<p>If a person has a high LSAT score (175+), how low of a GPA can he "afford" and still get into a T-14?</p>
<p>I'm just wondering what the absolute lowest can be, straight out of college. 3.0? 3.1? 3.2?</p>
<p>With a 3.2 this cycle or the next, heck no.</p>
<p>That is assuming straight from college with no real world experiences.</p>
<p>To get into a T14, you will need at least a 3.4 and some luck. My opinion.</p>
<p>Now, if you have some other experiences, etc, then that might help some depending on school, like Northwestern for example, but don’t expect Stanford to care.</p>
<p>All my opinion.</p>
<p>I strongly disagree with kfc555. Using GULC as a baseline, lawschoolnumbers.com will tell you that with an LSAT of 175 or higher, you can make it with a GPA between a 3.0 and 3.3. Of course, these stats must be taken with a grain of salt. The numbers are self-reported, so they are by definition self-selecting and also could be fudged. Furthermore, higher up the totem pole of T14 schools, you’ll obviously need a higher GPA, even with a 175+ LSAT.</p>
<p>I’m with CC on this one. If you’re looking for any T14, in THEORY a 3.0 should be okay.</p>
<p>But this is a stupid way to look at it. You can’t go around assuming you’re going to hit the 99.6th (or whatever) percentage on the LSAT and doing the bare minimum to get into GULC.</p>
<p>“in THEORY a 3.0 should be okay.”</p>
<p>I agree 100% in theory, in theory a 2.0 and a 120 should get in also since there are no cut offs.</p>
<p>But I seriously doubt a person straight from UG with a 3.0-3.2 is going to get into a T14 considering the flood of more qualified applicants coming in because of the job market.</p>
<p>But hey, I would try, you never know, you could be one of the lucky ones. </p>
<p>Again, all my opinion.</p>
<p>“in THEORY” was meant to refer to the absurdity of assuming a 180 (or 176 or whatever). I assert that a real-world, 3.0/180 would in fact have a pretty solid shot at GULC.</p>
<p>The flood of more qualified applicants coming in? Even in past recessions, when law apps went up, it didn’t cause the schools’ LSAT/GPA percentiles to jump off the charts. I would be stunned if a 3.0/180 didn’t make it into GULC, or even a 3.0/176 for that matter.</p>
<p>He didn’t say more qualified in terms of numbers(LSAT/GPA). He meant in terms of work/life experiences. They have a better chance of getting in versus a person with none of those experiences but has the same numbers.</p>
<p>Granted, I probably misinterpreted what kfc555’s point in that regard, but I also think he’s over-estimating the value of work experience in the application process. Sure, between two numerically identical candidates, the one with actual work experience will probably win out. But again, something like work experience is really only something that counts at the margins most of the time. If you’re going to make the argument that the influx of applications coming from people with substantial work experience will make it harder on the rest coming straight from undergrad, you would also have to assume they more or less reflect the same GPA/LSAT distributions. In theory, I don’t know if this is true, given that it is more difficult to score well on the LSAT while working full-time. Many of my current and former students can attest to this.</p>