Please helpe me! What is this academic rule saying? I might be out on my arse.

[frozen embryos]

My first semester in law school I got a 1.6.  I was put on academic probation and told I had to bring it up to a 2.0 cumulative after my second semester or I'd be dismissed.  I'm not going to lay out a bunch of excuses, but suffice to say I was experiencing some severe life problems.  I left school for a semester (last spring), then returned fall '09 for my second semester.  I just got my fall grades... 2.4 which brings my cum gpa to 1.96.  It seems like I'm out.  However, my school's academic rules read as follows:

Academic Rule VI

1. A student is academically disqualified who completes his or her first year with
a cumulative average below 2.0.

3. Notwithstanding Rule VI.B.1., a student is not academically disqualified at the
end of the first year who:

a. If a full-time student in the first year, his or her first-year Spring
semester average, if equaled over an additional 15 credits, would result in
a cumulative average at or above 2.0, or

b. If a part-time student in the first year, his or her first-year spring
semester average, if equaled over an additional 10 credits, would result in
a cumulative average at or above 2.0;

What exactly does this mean?  Is this saying that if you add additional credits to my second semester grade points, and doing so would bring my cumulative gpa above a 2.0, then I'm not dismissed?  I'm not sure if I'd be classified as full time or part time for the purposes of these rules, but under either a or b, my spring gpa (which is actually my fall 2009 gpa for these purposes, I'm assuming, since it's my second semester completed in school) would raise my cumulative above a 2.0 for these rules, thus saving me from disqualification.

I'm not making excuses for my poor performance and I am truly freaked out enough right now, so I'd genuinely appreciate if you could restrain from lecturing/teasing/taunts that I'll never amount to anything.  Just your objective interpretations please, they would be intensely appreciated.  Thanks.

p.s. I've already contacted the school of course, just want to know your opinions since it's the weekend and I don't expect to hear from them for a while.

[frozen embryos]

Bump... anyone?  Anything?  Please use your brilliant text analyzation skills here, I know you have them!   

[byebyeny]

what do you mean you are not sure if you are full time or not? Are you taking all the necessary courses 1L's are taking right now? Basically if your CUMULATIVE GPA is lower than 2.0 after 1 year of law school, they will kick you out and you won't be able to reapply to law schools for the next 2 years. I'm in a similar situation. My GPA is 1.6 after the first semester and I'm wondering if I should continue or not. Which school do you go to? I feel like I became a victim of a private school with mandatory curve(for my school, the professors have to give out C- or below to the 8~12 percent of the first year students, no offense to all the students who have better grades because they worked hard) I'm wondering if this is the case with public schools.

[frozen embryos]

what do you mean you are not sure if you are full time or not? Are you taking all the necessary courses 1L's are taking right now? Basically if your CUMULATIVE GPA is lower than 2.0 after 1 year of law school, they will kick you out and you won't be able to reapply to law schools for the next 2 years. I'm in a similar situation. My GPA is 1.6 after the first semester and I'm wondering if I should continue or not. Which school do you go to? I feel like I became a victim of a private school with mandatory curve(for my school, the professors have to give out C- or below to the 8~12 percent of the first year students, no offense to all the students who have better grades because they worked hard) I'm wondering if this is the case with public schools.

I was full time first semester, then switched to part time for second semester.  Either way I'm categorized for the purposes of the rule above, I'm able to be an exception to the 2.0 rule.  Basically, even though my cum. gpa is only at a 1.96 after two full semesters, I get a slight bump because of my improved performance in my second semester (the exception rule amplifies the significance of the second semester over the first).  As far as I am understanding it anyway.  I'm asking here to see if anyone is interpreting the language differently than I am.  

Unfortunately I don't know the answers to your general questions.  I just know that every school's rules are very different.  

[petermharrington]

You really might be better off cutting your losses now.  Especially with the current state of the economy.  It's hard enough finding a job with good grades.

[frozen embryos]

You really might be better off cutting your losses now.  Especially with the current state of the economy.  It's hard enough finding a job with good grades.

Yes I appreciate that opinion and I'm not even saying I disagree with you, but that's not the issue I'm trying to figure out with this thread.  I really hoped someone might be willing/able to dispute or agree with my interpretation of the rule I pasted above.  

[cooleylawstudent]

If its a "first year" rule you may be able to go the 3rd semester within the calender year(if your admin office allows it but its worth asking thema about) also your school may offer V's where they invalidate a class if you repeat it. My school allows only 2 for the full JD. That may help you too. Worst case scenario consider transfering somewhere. I know that it sounds nuts but the online lawschools would still let you practive in CA and have a rule that you are exempt from the first year "mini-bar" if you complete one year(on the 4year plan) worth of credits "even if the GPA academicly bars you from being admitted to a second year at your home school" (D-'s)

A last ditch idea, but beats flipping hamburgers with a years worth of student debt. 

[lawtransfer22]

If its a "first year" rule you may be able to go the 3rd semester within the calender year(if your admin office allows it but its worth asking thema about) also your school may offer V's where they invalidate a class if you repeat it. My school allows only 2 for the full JD. That may help you too. Worst case scenario consider transfering somewhere. I know that it sounds nuts but the online lawschools would still let you practive in CA and have a rule that you are exempt from the first year "mini-bar" if you complete one year(on the 4year plan) worth of credits "even if the GPA academicly bars you from being admitted to a second year at your home school" (D-'s)

A last ditch idea, but beats flipping hamburgers with a years worth of student debt. 

This is awful advice.

As far as the rule the original poster is asking about, his interpretation seems to be right on point. If your second semester grades, weighted with an additional 10 credits at the same gpa, would put you over a 2.0 you're safe. You will likely be considered a PT student for the rule since the weighting is likely based on the class load you took 2nd semester (thus, as a PTer you took less it makes sense that they would be afforded less extra weight under the exception), but even then the extra weight should be enough to keep you in school since you are already at a 1.96. However, with that said, it may be worth taking some time to really evaluate your goals. It would really sting to work hard to stay and then get the boot next year with the additional debt. Also keep in mind what kind of job you expect. I am at a T1 school, transferred from a T4, and was surprised at the lack of jobs this economy has produced. There is a T2 school in the same market and almost all of the jobs went to students from my school, or to students from T14 schools around the country, and even then they were few and far between with salaries a lot lower than expected. Students at my old T4 were telling me very few employers came to their OCI and none of them were talking to kids outside the top 10%.

[cooleylawstudent]

If he can stay in his current school even better thats why I said last ditch effort. How is it less horrible to tell a guy to quit(even if he can stay in his own school) then to at least consider the last ditch effort of still being a lawyer?

[frozen embryos]

Thank you very much for the input everyone, I sincerely appreciate it.  It was just such a convoluted rule that I came across, and I think in my emotional/overly hopeful state I was hesitant to fully accept my positive interpretation.  I didn't understand why exactly they would even have a rule like that, and I thought maybe my interpretation was just severe wishful thinking or something so I thought it'd make sense to bounce it off of someone else.  The school has since confirmed that my interpretation is correct, and it has to do with rewarding people for improving their grades, over those whose grades started out poor and declined even more.  I never seriously considered re-taking a class, but that is a good option to explore.  

And yes I am definitely in a self-evaluation period, but I won't really get into all that here for a variety of reasons (not the least of which is, what's the point?).  Believe me, in spite of my grades, I am not a total dolt and I am in touch with the reality of the world/job market/life.  I will figure it out eventually, and just do the best I can with what I have...which is all anyone can do, law degree or no.  But yeah, thank you!