his first year and get good grades so that he can transfer, if he wishes to do so.</p>
<p>Oh, and BTW, if you are not a URM, don’t expect to get into a law school if your LSAT falls below the school’s 25th percentile.</p>
<p>I am a law professor at a school that ranks near the bottom of the second tier. I can tell you that the US News rankings frenzy is even more pronouned in law schools than it is in undergraduate schools – and median LSAT is a significant factor in the rankings. So, law schools are forced to hold the line on these test scores or risk seeing their ranking fall. We sometimes hold our noses as we admit kids with low GPA’s and high test scores, knowing that they are likely to screw around in law school as much as they did in college. I would much prefer to take the kid with high undergraduate grades and a lower LSAT. </p>
<p>That said, there is some correlation between LSAT score and law school performance, particularly when looking at scores below 150. Many bright individuals are not cut out to be lawyers. I have had students who excelled in demanding undergrad subjects like math and chemistry. However, when called upon to analyze a legal issue and present that analysis clearly in writing or orally, some of them just never “get it.” It doesn’t mean they aren’t intelligent, but they don’t have the kind of intelligence necessary to succeed in law school (and pass the bar exam). </p>
<p>I recognize, however, that some people score low on the LSAT simply because they are poor test-takers. Fortunately, there are some law schools willing to take a risk on these folks. If they do well in their first year, there’s a good chance they can transfer to a more highly-ranked law school. </p>
<p>Taxguy – it sounds like your son may fall into this category. So, I urge him to work hard in his first year and get good grades so that he can transfer, if he wishes to do so.</p>
<p>Oh, and BTW, if you are not a URM, don’t expect to get into a law school if your LSAT falls below the school’s 25th percentile.</p>
<p>taxguy… I just read your post out of curiosity. My S is just graduating high school so law school is far in the future (if he shows any interest at all). After reading your post, I would have to agree that admissions officers lie. </p>
<p>My S was offered a scholarship at Auburn as a National Merit Scholar and was given until May 1st to accept the offer. He had also applied to other schools that notified acceptance much later… mainly CalTech and Stanford. In early February, an admission officer from Auburn called to “remind us” that housing was getting full and if we wanted to guarantee housing, we needed to pay the $200 non-refundable application fee plus another $300 deposit (only $250 refundable). I specifically asked if there were exceptions for the NMScholars but they said there would be no guarantee. We had 2 days before a wait list was created so we paid because we did not as yet know if he was getting accepted to the other schools. </p>
<p>Well about a week later, the Auburn site changes their information and states that there was now a wait list for housing… except that NMScholars were “guaranteed” housing all the way until May 10th. I don’t see how the officer would not know this information. What she told me was a lie, plain and simple. I’m sure they do this to collect the $250 non-refundable fee. What other reason would they tell me this. I told them that he was waiting to hear from other schools and they repeated that he would have no housing unless he paid the deposit. </p>
<p>I am happy to report that he was accepted at Stanford and will be attending with some financial aid. However, $250 is quite a bit of money to lose because someone was dishonest. Just wanted to share my experience. Good luck to your son.</p>
<p>Steverino, yes, I agree. Law School rankings are everything, as I noted in the thread, “What I learned about law school admissions.” I would have thought that superlative grad school grades, especially those related to law schools such as tax courses, negotiation etc, would have had some effect. I was wrong. As you rightly said, it’s about the rankings…period. Since the LSAT is a large factor in rankings, it goes to reason that it is considered an essential exam. Moreover, since US News also counts percentage of applications accepted as a factor in the rankings, It is obvious that admission reps will do what they can to increase applications.</p>
<p>However, as for predicability, I wish that law schools would compare results of the LSAt with performance. Even the LSAC notes that the predicability corelation of the LSAT is between .09 and .51, with a median around .35. If 1.0 is a perfect corelation, this means that there are MANY outliers. Frankly, I wouldn’t trust the LSAC’s numbers since they obviously have a bias in promoting the LSAT. From what I have seen in a number of applicants, the outliers way outnumber those that fall within the prediction. </p>
<p>I am sure that you have seen what I have seen. Kids that scored near the bottom of the class, LSAT wise, yet performed very well and vice versa. University of Maryland admitted two kids who attended Maryland and graduated in their top 5 kids at the school. However, their LSAT were way below the class average and even way below the bottom 25%. I guess you can’t refuse your own class valedictorian and salutatorian. Both kids graduated Maryland law within the top 5% and one was within the top 3 kids. Obviously, this may not be statisically valid study,but I would bet that you know many kids who did not perform as the LSAt would have predicted.</p>
<p>Law schools like colleges do realize that standardized testing may not accurately reflect one’s ability. This would be especially true in law school admissions if one has a history; Perhaps the 2 students you mentioned did not do well on the SAT, however, they finished at the top of their class in undergrad. A student like this would also make sure that they wrote an addendum to their application to explain their situation.</p>
<p>Sybvie719, my son was one of them. He did HORRIBLY on the GMAT,placing in the bottom 25%, yet was provisionally admitted to a graduate business program in tax/financial planning. He met the dean and convinced him that his score weren’t indicative of his potential. My son also has the ability to schmooze better than most and is charismatic,which is why the school admitted him. He graduated with highest distinction and was top of his class at grad school. They even gave him a scholarship. Not bad considering he was provisionally admitted. He did make a big deal about this on his personal statement to no avail.</p>
<p>Terygreg, as I noted in “what we learned about law school admissions,” I think that the undergraduate school’s name is irrelevant. It’s primarily about the number and about the rankings,which are numbers based. Since undergrad school representation doesn’t count in the rankings, it won’t matter one bit to law schools. Just say 5 times, undergrad GPA and especially LSAT.</p>
<p>I ask BECAUSE of gpa. Some schools are known for grade deflation - do you think that law schools take that into consideration? Same question for majors - ie biomedical engineering vs. basket weaving? Same gpa number could mean very different things.</p>
<p>I’d like to respond to the poster who seems to think that someone with a “tiny, meek voice” can’t be a good lawyer. </p>
<p>One of the students in my law school class had a truly awful stutter. He nevertheless became a partner at a large NYC law firm. He specialized in tax and he was extraordinarily good at it. </p>
<p>There are lots of different kinds of attorneys and a good speaking voice isn’t a prerequisite for success in many legal fields.</p>
<p>Terrygreg, although some majors are known for grade deflation such as engineering and hard science, there is no adjustment that I know of for the major. Again, it is mainly a numbers game in considering your overall GPA and LSAt. Your major is irrelevant.</p>
<p>In my experience serving as a member of my law school’s Admissions Committee, factors like difficulty of one’s undergraduate major and academic quality of one’s undergraduate school were relevant in those cases which were not clear “admits” or “denies.” I personally looked very carefully at applicants’ transcripts to see the rigor of their courses. Also, at the time, the Law School Admissions Council provided a weighted GPA for each student based on the median GPA for the college the student had attended (thus taking account of grade inflation or deflation at each school). This was 10 years ago and I’m not sure if they do that anymore.</p>
<p>Steverino, I can only share the experience that my son had with admission officers. After meeting about 25 admission folks, not one of them asked where my son went to school. They did ask about his GPA/LSAt and his major. </p>
<p>I even had one admission officer candidly note that they give a score based on the LSAC revalued GPA and LSAT. He then said that the top 25% is automatically accepted, absent some strange circumstances such as criminal conviction etc. The bottom 25% is rejected. The middle 50% is looked at more closely,whatever that may mean.</p>