<p>
[quote]
Well, I'll tell you this:</p>
<p>My school gets a .5-.7 point GPA boost at Georgetown and Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's really no way that this is true.</p>
<p>Slightly changing subject:</p>
<p>Though various majors require vastly different things from students (ranging from heavy to light workloads), I think it's safe to say that some schools are notorious for heavier workloads than others. With that in mind, do law schools have the different extracurricular expectations of students who come from notoriously highly-demanding schools than schools that don't demand so much from students?</p>
<p>americanski and fhimas88888888,</p>
<p>I assure both of you that it's true. My friend had a 2.8 undergrad and Georgetown computed his GPA as a 3.3. Heavier workload, tougher institution = weighted GPA.</p>
<p>Even MIT adds .3 to engineering majors coming from my school.</p>
<p>@GoNavyXC,</p>
<p>First, the GPA relevant to this discussion is calculated by LSAC, not by the actual institutions, so your claim that "Georgetown" computed the GPA at 3.3 is dubious. The LSAC GPA is a standardized college GPA that takes into account grading scale differences across undergrad institutions. It does not take into account difficulty differences, whether across institutions or majors or courses or whatever you'd like to claim.</p>
<p>There are several reasons for which a LSAC GPA could be higher than one calculated by a particular school. The two seemingly most common reasons are: 1) A student took college classes (possibly at a community college) while in high school and received straight A's. LSAC makes no distinction between these classes and ones taken at your undergrad institution. OR 2) Your undergrad institution does not award points for +'s (i.e. an A+=A=4.0). LSAC calculates A+'s as a 4.33, so this could raise the GPA slightly.</p>
<p>A half-point increase would likely require at least a little of the first reason.</p>
<p>Also, as this is the law school board, I'm just going to say that what MIT does in a non-law school context is pretty irrelevant to the discussion. The law school application process is much more standardized than any other graduate school application process. [The med school process comes close, with grade re-scaling and a standardized test of substantial importance, but it adds in interviews and essays of greater importance, which throw a kink into the standardization concept].</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, the GPA relevant to this discussion is calculated by LSAC, not by the actual institutions, so your claim that "Georgetown" computed the GPA at 3.3 is dubious.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's all recognize here that law school admissions is not some monolithic hurdle to jump, with one set of standards across institutions. It's just not. Yes, LSAT score and GPA are very important, however, high scores and grades do not guarantee admission and mediocre scores and grades do not guarantee rejection. </p>
<p>In addition, for the most part, classes (meaning your peer group, class of 2011, class of 2012, etc.) are much smaller at most law schools than at most colleges. Most, if not all, of the top law schools do indeed give some thought to the content and quality of one's law school application and who you have proven yourself to be in addition to your reported scores. Law schools try to craft a diverse class with students from different backgrounds, with different interests and experiences and with different strengths and weaknesses. Law schools must ensure an atmosphere that fosters vigorous classroom discussion, which is at the heart of much of the learning that takes place in law school. </p>
<p>Finally, I don't know of a top law school that looks solely at the UGPA that LSAC provides without looking behind the numbers to the institution(s) where those grades were earned, the general nature of coursework (easiest versus most challenging route through school) and the major (phys ed versus biochemical engineering). The law schools to which one applies do see copies of the actual transcripts that are provided to LSAC, school by school, class by class and grade by grade. It has been my experience that many top law schools do give some wiggle room to one's GPA if it comes from a particularly tough school and/or major. That said, I haven't heard of a specific GPA boost for any of these factors, but I have often heard of conversations that sound like, "This candidate had a 3.5 at Stanford with a double major in English and Engineering, so we have to consider difficulty and breadth." </p>
<p>No, I'm not at all dismissing the importance of the numbers. If you want to get into a top law school, you will probably have to have a high LSAT score and solid GPA. Remember, though, that 25% of each class does get in with numbers somewhere below the median 25/75 numbers on one or both measures. So, without LSAT scores and GPA that are "in the range," you probably don't have much of a chance of admission, and you may not be given the chance for your application to be examined further. However, it is a vast oversimplification to imply that UGPA is viewed without scrutiny by law schools.</p>
<p>Sally,</p>
<p>Sorry. I should have been more clear. I wasn't trying to imply that the UGPA is the only summary of academic achievement that is used in the evaluation process. I was simply arguing against the claim that Georgetown calculated a 3.3 average. To the extent that individual schools use their own methodologies for admissions, they do not report these statistics to the applicant. Therefore, an applicant to Georgetown would have access to only his/her own university's calculation of GPA and the UGPA figures as reported by LSAC.</p>
<p>My claim was not intended to be construed any more broadly than necessary to defeat the point raised by GoNavyXC.</p>
<p>Back in the REALLY old days...when I was young and dinosaurs roamed the earth, most LSs did have a system whereby they multipled your "real" gpa by a 'factor' based on the college you attended. Back then, Harvard Law multiplied Harvard College by 1.0. It was the "gold standard.' There were two colleges--I know one was Swarthmore and I think, but am not certain, the other was MIT--which had factors ABOVE 1.0, so if you attended one of them, you'd end up with an adjusted gpa ABOVE your "real" one. Most schools had factors less than 1.0. The "easier" the college, the lower the factor. The list of factors for various colleges was a state secret. </p>
<p>Now, it's possible that Georgetown or Harvard uses some such system today. I've NO idea--and don't claim to. But I'd bet the ranch that NO college has an automatic upward adjustment of anything close to .5-.7.</p>
<p>I'd bet the ranch my school gets an upward adjustment as well. When the average GPA is a 2.75 and the average number of credits per semester is 19 with a core curriculum in engineering present, (not to mention the school) you know that at least no one is going to get downgraded.</p>
<p>gpa is wayyyyy more imp</p>
<p>Talking about school...how's UW-M?Just average?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I assure both of you that it's true. My friend had a 2.8 undergrad and Georgetown computed his GPA as a 3.3. Heavier workload, tougher institution = weighted GPA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How does he know? Did GULC tell him? Does he have the formula they use for adjusting GPAs, or do they just arbitrarily slap on half a point?</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, it is a vast oversimplification to imply that UGPA is viewed without scrutiny by law schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, but on the other hand, the admissions decisions generally turn out the way you would expect based on the numbers alone.</p>
<p>(I apologize for the swerve off topic)</p>
<p>GoNavyXC - it's great that you love your school. But USNA just does not offer commensurate undergrad opportunities that a top university has.</p>
<p>USNA has very limited number and types of majors - mostly engineering I think.</p>
<p>Very limited opportunity to study abroad for language or culture immersion - certainly not available to most students.</p>
<p>Racial diversity/gender/international student representation not commensurate.</p>
<p>Since you must graduate in four years it is very difficult to switch majors if you discover other interests.</p>
<p>What internship opportunities are there outside of summer cruises? If there are any are these available to most students?</p>
<p>Limited ability to participate in undergrad research.</p>
<p>Think about how many AIME or Siemens or Westinghouse finalists matriculate at USNA. It is important to have students with exceptional talent in the dorms, classes and dining halls.</p>
<p>USNA would have to significantly raise it's bottom SAT/class rank threshold to put pressure on Ivy and other selective colleges.</p>
<p>Most Americans appreciate those who serve. But I think you're just frustrating yourself in your quest to prove that USNA deserves higher recognition.</p>
<p>Good luck.</p>
<p>... was that what he was doing? I didn't sense any of that in this thread. The only claim made (that law schools give a massive boost to USNA grads) was probably exaggerated, but it's rooted in truth: even after controlling for student performance, the USNA is massively grade deflated.</p>
<p>thanks bluedevilmike,</p>
<p>Shiloh has responded to my posts in the past. Shiloh, you make a great point about raising bottom SAT/ class rank scores, but if you did that, then that would mean that no new midshipmen would be coming directly from the Navy because those are the people who drive the stats down. USNA is willing to sacrifice its stats on paper because its mission requires those with exceptional leadership from the Navy who didn't have great SAT scores, but the high school candidates are right up there with the rest of the Ivies, etc. Not enough opportunities? How do you explain the number of Rhodes Scholarships each year from USxA? All of the service academies are comparable, but people are so driven by stats that they don't see the mission of the SA's and why it is necessary to admit people from the Navy and other programs that aren't high schools.</p>
<p>SEE USNA/USMA in the "Top Feeder Schools to Wharton, MIT, and Harvard Business" Thread.</p>
<p>So transferring to Wake Forest, where grade deflation is bad, from UNC - CH, would be a poor idea? Especially if law school is my goal?</p>
<p>So,</p>
<p>I got to a top 5 school (UPenn). My GPA is a 3.5. How high does my LSAT need to be to get into a top 25 law school??</p>
<p>High 160s probably</p>
<p>How is UMich looked at by law schools with regards to GPA? I am a polisci/econ major but may shift it to either Public Policy or Business. my gpa is sitting above 3.5. What do i need, relatively, to even have a shot at a T30 LS?</p>
<p>Hey guys. I'm sure you got a ton of these but I'm just curious...I go to Boston College (Freshmen- I know it's early). I have a 3.8 GPA as a history and poli sci major. However, the economic crisis kind of hit my family hard, so I don't know if I really want to be in a significant debt going into law school, which would lead to more debt. I'm applying for transfer to more local schools where I'd commute and possibly get some scholarships. These schools, though, are much less ranked than BC. If I do well at these other schools and do well on the LSAT could I still get into a decent law school?
Thanks</p>
<p>To even have a shot at top 30, you probably need like 2.2. That will give you a shot at schools that love splitters, like WUSTL and George Washington. To have a shot a t14, probably 2.8, for Georgetown, maybe Northwestern. For top 6, probably 3.2 or so. For HYS, probably 3.65 or so minimum, absent extraordinary ECs. Of course, there's no particular reason that the minimum should matter, just try to get the best possible.</p>