<p>If one wants to go to Law School which would most law schools prefer?</p>
<p>A) B.S. in Computer Information Systems and a B.S. in Management with a potentially lower gpa than the other two possibilities </p>
<p>B) B.S. in Computer Information Systems with a minor in Mgt</p>
<p>C) B.S. in Management with a minor in CIS</p>
<p>I am asking this for my cousin, who at the moment is pursuing option A but feels his gpa would be slightly higher if he goes with option C. Any suggestions?</p>
<p>He should go with what gets him the highest gpa.</p>
<p>Two degrees won’t compensate for a slightly lower gpa?</p>
<p>Short answer, no. Many law schools couldn’t care less about how many degrees are taken. The only preference as to degree I have heard was from Stanford law: “We like math majors.” And still then they only take people with high GPAs.</p>
<p>What ever happened to the idea of studying what interests you in college? What? College isn’t expensive enough to warrant studying exactly what you want to study? Oh no – instead, let’s just look at college solely as a four-year precursor to law school. </p>
<p>I think that attitude is a big mistake, and I really do feel badly for anyone who wastes the opportunity to actually be interested and inspired in college as a trade-off for a tenth (maybe two or three tenths) of a point of GPA. That is indeed a lifetime mistake.</p>
<p>Sally, I agree with your reasoning. But I don’t think people would worry about it nearly as much if they thought the difference between majors was only a tenth or two. No one will ever really know how much better they would do in one major compared to the other, but I think the perception is that it can make a bigger difference.</p>
<p>What about the possibility that someone majors in a subject that is a second or third choice for them in the hope of boosting their GPA, and then ends up doing more poorly than expected? What if someone does exceedingly well in a very difficult major that they enjoy? </p>
<p>I do think that we are talking about tenths of a percentage point here. Even in a difficult major, someone is doing well and getting A’s in his or her classes. I think that a bright, hardworking student who is motivated and excited by the subject matter is going to do well overall in any given major. In fact, I think that there are people who will do incredibly well as ChemE or EE majors (perceived as difficult) who would do terribly (and probably be bored to tears) as phys ed majors. So are we talking about a person getting a 3.3 as an engineering major versus a 3.6 as a math major? Big hoohey. A smart person is going to do reasonably well in whatever field they major. I think that the situation will be rare indeed when you are talking about a 2.0 versus a 4.0.</p>
<p>College is an opportunity – an expensive one at that. I don’t think that it is safe to assume that one will end up with a better GPA as a math major versus as an economic major, or as an english major versus a biology major. You just can’t know in advance, even if you are choosing between a perceived difficult major versus a perceived easy major. So go ahead and study what it is that you want to study. Don’t waste the opportunities you have at college.</p>
<p>I agree 2.0 vs 4.0 would be rare, but I think 3.0 vs 3.5 or 3.3 vs 3.7 is very common. So now we could be talking the difference between T14 and T50. In my particular case, I am convinced that I missed T14 by 2 or three tenths of GPA. Would I go back and not major in Engineer? No, my engineering degrees have served me well in many areas. But, if my goal at the outset were to attend a T14, I am convinced I could have gotten in with another major.</p>
<p>Speculating on GPAs is just that - speculation. I agree completely with sallyawp -</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OP’s cousin isn’t choosing between an easy major that he dreads and a hard major that he loves. As you can see, choices “A” and “C” are very similar. Basically, saying, “go with what gets him the highest gpa” is saying that a double major is not going to earn him brownie points.</p>
<p>Also, in many cases, what you can get the highest gpa in is the field that you are most passionate about. Therefore, going with what will get you the highest gpa still applies (obviously no one can predict this with certainty, but it only stands to reason that you will do better in something that you are passionate about).</p>
<p>I agree that one should major in something they are interested in. But there are other factors. They should also consider what that degree will do for them in terms of their long term goals. If they think that majoring in engineering will get them where they want to be, so be it. If they want to get in a top law school, my opinion and the opinion of many engineering majors is that they will be at a disadvantage in a highly competitive process. If they are willing to accept the disadvantage or they dont believe engineering is more difficult, so be it.</p>
<p>If someone has an outstanding LSAT score, terrific recommendations, a well written honors thesis, etc., the difference between a 3.4 and a 3.7 (B+ versus A-) is not so insurmountable. Now, if a candidate is borderline across the board, the GPA difference means relatively more. But we are talking about overall outstanding candidates, aren’t we? </p>
<p>Study what interests you. If you want to study engineering or organic chemistry or chinese, than that is what you should do. If you are dedicated and hardworking, good grades should follow. A tenth or two or three of GPA is rarely going to be the differentiating factor between getting into Harvard Law and getting into a tier 4 law school (in fact, even a 4.0 does not guarantee you a spot at Harvard Law). In any event, when one graduates and their GPA becomes fixed, they couldn’t possibly know what would have happened if they had chosen a different path – a different major – they can only guess and assume that they would have done better. But can anyone be certain that they would have done better?</p>
<p>If someone thinks that a few tenths of a point of GPA is what is holding them back from getting into Harvard Law, then I would recommend working for a few years after college, getting some great recommendations, and bringing something to the table other than GPA and LSAT scores.</p>
<p>In contrast to Sally’s perspective, which I think takes the impact of a difficulty major too lightly, here is my personal experience with admissions this year:</p>
<p>3.4 engineering (below median for all T14)
169 LSAT (at or above median for several T14)</p>
<p>Based on my hard numbers I am clearly borderline at several of the bottom T14’s. I applied to several of them. I got waitlisted at all of them. This makes sense-I was borderline. But wait, what about the soft factors?</p>
<p>I have every reason to believe my recommendations were good.
I have a MS degree with good grades.
I have five years engineering work experience, with some in construction law.
My degree is seven years old during which a tenth or two of grade inflation has been documented.</p>
<p>Did my soft factor make a difference? Not that I can see. I have no doubt I would have gotten in to some of these schools with a 3.6 in anything and no master’s and no work experience. Again, I’m glad I majored in engineering, but not when it comes to admissions.</p>
<p>I don’t have the data to prove engineering gives lower grades, but if you are someone potentially choosing engineering as major and potentially going to law school, it might be a worthwhile research project. It seems obvious to me, but I guess I am biased.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The answer is that there is no magic formula that absolutely guarantees admission at any of the top law schools. Can you guarantee that you would have had a higher GPA in a different major? If you had that higher GPA, can you guarantee that higher GPA would have made the difference in admissions? If you want to speak anecdotally, I can tell you that in my experience, I got into Yale Law School and rejected at UVa Law School. Why? Who the heck knows. Perhaps someone didn’t like the quality of the ink I used to write my application. Maybe someone read my application as the last of the day after a very long day and didn’t give my application the chance I would have thought it deserved. When applying to T14 law schools, the only golden rule is that there are no hard and fast rules about who will and who will not be accepted. </p>
<p>Plenty of borderline candidates are accepted and plenty are rejected. Stellar candidates have a better shot, but may find themselves inexplicably accepted here and rejected there. You faced some bad luck and got waitlisted across the board. It’s unfortunate for you, but you are certainly not unusual. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, what about them? You think your recommendations were good and you have an advanced degree and work experience. There are dozens of soft factors in play, though (and I think that soft factors are a lot more important for a borderline candidate on the numbers than for a stellar candidate). Was your application well written without typos? Did you proofread it? Did you submit your application on the first possible date that it would be accepted by the law schools to which you applied? What was your personal statement about? Did it really let the law school understand who you are and what you would bring to the law school community? Were your LSDAS reports and recommendations sent promptly? Did you visit the schools to which you applied? Once waitlisted, did you supply your law schools with additional materials to flesh out your application? I’m sure others on this board can fill in additional “soft factors” that may have been working for/against you here.</p>
<p>Ultimately, you are admitted to a given law school because compared with the pool of other applicants that year, you compare favorably. All of the law schools to which you applied clearly thought that you were capable of doing the work – thus, the waitlist status – but for whatever reason you just didn’t stand out sufficiently to gain admission right out of the box. Again, that doesn’t make you unusual, just unfortunate. I still don’t see how the difference between a 3.3 and a 3.6 is what kept you out of every T14 law school to which you applied. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Can you be positive about that? Again, how can you be positive that you would have achieved a 3.6 in a different major? How can you know that a 3.6 versus your 3.3 would have made a difference at all? Perhaps it was your LSAT score that was the real killer. Perhaps your year you were competing for spots in the incoming law school class against students who had 3.3 GPAs but who all had 172 LSAT scores? Do you know for sure?</p>
<p>I could be wrong, but I am assuming that you are actually attending law school now. If so, congratulations and best of luck. It sounds like a lot of very competitive law schools clearly thought that you had a lot of potential, but just not enough room for you in their classes. It happens. It sounds like you will do well for yourself regardless.</p>
<p>My comparative data comes from law school numbers, other websites like this one, data schools provide, and from other communications with other applicants. You seem bent on proving that exceptions can happen. I don’t deny that, but the fact remains that every little bit of GPA helps.</p>
<p>If you really can’t see how the difference between a 3.4 (not 3.3) and 3.6 kept me out of T14 and you want to, go to law school numbers, pick a school from 10-14, sort by LSAT, and see how many people got in with a 3.4 and how many got in with a 3.6. You will find that at several of the school the answers are almost none and many.</p>
<p>I did not claim that I was sure I could have gotten a higher GPA in something else. I claimed that I think I could have gotten in with a 3.6/169 regardless of soft factors. What I think about the relative difficulty of engineering doesn’t really matter-others can make their own judgment about how to get the highest GPA.</p>
<p>I’m not at all bent on proving anything. This has nothing to do with exceptions. Sure, you are better off with a higher GPA than with a lower GPA for law school admissions, but how much better off is anyone’s guess, particularly when we are talking about the battle of the tenths of a point. If you need to believe that the only reason why all of the T14 law schools to which you applied waitlisted you was your 3.4, so be it. I think that it was more likely your 3.4 combined with your 169 combined with the overall presentation and content of your application. It’s not at all a judgment of you or your capabilities - but perhaps you could have done something to come across as a stronger candidate. </p>
<p>Perhaps instead of being borderline you came across as mediocre in your application. I doubt that, though, because so many schools waitlisted you, which means that each of those schools thought you qualified for their entering classes. Perhaps you simply didn’t find a way to make yourself shine in your application.</p>
<p>A GPA of 3.6 guarantees you nothing. A LSAT score of 169 guarantees you nothing. The combination of the two still places you in the middle of the pack of applicants to T14 law schools, which guarantees you nothing. Plenty of very smart, very hardworking applicants with higher numbers than yours don’t get into T14 law schools. Plenty do. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but getting into top law schools requires excellent qualifications all around and, sometimes, a little bit of pixie dust sprinkled on the application to make it shine. You just can’t know what might have happened if you had taken a different road.</p>
<p>Again, Sally, look at law school numbers and speak to the data (a 3.6/169 is good enough for T14; a 3.4/169 is not). Otherwise I find it absurd (and patronizing) that you would try to argue that someone with a “hard major”, a master’s degree, and five years of work experience might come of as average because of the presentation of application materials. Come on. Have we not stated our positions well enough? There is no need to make negative inferences about the quality of my application materials.</p>
<p>Okay, you’re right, careerchange. You clearly didn’t get into a T14 law school solely because your GPA was 3.4. Yes, your GPA would have been at least a 3.6 in any major other than engineering. Yes, you would have had guaranteed admission to at least one T14 law school with a 3.6 GPA. Admissions to T14 law schools clearly follows a formula where every single applicant with the right combination of LSAT score and GPA gets in. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never maligned you or your application. I stated merely that there was probably a combination of factors that led to your waitlist status, rather than simply pointing to your 3.4 GPA. In fact, I recall stating that your qualifications must have been good since law schools waitlist only those students who they believe could do well at law school. I’m absurd? Patronizing? Okay, if you say so.</p>
<p>In any event, you are choosing to view my statements as an attack rather than the attempt to have a discussion . . . so be it. You must be right.</p>
<p>I hate to jump back into this disaster of a thread, but you may also want to check out the following link:</p>
<p><a href=“Search for Law Schools – LSAC Official Guide | The Law School Admission Council”>Search for Law Schools – LSAC Official Guide | The Law School Admission Council;
<p>This is where the LSAC give you an estimate of what your chances are of getting into any given school based upon your GPA and LSAT score. According to this chart (I’m just guessing that it is a bit more reliable than what you find on lawschoolnumbers or anecdotally), even with a 3.6 GPA and a 169 LSAT score, you have less than a 25% chance of getting into most of the T14 law schools. For the rest, it’s between a 25 and 50% percent chance (though closer to 25%).</p>
<p>I never maligned you or your application.</p>
<p>Well, I didnt accuse you of maligning my application, I said:</p>
<p>There is no need to make negative inferences about the quality of my application materials.</p>
<p>I was refering to:</p>
<p>I think that it was more likely your 3.4 combined with your 169 combined with the overall presentation and content of your application. </p>
<p>Perhaps instead of being borderline you came across as mediocre in your application.</p>
<p>A GPA of 3.6 guarantees you nothing. A LSAT score of 169 guarantees you nothing. The combination of the two still places you in the middle of the pack of applicants to T14 law schools, which guarantees you nothing. Plenty of very smart, very hardworking applicants with higher numbers than yours don’t get into T14 law schools.</p>
<p>Well, what about them? You think your recommendations were good and you have an advanced degree and work experience. There are dozens of soft factors in play, though (and I think that soft factors are a lot more important for a borderline candidate on the numbers than for a stellar candidate). Was your application well written without typos? Did you proofread it? Did you submit your application on the first possible date that it would be accepted by the law schools to which you applied? What was your personal statement about? Did it really let the law school understand who you are and what you would bring to the law school community? Were your LSDAS reports and recommendations sent promptly? Did you visit the schools to which you applied? Once waitlisted, did you supply your law schools with additional materials to flesh out your application?</p>
<p>but for whatever reason you just didn’t stand out sufficiently to gain admission right out of the box.</p>
<p>How can you know that a 3.6 versus your 3.3 would have made a difference at all? Perhaps it was your LSAT score that was the real killer.</p>
<p>If someone thinks that a few tenths of a point of GPA is what is holding them back from getting into Harvard Law, then I would recommend working for a few years after college, getting some great recommendations, and bringing something to the table other than GPA and LSAT scores.</p>