Question about LSAC GPA Calculations

[arbiter213]

<p>I'm starting my preparation for LSAT studying, and I've begun wondering about where I should be setting my sights. I had a question, however, about how my GPA will be calculated.</p>

<p>Specifically, I've been taking Japanese at my alma mater, which is easily the most punishing course at the school (with the possible exception of Organic chemistry, but its a close battle, and Japanese takes arguably more work). This has impacted my grades quite adversely. My freshman adviser told me when I first brought this concern to his attention that most Law Schools will simply ignore this part of my transcript and instead notice my otherwise stellar GPA (it is otherwise quite stellar).</p>

<p>Was he mistaken? I'm minoring in Japanese, and studying abroad in Kyoto this fall, so I've taken (and will continue to take) Japanese for a few more quarters, and I've begun to overload courses to balance out the damage (B's and B+'s, with my lowest grade of any kind, B-, only once.) My major GPA is a full .19 higher than my cumulative, and my cumulative without Japanese is roughly equally higher (slightly more so).</p>

<p>Do all my courses really count, as I have read on other sites? If so, should I pad my curriculum with stupendously easy courses? I only have about one quarter's worth of classes left, so I could take all the easiest courses at school, 5 at a time, and boost my GPA through the stratosphere if it would help...</p>

<p>Thank you for your feedback.</p>

[sybbie719]

<p>Yes, all of the courses you have taken are calaculated in your LSAC gpa. In short, every course counts.</p>

[arbiter213]

<p>Well, so it goes. Do they care what courses make up that number, or not? I gather from other threads that the obviously non-real courses are frowned upon, but…</p>

[speedviper02]

<p>^What do you mean non-real courses?</p>

[sybbie719]

<p>The LSAC sends out your actual college transcript along with the LSAC transcript. So admissions committes will be able to see the courses that you took and will say whether or not something is a fluff course.</p>

<p>i would suggest purchasing 2 books:</p>

<p>Anna Ivey - THe Ivey guide to law school admissions
Richard Montauk- How to get in a top law school</p>

<p>The Montauk book the book is approximately 500 pages and gives a very comprehensive overview of the college process and discusses applications, essays, LSATs, majors, etc</p>

<p>Chapter 8 of his book discusses Making the Most of Your Credentials, Montauk states:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Your specific major matters less than the type of major you choose. What matters is that you choose a serious major. Schools are leery of pre-professional subjects such as business, and those that reward performance talents such as acting. There are some majors that admissions counselors cringe at seeing; communications, criminology and pre-law (even though theoretically pre-law is not a major)</p>

<p>Any subject that requires serious analytical work and dedication attract at least a reasonable % of the best and brightest will meet with approval.</p>

<p>The ideal undergraduate record would thus include all of the following:</p>

<p>Top quality school</p>

<p>Demanding course load (no path of least resistance) advanced work in a second unrelated (to your major) filed is particularly helpful</p>

<p>Top grades throughout (with few courses taken pass/fail) but especially in junior & senior years</p>

<p>Courses requiring substantial reading, strong writing ability good research skills and analytical prowess</p>

<p>Courses developing useful substantial knowledge for your future legal field.</p>

<p>When posed with the question: What factors do you consider when evaluating an undergraduate record admissions officers at various law schools state :</p>

<p>What ever the major, there should be variety including some clearly demanding analytical courses. There is not set preparation for law school, but some majors may be of less value than others (for ex. Pre-law) I examine the undergraduate transcript very closely. I look at what the applicant has done both in and outside of their major- Faye Deal, Stanford</p>

<p>What we are looking for is both breadth and depth. We favor applicants who come to us from broad liberal arts education. They learn about human vision from the arts, how the world works from math and the sciences and the human condition from philosophy and history. We don’t want academic dilettantes however; we want applicants to have taken the most analytically rigorous courses in their field- Jim Mulligan, Columbia</p>

<p>Not all UGPAs are created =. Swat and William and Mary, for instance have refrained from inflating grades; their averages are between 2.8 & 2.9. At the other end of the spectrum, Stanford and Yeshiva have mean GPAs over 3.4- Mulligan, Columbia</p>

<p>The GPA number is just a starting point. Our first concern is how rigorous the course load has been. We look at academic letters of recommendation, which are particularly helpful if they address the difficulty of the course load ex: the grading policies of professors from whom the applicant took multiple courses. Other factors we c examine is whether there were substantial barriers to performance such as the need to work many hours per week- USC</p>

<p>I know what the strongest and weakest programs are at some 50 to 60 schools. At some smaller commonly seen schools (and programs) it can be helpful for the student to provide detailed information. –GWU</p>

<p>We see a # of pre-med students who did poorly as pre-meds but then did well in their next field. The key for them is to make sure they get out of pre-med early so they can fully demonstrate their talents.- UCLA

</p>

[arbiter213]

<p>Thank you very much! That answered my question. I will get a hold of those books, and the correct solution re: my Japanese seems to simply be to have one of my Japanese professors write a letter of recommendation (I’ll likely have had one of them for ~1.5 full years).</p>

<p>Thank you so much!</p>