Common wisdom, on this site and elsewhere, advises prospective law students to attend the highest ranked law school possible. There seems to be a problem with this approach, however. Namely, in order for someone to get into the higher ranked schools this would generally mean that the said school was intially part of the applicant's "reach" schools but was somehow accepted there. For instance, say someone has a lower-than-average LSAT and GPA combination but was accepted to T14 because he or she has extraordinary soft factors. The problem I see with this is that acceptance to law schools without the requisite intellectual capacities, e.g., as evidenced by one's LSAT and GPA numbers, only disadvantages the student. Most certainly, LSAT and GPA combinations are not the be-all and end-all of gauging one's intellectual prowess, but it is a fairly good--not great--indicator of such. My point is this, and I welcome any dissent: one may argue, as I am doing, that if students attend law schools in which the majority of their classmates have much higher LSAT and GPA combinations they are likely doomed to inevitable failure. Not to say they would fail out of law school altogether. But they will, in my opinion, find themselves in the middle of the class or, perhaps, even near the bottom once grades come out. Obviously, this would preclude them from participating in Law Review and many other prestigious opportunities available to students at the top of the class.In light of this, I think maybe prospective law students should lower their expectations a little and attend law schools where they have equal or even higher LSAT and GPA combinations than their counterparts. Ideally, this would enable them to compete on a much more even playing field--and hopefully rise to the top of their respective classes. It just seems to me that it would be better, as they say: "to be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big lake." Just a thought.
I have likely one of the lowest LSAT GPA combos in my school and I'm top 10%.