Is it impossible to get a high GPA?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

<p>One of my best friend from HS, who is incredibly bright and hard working, is going to UChicago and he is in town and I was talking to him about my acceptance and my future goals and when I mentioned that I want to go to a top 14 law school and try to achieve a 3.8 at Chicago he laughed at me and said it was impossible.</p>

<p>All law schools care about are GPA and LSATs and will probably not care about the difficulty at Chicago. I know a lot of people are gonna say you can do whatever you put your mind to but I am going to be try balancing 2 Varsity sports and my classes along with other cool stuff at Chicago and I want to know that it is possible to achieve at least a 3.8 </p>

<p>Do any current Chicago students have any tips for me? Thanks</p>

2

<p>Chicago certainly presents a formidable academic challenge, and to do very well, I think it's important to have a passion for the subject matter you're studying. The kids I met who did very well (were Phi Beta Kappa or whatever) generally really loved whatever it was they were studying, and this translated to strong performance. </p>

<p>Chicago, unlike other schools, makes it a bit harder to "game the system" because there just aren't that many fluff classes. The core humanities and social sciences classes are challenging. There may be a few "easier" core science classes, but outside of that, all the classes will challenge you - it's just the Chicago way. </p>

<p>Having said that, there have been other posts about grade inflation, and it is beginning to hit Chicago a bit. </p>

<p>Also, in being familiar with the law school process, I can't emphasize this enough - LSAT matters SO MUCH, considerably more than GPA. For example, a 3.5/171 will generally win out over even the 3.7/168 candidate. I understand you want to maximize your chances by getting a high GPA, but if you're happy at Chicago, your GPA will probably be within .1 or .2 of what it would be at a peer school. At that point, the only thing that makes a difference is LSAT. Also, in terms of splits (i.e. 3.0/174 vs. 3.9/161) applicants, high LSATs win out virtually EVERY time. </p>

<p>If you're really just set on law school and don't seem to care much about the undergrad, why not go to a more pre-professional college? UPenn or Duke would seem like good choices, and it's much easier to game the system at both of those schools. </p>

<p>If you go to Chicago with an open mind and a sincere interest in academics (along with a passion for a certain concentration) you'll do fine. If you just want a high GPA to serve as a vehicle for entry into a top law school, you may want to look elsewhere. You can't get through the U of C without "feeling" your education.</p>

3

<p>Oh one other note, if you're really interested in just law school and don't care much about the undergrad, one program you should look into at Chicago is the "Law, Letters, and Society" concentration. </p>

<p>You can read more about it here:</p>

<p>Courses</a> & Programs of Study</p>

<p>It's run by a pretty prominent law professor, Dennis Hutchinson. You can read about him here:</p>

<p>University</a> of Chicago Law School > Dennis Hutchinson</p>

<p>From what I remember, he helps out the kids that concentrate in Law Letters a LOT. He writes pretty influential letters of recommendation, and you get a lot of support from the pre-law advisers if you concentrate in this. From what I remember, a lot of the kids who did this program went to very competitive law schools (NYU, Chicago, UPenn, etc.). Also, most of the kids just seemed really intent on going to law school, and didn't care much about what was happening in undergrad. If this rings true for you, definitely give the program a look. </p>

<p>I'll say this one more time though - LSAT LSAT LSAT! Do well on that, and even a mediocre GPA won't really matter.</p>

4

<p>I will definitely look into that. I was planning on majoring in Poly Sci or International Studies. I love Chicago, I love the core and I love the feel but in the back of my head I am always thinking about just taking on too much and ending up screwing myself. I know I am going to be working my butt off every day and I am ready for this but what worries me is that Chicago is so hard that even the greatest amount of effort will never yield the grades I yearn for. But I am confident in my deceision and I know Chicago will do me well.</p>

<p>I am pretty sure I can do very well on the LSATs, I took a practice test in real time conditions and I was able to score a 169 and I know through intensive study I can get that above 175. But on all of the law school admissions profiles, the majority of students have above a 3.5 ALONG with 170+ LSATs. But I do have that I am a URM for me. So ya!</p>

5

<p>If you love the core and the academic aspects about Chicago, and you're willing to work hard in Poli Sci or IR or the Law Letters and Society concentration, I really wouldn't worry about anything. It is entirely possible to do well at Chicago, as long as you 1.) have a sincere passion for academics and enjoy what you're studying and 2.) are willing to put in the leg work (for poli sci, write drafts of papers, meet with professors to discuss your work, show that you're diligent, etc.).</p>

<p>The people I met at Chicago who didn't go to great schools almost ALWAYS rued the LSAT. They never complained about their GPA or the lack of grade inflation - they almost always took the LSAT on a whim or just didn't study enough for it. This was part and parcel of Chicago not being a really pre-professional school, and students subsequently not understanding just HOW important the LSAT is.</p>

<p>Now, since schools will pretty much always take your higher score, this is less of an issue. Take the LSAT twice or three times to ensure you get the score you want.</p>

<p>If you are a URM, do you know this is a MASSIVE boost? Literally, there are so few URMs that just having a 169 LSAT (disregarding gpa) makes you competitive at the BEST law schools (Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Columbia). </p>

<p>I should also mention, grade deflation hits the hard sciences at Chicago harder than the humanities and social sciences. I found that, in the humanities and social science classes, getting a solid A was quite tough (but do-able), but getting an A- is certainly attainable. This is where Chicago differs from other schools, and a 3.7 is much easier to attain than say, a 3.85. At the same time, a difference of .1 or so in GPA, especially since the Chicago rep can cover about a .1 difference in GPA, is negligible. So, if you go to Chicago rather than say, Duke, your (diligent) work over a trimester might result in 1 A and 3 A-s at Chicago (a 3.75), and 2 As and 2 A-s at Duke (about a 3.82). At the end of the day, there might be a 0.05 or .1 disparity in grades in poli sci at Duke or Chicago. It's not really that significant. Again, getting around a 3.75 is really do-able at Chicago.</p>

<p>(In the past, it might have been more disparate, but again, grade inflation is certainly starting to hit Chicago, especially in the humanities and social sciences.)</p>

<p>I would recommend going to this website:</p>

<p>LSN</a> :: Welcome to LawSchoolNumbers.com</p>

<p>Click on one of the top 14 schools, and then click on the "Applicants" tab. It includes the numbers and decisions for applicants from the past 4 years or so. Note how the URMs do and their numbers (when the applicants disclose this).</p>

<p>Again, Chicago seems like a good place for you. If you are already scoring a 169 on the LSAT (which is VERY impressive as an incoming freshman) I can't tell you how good of shape you are in right now. If you love Chicago and the core, you'll be FINE at Chicago. In a few years, say you have a 3.6-3.7 and say, a 173 LSAT (all reasonable numbers for you), a good rec from Dennis Hutchinson, and with your URM status, you are in basically EVERYWHERE, with scholarship money from Chicago, NYU, Columbia, and possibly Harvard. </p>

<p>Don't sweat the grades too much. Given what you're saying, Chicago seems like a great place for you, and law school will be a VERY viable option a few years down the road.</p>

6

<p>The whole GPA obsession around top law schools is in large part a red herring. If "all law schools care about is GPA and LSATs", you would expect to see the top law schools filled with students who got 3.9s at UC Irvine and the like. Well, every top law school has a handful of students like that, but there are many, many more students who did their undergraduate work at prestigious universities, public and private, not all of whom had perfect grades.</p>

<p>I know people on law school admissions committees, and I know what they are like. Although I haven't discussed this with any of them much, I am completely confident about what their collective attitude is: all of them want the best of the best. They all know and have tons of respect for the University of Chicago, and are happy to attract the kinds of students who choose Chicago and do well there. They recognize that good students can come out of second-tier public universities, too, and they are on the lookout for that, but they expect to see far fewer of them, and the ones they admit are truly exceptional. </p>

<p>LSATs absolutely matter -- a few years ago, I discussed a specific case with a friend who chairs the committee at one top-10 law school, and he acknowledged that the applicant we were discussing would have been admitted instantly (rather than deferred three or four times, until it didn't matter anymore) if his LSAT score (169) had been three or four points higher. (The student was basically perfect in every other respect: top grades in his division as an undergraduate at the same university, a fellowship-paid MA from Oxford, a published novel, and part-time work as a professional musician. He was admitted to several law schools of equal or greater prestige, but also rejected at some of them.)</p>

<p>GPA matters, too, but in a relative sense. They want people who have been academically successful, and who have taken full advantage of their opportunities. That means different things in different contexts. GPA isn't the only way it is evaluated, although (unlike PhD programs) law schools will not be very welcoming for students who do well only in the subjects that interest them most. To that extent, Chicago's core is a mixed blessing. Law schools will be excited by someone who does well across a broad range of subjects, and the core gives students the opportunity to do that, but it also gives students the opportunity to look not-so-hot in areas where, if they had gone to another college, they may never have taken a course.</p>

<p>A final word about Dennis Hutchinson's LLS program. I'm sure it is stuffed with pre-laws, and I'm sure he knows it, but if he were reading this thread he would be howling in rage at the suggestion that LLS is a pre-law program. I'm sure he would prefer it if none of the LLS students went to law school, and I know he encourages the pre-law advisors NOT to send law-school-bound students his way. And, in general, he's right: Students who have some demonstrated expertise in a field far removed from law will be much more attractive to top law schools than those who focus on quasi-legal subjects as undergraduates.</p>

7

<p>I think a 3.8 (I'm using this value because you were using it) is more attainable than one might imagine. I've reviewed resumes of U of C undergraduates, and quite a few of them reported GPAs in the 3.7+ territory. People who do really well tend to be quiet about it, so that further adds to the mystique of Chicago grades.</p>

<p>I'm fairly certain that my department's average GPA is around a 3.5-- halfway between a B+ and an A-, and if you would like to know why I think that, you can PM me. So about a quarter of the people in my department are walking around with a 3.8 (assuming normal distribution).</p>

<p>My only real suggestion to the OP is to check evaluations.uchicago.edu before registering for classes (it's my suggestion to everybody) but particularly to see that professor's grading distribution.</p>

8

<p>I think a 3.8 is reasonably difficult to maintain, but if set your mind to it and choose your courses carefully and try hard (and make sure your professors know how much you are interested in their classes), it's not impossible. I'm doing a lot better at Chicago than I thought I would based on what I had heard.</p>

<p>"People who do really well tend to be quiet about it" - I agree with this. The whole campus is very modest about grades. People are much, much more open about their grades when they're not doing well. I have no problems telling people when I get a 50% on a math midterm, but I would never tell anyone when I get an A on a final paper. Really, it's almost taboo to talk about your grades, especially if you're doing well - and it's VERY rare for someone to ask how you did (specifically at least) on an assignment.</p>

9

<p>Fun fact:</p>

<p>I do know somebody who graduated with a 4.0. The person in question never told me she was a 4.0 student, but in context-- what I knew about what she was studying, her undeniable passion for the subject, her work ethic, and her post-graduate opportunities-- her 4.0 made sense.</p>

<p>Also the fact that a lot of my friends have applied for and have been awarded honors that have stringent GPA cutoffs (usually 3.5 or 3.7) suggests that there a lot of students here who do perform highly, if I were to extend my guesswork about my friends' academic standings to the student body as a whole.</p>

10

<p>That is why I love UChicago^. I will be very diligent in choosing my classes, I cant wait to get the login info for the evaluations.uchicago.edu. I know that a Chicago education is very unique and rigorous but I love learning about everything but what worries me (or worried, as I am not feeling the same) is that I will be working an studying everyday, doing just straight work and still get a B or a C. I saw a few stats that the avg GPA was a 3.33 which isnt bad and I know that with work I can get at least a 3.7 If I just wanted a easy GPA, I would have went to Brown but I know UChicago is the right step.</p>

11

<p>My child, who is a third year now, entered Chicago with her grades and SATs in the mid to lower range of those admitted at Chicago. She is an IR/history major and loves her studies, but I don't think that she is super intense about them. She also sings in three choirs and gets around the city of Chicago for fun. So, without feeling stressed out most of the time and generally enjoying her college experience, she maintains close to a 3.7 cum. So, my experience is that in the social sciences and humanities, the intensity of the grading at Chicago may be a bit overated. Do note that math and hard sciences do tend to grade a bit harder and those seem to be the kind of courses that she got a B or B+ in. If you are a fit for Chicago, don't stress so much about the grades. Many family members have gone there and even with 3.5 or so cums have gotten into top graduate schools, including med and law schools. I concur that the lsats and medcats probably make more of a difference than the grade differential.</p>

12

<p>Thank you for your input newengalndparent. That makes me feel great. I cant wait!</p>

13

<p>A few things to consider:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>I graduated high school with something on the order of a 3.8 GPA, which was about three fourths perspiration and about one fourth luck of the draw (in my favor). My other high school friends with 3.8+ averages were admitted to schools like Dartmouth, Harvard, and Stanford, even though some of them had less challenging courseloads than I did. My high school friends with 3.3-3.6 GPAs went to excellent schools like Oberlin, Tufts, and Colgate. The only reason I bring these GPA's and these colleges up is to establish exactly how relative GPAs can be. There are high schools out where a 3.8 might not mean much for Oberlin, Tufts, and Colgate, forget Ivies/Top 10/AWS. My high school is known for its difficulty and so a high GPA there means a whole lot to colleges. (This is yet ANOTHER reason why chance threads are so misleading: a GPA means nothing without the context of the high school and the high school's known rigor or lack thereof. It would be unwise for privacy reasons for students to reveal their high schools, and even if they did reveal their high schools, you are probably not in the position to assess the high school's rigor).</p></li>
<li><p>When you get to college, it's safe to assume that the people around you got pretty high grades, so there can be a period of shock when the professor recalibrates the class to a B or B+ average. All of a sudden, half the students in a class of students who were all getting A's in high school are now getting grades LOWER THAN A B+. Don't for a moment think that Chicago is the only school where students suffer/complain about this recalibration. This happens at any school that attracts a lot of very smart kids.</p></li>
<li><p>I realize that some people look at grades for self-validation, and if they don't get an A, that's somehow a failure on their part. That's a rather destructive attitude, particularly because the professor doesn't mean to insult you or demean you with a non-A grade. Plenty of times I've gotten encouraging comments like, "Nice work!" or "I look forward to reading more from you." or "A model essay!" without getting an A grade, as the A is reserved for truly spectacular work. If this was supposed to be some sort of torture chamber, it's not working.</p></li>
<li><p>A B+ is not low. A B is not low. A B- is not low. In many cases, a C or a C+ is not low. If you don't believe me, try finding some engineering majors around and talk to them about their grades.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Long story short: college is a different ballgame.</p>

14

<p>machiavelli,
Just to confuse the issue, S's GPA at Chicago last quarter was higher than his HS GPA. He attended a very tough HS (just how well it prepared him wasn't fully evident until this fall) -- so it all depends on where you're coming from and how you adapt to your newfound independence and responsibility.</p>

15

<p>JHS:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>I disagree with some of the assertions you make in your post. You state that, "If "all law schools care about is GPA and LSATs", you would expect to see the top law schools filled with students who got 3.9s at UC Irvine and the like."</p></li>
<li><p>No, what you would expect to see are a bunch of kids from the top schools with near-perfect grades and high LSAT scores. And, lo and behold, that's exactly what you see at pretty much all the top schools. Law schools, like lawyers, are somewhat risk averse and prefer dealing with known quantities. So, will a law school prefer a 3.9 Harvard undergrad with a 170 LSAT, or a 3.9 UC Irvine with a 170 LSAT? Keep in mind, with grade inflation rampant at places like Harvard, Brown, etc. law schools can fill their classes with lots of kids from top schools (the known quantities) with high LSAT scores AND high gpas. & this is exactly what law schools do. </p></li>
</ul>

<p>Sure, a U of C grad may do better with a lower GPA than someone from a second-tier public school with a higher GPA, but I don't think the Original poster is overly concerned about this. His question would be: How does U of C compare in direct competition with its immediate peers? Up until recently, I would argue the U of C did not do as well as its direct peers such as Brown, Columbia, Duke, etc. This is because, would an admissions committee rather take a 3.8 from Duke with a 169 LSAT, or a 3.5 from Chicago with a 169 LSAT? </p>

<p>Now, however, as grade inflation has crept into the social sciences and humanities at Chicago, the playing field has leveled somewhat. As Chicago continues to attract better undergrads who (for better or worse) are more pre-professional, their placement gets better. When I was at Chicago, too many kids took the LSAT on a whim, didn't really do that well, and ended up at ok - but not great - schools (think Notre Dame and Minnesota). We didn't even have an LSAT class offered on campus. Now, I'd imagine that situation is changing, and in recent years, Chicago's placement has become more competitive. </p>

<p>Sure, law schools may love Chicago students, but they'll only accept them if they have the appropriate numbers. The wonderfully intellectually curious Chicago kid with a 3.6 GPA and a 162 LSAT is not getting into a top school. </p>

<p>At the end of the day, law schools want - in order - 1.) High LSAT scores, 2.) great grades from great schools (lesser schools get less weight.... 3.) some good soft factors (good essay, recs, whatever). Law schools want known quantities, and they know harvard kids with high gpas do well in law school, so they'll try to get as many of them as possible. </p>

<p>Also, about Hutchinson, maybe the situation is different now, but as averse as Hutchinson may be to having pre-laws in his concentration, the fact of the matter is, pre-laws FLOCK to his program. Also, being a stand-up guy, I thought he was quite loyal to his students, and did a good job supporting them in the app process. Your statement that law schools love "students with a degree of expertise far removed from the law" is a bit misleading. </p>

<ul>
<li>If you have a degree in underwater basketweaving at Brown with a 3.9 and a 175 LSAT, you're getting into a top (most likely top 3) school. All the rest of that fluff is great, but not as important as a HIGH LSAT and a great gpa from a great school. </li>
</ul>

<p>Law schools still operate on largely hard and fast admissions rules.</p>

16

<p>Cue, we don't disagree on as much as you think we do. I think I made clear that I thought top law schools look for great grades and great LSATs, with the definition of "great grades" being somewhat college-specific. (Remember, unlike the situation with college applications, where Harvard gets 1-4 applications from thousands and thousands of high schools, top law schools probably see several dozen applications per year from 40-50 colleges, and then onesies-twosies from others. Law school admissions people may know more about comparative grade inflation at Chicago and Harvard than Chicago and Harvard do.) But, at least at the top law schools, as at the top colleges, admission is not a simple function of LSAT, grades and pedigree. LSAT scores and grades qualify candidates, but don't get them admitted -- otherwise everyone at Yale would have a 180 or 179, and that's not the case.</p>

<p>The applicant I referred to above applied to seven law schools, all in the "top 14" (or whatever), and all but one certainly in the top 10. He went 3-3-1 (the one being an endless deferral that essentially amounted to being waitlisted, albeit with a meaningful chance of ultimately getting admitted); the school he is attending is at or near the tippy-top of the hierarchy. Obviously, these schools were using something other than a simple, mechanical numerical formula in their admissions. </p>

<p>The factor you are missing in your assessment is experience and expertise. While top law schools admit a number of people right out of college, they highly value graduate study and meaningful life experience, too. If you want a metric that approximately tracks law school prestige, at least among law schools already known as prestigious, look at average age of students. Most top law schools are actively trying to get older, and to recruit people with substantive expertise in a non-legal field. That doesn't mean that college seniors majoring in LLS are blackballed, but it does mean that they have to be awfully impressive. (And, yes, Dennis Hutchinson's recommendation would go a long way.)</p>

17

<p>JHS,</p>

<p>I think the higher up you go, the more "soft" factors (along with high gpa and LSAT) matter. So a Marshall Scholarship may certainly help one's chances of admission at Yale law. I think though, once you get a bit lower down the list, when you take out slots for URMs (that sometimes account for much of the "lower" numbers in a law class), it becomes a much stricter numbers game.</p>

<p>As I posted in another thread, I'd like to see Chicago's hard numbers. My feeling is that Chicago grads get little - if any - boost when they compete directly with grads from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, etc. I'd think the avg. numbers for a Chicago accept at Harvard Law would be VERY similar to the avg. numbers for a Harvard undergrad accept to Harvard law (i.e. the Chicago kid might have a <em>slightly</em> lower GPA, but not by much). </p>

<p>I agree about the avg. age of law students, and as law school admissions gets more selective and people learn how to game the LSAT more, these elite law schools have the luxury of looking at other factors when accepting candidates. </p>

<p>Again, I would like to see some hard numbers on Chicago's law placement. I would imagine that, numbers wise, Chicago grads still need to achieve the same GPA and LSAT scores to get into the same law schools as their peers at Brown, Duke, and the like. (i.e. there aren't a bunch of 3.6/168 Chicago alums getting into Harvard Law.)</p>

18

<p>Here is a breakdown of admits to GW Law School. It would be interesting to see this type of admissions breakdown for all law schools. GW does seem to give much more weight to LSAT than GPA. Entering</a> Class Profile</p>

<p>Not referring to top law schools, the site linked below claims U of C has an 80 - 90 percent law school acceptance rate, whereas the national average is 55 to 60 percent. It also provides evidence that the LSAT is the most important single "number" that matters.</p>

<p>For the time period used, at the U of C Law School, for students with a 3.5, 100% were admitted who had a score of 168 -180, and 99% for 164-167.</p>

<p>Advice</a> for Getting Into Law School - University of Chicago - A must read.</p>

19

<p>Hey folks, don't be so hard on the hard science majors! Some of them actually do as well in science courses as social science and humanities courses. And I'm not so sure science courses actually grade harder - many of the grading complaints seem to come from pre-meds, I suspect, or the kids that were just not cut out for the kind of rigor one finds in science grading. </p>

<p>It is true that the numerical grading in some science courses can be humbling. I well remember my D's comments on o-chem a few years back, with exams having means of 70% or less. But that does not mean most of the students received C or D grades! (and some did much better than the mean, of course, too.)</p>

<p>JHS, an thoughts on how science majors are treated for law school admissions versus others? My anecdotal sense is that they do as well or better.</p>

20

<p>Following on to idad's post, bear in mind that UChicago admissions numbers to almost all graduate programs save medical schools (JD / MBA / MA / PhD / etc.) are inflated significantly by the sheer number of students seeking entry to <em>anywhere.</em> When you have a college that sends 85% plus of its students on to graduate school within five years (which necessarily includes many students with GPA’s below a 3.0), there are bound to be a sizable number of applications that go out to effectively rubber stamp schools / open enrollment programs, where so long as you don’t utterly bomb your associated standardized test (if required), you are basically assured of admission. More specifically, it would be almost impossible not to find a tier three, USNWR LS to attend coming out of UChicago for college. I would wager the 10% that don’t get into LS anywhere noted above are those that eschewed any safeties whatsoever.</p>