I’m very concerned about my law school admission potential. Credit-wise, I’m a second semester senior, but due to transferring schools that possessed different general education requirements as well as different major requirements, after the completion of this semester I will still be required to complete 22 credits more to satisfy my current institution’s requirements— those of which I plan on completing over the summer sessions and ending in the fall. I’ve been doing some research and came across the notion that a rigorous course selection may be taken into consideration while evaluating one’s GPA in their favor; that being said, I’m a bioscience major so I’ve taken the upper level biology classes, a year of gen chem, orgo chem 1+2, physics, and will be taking biochem this upcoming summer…. as opposed to those who attained higher GPAs by taking presumably easier programs of study such as communications, criminal justice, humanities, etc. (no offense to those who took one of those routes, those are not my words, nor preconceptions of those majors)
Do you have any insight on that matter?
My GPA is fluctuating around an even 3.0 right now. My anticipated LSAT score is 154-162.
I feel obligated to mention that my GPA is so low because during my freshman year I was unmotivated and solely going through the motions of school because I hadn’t known what I wanted to do with my life at that point and was satisfied with passing classes doing the bare minimum. Such classes which were undoubtedly ‘easy A’ freshman classes had I put in five minutes of effort outside of class. Which is no excuse, certainly nothing an admission review committee would care to hear, but just thought I’d mention.
Where would you say I stand as a competitive law school applicant?
With such of a low GPA, my reach/optimistic schools are Brooklyn Law (3.31 median uGPA, 156 median LSAT) followed by New York Law (3.31 median uGPA, 152 median LSAT). Am I dreaming? Or is it possible?
Unfortunately, law schools don't care how rigorous your undergrad is. A 3.0 earned in bioscience is no better than a 3.0 earned in basketweaving. You may wish to investigate if your degree permits you to take the patent bar, which would be one advantage.
With a 3.0/162 it is probably not worthwhile for you to attend law school outside of very specific conditions: If you are independently wealthy such that the cost/opportunity cost of law school isn't an issue; if you have already lined up a legal job that can pay for the projected amount of student loans you will need. In relation to cost of attendance the legal job market is simply not strong enough to support the kind of jobs most graduates need if they are to pay down their debt. Going to law school is simply too risky a proposition for me to recommend.
I did not see in your post anything about why you want to go to law school and what experience you have with the practice of law.
If you take some time after school and work for a year or two and have an LSAT score above a school’s median, you ay well get in. I may be wrong, but I believe that a lot of law schools weight LSAT scores more heavily than GPAs
Your rigorous undergrad studies will help you, as there have been numerous sources on this board (including people who served on law school admissions committees) that state that when your GPA is examined by a law school admissions committee, the committee will look at your course of study to see what your GPA “really” means. The committee wants to know that you’re smart, and a 3.0 in aerospace engineering shows that you’re smart; a 3.0 in a joke major does not.
Also, there’s a law school for everyone. Only some law schools are worth 3 years out of the job market and expensive tuition, though.
A 160+ should get you some money at Brooklyn LS, but even so, it may not be worth attending. Only ~65% of students get jobs; 35% do not. And of those, <20% are hired into Big Law which would enable you to pay off the loans.
NYLS is even worse: <50% get FT jobs, and <10% get Big Law. OTOH, you are likely to earn more merit money from NYLS.
Now of course not everyone wants Big Law, but that is the only sure way to pay off the debt if you don’t earn a full ride (which is unlikely with a 3.0 GPA).
Unless you can attend for nearly free, LS might not be in your best financial interest.
Confused on the direction of your second point. I asked what your thoughts were regarding my personal scores in comparison to the schools median acceptance scores, emphasis on the word median. Simply put, I was asking whether or not you thought achieving 10points higher. than the median LSAT score can help eclipse a GPA deficit of .25.
You seem to be answering whether or not it would be worth attending a law school that would be willing to accept such (under achieving?) student, which was not the question.
My first step of business is getting in, from there I can show my worth— be within the top 20% of my class. With being top 20% of the class, theoretically, the probability of me being apart of the 65% receiving employment would be exceptionally high… also being apart of the 20% getting into big firms rather possible. OR after getting in and achieving top 20% of the class, attempt to transfer to a higher ranked LS.
Again. Literally 1/4th …25%… of my undergrad GPA is ruined because of me just blowing freshman year. Stupid, Immature, etc. I know. Good thing college did its job and allowed me to grow and develop wants— which I will be putting into my essay, pointing out the rapid turn around and the consistently increasing grade improvement. Increasing GPA while taking courses that are increasing exponentially in difficulty, need I mention.
(i.e. ENG101, Intro to communication, History -> Neurology of Pain, Calc 3, Organic Chemistry) It shows character and the ability to succeed with a rigorous course load.
And I’m also going to have to disagree with your opinion on no difference between Bioscience or Basketweaving for 2 reasons:
Your poor (missing) explanation of why you don’t believe it to make a difference, displaying your under appreciation for the question hence the under developed response.
There are admission committee's for a reason. The schools receive your entire course by course transcript for a reason, and they are very sophisticated on there interpretation... rather than receiving strictly just your GPA score and nothing else. Similarly to how the committee will interpret a GPA from your local community college versus ones GPA from Harvard differently. Admission isn't robotic.
So, again, I suppose my question wasn’t/isn’t DO they weigh some majors’ GPAs differently… (bringing all aspects together now)… but rather HOW MUCH (which is obviously rhetorical) but do you think the combination of this slightly lenient GPA review and achieving TEN points higher than the median LSAT score (which are extremely pivotal points as I’m sure you know) would make it POSSIBLE for acceptance even though theres a -.25 differential from the MEDIAN GPA score.
And I didn’t see how me telling you why I wanted to go to LS would’ve helped you answer me question, nor did I think you cared.
not Demo, but the short and always correct answer is that Law School adcoms are fixated on rankings. And the primary driver of rankings is GPA & LSAT. Period. There are no adjustments for major rigor in rankings. So, in that sense it is irrelevant.
OTOH, a rigorous major can be a plus factor when comparing students of similar stats (GPA & LSAT). A hard physical science major can also be a plus factor for a prospie that wants to do IP law. (such jobs are easier to obtain and that looks good on the LS rankings.)
But those are only plus factors on the margin. No LS is gonna say, a 3.0 Engineering major is better for us than a 3.4 Hume/Lit major. Just ain’t so.
The vast majority of matriculants are thinking the same. By definition, most of them will be incorrect. To be realistic, you should plan on graduating with median stats. And then, what can you do from there?
btw: many lower law schools (not T14) play games with their merit money students in that they put them all in the same sections, where they are guaranteed to be less than stellar bcos of the forced curve, by section. Then, the LS requires a B+ say, to keep continue the scholarship. By definition, half of those scholarship students in Yr 1 will be SOL in year 2. (Dunno about Brooklyn or NYLS, but just a fair warning.)
The higher your LSAT the better. A high enough LSAT will compensate for a low GPA. That is an obvious answer to a not very useful question.
Everyone thinks they’re going to be in the top (usually it’s 10, but here you picked 20) % of the class. Turns out only 20% of such people are right. You have no idea whether you’ll be in the top of your law school class or not. No one does. Law school turns on a very specific skill that you have never used before: the ability to take law school exams. You’ll be up against people that have credentials mirroring your own and it will be a race to see who learns the skill best fastest. The calculation you therefore need to run is whether the likelihood of success in law school multiplied by the expected salary is greater or less than your projected debt.
I get that you have a low GPA not as a reflection of your ability but because you did something dumb when you were younger. You are not the first applicant I’ve seen with that problem. You’re also not the first applicant I’ve seen get screwed by majoring in something challenging. Law school admissions is a particularly stupid process turning on particularly silly criteria. But that’s the game you’re playing, like it or not.
Disliking my answer doesn’t make it untrue. Even those on this board who insist that adcoms care about major think they do so on the edges. It’s fair to ask me for my basis, though since I’m the one offering to help and you’re the one asking it behooves you to be a bit more polite.
My data comes from various places. Most importantly, the admissions data available at [url=http://lawschoolnumbers.com/]LSN[/url]. As you can see, applicants are clearly divided into bands corresponding across GPA/LSAT. This is a distribution not consistent with the weighing of other factors, including undergrad major, rigor, application essay, and so on. There is a bit of variance around the edges in which it is possible those things might fit. There is no direct evidence that they do.
You are correct that law schools receive your transcript but are mistaken in thinking they weigh GPAs differently. Law schools don’t weigh GPAs at all. That is handled by the LSAC through the LSDAS. That is the number they care about. Understanding a bit of law school economics helps explain this. For better or worse (worse, in my opinion), law students are driven by rankings. Particularly USNWR rankings. Law students are law schools’ customers and like all businesses, law schools go where the customers are. USNWR ranks on a variety of [url=http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/law-schools-methodology]factors[/url]. As you can see, three of those factors are driven by applicants: median LSAT, median GPA, and selectivity. Since customers care about USNWR, and USNWR cares about median LSAT and GPA, that’s what law schools care about (they get selectivity by not accepting too many people). That’s why even if schools do care about things like undergrad major it will only be around the edges. The primary drivers of admissions acceptances are GPA/LSAT.
I come to this board because I think law schools make their money by taking advantage of students. I also think students tend to have very unrealistic views of law practice. The former I deal with by making sure students both have the right information and know the right questions. The latter I deal with by trying to steer prospective students into internships where they can learn firsthand the difference between real law and TV law. So, of course I care why you want to go to law school. It’s a far more important question than chancing someone on the numbers.
@bluebayou: I’ve heard rumors of section stacking merit recipients but I’ve never seen any actual evidence.