<p>For what it’s worth, the following is a quote from Anne Ivey’s book, the Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions. Ivey is a former admissions officer from the University of Chicago Law School, currently ranked #5 by USNWR. </p>
<p>“Law school admissions at the top schools is largely a numbers game. Obviously
its not just the numbers that matter, otherwise schools wouldnt have
to spend precious resources on human beings to help them make admissions
decisions. Instead, they could feed your numbers into a computer, let some
algorithm of weighted sums do its work, and shoot out admission and rejection
emails from some spreadsheet. So the non-numbers elements still matter,
but relatively speaking, the numbers matter a lot more, and they certainly matter
more than admissions officers like to admit publicly” page 14</p>
<p>Ivey goes on to explain that non-URMs who are below a school’s 25th percentiles are generally rejected regardless of their softs, and that those above a school’s 75th percentiles are accepted unless there’s a glaring flaw in their application. Softs are only really important for those near the 50th percentile. Ivey’s analysis seems to be validated by lawschoolnumbers.com, which shows that (most) law schools tend to accept or reject applicants with great consistency as regards LSAT/GPA combinations.</p>
<p>To OP: The fact that you worked 25 hours per week (assuming you did this during the school year as well as summer) should really help explain to admissions officers why you don’t have more extracurriculars. I’m as much an amateur at predicting admissions outcomes as just about everyone on this site, but I’d be seriously shocked if you can’t get into a T-14 school with a 170+ LSAT.</p>