law schools and undergrad GPA's

Parents Forum
1

<p>it has been posted here that currently (unlike in the past) when law schools admit students, they look at GPA and do NOT at all weight for UG institution. A 4.0 at Directional State U is better than a 3.9 at Harvard, for purposes of getting admitted to law school.</p>

<p>This is (IMO) so bizarrely at variance with any rational admission policy that I find it difficult to credit. It also has HUGE impacts on optimal UG school choice for many HS seniors, so its worth getting this straight.</p>

<p>Note, my own DD is entering a 5 year Architecture program and has zero interest in law school, so I have no dog in this fight in terms of personal interests. I just find the situation odd. It suggests that a law school that is willing to defy law school rankings based on average GPA, and scoop up the lower GPA grads of those schools where getting a high GPA is most difficult, could get a very intellectually powerful class, and improve its reputation strongly. That suggests to me what we economists call a disequilibrium situation. </p>

<p>Your thoughts.</p>

2

<p>Oh no! Not this again.</p>

<p>I think a 4.0 at DSU is most unlikely to get a high enough LSAT score to be competitive.</p>

3

<p>BB- there are numerous sites which publish the grids for law school admissions. Once you know a kid’s GPA and LSAT score, the sites are highly (but not perfectly) predictive of admissions results. There are four “wild cards”:</p>

<p>1- academic reputation of the undergrad college and rigor of the major
2- unusual personal situation (grew up in a homeless shelter, under-represented minority in the legal profession which at many law schools includes LGBT)
3- recommendations from college professors
4- everything else- work experience, essay, EC’s, etc.</p>

<p>There is an entire law admissions prep industry devoted to this subject. Suffice it to say that if you examine the matriculating class of the top 14 law schools (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, NYU, Columbia, Chicago, Duke, Northwestern, Georgetown, Penn, Michigan, UVA, Berkeley and Cornell) you will find that the majority of students come from the top 25 undergrad institutions in the country, and that the VAST majority come from the top 40. (privates and publics).</p>

<p>There is much more transparency around law school admissions than there is for undergrad. GPA and LSAT constitute more of the decision factor than do GPA and SAT for undergrad.</p>

<p>Having said that, and recognizing that a high enough SAT score to get a kid into U Chicago or Yale as an undergrad probably correlates with that same kid getting a high LSAT score… even if the kid goes to Turkey Hill college and not U. Chicago at age 18… the data indicates that most kids at top law schools come from the top undergrad programs. Not all the kids. Most of the kids. And this is not a subtlety. The colleges publish lists of who got into which law school. The results will not surprise you. Kids from Yale are admitted to Top 14 law schools at a stunningly disproportionate rate if you were to assume that a 3.6 from Yale equals a 3.6 from Quinnipiac- two colleges down the road from each other where it would be hard to argue that kids at Quinnipiac have a marked preference for Suffolk or Hofstra law schools vs. Harvard or Columbia based on regional distinctions.</p>

<p>Law school admissions reps are much more savvy about academic rigor at undergrad colleges than their counterparts in undergrad admissions. They can be- there are more high schools in the US than four year colleges. And there is a high concentration of applicants from the top 100 colleges so they can be very plugged in to the fact that there is grad deflation at Cornell or grade inflation at Princeton or whatever the flavor du jour happens to be in higher ed.</p>

<p>But you would not look at the data and tell a 17 year old to head to no name U for the sake of a higher GPA to make it easier to get into law school. Not with thousands of datapoints over the last 10 years suggesting that this is empirically difficult to do.</p>

4

<p>blossom:</p>

<p>You seem knowledgable in this area. </p>

<p>I guess a similar situation would exist for different majors at the same college - i.e. those taking the easiest major to get the highest GPA vs those who take a much more rigorous major that will likely have a GPA impact. For example, I think at UCLA the average UG GPA for engineering is about a half point or so lower than for many of the humanities majors. </p>

<p>Do you think the law school admissions people pay adequate attention to this fact - i.e. all else being equal (LSAT, candidate background) would they consider a 3.3 engineering GPA as highly as a 3.8 history or poliSci GPA? You sort of state so in your post but I was wondering if they consider it to this extent.</p>

5

<p>Regarding the majors. I would hope students choose a major that suits them, ie one they have aptitude for. Therefore I would not think law schools would differentiate among gpas for majors in ther way many think. It sounds far too complicated to learn the different average gpas for different majors at all of the different colleges. Along those lines one could discriminate against engineers simply because their field is not writing intensive- after all, the average English major needs better writing skills than the 4.0 engineer… How about the math major? Exceptional abtract reasoning skills needed so perhaps the typical gpa will be higher than for engineering because only those with high aptitude for it persue math- does this make it less rigorous as a major? Unlike medical school law school does not have a defined set of prerequisites. I imagine the competitive engineering major would be showing the writing skills in LSAT scores and essays, not just a gpa.</p>

6

<p>^^ I’m just saying that at least at some colleges one has to be at a higher level to be even admitted to the engineering program vs other programs yet the average resultant (not admission) GPA is lower - primarily due to the way grading occurs with the curves, etc. I think it’s actually pretty common at many colleges - i.e. engineering GPAs being lower than humanities majors even though those students likely had higher SATs/GPAs from HS going in (on average).</p>

7

<p>I think blossom and wis75 are both correct. It’s much easier for law schools to evaluate the strength of an undergrad institution than the strength of a major, but even the major can be very important to some individual committee members. But that factor tends to be idiosyncratic to the decision maker - not something that’s available through generally available reports.</p>

<p>In addition to knowing a lot about undergrad institutions, admissions decision makers can see data reflecting how the applicant’s LSAT scores compare to other applicants’ scores from the same school. This provides a rough tool to assess whether the student’s GPA is a product of a competitive environment, or merely suggests that she was a big fish in a small pond.</p>

8

<p>This is why, as much as some people bemoan the LSAT, it is so critical.</p>

<p>My GPA is very high, and there are a lot of people at my school who will be applying to law school with a high GPA as well. But comparing a 152 LSAT to a 167 LSAT (or whatever I can score in October) gives you 1000X more insight as to who is better qualified for law school than .05 of a GPA point. That said, the average GPA at my school is around 2.8 I think.</p>

<p>Now would I have my GPA at “more prestigous” colleges? Maybe, maybe not. Would going to a more prestigous college increase my LSAT? Certainly not. </p>

<p>It’s just too darn complicated to compare a 3.6 at school X to a 3.8 at lower ranked school Y. People have their reasons for attending certain undergrad schools. Some need to be close to home, some go to the school with the best financial package (me). If there was some “weighting” formula, you would be unfairly penalizing students who do not merely go to the highest ranked school they can get into. And quite honestly, there is no way to prove that a 3.95 student at an average state school could not get the same at a higher ranked school. There is also no way to prove that a 3.6 student at an elite school would get a 3.9 at a state school. So the naturally fair way to do things is to go by reality rather than unproven assumptions.</p>

<p>Law schools aim to get the most qualified candidates. It’s not charity. Ultimately they want people with potential for success to receive large donations or prominent alumni. If their methods were obviously flawed, I am sure they would have changed them by now.</p>

<p>But to address your point about high school seniors: In theory you would think that student X wanting to go to law school would consider the system and go to an “easy” school. But you ignore an important factor. Pride.</p>

<p>Most people are too self-conscious to go to an “inferior” school. They want people to think they are smarter, not admissions officers, but friends and strangers. In today’s narcissistic age of bullcrap, 98% of “intelligent” students would not want to go to Directional State U because people on “Facebook” would think they were not as “worthy” as they perceive themselves to be. Or even parents. Can you imagine some of the “cheerleader parents” on here sending there son/daughter to a “lesser” school so they cannot brag to friends and coworkers? </p>

<p>In my opinion, it’s mostly a chicken and egg case. Do top undergrad schools send a lot of undergrads to top law schools because there is an inherent advantage to these schools? Or is it because societal expectations indicate that bright students go to these schools in the first place? I think the latter.</p>

<p>I was 100% confident in my own abilities and chose my undergrad on what suited me and my family best. I was vaguely aware of how grad school admissions worked and it just made sense rather than going into debt prior to law school when it would provide me no advantage in the long run. </p>

<p>I hope that made sense…</p>

9

<p>I’m with FauxNom … I also think both Blossom and Wis75 are correct.</p>

10

<p>“From Yale are admitted to Top 14 law schools at a stunningly disproportionate rate if you were to assume that a 3.6 from Yale equals a 3.6 from Quinnipiac”</p>

<p>True. But are 3.6 GPAs at Yale with mediocre LSATs being admitted at disproportionately high rates or is it that Yale students are more likely to score higher on the LSAT? </p>

<p>What is the average LSAT of a 3.6 at Yale? What is the average LSAT of a 3.6 at Quinnipiac? My guess is significantly more Yale 3.6s are scoring 168+ than Quinnipiac 3.6s.</p>

11

<p>Post #8- perhaps being at a more rigorous school WOULD increase your LSAT as you would have been challenged to learn more at the tougher school despite lower grades.</p>

12

<p>I have a similar question to this and i would be very grateful for some knowledgable opinions. I have a very strong GPA, above a 3.9, from a very competitive and top public university (im sure you can narrow it down from that). I am a triple major, have 4 excellent recommendations, a really great personal statement, 2 summers of work experience in law firms, a serious academic semester abroad…but a low LSAT (in the 155-160 range)…i have used the law school predictor, I understand my projections…but I just cant imagine that someone with such a strong application minus LSAT can be automatically rejected from the t-14 because of LSAT alone. perhaps someone can explain this to me. i am considering retaking in december, which will make it essentially too late for this cycle…</p>

<p>i guess my real question is, is there ANY hope for the t14 for someone who’s application is impressive and flawless in every other aspect aside from LSAT score? </p>

<p>thank you,</p>

<p>bb</p>

13

<p>BB–please apply and let us know. Even though it would only be one data point, it would be useful.</p>

<p>There seems to be a point in the t-14 law school universe where there’s a precipitous drop in acceptance rates, even with high GPAs. And it looks like your scores may be on the bubble.</p>

<p>But your scores seem good enough to warrant a look–success rate doesn’t seem to be 0%.</p>

<p>What % does the law school predictor you used say?</p>

14

<p>BB- go visit the grids and matrices that are published on various sites (google to find them, I think it’s against the terms of service here for me to give you the links).</p>

<p>Your LSAT/GPA combination will be highly predictive of your results. You will not be “automatically rejected” because of your LSAT at most law schools in the country-- and your application will in fact be read everywhere you apply. But at law schools which admit barely a handful of students every year with a 165-166 LSAT, the likelihood that your 4.0 will compensate for a 158 is extremely low. That’s just reality. If your personal statement included that you grew up in a homeless shelter, an Indian Reservation, or just came back from serving in Afghanistan, or some other life experience that would make you an unusually capable lawyer to an under-served population-- then for sure your application will get a second and third read.</p>

<p>And if you’re planning to retake, you should for sure be self-studying now with one of the mega manuals of LSAT prep.</p>

15

<p>Ellemenope, the stats you’ve posted are very misleading (or at least I don’t understand them.) Thousands of applicants get rejected at Stanford every year with a 170+ LSAT score. What is the meaning of your stats?</p>

16

<p>No clue, Blossom, where Kaplan got its info. The other criterion was that the GPAs are above 3.5 in addition to theLSAT. Their point was that there seems to be a point in the t-14 law school universe where there’s a precipitous drop in acceptance rates, even among students with the highest GPAs. Of course, they are in the business to make you afraid enough to buy their expensive prep.</p>

<p>I have edited my previous post to remove the data.</p>

17

<p>Just went through this. I think my D’s undergraduate institution paid very little part in the admit rates she saw. One factor considered is when applications are done. They are done on a somewhat rolling basis, even if the law schools don’t say this.</p>

18

<p>Law schools require applicants to subscribe to the Law School Data Assembly Service (LSDAS). The LSDAS prepares and provides a report for each law school to which you apply. Information contained in the report includes an undergraduate academic summary, including copies of all undergraduate, graduate, and law school/professional school transcript(s); and LSAT score(s) and writing sample copies.</p>

<p>When a student applies to law school, they receive a LSAC transcript. On the transcript it will state the average LSAT and GPA for the school you attend. It will also state the number of students from your school who recently applied to law school and where their LSAT/GPA ranges fall.</p>

<p>When students go to their career services office or the pre-law advisor, they will have a set of grids that show LSAT/GPA combinations for students from their school applying to law schools and where they were admitted (think naviance).</p>

<p>One of the best $50 you will ever spend will be on the purchase on the following 2 books;</p>

<p>How to Get into the Top Law Schools by Richard Montauk (which is a very comprehensive book over 500) that discusses the process from beginning to end. Chapter 8 discusses your academic credentials here is an excerpt:</p>

<p>

</p>

19

<p>the other book I recommend is Anna Ivey’s Guide to Law School Admissions. It is a quick read, but has a lot of useful information.</p>

<p>Anna Ivey (former Dean of Admissions at the University of Chicago Law School) also has a blog. This is her advice to Freshmen/Sophmores.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>From today’s Ivey Files:</p>

<p>

</p>