Stanford Law?

<p>Hello, </p>

<p>Okay so my [very ambitious] dream is to go to Stanford Law. I'm currently a rising sophomore at Bucknell University majoring in Economics with minors in Art, English and Philosophy. After my first two semesters I have a 3.9175 (I hate that that gets rounded to a 3.91!), with A's in all of my econ and math classes. I am fairly confidant that I can maintain this academic level as I havn't worked too hard to get it (I feel like if I needed to kick it into a higher gear I've still got it in me to do so without killing myself). I did well on my SAT's (1420 out of 1600), however I don't know how I will do on my LSAT's. I've got a comfortable amount of EC's with leadership positions in all. </p>

<p>I guess what I'm wondering is, I know that I've heard from people that minors count for nothing, and I was wondering if this is true. I will do them either way, but I might re-think my philosophy minor and shift to a double major in econ and english with a minor in art if it should make a big difference. </p>

<p>I'm also wondering, IF I keep my grades where they are give or take a 0.1, how do my chances seem for Stanford Law? I know that no one can expect to get in to a school this high up, but if I can keep my gpa up and my LSAT isn't as impressive, will that eliminate my chance of getting in? </p>

<p>Thanks for any info or opinions!</p>

<p>Your grades are high enough for any admissions committee anywhere. While it's true that your chances at any given school will depend on your LSAT score, that's nothing to worry about now. Study for the test at the appropriate time. A couple of hours a day for a few months should be sufficient; after that, you're likely to notice a steep decline in marginal utility. Until then, keep up the good work, but don't forget to have fun.</p>

<p>Stanford takes really high GPAs and is more lenient on the LSAT. Anything below 168 and you can kiss stanford goodbye though. Keep your GPA above a 3.9. The lower your GPA, the higher your LSAT needs to be. Also Stanford wants people with crazy soft factors.</p>

<p>Soft factors?</p>

<p>ECs(writing a NY Times best seller, curing AIDS, Rhodes scholarships, deciphering an acient language, finding the holy grail, etc)</p>

<p>hmmm well, I don't think I'll be finding a cure for AIDS anytime soon. I am the co-captain of my school's horseback riding team, an avid art photographer (I could persue some contests and being exhibited), and a published poet (again, I could more strongly persue this). I also volunteer regularly with animal rescues. If I persue these things more thoroughly do they sound like enough? Especially if paired with a 3.9 and a 170ish?</p>

<p>They're enough to make you a competitive applicant, and no one's going to be able to tell you more than that. Stanford also really likes post-grad experience, so if you take a few years after undergrad to do something high-powered (Goldman Sachs, McKinsey) or something interesting and unusual (Peace Corps, PhD in Medieval Poetry), that can be a big help, too.</p>

<p>Minors count for very little. If your undergrad academic program is super challenging in some way that's truly extraordinary -- like you maintain the 3.9 despite a triple major in Economics, Russian, and Chemical Engineering at a respected school like Bucknell -- they'll take extra notice. But additional minors in this or that liberal art...Stanford won't care. Take what you like.</p>

<p>Those ECs are fine. Pretty typical of the average Stanford applicant. I think you'll get in if you write solid essays, maintain a near perfect GPA, have pretty incredible recommendations. I'd say a 173 should do the trick, but a 170 would still be pretty competitive with what you have indicated here.</p>