<p>How heavily are they considered? </p>
<p>Hypothetical Academic History:</p>
<p>first two years of junior college - like, really terrible.
second two years of junior college - ~ 3.7
last two years + B.A. from a top public school - ~ 3.6
LSAT - 165 +/- 2</p>
<p>is there even a shot at (any?) top 25 law schools? </p>
<p>any insight / speculation is appreciated. </p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>All grad schools love students with upwards trends. A lot of them realize that even the brighest student may, <em>forgive me for my colloquialism</em> get hit hard in the balls by college by the first semester for a multitude of reasons. You can definitely get into a top 25 schools. Maybe borderline on the top 14.</p>
<p>depends on how terrible. if your cumulative (including ALL years/courses) is above 3.0, you are in a reasonable position. with a 165-ish, probably not top 25 though, more like top 50.</p>
<p>I have no way to prove this, but I personally think Konrage is wrong about the effect of an upward trend in grades. </p>
<p>Unless you came from an academically weak secondary school/disadvantaged background or have some other special reason your grades were weak, I don’t really think law schools are all that forgiving about lousy freshman grades. LSs are ranked based on the 25/75% gpa of those who matriculate. So, there’s not much of an incentive to accept someone whose cumulative gpa is below the 25th percentile, even if his/her grades are substantially above it during the last 2-3 years of college. MOST people get worse grades their first year of college than they do later on. </p>
<p>That’s one reason that applicants with this sort of academic record benefit from taking a year off between college and law school. Senior year grades might allow you to “vault over” the 25th percentile or other important mark. </p>
<p>Yes, LSDAS does calculate the gpa for each year, but when rankings depend upon the 4 year gpa, that becomes what is most important.</p>
<p>I’m not commenting on admissions chances in this particular case–just the idea that LSs are sympathetic to those who get a rocky start in college.</p>
<p>@jonri </p>
<p>My brother started college with a 2.5 gpa freshman year and raised it to a 3.6 at the end of junior year. 16X on his LSAT. He got accepted to Boalt, Chicago and Columbia. So I think to a point they might overlook a bad freshman year. </p>
<p>@pinkeryfloyd</p>
<p>You should really give it a try. Try getting a meeting with some admissions counslers at the schools you want to go to. Try giving them a convincing reason for why you had a bad start. If you get a chance to speak to someone, make sure to write them a letter thanking them for the opportunity to talk to them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>URM Alert. DING DONG.</p>
<p>I wasn’t aware that Boalt, Chicago and Columbia have a lack of white people… I should have mentioned he graduated with a 3.7x in the end.</p>
<p>Your previous posts indicate that English is not your mother tongue. I don’t know how much experience with English your brother had before he began college. That may have impacted the view LSs took of his early grades. Moreover, you’ve already indicated the cum was over 3.7–that’s not possible in pinkerfloyd’s case. </p>
<p>Please note that I did NOT say that law schools will NEVER overlook bad freshman year grades. They will. I said that very clearly. Students from weak backgrounds–regardless of the color of their skins–do get the benefit of the doubt. So, if you went to college through Questbridge, for example, you’ll get cut some slack. If there are special circumstances, LSs will take that into account–I said that too. </p>
<p>I just think that because of the way the ratings work–and the insane amount of influence they have on law schools–your statement “All grad schools love students with upwards trends” is unduly optimistic.</p>
<p>Well he entered 8th grade when we came to America from St. Petersburg. Both of us learned English(Proper, not American mutilated slang English) in Russia. I also should have added he goes to Columbia now. </p>
<p>I look at a lot of people at his school and for the most part, a lot of them have no balls. You see these hardworking straight A grabbing students who have no attitude or personality whatsoever. Personally, I don’t think you can be a successful lawyer and not have an umpf factor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lolwut…</p>
<p>I am talking about the really shy people. I was supposed to meet my brother somewhere there, and I tried asking a few kids for directions, and they mumbled very softly while providing me with little to no help. To be honest, I am basing this observation on 3 asian kids I spoke with. If you are in law school, I don’t think you should mumble softly when speaking to a person. >_> That is what I was trying to convey in my previous post.</p>
<p>Of course !Charisma and nice personality are very important for a lawyer.I havent even started college, so I cant be very helpful in this thread but judging from law movies, charismatic lawyers always win .This is probably not the case in the real life, but being totally shy and not being able to make any connections during law school, may hurt you a lot.</p>
<p>Not all lawyers are litigators. One of the more successful lawyers I know was shy and had a speech impediment. Brilliant and successful tax attorney.</p>
<p>along the same lines, even most litigation associates do not ever see a courtroom or deal with clients face-to-face for the early phase of their career</p>
<p>Know I’m going to be called a hypocrite for this, but…</p>
<p>Konrage,</p>
<p>You are being awfully judgmental, and for no good reason. You met only three people and suddenly you’re generalizing. I have a lot of good friends at Columbia, and all of them are great, social people. I won’t say all Columbia kids are social butterflies, but that doesn’t matter. Moreover, who are you to judge the social capacities of law students? First, no one cares about your opinion. Second, they’re at Columbia because they’re smart, not because they can talk particularly eloquently. Third, you have no idea about the level of sociability needed to succeed in the legal field, and I can almost guarantee you that I’ve met the most socially awkward people at some of the most prestigious firms. If anything, the proportion of those types tend to increase as you go up in prestige.</p>
<p>Basically, your post was terrible: It reeked of ignorance and an attitude that would probably encounter more hostility in the legal field than the harmless antics of socially awkward people.</p>