<p>I am currently a freshman at a University that is known for its grade deflation. After attending an information session about law school admissions and learning that college GPA and the LSAT are the overwhelmingly major factors that decide admission into a law school, I am starting to wonder if I am in the right place. Would I benefit from transfering into a less demanding school where I would earn a 3.6 GPA instead of receiving a 3.2 here?</p>
<p>That may depend on the university. If you're at Cornell, it may be worth staying. Also, there may be other benefits the school offers that makes it worthy of retaining. (It may prepare you better for law school, for one thing.) </p>
<p>However, if your bottom line is simply getting into law school, then it may in fact be easier to to do from an easier school. You just have to weigh the relative benefits of doing so.</p>
<p>From what I know, law schools look for high GPA's. I think you would benefit from transferring more than you would benefit from staying, you can still get a good education at another school, and you would recieve the higher GPA.</p>
<p>I'm not Jonri or anything, but I think it's kind of sad that students will seek to transfer to more mediocre undergrads just to increase their chances of LS admissions. :( Oh well. </p>
<p>(One thing to think about is that a less demanding school may prepare you less well for law school study.)</p>
<p>Well, what I think is truly sad is that law school adcoms would be so numbers-oriented that they would compel people to consider going to an easier undergrad and/or majoring in something easy just so they can get admitted. What the adcoms should be doing is properly compensating those who go to tough schools or major in tough subjects like engineering. But evidently, the adcoms are not doing that. So if anybody is to blame for this, it is the adcoms themselves. The students are just responding to what the adcoms want. If the adcoms dictate by their actions that they want high grades, and don't really care about how hard it is to get those grades, then you shouldn't be surprised to find students trading away difficulty in return for high grades. I'm sure that ariesathena will have some choice words to say about this.</p>
<p>There is, of course, the third option of possibly doing well at a tough school, or in a tough major. (Though I realize that isn't always possible.) </p>
<p>Or, my favorite, doing well at a good school, in a reasonable major. </p>
<p>I just wouldn't want to trade away the experience of being among bright, motivated students, and fully challenging/developing my mind, just to possibly bump up my GPA a few points. And I think all students should consider this when making the decision. </p>
<p>On the other hand, students at easier schools often have much better parties and social scenes as well. I've often wished I had attend a "party school" just so I could have gotten into more hijinks. :)</p>
<p>And then of course there is the final option, which is to go to an extremely prestigious and also highly grade-inflated school, where as long as you do the work, you're going to get good grades. Maybe not straight A's, but still good grades. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford immediately come to mind. </p>
<p>I know what's going to happen. Some guys from HYPS are going to complain that their schools really aren't as grade inflated as many people think they are, or that their schools are trying to crack down on grade inflation now, or that because the students there are so sharp that they deserve to all get high grades. To that, I have to say that not only do I have no sympathy, I actually have NEGATIVE sympathy. HYPS students can talk all they want, but they know in their hearts that from a grading and workload perspective, they are far far far better off than the students in, say, MIT or Caltech. </p>
<p>But putting that aside, I would have to say that the most optimal strategy in getting into law school is going to HYPS and taking advantage of both their prestige and their grade inflation. If the 'game' of law school admissions is to present good grades with perhaps a minor boost for the prestige of your undergrad school, then you will want to go somewhere where that is both prestigious and where most students will good grades. That's how you play the game. I don't like the game, but if that's the game, then you have to play according to the rules of the game. </p>
<p>It really is the best of all worlds. You get the high prestige. You get the experience of being around bright, motivated students. And you also get relatively easy grading (especially, when compared to places like MIT). The kicker, of course, is that you have to get admitted to HYPS.</p>
<p>Gee, Sakky, am I that predictable? </p>
<p>I'll actually throw in some comments about issues brought up on another thread: that of law schools accepting students with GPAs significantly below the norm (and those often being minority students). I do agree with the general premise: if you are getting into a law school with either a low LSAT or GPA, you probably have some sort of special situation. I did manage to pull into a top 25 l.s. with a sub-3.0 GPA, but my LSAT was really high, I'm an engineer, I have a few years of work experience (actual engin. work), and I had enough medical problems to knock a few lives off of the 9 I started with. Still - I got rejected and waitlisted by schools well into the second tier, so my admission here seems more of a fluke than something to model one's admissions strategies after.</p>
<p>Anyway - it will be harder to get into a law school with a 3.2 than a 3.6, but... I somehow think that a 3.2 from a prestiguous university will mean something to some law schools. A 3.6 will put you in the running for most law schools in the country; a 3.2 will keep you out of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford for sure. However, if you look at the median 50% GPAs of the top 25, most of them will have the bottom 25% hovering around that area. You're not out of the game entirely.</p>
<p>I'm also a big proponent of getting a good education and enjoying your four years at college. However, fact is, with a lower GPA, you are starting in a hole. You have to get a killer LSAT and get great recommendations just to break even; you'll have to apply to more schools, because admissions becomes more erratic when you have non-standard situations (minority, low GPA, older student, engineer). By "more schools," I would not recommend anything less than 10 or 12. </p>
<p>If you want to have your cake (your school) and eat it too (get into a great law school), it is possible... just going to involve patience and sacrifice. You will have to take some classes for the sheer purpose of getting a decent grade to help your GPA; you should seriously consider summer school, esp. at other schools (LSDAS compiles the GPAs of all undergrad schools for the one distributed to law schools) to get rid of hard classes, raise your GPA, and lighten your load for the following semesters. Do all that, pull in a 3.4 or so, and you will be in decent shape. Also, take time off after graduation - people with work experience often get a slight bump. If you are at all inclined, getting a masters can be very beneficial, as it shows you are capable of succeeding at post-college work.</p>
<p>Fully agree with Sakky that law school admissions people shoot themselves in the foot. You can't possibly use straight-up GPA to distinguish between the kid from Chico State with a degree in communications and the Caltech engineer. Just not convinced that the process truly yields the most qualified and capable students.</p>
<p>"But putting that aside, I would have to say that the most optimal strategy in getting into law school is going to HYPS and taking advantage of both their prestige and their grade inflation. If the 'game' of law school admissions is to present good grades with perhaps a minor boost for the prestige of your undergrad school, then you will want to go somewhere where that is both prestigious and where most students will good grades."</p>
<p>Yup. And this raises the point that just because a school is "better" doesn't necessarily mean that it's "harder". Students should consider their own situtation to determine this.</p>