<p>Once again...looks like two totally different points here:</p>
<p>-- Sally: Grad school grades are TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. As in LOOKED at, SEEN, CONSIDERED.</p>
<p>-- Southpasadena: Grad school grades are not FACTORED into GPA.</p>
<p>Feel free to jump on me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understand previous posts, in which case this is all rendered even more unnecessary...</p>
<p>Now that i have had time to read some of the past statements, i agree with student in that i was debating something that was contradicting pretty much nothing in response to sally's posts. For that i am sorry, but i still stand that grades are not factored for grad programs. Undergrad grades can and will be manipulated to factor in your major and school. It would be more worthwhile starting a relationship with a notable faculty member for a reasonable lor than count on your grades.</p>
<p>but again, i realize that student was right about debating two different topics.</p>
<p>LSDAS calculates every college course into its GPA, right up until you receive a bachelor's degree. That is something on the LSAC website.</p>
<p>i will say those that i have personally talked to would be the first to examine your app at USC and UCLA. You meet a good number of UCLA and USC alum in the areas of la canada through san marino. And residing there for nearly my entire life has lent me plenty of opportunities to meet certain people. Not to mention a close friends father was a fellow classmate of the current associate dean of a certain law school.</p>
<p>A couple of the admissions officers who I know well just sent me some interesting information to give credence to the trend that an increasing number of students are working and/or obtaining graduate degrees before enrolling at top law schools. According to these admissions officers, just 10 years ago few law schools had siginificant numbers of students with work experience and/or prior graduate degrees, and no law schools had stats like the ones that I've cited below. I do stand by what I've said -- assuming that a law school admissions officer will not review your graduate school transcripts is done at your peril, particularly since experience beyond just college has become such an important factor in law school admissions. The idea is no different than the fact that taking classes at that local community college during the summer in the hopes of taking home some As may raise your LSAC calculated GPA, but will show up as exactly what it is -- summer classes at the local community college -- on your transcripts. </p>
<p>Profiles of the Class of 2009 (current 1Ls):</p>
<p>Harvard Law School
11% hold advanced degrees
47% have been out of college 1 to 4 years
7% have been out of college 5 or more years</p>
<p>Stanford Law School
23% hold advanced degrees
39% have been out of college 1 to 2 years
30% have been out of college 3 or more years</p>
<p>Columbia Law School
About 15% of each class holds at least one advanced degree</p>
<p>University of Pennsylvania Law School
15% hold advanced degrees
67% have been out of college at least 1 year</p>
<p>Duke Law School
45% have been out of college 1 to 4 years
15% have been out of college 5 or more years</p>
<p>Remember - law school admissions officers at top law schools have to compare many very qualified applicants with high GPAs and LSAT scores, and the best ways to make distinctions at the borders is to look in depth at an applicant's personal statement, recommendations, quality of coursework, work experience and graduate school coursework and grades.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i specifically said that she was wrong, especially in regards to HYS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ok, so now you are explaining that your incredibly strongly worded opinion was based on talking with people at usc and ucla and having a friend whose father was a classmate of an associate dean at a law school? thank you for finally providing the background information that i suggested you post.</p>
<p>i'm not sure what experience you have on other forums that has led to respond so strongly to calls for civility and courtesy here -- but there are many people here who are genuinely interested in learning about law school and the practice of law and many people who have actually gone thru the process (myself included). and arguing without bothering to see what the other person actually says just really stands out as behavior that is just fundamentally contrary to what being a good lawyer is all about and simply does not help the credibility of a post here in this forum. if that's not something you care about - fine - but everyone reading here has to judge how to evaluate what is said here based on what a poster chooses to put forward either expressly in what they explain as the basis for their posting, or implicitly in the manner in which they express it. don't wonder why people end up challenging what you say if you post in the manner in which you did.</p>
<p>i can see your stats, but it shows only one year, i would need to see an increasing percentage of advanced degrees year after year. I feel that will pale in comparison to the number of candidates who are now applying with work experience.</p>
<p>Nspeds wrote:
[quote]
given that Sally is a graduate of Yale Law School with years of experience in law
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hate to speak for Sally, but I believe she is a graduate of Penn Law School (with an MBA from Wharton to boot!).</p>
<p>"I feel that will pale in comparison" I apologize, but I'm not certain to what "that" refers. Can you clarify?</p>
<p>I didn't post those states to disprove your statements, southpasdena. Instead, I thought that the stats would be interesting to many of the people who frequent this board since the high percentages of students entering law school this year -- you know, the 1Ls trudging through Torts, Contracts and Property this semester -- with substantial work experience and/or graduate degrees was surprising, even to me. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to hunt down the information to make a year over year comparison of the numbers of law students entering law school each year who have work experience and/or hold graduate degrees. Since I don't want to bother the admissions officers who provided me with the Class of 2009 information again, perhaps you, southpasdena, would be interested in finding information that disproves my statement, if you would like. Maybe your contacts in law school admissions offices have some information that you might share about this trend. I think that you will find, and I'm fairly confident that the other lawyers who frequently visit this board will agree, that ten or more years ago, there were just not as many law students with work experience and/or graduate degrees as there are today.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but I believe she is a graduate of Penn Law School (with an MBA from Wharton to boot!).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know she has some relation to YLS.</p>
<p>I received my JD/MBA from Penn Law/Wharton.</p>
<p>To the OP - So, in my opinion, the takeaway from this is that a degree from LSE will most likely help your application to top law schools. Law schools to which you apply will see your LSE transcript, though your grades won't be included in your LSAC GPA. In fact, I think that, to some extent, your undergraduate GPA matters less for every year in which you have worked full time and/or taken time to earn a graduate degree -- unless, of course, you have absolutely stellar undergraduate grades, in which case they will help you very much too. In fact, I think that your degree from LSE will help you very much in the job market should you decide to head down the path to a large law firm. Good for you and best of luck!</p>
<p>Thanks Sally! You've been very helpful!</p>
<p>A random thought, based purely on my personal experiences as a law school applicant and the experiences of some friends:</p>
<p>Law schools do not have uniform standards of how they look at things or the weight which they give certain credentials. Some law schools will look very favourably on your LSE experience; others will be close to indifferent. I do think that smaller schools and better schools will care more. At better schools, they are not so concerned with USNews rankings; they know they are tops, no matter what. They can afford to take interesting students. At smaller schools, they still need to fill up a class with people from a bunch of states, foreign countries, engineers, i-bankers, people with grad degrees, etc. It's much easier to "punch a hole" at a smaller school.</p>
<p>Thanks Ariesathena. I was kinda hoping what you said would be the case at top schools like HYS, Michigan, NYU, etc. As I wrote in my post, my hard numbers are 3.91 and 171 (though my first LSAT score was 167). I know the LSAT score is a little low for HYS (based on the percentage admitted according to LSAC's calculator) and I know that Yale and Stanford are extremely quirky with their admissions, but if you start with those numbers, add a thesis award, the LSE degree, and the law-related research scholarship in a foreign country (in a foreign language), does that consitute a reasonable (above 50%) chance at Harvard and/or Michigan, NYU and Columbia? Or, does my comparatively low LSAT score hurt me enough to warrant taking it yet again? Thanks for your input.</p>
<p>Do not take the LSAT again, unless you had the flu the first time and the bubonic plague the second time. I've heard of people taking it twice, but I really think you would be frowned on for taking it three times. First of all, LSAC may not let you take it again; you may have to wait. Even if you take it again and do marginally better (173, which puts you in line for HYS), you still have two lower scores. Most likely, all of your scores will be averaged, although schools would be permitted to report the top score. You certainly would not stack up to someone who scored the 173 on the first test. Finally, I really agree with Sally on this one; law school and the practice of law are very much winner-take-all systems in which your ability to do something right the first time and do it once are more important than your ability to get it right multiple times. I simply cannot guess how a law school would view three LSAT administrations; please ask a few admissions officers before taking it again.</p>
<p>Top schools, where a 171 may not be good enough, are excelllent enough schools so that they will care, comparatively, less about what your top LSAT score will do for their rankings. HYS have a vaunted place at the top and they know it. They also have enough ridiculously talented applicants so that they can be choosy. Lower-ranked schools may care more about a third test administration because it enables them to take your highest score and help their rankings. Nevertheless, be very wary of taking it a third time. It is NOT the SATs!
I cannot predict your chances aside to say "good," or "not so good." Yale's website has the following table:
<a href="http://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/howweevaluateapplications.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/howweevaluateapplications.htm</a>
At a 171 (assuming they take the highest, which isn't always a given; top schools may care more about what the score shows regarding your ability than what it will do to their rankings) and a 3.91, you have a roughly 1 in 5 shot of getting in. Will you be that one in five? I don't know. I simply do not know. I suspect that the answer may even change from year to year; 260 students who are admitted with those stats can vary a lot with such a small sample. Maybe one year, they are all English majors who apply, so major becomes the distinguishing factor. Maybe the next year, the distinguishing factor is undergrad school or work experience. </p>
<p>Is it worth the app fee? Sure. </p>
<p>Anything below Harvard, you would probably be good for. If you get a fee waiver from a school, use it. You might get some acceptances pretty quickly, but it can be enormously helpful for your psyche to have an acceptance in hand while you wait. You might also get some nice merit money, which at least gives you options. So apply to a top 20.</p>
<p>that's great advice. thank you very much. will it hurt me that I had taken the LSAT before the 167 score, but cancelled it (that actually was the flu)? Also, you mentioned Yale's table. I know Harvard doesn't have a table, just 25/75 percentages, but do you think I have a fair shot there? Thanks.</p>
<p>I thought that you can't cancel your score but know what it is. Talk to your pre-law advisor (drop an email); you can find out how schools will view taking the test more than twice, even if one is a cancellation. </p>
<p>I honestly have no idea about Harvard; I do think you have a good shot there; if you have the money and the energy to do the app, it's definitely worth it. Mostly, with law school admissions, if you are in the range, have the time, and have the money, it's worth the app. Absent info or a table, I won't try to predict your chances.</p>
<p>In response to sally</p>
<p>Seems as you go down the usnews scale, the number of students holding advanced degrees severly drops. USC for one is barely 5% of the total enrolled, and UCLA is just above 1%. Post more info later, as i am to tired right now</p>
<p>southpasdena, I wouldn't at all be surprised if that if that is the case. Since this thread began with someone wondering about admissions possibilities at top law schools, though, I think that it is most relevant to discuss the trends at top law schools. My simple point is that it seems that admissions criteria at top law schools has shifted (and is shifting), making it increasingly more important to have work experience and/or a graduate degree before applying to top law schools. I'll make the leap to assume that if the percentages of students attending top law schools who have experience beyond just college is growing, that it will be increasingly difficult to get into top law schools straight from college.</p>