« on: March 24, 2008, 03:58:21 PM »
Yeah, but say my LSAT is 164 and my GPA is 3.0.
Lets also say I apply to a school with a median LSAT of 164 and a 25% GPA of 3.4
I might think that my personal statement, resume, and LORs are so good that the committee will accept me.
If the committee rejects me based on my GPA and my soft factors don't make up for the low GPA then they should be able to do that faster than 3 or 4 months.
I got rejected on saturday to a school with a median GPA of 3.7. Why in the world did it take 3 months?
And let me answer your questions
1: What if the student was non traditional, and they got a 2.5 because they already had a job that they loved and they were going to school at night just to get a required degree. If that student then decided to go to law school, GPA isn't really that accurate of an indication of their potential. Their highest priority is work, so you should take that into more account than just a tiebreaker. (Obviously this doesn't apply to people with a high priorities in partying and drinking)
2: The 25th percentile is confusing because you really don't know how low they'll go. They should give you more information. "If your GPA is lower than 3.0, you have relatively no chance of admission unless you are a URM"
3: I don't think this would work on the top 50 schools. The applicants are all too competitive. You are an exceptional student so you may not run with the same crowd as I do. You do realize that 80% of test takers get worse than 160 on the LSAT right? Law school admissions doesn't only affect the top students.
4: Job interviews are subjective. By your reasoning, it would probably be better for Firms to hire based on grades alone, even after a few years out of school. I'm sure outside of new grads, firms use personality, potential and connections more than grades in their hiring.