high GPA, bombed lsat

[seebetterdays]

I have a 3.8 and 155. Would someone mind telling me if I have a realistic chance at Brooklyn Law school / Cordoza. Is it relatively neccesary to retake in Dec.? Is it absurd to think I have a shot at Cornell? I'm a 29 yr. old single mom and have a 10 yr. old -was a welfare queen gone worker gone union organizer and shop steward gone Political/Legal/Econ Analysis major on full scholarship at Private liberal arts College. Excellent LOR's from philosophy professor and respected legal scholar/professor.

[SuperMoni]

I don't understand why people keep calling it cardozA--It's cardozO!!  As in the Supreme Court justice.  I know its not a huge deal but it bothers the hell out of me! Sorry done ranting.

[wannabejd]

One common theme seems to be the idea that standardized tests are a good indicator of performance in school.  That's a bunch of bunk and there's lots of evidence that supports that.  I too did well on the practice tests and only got a 148 on the actual exam.  I graduated college with a 2.99 GPA due to some extenuating circumstances, primarily during senior year, but managed to raise my graduate GPA to a 3.45. Despite the obvious vast improvement, admissions gurus at 12 universities thought I was too stupid to go to their law school. For those of you in the same boat, don't sweat it.  First of all, you can always retake the LSAT if the score is just that low.  Second, law schools really like to play the numbers game, despite evidence that their admissions indexes are useless in determining your future success, so don't shoot for the stars if your numbers aren't in line with your dream school's index.  You won't get in regardless of how many great recs you have or how extenuating your circumstances are.  Third, whenever the economy is in a slump and jobs are hard to find, people like to look toward higher education as a way to bide their time until they find a job.  If you really want to practice law, wait a few years, get some real world experience, and try again.  And finally, if you are worried that you won't get a good job if you "settle" for a school that's not in tiers one or two, think again.  I know several people that didn't even go to ABA accredited schools who are working at prestigious firms throughout the country.  There are a several good reasons to pick a less notable school.  I highly recommend reading "Law School Confidential" if you're serious about pursuing a career in law. It's very informative and more realistic about life after law school than any other book I've come across.  Anyway, good luck to everyone and don't take rejections personally.  If Harvard rejects you, you're likely better off at a school who respects your individual accomplishments and not their status quo.

[shadowcreeper]

What 12 schools did you get rejected from, and were you applying full or part time?

[oxygen513]

what about 3.97 GPA, 161 LSAT with great internships (White House, California Supreme Court)?  any wisdom?

[SMarie]

I totally agree. People obsessed with rank have no clue what life is like in the working world. I know because I work at one of the top firms in DC and we hire people from all tiers, INCLUDING 4th tiers.   What matters is the GRADES you get at whichever school you decide to attend NOT the rank.

[TLFKARG]

I totally agree. People obsessed with rank have no clue what life is like in the working world. I know because I work at one of the top firms in DC and we hire people from all tiers, INCLUDING 4th tiers.   What matters is the GRADES you get at whichever school you decide to attend NOT the rank.

One firm's hiring practices are not indicative of a trend in the entire legal market.  No more than 15 minutes of research will show that the vast majority of BIGLAW firms prefer graduates from T1 schools.  The representation of T1 grads, especially those coming from the top 14, is overwhelming at such firms.  While most firms will hire at least a few associates from lower ranked schools, it is important to keep in mind the realities of the job market in the legal profession.  Whether it is fair, elitist, or sound is, of course, questionable, but individuals seeking those positions ought to have a realistic idea of what to expect. 

Grades are only important when you attend a school that ranks below the top 14. Basically, the prestige associated with the top 14 schools gets grads a job [fairly or not] based on the perceived quality of the school.  That is why many of those schools do not have formal grading systems and do not allow students to display their GPA on resumes.  My legal writing professor told me that unless you want to clerk for the Supreme Court or go into acedmia, grades really don't matter.  People that graduate dead last from our school get BIGLAW positions, if they want them.  I don't think this is necessarily fair, especially to those students who attend schools which rank only a few spots lower, but whose grads are not given the same luxuries, but this is, once again, the reality of the often patriarchal and elitist profession to which we all seek admittance.


To answer the concerns of the OP and a few other posters, numbers are the predominant determinative factor in the admissions process, but that is not to say that other factors are not given proper consideration.  Law schools, unlike BIGLAW, tend to be less elitist with their selectivity.  Every year, a number of applicants with numbers significantly below the median are admitted to top 14 schools.  These applicants are usually exceptional and their admission is, by no means, a given, but they successfully demontrate to the admissions committee in question that numbers are not an adequate reflection of their potential as a law student, and later, as an attorney.  I was admitted to a top 14 school with a 157/3.9 and have a number of classmates with similar numbers who also got into other T14's.  Having low numbers doesn't necessarily doom you to Cooley School of Law and, subsequently, 30 years of ambulance chasing.  If you have your heart set on a school that you may think is out of your reach, apply anyway.  The worst thing that can happen is that you exchange 50 bucks for a rejection letter.  But think about the implications of a best case scenario....

[Atlas429]

I totally agree. People obsessed with rank have no clue what life is like in the working world. I know because I work at one of the top firms in DC and we hire people from all tiers, INCLUDING 4th tiers.   What matters is the GRADES you get at whichever school you decide to attend NOT the rank.

That's interesting.

I don't mean to be offensive, but if that's the case then why did you cancel your October LSAT? Personal reasons? Did you think you did poorly?

[TLFKARG]

I totally agree. People obsessed with rank have no clue what life is like in the working world. I know because I work at one of the top firms in DC and we hire people from all tiers, INCLUDING 4th tiers.   What matters is the GRADES you get at whichever school you decide to attend NOT the rank.

That's interesting.

I don't mean to be offensive, but if that's the case then why did you cancel your October LSAT? Personal reasons? Did you think you did poorly?

You make an excellent point, Atlas.  Even those who purport not to give any weight to the rankings will Harvard over Cooley.  Any sensible person would.

[Atlas429]

I totally agree. People obsessed with rank have no clue what life is like in the working world. I know because I work at one of the top firms in DC and we hire people from all tiers, INCLUDING 4th tiers.   What matters is the GRADES you get at whichever school you decide to attend NOT the rank.

That's interesting.

I don't mean to be offensive, but if that's the case then why did you cancel your October LSAT? Personal reasons? Did you think you did poorly?

You make an excellent point, Atlas.  Even those who purport not to give any weight to the rankings will Harvard over Cooley.  Any sensible person would.

Thanks....I think?

Like I said I'm not trying to be rude, just curious due to what Ruskie described.