<p>Would having a 3.8 from UVA be better than having a 3.3 from Cornell... both are in electrical engineering.</p>
<p>I know that Cornell's program is much more difficult, I was wondering if schools factored in that difficulity when they view the undergraduate GPA.</p>
<p>I would have to go with the 3.8 from UVa. I would even venture to say that a 3.5 from UVa would look better than a 3.3 from Cornell. Where you went for undergrad does matter, but in the end raw numbers rule the law school game.</p>
<p>The GPA is one of the most important factors in law school admissions. I would venture to argue that a 3.3 will render you ineligible for the Top 15, while a 3.8 would still leave you in the range of Harvard and Yale</p>
<p>I heard or read somewhere that in the admissions index that they multiply your GPA by some number determined by the difficulty of the undergraduate program/school and then factor in the LSAT....</p>
<p>Is this true? If not, it looks like I would be much better off with an easier engineering program and making a high GPA.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com%5B/url%5D">http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com</a></p>
<p>I also recommend that you check out <a href="http://www.lsac.org/%5B/url%5D">http://www.lsac.org/</a> and consider percentile ranges. Even with a 3.7+, if you totally take a dump on the LSAT, you're going nowhere. The LSAT is the largest component for law school admissions, and can help "forgive" a relatively low GPA. </p>
<p>Still, I think that you still have no excuse for a .5 grade discrepancy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The LSAT is the largest component for law school admissions, and can help "forgive" a relatively low GPA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Only if it is slightly lower; a perfect LSAT will not allow a 3.7 to elevate to the status of a 3.8. Perhaps a 3.75, or even higher, would be required in order for the LSAT to serve as some sort of mitigating factor in this circumstance.</p>
<p>Edit: It depends on the Law School; the above analysis is only applicable to the Top 5, which includes Yale, Harvard, Columbia, BOALT Hall, and one other school.</p>
<p>nspeds,</p>
<p>In my experience talking to 1Ls, deans, and professors, the LSAT is the largest component. I'm not doubting you per se, but the evidence is largely in their favor. Where are you getting your information?</p>
<p>I just reread your edit. That makes more sense now. When we're talking top 5, you need a strong combination of both. However, you'll notice that the percentile range of GPAs is much larger than that of the LSAT. That should say something right away.</p>
<p>I was at Harvard Law School last week.</p>
<p>Edit: Actually, it was two weeks ago, but it feels like last week.</p>
<p>i think a higher gpa is more important than the name of a college</p>
<p>To an extent. A 4.0 at a Cal State won't compare to a 3.8 or maybe even a 3.7 at Columbia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A 4.0 at a Cal State won't compare to a 3.8 or maybe even a 3.7 at Columbia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That depends. The counselor I spoke to informed me that they have accepted community college students in the past.</p>
<p>engineering is a bad road to law school....engineerng will bring your gpa down a lot</p>
<p>If your GPA is high, engineering will help significantly in law school admissions.</p>
<p>If you have a high GPA and are an engineering major, then you will have a huge advantage.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That depends. The counselor I spoke to informed me that they have accepted community college students in the past.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, yeah. They represent a terribly terribly small number of students though. I wonder what the last year a CC student went straight to law school was, though?</p>
<p>Also, if you enjoy EE, do EE. Don't choose your major for law school, because you don't know how your career goals might change in 4 or 5 years. Any way you look at it, however, majoring in something you enjoy will bring a lot more to the table than something you tailor to be "pre-law."</p>
<p>
[quote]
They represent a terribly terribly small number of students though.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All I have to do is demonstrate an exception to the rule. In fact, over 134 undergraduate institutions are represented at Harvard Law School.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wonder what the last year a CC student went straight to law school was, though?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you posed your question more clearly, I would be better able to answer your question.</p>
<p>nspeds,</p>
<p>It's great to say that there are exceptions to rules. However, in the case of admissions, would you rather tool yourself to be the exception or the rule? Obviously, you're better off working toward being part of a statistically more successful group than not. You need to look at yield rates from schools in order to better understand whether or not students are successful in being admitted. Saying that your friend went to Cal State Chico and got into Yale Law is not indicative of anything if he's the only one out of thousands of applicants that have been turned down.</p>
<p>And I'm sure you understood what that last sentence meant, no need to be condescending.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, in the case of admissions, would you rather tool yourself to be the exception or the rule? Obviously, you're better off working toward being part of a statistically more successful group than not.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The community college example was an extreme one, but it demonstrates my point well: not all acceptances to Harvard Law School are distributed to the Harvards and the Yalies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You need to look at yield rates from schools in order to better understand whether or not students are successful in being admitted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Saying that your friend went to Cal State Chico and got into Yale Law is not indicative of anything if he's the only one out of thousands of applicants that have been turned down.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. If the applicant pool comprises of students from Harvard and Yale, it is indicative that "school rank" does not always apply in that circumstance. Of course, "school rank" will always play a role in admissions, but I would be willing to bet that an applicant from any school in the Top 25 has as much of a chance as a student from an Ivy. The fact that 134 undergraduate institutions are represented at Harvard Law attests to my claim that undergraduate institution is not everything, nor is it a mere exception to the rule (logically). Moreover, in regard to any Top 5 Law School, it is difficult to predict who will be admitted and who will not on the basis of undergraduate institution since the admit-rate is low. Rest assured, the best you can do is maintain the highest GPA possible, earn the highest LSAT, do a lot of ECs, make yourself unique, and so forth. Transferring to a higher institution may help, but it depends on what instution you are transferring to and where from. I would not recommend that an NYU student should transfer to Georgetown for the sake of having a better chance at Harvard Law School as, in my opinion, the difference is negligible and perhaps the adjustment might have a negative consequence on the GPA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I'm sure you understood what that last sentence meant, no need to be condescending.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have been writing a paper on Humean epistemology all day, so I may not be reading your question correctly since I am nearly brain-dead. However, after briefly reading over your question again, I still do not understand what you are asking. Perhaps if I understood the syntactical error being committed, I might have been able to respond, but the question still sounds odd.</p>