<p>So here is what I am wondering. I go to Colorado State, and I am a juniorish double major with a 3.9 gpa. My plan is to dedicate this entire summer to studying for lsat and take it in October. Of course, I am aiming for high 160’s to 170’s+ but being the kind of person I am, I am curious what my chances of getting into the schools I want with a high gpa and high 150’s to low 160’s would be. While the most selective school I plan on applying to is Georgetown, and I know that low of a lsat would not cut it, I am more seriously considering Colorado law in Boulder or Washington law in Seattle. Maybe a better question is what is the lsat I should at least be aiming for, for those schools with that gpa. </p>
<p>I like to repeat some questions myself but urs is so ****ing overrated.However Ill answer it based on research that ive done.</p>
<p>When you apply to law school, the following formula works. 60%LSAT,30%GPA,10% Clubs,work experience and etc. Thats for full time.For part time it is a bit different and they emphasize more on your work history but however its the same concept.</p>
<p>LSAT is what really gets you in the law school. HOWEVER if you are on a borderline, they will considerate your GPA and your MAJOR. It does not really matter what school u attended(as long as its not DEVRY or some **** like that)BUT it is really matters what major you studied. 3.9 is a really impressive GPA but if you have it in something like history or political science or pre-law,you can wave bye bye to your acceptance. However if you have lets say 163-165LSAT,3.9 GPA and you studied something…lets say like english or finance or accounting or economics,then it will increase your chances of getting in,EVEN THOUGH 163 LSAT is in the 25th percentile of the law school.</p>
<p>Look at it the same way as you did when you applied to undergrad school. It was SAT/ACT>GPA>Clubs and **** like that. When I applied to my college(the one that im attending right now)my SAT was a little bit lower than their average(by like 20-30 points).However I had better GPA than their average one and **** loads of clubs,and a good essay.</p>
<p>BTW essay-they do actually read it.Treat it as an interview because your essay may be your ONLY chance of making an impression explaining what makes you a person that you are today.</p>
<p>And remember even if you have bad scores but you still feel like applying-do so.Ill tell u a little secret.Each year every school like Harvard or Cornell,accept some students with really <strong><em>ty scores.So just give it a shot.Apply and see whats gonna happen.And never listen to anyone who says that you cant.There are a lot of people here who have a 175 attitude, meaning they dont believe you can make it if you have lower than that on your LSAT,JUST BECAUSE the statistics say so.</em></strong> it.You are not a number</p>
<p>What on earth!!! History is one of the most common UG majors of YHS faculty. Being a history or poli sci major will NOT have any adverse impact on your law school acceptance. The idea that being an English major is better than being a history major is just plain silly–both are fine. At the very top law schools, being an accounting major will count against you. (You can offset the disadvantage if you’ve also taken some writing intensive courses.)</p>
<p>As for the OP, go to <a href=“http://www.lsac.org%5B/url%5D”>www.lsac.org</a> and use the UGPA/ LSAT search function to get an idea of which schools are likely to accept you. lawschoolnumbers will also give you an idea.</p>
<p>I have no idea where u get your info but Law schools are sick of political sci and history majors not only because every second person majors in them, but also because it is the easiest major on earth.If u have 3.9 in history or polit science major, thats garbage…unless u graduated from one of top schools in the country(for sake being lets say top 30).
Since u mentioned accounting,ill tell u why accounting is important. As corporate or tax lawyer, u will be looking at financial statements which is accounting.Accounting is the language of business without which u will not understand a single business equation.Also accounting is a tough major and having 3,9 in accounting actually means something.</p>
<p>SITUATION-Goldman Sachs is hiring corporate lawyers for their legal division.Who do u think they will take?A corporate lawyer with a history major(obviously plus corporate law degree)with some work experience in history field or an accounting major that had tons of business internships?Hello!Common sence</p>
<p>And please please please pretty please get ur facts straight.Lawyers do have to write a lot but it does not mean they have to be either good at it or study it before they come to law school.Once u start working for a law firm-u r a robot that is performing simple task that dont even require law degree.Lol.Unless u plan to do court cases writing and speaking is almost pointless</p>
<p>If it comes between taking the advice of a student who does not have any idea as to what the heck s/he is talking about and some one who is actually a big law attorney and has sent her own kids to T-3 schools, guess whose advice I am going to take? The lawyers!!! (I am quite sure that the other lawyers will chime in just to have a field day with your faulty logic so let me get some popcorn and watch the show).</p>
<p>To Op, a student with either a high gpa/low lsat or high lsat/low gpa is a splitter. One of the problems is that admissions for splitters are unpredictable. The other side of the coin is that there are law schools that are splitter friendly.</p>
<p>To Future13: Your last post is so filled with fallacies, it is hard to know where to begin. I will address just one of the many issues raised by your post that is near and dear to my heart. Writing. You do not learn to write in law school. You need to take plenty of undergrad courses that require you to think critically and write. If you don’t know how to write well before you reach law school, you will be hosed on exams. Kiss your big corporate law job bye bye.</p>
<p>As I said before…this portion of the forum is just killing me.People who think they know stuff,but actually dont and people who base their answers on numbers.</p>
<p>How about you guys go do some research and then tell me with a straight face about right majors for law school and right job duties in corporate law as a first year assistant.</p>
<p>As a former partner in Big Law, I will give the same advice regarding undergrad majors as I have given elsewhere on this forum. First, don’t try to game your major for law school. Major in something you love and are passionate about and you’ll probably end up with the highest GPA possible which will enhance your application. You will also have learned something you actually care about in the mean time. Having said that, you need to take courses that require lots of reading, critical thinking, and writing. A logic course these days seems to help with lsat prep and might satisfy some distribution requirements. As for actual knowledge of corporate terms, basic accounting, etc., you can learn that during law school. Pick up a student subscription to the Wall Street Journal and start reading it. You will osmose enough to be more than ready for corporate law courses in law school. My area of practice was project finance, by the way.</p>
<p>Gee, I guess the Goldman folks lack common sense. </p>
<p>Reality is that Goldman doesn’t hire any attorneys directly from law school. You need legal experience, usually at a major law firm, but sometimes with a prosecutor’s office or one of the regulators. (The experience required varies by which unit within the legal department is the one doing the hiring. ) What college internships you did are very unlikely to have any impact on whether you are hired–unless you happened to do one at Goldman and made connections. (And Goldman does take liberal arts majors as interns.) The only Goldman attorney I personally know majored in history.</p>
<p>What will determine whether you get hired is your work experience as an attorney, not what you did in college for internships.</p>
<p>Krasivya, we appreciate your enthusiasm in joining this board, but there is no need to answer every post, especially if it A. old B. something that already has been answered. It makes more sense to keep the latest posts that have not yet been decisively answered at the top of the board. Thanks</p>