<p>I agree the LSAC data is probably as reliable as anything else. Like I said, I was a borderline candidate. The probability goes up substantially between a 3.4 and a 3.6-still borderline at any given low T14, but significantly more likely. Taking this data and cross checking with law school numbers, it is fairly easy to find an approximate GPA cutoff for candidates with a 169 LSAT. This year, at Duke, Georgetown (full-time), Michigan, Cornell, and Vanderbilt (non-T14), somewhere in the range of 3.4 to 3.6 candidates appear to break the 50/50 likelihood mark.</p>
<p>Just for giggles . . . </p>
<p>You quoted me as saying:
</p>
<p>I recall following this sentence immediately by stating that I wasn’t judging your capabilities, but that sometimes people don’t come across on paper as well as they possibly could. So, yes, perhaps your overall presentation was lacking. Perhaps it was not. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I followed up your very selective quote with the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In other words, I don’t personally think you are mediocre. Perhaps your application did not do your stellar qualifications justice. Perhaps you are just choosing to focus on the negative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This one is pretty much unequivocally true, and I stand behind it. Are you suggesting that this is incorrect? Are all students with 3.6 GPAs and 169 LSAT scores guaranteed admission to at least one T14 law school?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, did you do any of these things? For example, did you send in your application late in the process? Did you make sure that the soft factors didn’t distract the law schools admissions professionals from your stellar qualifications? I’m not sure why you would think that this is somehow an indictment of your capabilities or your application. I was merely asking questions and pointing out some of the factors that the law schools to which you applied may have considered.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You didn’t. You were waitlisted. It happens to a lot of really good candidates applying to law schools. I have encouraged you to look at being waitlisted as an endorsement of your excellent qualifications, but you have seemingly not viewed it that way. That’s unfortunate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps it was. Do you know for certain otherwise?</p>
<p>Look - no negative inference about your application materials intended, but I stand by my statement that the difference between a 3.4 and a 3.6 with a constant LSAT score in getting into T14 law schools is not earth shattering. Check out the LSAC link I provided eariler.</p>
<p>“Look - no negative inference about your application materials intended, but I stand by my statement that the difference between a 3.4 and a 3.6 with a constant LSAT score in getting into T14 law schools is not earth shattering. Check out the LSAC link I provided eariler.”</p>
<p>Please see post number 21 for my response to the link. </p>
<p>I would like to restate the basic issues here as I see them: How much does major impact GPA? And how much does the impact on GPA impact admission to T14 law schools? </p>
<p>On the first question, we agree that it is hard to know. I think that it has a significant impact. You think it has less of an impact. As I have said, I recommend someone picking a major do the research and make their own judgment. </p>
<p>On the second question, my conclusion from the data is that a few tenths GPA can make a big difference. You conclude that it has less of an impact. </p>
<p>We went back and forth on these issues in a respectful way until post 13 when I brought in my personal admission experience. At that point, I feel that you began nitpicking my argument by questioning whether or not I had made typos in my application and other things of that nature. I also feel that you began mischaracterizing my arguments in an effort to make my position look silly. For example, you stated something about someone thinking a few tenths of GPA would get them into Harvard. </p>
<p>I think we have fleshed out our positions well enough (I doubt anyone else cares at this point) and I am willing to drop it here unless you would like me to clarify anything.</p>
<p>Sallyawp, I respect all your opinions and you seem to be very knowledgable in regards to law school admissions and what its like to have a career in law. However, your statements on this thread seem unreasonable. CareerChange is not saying that a 3.6 would have guaranteed him admission to a T14, he’s just saying that it would have been WAY more likely. Tenths of a GPA is HUGE. Take a look at Chiashu and you’ll see. With a 3.4 and 169, he has an 18% chance at NYU, a 32% chance at Virginia, and a 41% chance at Georgetown. With a 3.6 and 169, he has a 34% chance at NYU, a 49% chance at Virginia and a 55% chance at Georgetown. In other words the likelihood of his admission to NYU almost DOUBLES with a 2 tenths GPA boost. His chanes of admission to Virginia are over 150% of what they were with a 3.4. His chances at Georgetown are 125% of what they were with a 3.4.</p>
<p>There’s nothing to argue about. He was MUCH more likely to have been admitted to a T14 if he had a 3.6 than a 3.4. </p>
<p>Tenths of a GPA in law school admissions is HUGE nowadays. The 25th percentile at Northwestern (#12) is 3.40. The 25th percentile at Stentson (#100) is 3.19. That’s the difference between just 2 tenths of point in GPA.</p>
<p>1) I agree that the difference between a 3.4 and a 3.6 is substantial for law school admissions. In part that’s because many law schools issue graphs showing admissions results by category. At the “break points” between categories, your odds change much more than they do with an equal change in gpa within a category. For example, as silly as it may “sound,” the difference between a 3.70 and a 3.75 is significant at law schools which publish data like X +% of the class had a gpa of 3.75 or above. The next break point tends to be around a 3.5 and just clearing that hurdle helps. Same at 3.0. There shouldn’t be a big difference between a 2.9 and a 3.0, but there is–and it’s bigger than that between a 3.1 and a 3.2. </p>
<p>Can I prove that with a scientific study? No. But the hullabaloo that happened when USNews switched its ranking system for law schools from using the 25/75% gpa range to using the median GPA convinced me that law schools are more hesitant now to admit applicants whose GPAs are below the median than they were only a few years ago when 25/75 was the yardstick. So at any law school where the median UG GPA is between a 3.4 and a 3.6, the difference in your acceptance odds with those two numbers will be substantial. </p>
<p>2) Based on the data I’ve seen, I’m convinced that, while law schools do give a bit of a boost for tough majors like engineering and require somewhat higher GPAs in weak majors, the impact is not much. (Yale may be an exception to this rule though–after all, there the faculty reads applications .)But personally, I’m convinced that one reason for this is that, believe it or not…engineers at top law schools usually don’t end up being <em>stars</em>. My own hunch is that things like spatial perception, which matter a lot in engineering, matter very little in law. </p>
<p>3) Unless you have a DUI or some other problem, numbers DO guarantee admission at MOST law schools. The exceptions are Yale and Stanford. It’s not at all unusual for someone with a more interesting application but weaker numbers to get into these two law schools but not lower ranked ones. While Harvard is changing, it is still more numbers based. (Of course, you do have to factor in state residency at the public schools in the top 14. )</p>
<p>My kid’s college had a good pre-law advisor, who said any kid at this highly ranked college with a 3.75 + GPA AND a 175+ LSAT didn’t need to apply below the CCN level unless (s)he had some issue like a DUI or disciplinary record or UNLESS (s)he wanted merit money. The rest of the application really doesn’t matter that much EXCEPT at Yale and Stanford, if you’ve got really good numbers. </p>
<p>4) I think CC’s soft factors (or at least the ones (s)he mentioned) are weak. As far as I can tell, Northwestern is the ONLY one of the top 14 that cares about typical work experience. For work experience to help–just based on what I’ve seen–it has to be altruistic—think Peace Corps, Teach for America;very public interest/governmental-ish–think reaching a pretty high level while working on a presidential, gubernatorial or senatorial campaign, 5 years serving in the military; unusual–think being an embedded journalist in Iraq, a circus perfomer, a minor league baseball player or basketball player in the European league; OR you have to be unusually successful–you won a Pullitzer prize or an Emmy or Oscar (I’m talking in a non-acting capacity) , you sold a company you created for 10 million dollars plus. </p>
<p>Otherwise, working 5 years probably helps your odds of admission about the same as a .1 higher gpa–EXCEPT at Northwestern. CC’s may have been helped a bit by the fact CC got involved in construction law, so if (s)he highlighted that in the PS statement, it might have helped a tad more. If you’re a borderline case, that .1 may make a real difference–but anyone who thinks that (s)he will get into much better law schools after 5 years of working at regular job than (s)he could have on his/her college graduation day is in for a rude awakening. Two years in Teach for America would help a LOT more. (Five years of work experience WILL make you more marketable to employers, but that’s a wholly different issue.) </p>
<p>At most top law schools, master’s degrees mean zilch. People often make the mistake of thinking because a lot of students at top law schools have masters, they help you get in. They really don’t. It’s just that a lot of people with really good numbers (a) enroll in top Ph.D. programs and then decide they don’t want the academic life after all and drop out with a master’s or (b) win fellowships to study abroad, like the Rhodes, Marshall, Gates, Fullbright, etc. These folks would have gotten into law school if they had applied straight from college. (Some did and deferred.) Your LSDAS gpa is based ONLY on undergrad courses. Doing badly in a grad program HURTS you, but doing well doesn’t help much. </p>
<p>As for recs–well, I’m a bit skeptical that an engineering prof would actually know what sorts of things should be said in a rec for law school. You can get an excellent rec that will not help one iota in terms of getting into law school–did CC’s talk about the extent (s)he participated in class discussions? His/her writing skills? How persuasive a speaker (s)he is ? His/her interest in public affairs? </p>
<p>Anyway, that’s my two cents.</p>
<p>Jonri,
I agree with your post overall. I especially agree that crossing 3.5 is huge. I do have one quibble in that spatial prowess certainly matters in areas of law, in construction law and patent law, for example. If you meant it doesn’t matter in law school, then I have no reason to question that. </p>
<p>To clarify on the subject of my soft factors, I’d rather not focus on the specifics of them, but I think we are making the same basic argument: Unless they are spectacular (as in something the school can really brag about) they don’t matter much. I think the things I did in UG and the way I packaged them, my recs (not from nerdy eng. profs.), my timing, and my other application materials are on par with my competitors. Beyond that, the 7 years after UG boosts my soft factors to above average or good, not spectacular. The overall point remains that I don’t think they helped and don’t recommend that people count on help from them. Clearly grade inflation and more competitive admissions over the past 7 years have not helped. </p>
<p>Admissions worked out fine for me, and I am probably better off not having to turn down T14 for the full ride I am taking elsewhere. I am glad I picked the major I did. I don’t have regrets about getting a master’s and working. I am not bitter. All of these things form the foundation for what I am doing next. </p>
<p>BUT…if your ultimate goal is to get in a T14, and you are capable of a T14- level LSAT, and you are willing to work hard, chances are that there is a major out there that you can get a good enough GPA in. There are some people, like me, who can do all of those things but can’t get the GPA in engineering.</p>
<p>Of course, there are many questions implicit here. Obviously engineering GPAs are lower on average, but that’s not necessarily to say that any given engineer would do better just because the average English major gets higher grades. Some of the above-average engineers I know would be decidedly below-average English majors. Not all. Some.</p>
<p>Second, to what extent is the LSAT score a function of your major? Are they related at all? I don’t know of even a theoretical way to measure this (control for SAT score, maybe). Would you have gotten higher grades and a worse LSAT score as a Philosophy major? Who knows?</p>
<p>Clarification /Quibble:</p>
<p>"If you meant [spatial perception] doesn’t matter in law school, then I have no reason to question that. "
Yes, that’s what I meant. </p>
<p>“Unless they are spectacular (as in something the school can really brag about) they don’t matter much.”
While ECs don’t really matter much, I think they matter MORE than “regular” work experience. ECs, as I am using the term, isn’t limited to things you do in college. I don’t think they have to be spectacular to help. I don’t think two years with Teach for America, for example, is spectacular. But I am confident that those two years would help more than 5 years WE as an engineer. </p>
<p>I just don’t think that work expereince matters much at all UNLESS it is spectacular OR is of an altruistic, military, governmentalish, NGO-ish type job. Therefore, I don;t think your 7 yeas post college consisting of a master’s and 5 years of regular WE would boost your 'extras" out of the average stack. </p>
<p>80% of law school admissions is about the numbers. 10% is about things like URM status, legacy status, in-state residence at public law schools, geographic diversity at schools attempting to build “national” reps—essentially things you have no control over. The other 10% is everything else–PS,recs, ECs, especially community service, work experience,undergrad college and major, etc. But I would rank regular old WE BELOW these other factors in ranking the importance of these soft factors .IMO, work experience is one of the LEAST important factors in that 10%. That’s really the point I’m struggling to make. </p>
<p>It may well be that you had excellent UG ECs and did lots of community service during the years you worked and just didn’t mention it. Obviously, I don’t know. </p>
<p>I do think we are essentially “on the same page.”</p>
<p>^When you quote numbers like 80% numbers, 10% stuff you have no control over, 10% everything else, are you just estimating these values or do you have data?</p>
<p>Im not denying the validity of those numbers, but 10% for URM status seems pretty low. I would imagine it has much more influence than that. </p>
<p>Also, so you’re saying that PS, recs, ECs, work experience, college, and major ALL account for just 10%? That seems very low. Are you sure about this? Does this stand true for the T14, too? I thought the T14 would emphasize things oher than grades and LSATs a lot more. Especially because they get so many applicants with the same numbers.</p>
<p>My experience has been that law school ranking doesn’t matter as much for people with technical degrees who wish to work at places where technical prowess is an asset. I’ve worked in-house for a number of years at such places; in my last two jobs, I’ve reported to younger attorneys who went to lower ranked law schools than I did, but who majored in math or engineering (I majored in history). In both cases, it was an appropriate reporting structure - I’ve learned more from them than they have from me.</p>
<p>Greybeard - that is certainly true of patent attorneys. When I get a request to find a patent lawyer to fill a position, I find that it doesn’t matter where the person went to law school. It does matter where they went undergrad or grad - that’s the question I get. That is not the case for other areas of law.</p>
<p>^So, do patent lawyers make good money (i.e. comparable to BIGLAW associates) regardless of what law school they went to?</p>
<p>They make “biglaw” money at the large boutique patent firms. You will see a much wider variety of law school representation at these firms. Of course, you will also see Harvard, Yale grads. The firms would also be happy to see MIT teamed up with any number of law schools. Although the MIT grads in particular tend to go to the top law schools too.</p>
<p>ab-med, this may help answer you question. I am familiarizing myself with a biglaw-ish firm in my area (in a mid-sized city) that does patent law as well as many other things. They pay 115k to first years in general, but 130k to first years who are “eligible to sit for the patent bar,” or something to that effect. It also seems to be true that their patent lawyers have somewhat less prestigious law degrees on average than the others.</p>