<p>I'm reading French and Russian (literature and languages) at Oxford University (Exeter College) and I'm looking into how my qualifications translate in a US context. I'm specifically interested in Columbia/NYU law schools, and possibly Berkeley law.</p>
<p>1) GPA. I'm on track for a an 'upper second (2.i)' - more specifically ~68 out of 80 marks wise. What would this roughly translate to, if at all, as a US undergrad GPA? What kind of GPA is looked for at Columbia/NYU/Berkeley law schools?</p>
<p>2) Considerations of college's prestige. How well does an Oxford background 'appear' on a US law school application? Is it considered equivalent 'among' the Ivies ( or other top US schools such as MIT, Berkeley, Stanford etc.)?</p>
<p>3) Course/Major. How are course subjects considered in terms of their difficulty? In the UK it is fairly common to assume that Chemistry, Classics and Russian majors are more 'difficult' than English and History subjects. If this is the case in the US, then does having a 'more difficult' major help in the admissions process?</p>
<p>4) Extra-curriculars. I've heard that admission to a top US law school is basically a numbers game. How much weight is really given to your recommendations, ECs, personal statement and internships compared with the all-important GPA-LSAT combo?</p>
<p>I can’t speak to the grade conversion, but I wanted to make a note about the “prestige” of your school. Oxford may be considered about on par with elite U.S. universities, but it’s not clear if this really helps an applicant. As you yourself mentioned, law school admissions is mostly a numbers game. School reputation likely only matters at the margins (i.e. if you’re a borderline applicant).</p>
<p>Also, the difficulty of your major has very little impact on the whole process. A biochemistry major is at a relative disadvantage to a history major all things being equal, but that’s just the way things are. Admissions officers are not going to adjust for difficult of major.</p>
<p>My understanding is that a 2:1 is “translated” as a 3.5. You’ll need a very strong LSAT score to have a shot at either Columbia or NYU. </p>
<p>An additional “problem” is that Columbia has a 4 year joint program with one of the Oxbridge schools–can’t remember which right now–so you’ll be competing against a lot of Brits. I’d suggest looking at some law schools that don’t have joint programs with British universities.</p>
<p>Thanks for this. With a 3.5 what kind of LSAT score, specifically, is ‘very strong’, 160, more, or?</p>
<p>Also when you say 4 year joint programme, could you specify? Is that a joint programme between Oxford and Columbia’s law school or some kind of undergraduate exchange programme? As far as I know, Oxbridge take some Columbia undergrads for their Junior Year Abroad (Oxbridge Scholars Program) and there are no possibilities for Oxbridge students to do something similar at Columbia, short of applying for the Visiting Student Program.</p>
<p>At a graduate level, all is know is that Columbia and LSE have a joint two-year Masters in World History (a year at each institution)…</p>
<p>In any event, the thrust of my comment is still valid–there’s not going to be any shortage of Brits applying to Columbia Law because of this program. I’d choose law schools that do NOT have joint progrqms with Brit unis. (And, no, I don’t know which do and don’t.) </p>
<p>I know that Oxford has some program with Harvard as well. You should be able to find the info about it on Harvard’s website as easily as I can.</p>
<p>And while I’m no expert and have NO affilation with any law school admissions staff, I would suspect you’d need AT LEAST a 170 on the LSAT to have any chance at Columbia or NYU ABSENT OTHER SPECIAL FACTORS if you only have a 2:1.</p>
<p>PS: It’s too late for me to edit the message above and I’d like to make 2 points.</p>
<p>First, I don’t mean to belittle your 2:1 by saying you have “only” a 2:1. I’d delete the word if I could. However, again, my understanding–and you can refute this if I’m wrong, as you certainly should know more about Oxbridge than I do–is that about 15% of Oxbridge gets a “first.” (The percentage is lower at other UK unis or so I’ve been told.) </p>
<p>Second some googling indicates that there is less uniformity as to how US universities translate a 2:1–however, a 3.5 seems to be a common #.</p>
<p>To be honest, it is ‘only’ a 2.1. The major problem with the UK grading system is that it does not differentiate nearly enough. To get a 2.1 (this holds true for most top UK schools) you need at least 60% of overall final examination marks. To get a 1st you need 70%. That means that people getting 68-69% of the marks are ‘ranked’ with the 60-61’ers, which just doesn’t happen with the GPA system. They really need to change it.</p>
<p>To make it more complicated, Oxbridge has a similar grading ‘issue’ as the American A+ (4.33); ‘technically’ our examinations (and for those of you unfamiliar with the Oxbridge system - we are graded entirely on end-of-degree synoptic examinations over a 1-2 week period, after 2-3 years study. No GPAs. No modules or courses. No continuous assessment) are marked out of 100. HOWEVER, many professors, particularly in the Arts refuse to give a grade above 80, meaning that in practice, to get a first you need 70/80 as opposed to 70/100 - which is a hell of a big difference.</p>
<p>Now as many Brits as there are at top US schools, I highly doubt that US admissions officers will take any of this into account and will simply translate my grade into an approximate GPA. This can, of course, be a blessing in disguise: if I got a low 2.1 (61 average, say) then that would be counted as a 6.5, when really it isn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not aware that it’s lower at other UK schools, but it would make sense. Also, I think the ‘first’-percentage has hovered at 9-11% for a long time now, but I could also be mistaken…</p>
<p>So this is another case of US students COMING to the UK, and not vice-versa. You see, you have to apply for the JD first at the CLS and once you’re in, then do you apply for the 4-year course. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This doesn’t mean of course that Columbia isn’t still relatively swamped by Brits, but it’s not as bad as you pointed out, at least not to the point where I won’t even consider applying!</p>
<p>While I did look it up on the website, I learned of the Columbia program because of a young woman who is coming from the UK to NYC to start Columbia Law in the fall. She is quite excited because by the age of 20, she will have a JD from Columbia and a LLB in the UK. I was very surprised that Columbia Law had accepted a 16 year old–which is why I remembered the conversation. </p>
<p>I would suggest that you try to find out information about the program from the U of London’s website, especially LSE’s, if you want to know how it works for Brits. (I haven’t tried.) </p>
<p>I NEVER said you shouldn’t consider applying. Among other things, it would be foolhardy of you to take the word of an anonymous poster on a message board as the authority on what you should do. What I am saying is that I suspect you will have, in the aggregate, better results from your applications to law schools which do NOT have joint programs with UK universities than with those who don’t. So, I would suggest that you include such schools in your list.</p>