low gpa high lsat score- what are my chances of going ivy?

[ak09ine]

ive been reaching btw 166-168 on a number of prep tests but my gpa is a meager 3.3- what are my chances of getting in to a tier 1 school like penn or columbia?

[Matthew_24_24]

low.  Plenty of people score 166-168, but most have a higher GPA.  If you are at 3.3 you had better hope for a 173+ LSAT to have a reasonable chance.

Matt

[Moogle]

First of all, what's your major?  3.3 is not a bad GPA for an engineer.  If you went to--let's say--CalTech, MIT or a well known engineering school, then you should have no problems.

Otherwise, with a 3.3, you would probably have to have ~174 to get into Columbia and ~170 for Upenn.

Check out lawschoolnumbers.com.   

[LSATGuru]

First of all, "Tier 1" means top 50. If you truly mean "Tier 1" then if you score above a 168 you could definitely get into a top 50 school and most likely some top 30 schools. 

Penn and Columbia are top 10 schools, which is a whole different ball game.  As the other posters said you'd need to be at least in the 170's to get into either of those schools, and I doubt you'd get into Columbia with a 3.3 at anything less than a 175 (and even that would be a gamble). 

Your best bet would be to apply to the LSAT whore schools if you're dead set on going to a top ten, and the biggest is Northwestern in my opinion. 

A 3.3, from whatever school and in whatever discipline isn't going to buy you much without a 99.Xth percentile LSAT score if you have your eye set on even a top 14 school.

ive been reaching btw 166-168 on a number of prep tests but my gpa is a meager 3.3- what are my chances of getting in to a tier 1 school like penn or columbia?

[leftyguns]

I completely agree. If you really want Columbia or Penn, which by the way are just as much LSAT whores as Northwestern if not more from the people I have spoken to, you will definitely need a 174+. A couple of people from LSN did get into CLS with a 3.3 and a 174 but to bmake you chances even better, a 175+ would do the trick.

[Matthew_24_24]

agreed though with previous posters, big difference between Ivy and tier 1. 

Matt

[Vic]

Pesonally, no one on here can viably affirm this because none of us are admission reps. and do not know what variables they utilize in the final solution - if all variables are equal  (IT THAT ITSELF IS SAFE TO ASSUME)?   hhmmmmm... So, my opionion, go for it and see what happens!

[LSATGuru]

There is empirical evidence abound as far as admissions.  It doesn't take a J.D. to figure out that Admissions Committees don't vary much on the criteria basis they admit/decline each year. 

If you're a "mainstream" applicant (non URM, non Ph.D., non Olympian, non Nobel Prize winner etc...) like the vast majority of the pool, then it's nearly 100% based on your numbers.  If you don't believe that then go to LawSchoolNumbers.com, look at a certain school (like CLS) and then look at their 25th/75th LSAT/GPA spread on LSAC.org.  If you find a single "mainstream" applicant who got in with numbers below or even at the low end of the 25th/75th spread, I will be utterly shocked (as will most on this board). 

For mainstream applicants, when your application arrives, they look immediately at your GPA/LSAT score and based on that you're either placed in a "Presumptive Admit (if your numbers are at, near, or above the 75th percentile for their GPA/LSAT correlative index)," "Presumptive Decline (if your numbers are at, near, or below their 25th percentile for GPA/LSAT correlative index)," or "Marginal (your numbers fall at, slightly below, or slightly above the mean for their correlative LSAT/GPA index)." 

I'd wager that they take the Presumptive Decline pile, look for applications that have URM status checked, look over resumés in this pile for Ph.D.'s, Nobel Prizes, etc... and then shred'em.  After culling the URMs and "exceptionals" they make a decision. 

I'd bet the Marginals they read through resumé's, personal statements, and other stuff to see A) How much does this person want to go to OUR law school? B) How well is his/her personal statement written?  C) Did this person go to an exceptional undergrad institution (a 3.6 GPA from MIT holds a LOT more weight than a 4.0 from Arizona State)? D) Does this person have a legacy at our school (this varies in importance from school to school)?  and MAYBE E) Does this person have a few years of work experience or a masters degree that puts him/her above people with comparative numbers but without these things (though I don't think they look into this all that much). 

And the Presumptive Admit pile they just look for people who have potential atrocities in their file.  If they list that they're a Klansman or their personal statement is a napkin with a self-portrait done with lipstick they will consider axing the person, but otherwise they're golden based on their #'s.

All of this conjecture is based on what I've read in "Law School Confidential," DeLoggio.com, and other sources and is probably the sad truth for most schools that get thousands of applicantions each year and can't thoroughly read each one--they're just being practical.

Pesonally, no one on here can viably affirm this because none of us are admission reps. and do not know what variables they utilize in the final solution - if all variables are equal  (IT THAT ITSELF IS SAFE TO ASSUME)?   hhmmmmm... So, my opionion, go for it and see what happens!

[mukhia]

Haven't read the answers from other posters, but here's something encouraging:

My friend had a 3.0 from Northwestern in Soc and Econ and scored a 170.  She was admitted to Georgetown, William and Mary, and Northwestern (attending) and was waitlisted at NYU and UT-Austin. 

Something discouraging:

I also know of someone who had a brilliant GPA in engineering something or other (3.9?), and a 170+ LSAT and was rejected at Berkeley.

It's one big fat crap shoot.

[LSATGuru]

Haven't read the answers from other posters, but here's something encouraging:

My friend had a 3.0 from Northwestern in Soc and Econ and scored a 170.  She was admitted to Georgetown, William and Mary, and Northwestern (attending) and was waitlisted at NYU and UT-Austin. 

Something discouraging:

I also know of someone who had a brilliant GPA in engineering something or other (3.9?), and a 170+ LSAT and was rejected at Berkeley.

It's one big fat crap shoot.

Not necessarily.  Berkley loves URMs and people who majored in Liberal Studies (antipodal to engineering), so if he applied late in the game and they had plenty of other 3.97's applying (which they do) and others over 170 he may have been passed up b/c they had filled most of their spots and were looking for URMs/liberal studies majors.

I also have a friend who had a 3.0 with a 174, and by some miracle he got into Northwestern.  I think there, since they interview a LARGE portion of their applicants, it is possible to beat low-er numbers if you are a smooth talker and interview well.

But I still think my general assertions hold about mainstream applicants.

There's no chance that it's a "Crapshoot" as the admissions councils have to have SOME reason for accepting/rejecting people.  Plus, at Georgetown your friend's numbers are solid, they're a lock for William & Mary, and her numbers suggest she would have gotten waitlisted at the schools she did (and a waitlist is basically a dressed up rejection--someone who has accepted and plans to attend usually has to turn their decision around for some reason, and then they take from the top of the "waitlist" pool if that does happen).