Attend a T14 regardless of COA? Forum

[Npret]

Please come back to this thread after you graduate and are repaying your debt. I wonder how you will feel.

As I said, this thread stopped being about you a while ago. The advice here may help some other 0L “bet on themselves”and retake, rather than rushing on heedless of warnings.

If you are so easily offended by harsh criticism on an anonymous message board, my advice is to toughen up. Law is not an easy profession. My opinion of the decisions you’re making is nothing personal about you. I don’t know you. I’m very comfortable telling you that you’re wrong and you’re mortgaging your future. That’s based on my knowledge and experience. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

[texaslawl]

I am probably just beating a dead horse and unnecessarily chiming in with my hot takes but I have to say that the harsh advice from this forum was I guess a little hard to listen to at first. I probably took it a little too personally and I pushed back like some 0Ls tend to do. But then I got over myself and I retook the LSAT. And I honestly think about how glad I am that I retook it all the freaking time. And retaking does not necessarily mean you have to go to a T13. Like someone said below, retaking can be mean getting into T13s, maybe with some money, or having the option of a school in the low teens with more money which can be a great option. Bet on yourself and retake. Even if you think you don't want to go to a super high ranked school anyways, even if you don't think you want to do x but might want to do y, whatever. You will not regret it. Just adding this for the sake of future 0Ls who might push back on the advice to say that I do get where folks are coming from when they push back but that you've just gotta get over it and do what is best for your future.

[albanach]

I guess just to wrap things up, because this has turned into such a negative, contrary thread that really doesn't serve its purpose, I will add that I'm going to bet on myself 10/10, as should everyone following this thread. I'm going to be open to taking out substantial loans at a T14 (or fewer loans at Vanderbilt, fingers crossed) because DC is my dream and I'm going for it.

I disagree that the thread is negative. People believe in your ability to achieve everything you said you want to achieve. I and others have simply pointed out that there's a relatively easy path with a high chance of success and a more difficult path with a lower chance of success. You have indicated that you prefer the second choice.

[Go Nats!]

Guys, the choices available aren't as neatly divided up as it seems. This isn't a stark choice between retaking, getting a higher score, and getting into the T14 with money and going to the T14 for sticker cost with her current score. URM application cycles are weird and financial aid is a bit of a black box. It's entirely possible for a URM to get into a T14 with a 3.8, 161 in the T14.

In any case, this thread isn't about other 0L's, it's about the OP. But if you're an 0L and you're reading this, I can tell you right now as a successful Hill lawyer and DC guy that if you are dead set 100% certain you want to practice in DC go to the most prestigious school you can, period. There are exceptions, but you don't want to fight to be the exception. You want to be the rule.

[QContinuum]

As Npret stated above, a lot of our effort here is not only intended for OP, but for other 0Ls who may be facing a similar decision and may come across this thread. "Attend a T14 regardless of COA?" is probably one of the most common questions heard of on these fora, so I think it's great for the community to try to provide a thorough, accurate answer to the question. Some of our advice may sound harsh, but it's important to remember that all of us are here, volunteering our time and energy, out of the goodness of our hearts. We're trying to give back to the community that's helped so many of us in the past. We aren't here to attack anyone, we aren't here to demean anyone, we're just doing our best to be helpful, even if what we have to say isn't always what our advisees want to hear.

OP's mind is, as I think all of us recognize, made up (probably was made up at the time they began this thread). So I'm not trying to browbeat OP by responding to her last post below. But I think there are some important points OP makes that ought to be addressed for the benefit of any future 0L readers of this thread.

Thanks for sharing, [york1614,] this is good to know. I'm unsure why your anecdotal experience is being discounted by the many commentators who are themselves talking about the 3 Hill lawyers they know or how, based on ~their~ knowledge, DC only hires from prestigious schools.

No one ITT has "discounted" york's anecdotal experience. We've merely pointed out that your goal - a high-powered D.C. job - differs substantially from york's goal (practicing out in the Midwest). york themselves noted:

Admittedly, I can't speak to the East Coast experience. I went to law school in a Midwestern state, and I now work in a different Midwestern state.

So we aren't "discounting" york's experience, just pointing out that you don't want the same kind of position york wanted (and got).

Further, that D.C. is prestige-obsessed (to a greater extent even than generic BigLaw) is not based on "the 3 Hill lawyers [we] know." It's a fact based on our collective experience interviewing for, and knowing people at, hundreds, if not thousands, of D.C. positions. We aren't speaking based on an unverified rumor from a single third-degree acquaintance in DoJ. The folks on these fora have much greater expertise than that.

I guess just to wrap things up, because this has turned into such a negative, contrary thread that really doesn't serve its purpose, I will add that I'm going to bet on myself 10/10, as should everyone following this thread. I'm going to be open to taking out substantial loans at a T14 (or fewer loans at Vanderbilt, fingers crossed) because DC is my dream and I'm going for it.

No one's telling you to not shoot for D.C., or to question your capabilities. We're telling you to believe in yourself and give yourself the best shot possible at D.C., with the lowest loans possible, by retaking the LSAT and improving your score by a few points. No one ITT has told you that you should give up on D.C. or should give up on law school.

I'm not sure what "purpose" you thought this thread was intended to serve, but as far as I can tell, the thread's been quite helpful. We've told you exactly what you need to do to make your dream a reality. Every single poster to have expressed a direct opinion on this issue ITT has agreed with the advice to retake. Even york.

Agree 100% for the lurkers. I should have retaken

I'm not commenting on this anymore because the moving goalposts and uninspired shade is corny.

This has been a repeated theme in your posts ITT, and I guess it's slipped through the cracks before. What exactly are the "moving goalposts"? I don't see any moving of any goalposts. I think our advice has been fairly consistent: Maximize your LSAT to get into the best school possible at the lowest price possible, especially since you want a competitive gig in D.C., which is one of the most prestige-obsessed legal markets in the country.

After all, everyone is just guessing, so perhaps humble yourselves instead of being so high and mighty thinking you are saving someone from the worst mistake of their life. There's always the chance you're being loud and wrong.

Except we aren't "just guessing" with our advice. We aren't "just guessing" that Yale gives its graduates materially different job opportunities than UConn. We aren't being "loud and wrong" when we say it'll be very tough to land D.C. from UConn. We aren't being "high and mighty" when we point out the very real, quantifiable risk of choosing UConn over a T13.

I am probably just beating a dead horse and unnecessarily chiming in with my hot takes but I have to say that the harsh advice from this forum was I guess a little hard to listen to at first. I probably took it a little too personally and I pushed back like some 0Ls tend to do. But then I got over myself and I retook the LSAT. And I honestly think about how glad I am that I retook it all the freaking time. And retaking does not necessarily mean you have to go to a T13. Like someone said below, retaking can be mean getting into T13s, maybe with some money, or having the option of a school in the low teens with more money which can be a great option. Bet on yourself and retake.

Many thanks for chiming in and sharing your own experience, tex. I can't think of a better way of summing up our advice ITT.

[Go Nats!]

I'm not sure what "purpose" you thought this thread was intended to serve, but as far as I can tell, the thread's been quite helpful. We've told you exactly what you need to do to make your dream a reality. Every single poster has agreed with the advice to retake. Even york.

Not to be a dick but that's not technically true. I posted here and didn't say that. In fact OP, if you honestly don't think you can raise your score - which you can; the LSAT is a learnable test even at its most daunting - then go to Georgetown, use their LRAP if it's still available or sign up for PSLF. But only if you can handle being tied to public service for ten years and are okay with that heavy debt load over your head.

[Npret]

For the record - looking at the Georgetown numbers on LST - the debt from a 2017 start with zero scholarship is $338,791.
Of course OPs cost will be higher as the tuition increases about 4% a year and OP would start in 2019.
The mean reported salary of public sector jobs from 2017 Georgetown grads was $54,997.
(A significant number of public sector job salaries 86 or 13.2% were unreported so I don’t know the accuracy of the salary number.)

If you were paying this debt yourself, you would pay $1819.00 a month at 5% interest rate for 30 years.
You won’t be able to afford that on your estimated salary, so you will need PSLF or a loan forgiveness program (PAYE) after paying for 30 years, assuming that still exists, and you would pay taxes on the amount forgiven.

For PSLF, Georgetown has an LRAP that’s not very generous compared to other schools
Some highlights
You only have 2 years from graduation to apply ( no fulltime paid employment in PI within 2years, you get nothing.)
You must have a paid, full time job in a law-capacity. (That means a job in communications for a not for profit doesn’t count.)
If you make more than $75,000 the benefits decrease.
If you're married, file separately, but you can only earn a few thousand more before that decrease kicks in.
They seem to only cover what you owe under IBR or PAYE - if those programs change, I’m not sure what happens
There is no form to calculate your payments on the website that I can find.
They seem to have required 10 years of continuous PI employment - other schools explain how long you have to find another job, but I don’t see it here. PI jobs can be temporary and can be subject to fickle budgets - what happens if you lose that job?

If you are insisting on going this route, be very, very sure of your numbers. Each school has a unique LRAP.
If you go to Georgetown you will owe, let’s say, $350,000 of unsecured, nondischargable debt.
How are you paying that back?

[Npret]

I'm not sure what "purpose" you thought this thread was intended to serve, but as far as I can tell, the thread's been quite helpful. We've told you exactly what you need to do to make your dream a reality. Every single poster has agreed with the advice to retake. Even york.

Not to be a dick but that's not technically true. I posted here and didn't say that. In fact OP, if you honestly don't think you can raise your score - which you can; the LSAT is a learnable test even at its most daunting - then go to Georgetown, use their LRAP if it's still available or sign up for PSLF. But only if you can handle being tied to public service for ten years and are okay with that heavy debt load over your head.

Didn’t you say you graduated with no debt? Wasn’t that a key part of your decision not to retake?
Edit to add - I’m not hassling you. I’m curious. I wonder if you were going to owe $350,000, would that impact your decision to retake. I appreciate your input as a person who didn’t retake when they knew it might benefit them.

[albanach]

It's entirely possible for a URM to get into a T14 with a 3.8, 161 in the T14.

This is a good point, and I'm not sure it's been addressed. Has OP actually blanketed the T14 yet? If not, that should have been the first thing they did, because those grades should be enough, as Nats suggests, to get bites from other T14 schools.

I still think that retaking is the better option because regardless of the offer OP gets, there's money being left on the table with a 161 LSAT. However, if they are attending this year, they should apply widely and ideally make schools compete for their tuition dollars.

[Npret]

I guess I missed OPs comment we were “just guessing” about the difference between Yale and UConn. In case OP missed it, I posted upthread quoting extensively and referencing the data from LST that starkly shows the difference in employment outcomes. It’s not a guess.

I’m a bit tired of doing OPs research. For other 0Ls, LST has the ABA job charts breaking out specific job placement by firm size and industry as well as the salary charts breaking out the salaries of grads in a similar fashion.

You may not know there was a time when law schools lied so extensively about the salaries of grads that required reporting was instituted. Now LST, who fought hard for these reporting requirements to be instituted, has all the data easily accessible. There is no excuse not to know all the facts about cost and employment outcomes from a school.

I strongly advise 0Ls to read every word and chart on LST about schools they consider. Then, learn everything about the amount of debt they will have, the repayment programs, the monthly cost. Learn all of it. Read the thread here about student loan repayment.

[Go Nats!]

I'm not sure what "purpose" you thought this thread was intended to serve, but as far as I can tell, the thread's been quite helpful. We've told you exactly what you need to do to make your dream a reality. Every single poster has agreed with the advice to retake. Even york.

Not to be a dick but that's not technically true. I posted here and didn't say that. In fact OP, if you honestly don't think you can raise your score - which you can; the LSAT is a learnable test even at its most daunting - then go to Georgetown, use their LRAP if it's still available or sign up for PSLF. But only if you can handle being tied to public service for ten years and are okay with that heavy debt load over your head.

Didn’t you say you graduated with no debt? Wasn’t that a key part of your decision not to retake?
Edit to add - I’m not hassling you. I’m curious. I wonder if you were going to owe $350,000, would that impact your decision to retake. I appreciate your input as a person who didn’t retake when they knew it might benefit them.

No hassle at all.

No, I paid sticker at UVA and turned down full rides at regionals when I did so. But that was because I was comfortable with throwing my lot in with the public service loan forgiveness program and solely wanted to do public interest. Also, I went to school right after the market crashed so I needed to guarantee I'd get a job.

I owe a ton of money now but it'll all be forgiven in a few more years as long as the PSLF program stays in place and I stay in public interest. There was no need for me to retake when I knew PSLF existed. And that's why I'm advocating for the OP a bit - if she's only going to be in public service why does she need to retake? She's done well enough to go to a school with a decent LRAP and PSLF still exists.

P.S. I have to add here that people are gambling with PSLF. Congress has toyed with reducing it since the Obama years.

[Go Nats!]

It's entirely possible for a URM to get into a T14 with a 3.8, 161 in the T14.

This is a good point, and I'm not sure it's been addressed. Has OP actually blanketed the T14 yet? If not, that should have been the first thing they did, because those grades should be enough, as Nats suggests, to get bites from other T14 schools.

I still think that retaking is the better option because regardless of the offer OP gets, there's money being left on the table with a 161 LSAT. However, if they are attending this year, they should apply widely and ideally make schools compete for their tuition dollars.

I can't edit my post anymore so just to be clear - I meant to say with OP's stats it's totally possible for her to get into the T14 with money. I'm glad she's expanding get app cycle. The top 3 is likely out but URM cycles are weird. She should apply broadly.

[QContinuum]

Not to be a dick but that's not technically true. I posted here and didn't say that. In fact OP, if you honestly don't think you can raise your score - which you can; the LSAT is a learnable test even at its most daunting - then go to Georgetown, use their LRAP if it's still available or sign up for PSLF. But only if you can handle being tied to public service for ten years and are okay with that heavy debt load over your head.

Your point being... you actually disagree with the consensus advice to retake? Or you agree with the advice but just technically didn't say so (in which case, yes, you are being needlessly difficult, prioritizing form over substance)? You admit yourself that OP can (probably) improve their LSAT score, and you also suggest that not retaking is likely to result in an undesirable outcome ("only if you can handle being tied to public service ... are okay with that heavy debt load").

And that's why I'm advocating for the OP a bit - if she's only going to be in public service why does she need to retake? She's done well enough to go to a school with a decent LRAP and PSLF still exists.

Because less debt still means less risk and, even if both LRAP and PSLF stay around unmodified, LRAP isn't a perfect solution (say, e.g., OP wants to marry a higher-earning spouse anytime within the next 13 years).

Further, OP has repeatedly proposed attending UConn over a T13, which is objectively a bad decision for her stated goal of prestigious D.C. work (not generic PI work).

[cavalier1138]

I will add that I'm going to bet on myself 10/10, as should everyone following this thread.

Best of luck. Just try to remember the curve does not care that literally everyone in your class is betting on themselves too.

[265489164158]

I do think this thread took a bit of a harsh turn. As a 0L, the advice I received on TLS was overwhelmingly to retake. I chose not to and cruised into my TT school with a partial scholarship and a median LSAT score. Yes, everyone bets on themselves to perform well and pay off their massive loans. In my case, I was able to perform quite well in as a 1L and saw my scholy increase so my total tuition for 3 yrs was less than 30k (this does not include what I had to borrow for living expenses). So, I see both sides of the argument now. In retrospect, I wonder what kind of LSAT score I could have gotten with a retake and what doors that would have opened for me (as a reverse splitter, I suspect a T6). However, I had other factors to consider in that I wanted to stay in a certain geographic region and my school places plenty of people in that market. So, for me it worked out, but if my dream were to work on the hill, this school would not get me there. On the other hand, most law students seem to change their career goals once they enter LS and are exposed to different areas of law. As a 3L, I no longer have the same career goals.

TLDR: TLS craps on people's dreams/plans all the time. It is mostly well-intentioned & they are probably (but not certainly) right.

[york1614]

TLDR: T20-30 for cheap over T14 at sticker/high COA. T14 at sticker/high COA over TT/TTT (unless you're absolutely 100% willing to stay in the city where that TT is located).

But the usual decision shouldn't be between a school ranked in the 20s for cheap or a T13 at sticker. Someone with T13 offers should have a school in the high teens like Vandy or UT with $, which could be the best option.

Some (not all) commenters who took the LSAT in undergrad don't understand retaking while you're in the work force isn't a viable option.

I don't mean to demean your (or any other applicant's) challenges. That said, I find it difficult to comprehend why "retaking while you're in the work force isn't a viable option." Plenty of folks work full-time while attending law school part-time - that is the definition of "isn't a viable option," yet people survive (and succeed!) every year. Studying for the LSAT isn't some kind of all-encompassing task requiring 40 hours per week; while undoubtedly challenging, it doesn't hold a candle to the rigors of trying to do well as a 1L, or trying to pass the bar. And the LSAT itself is a half-day test, held on a Saturday, which doesn't usually require time off work. I studied for and took the LSAT while working 60-80 hour weeks. There was zero disruption to my work. I did this by spending time I'd otherwise use to relax or socialize on studying. Sure, my social life took a huge hit (read: became nonexistent) for a few months, but it was doable.

I'll grant that taking the LSAT could be a challenge if working overseas in a country without a LSAT test site. But the vast majority of applicants aren't in that situation.

I wouldn't change anything because being debt-free, IMO, is more valuable than anything else. I am also lucky because I did pretty well in law school (cum laude), was EIC of a secondary journal, and had lots of natural networking opportunities through various positions I held in law school. I think you could have similar success based on your undergrad GPA (you likely worked hard in undergrad unless you're just blessed with sharp intellect and are a good writer) and your position in comms/public policy (stereotypically professionals who have interpersonal skills).

Congrats on your success but it's frankly irresponsible to predict that OP would have "similar success based on [their] undergrad GPA." I have almost never encountered a 1L who was lazy or slothful, or who bombed in college. 50% of them still end up below median. There is simply no good reason to expect that one will outperform a majority of one's peers, most of whom will be entering law school with similar undergrad GPAs and LSAT scores.

Also, on a similar note, it's difficult to predict that one would necessarily "out-network" one's peers. At a school outside the T13/T20 where a good job isn't assured, I guarantee the vast majority of students will be trying to squeeze every last bit of juice they can get out of the alumni network.

Finally, I'm also debt-phobic, so I understand and empathize with your strong aversion to debt. But the fact is that being debt-free isn't more valuable than "anything else." Being debt-free but also job-free - a real risk of attending a lower-ranked school - would be a far worse situation than being loaded down in debt but making a BigLaw salary (or having a strong LRAP to rely on, as the T13 provide). Debt-free uber alles isn't the answer. Better yet, here we aren't even encouraging OP to take out insane loans in order to attend a T13. Rather, we're telling her there's a third way, a better way, where OP can minimize debt while also maximizing their job opportunities. They can do this very simply by spending a bit more effort and time on maximizing their LSAT score. Sure, it won't be fun (who likes test prep? no one!), but it's way better than the "not fun" of trying to scramble to nail a D.C. gig out of UConn - if it's even possible depending on OP's law school grades at UConn.

I do think that if someone wants to do impact lit stuff aimed at helping the little guy, they might also find being a PD satisfying. I agree that the OP’s goals are kind of unformed though.

I mean, yes, I can see that in theory. I've just never seen this in practice. The types of personalities that are drawn to impact lit are the folks who want to be litigating the next Obergefell, the next Brown v. Board, the next Roe, the next Heller. They want to do good, absolutely, but they also want the grandiosity. The limelight. The experience of appearing before the federal appellate courts. These are not generally folks who'd be happy toiling away in relative obscurity on everyday street crime as a PD.

(And as already noted earlier ITT, the path to high-visibility impact litigation also differs quite a bit from the path to being a PD.)

Only wanted to hop back on here to say I've considered my original post, and I think it was incomplete (hard to believe with how long it was). For all of its errors, and if I had written 3 or 4 more paragraphs, I hope I would have shared the same thoughts QContinuum shared here. I agree wholeheartedly.

At the risk of being the annoying defensive commenter, I didn't mean to be irresponsible in predicting OP's success. For OP or any 0Ls, I would never mean to suggest that a strong undergrad GPA alone is an indicator for academic success in law school. I do, however, think that for a majority of students it indicates a willingness to work hard and sustained diligence academically. QContinuum is right that 1Ls aren't "lazy or slothful," but I've met dozens who maybe... coasted ... in college, didn't have a great GPA, and still killed the LSAT because they're ridiculously smart. I would worry (maybe without reason) that those folks might be more likely to bring their undergrad study habits to law school. That's all I meant, but any lurkers should absolutely heed QContinuum's warning that a strong undergrad GPA is NOT a direct predictor of law school success.

[QContinuum]

Only wanted to hop back on here to say I've considered my original post, and I think it was incomplete (hard to believe with how long it was). For all of its errors, and if I had written 3 or 4 more paragraphs, I hope I would have shared the same thoughts QContinuum shared here. I agree wholeheartedly.

Thanks very much for following up!

I do think this thread took a bit of a harsh turn. As a 0L, the advice I received on TLS was overwhelmingly to retake. I chose not to and cruised into my TT school with a partial scholarship and a median LSAT score. Yes, everyone bets on themselves to perform well and pay off their massive loans. In my case, I was able to perform quite well in as a 1L and saw my scholy increase so my total tuition for 3 yrs was less than 30k (this does not include what I had to borrow for living expenses). So, I see BOTH SIDES of the argument now.

That you were able to outperform (I'm assuming) 75% or more of your 1L classmates at your T2 doesn't remotely guarantee that OP, or anyone else, would be able to pull off the same feat at any law school. That logic's like saying, "oh, I won the lotto! Friends, all of you will win the lotto too, just buy a ticket like I did!"

As oft said on these fora, 90% of 0Ls start law school thinking they'll end up in the top 10%... but only 10% of students will be in the top 10%, and a full 50% will end up below median, which is an awful place to be at any school other than a T13 (below median's dangerous even at the T20).

However, I had other factors to consider in that I wanted to stay in a certain geographic region and my school places plenty of people in that market. So, for me it worked out, but if my dream were to work on the hill, this school would not get me there. On the other hand, most law students seem to change their career goals once they enter LS and are exposed to different areas of law. As a 3L, I no longer have the same career goals.

Thanks for noting the huge caveat that your path wouldn't have worked for OP's goals (even if OP was able to replicate your terrific 1L performance). Also, as you rightly point out, many people's goals evolve during law school. In fact, this is precisely the reason why it's best to go to the best school possible, so as to maximize career flexibility coming out. Someone wanting to be a local PD could certainly do that from a low T1 or T2, but what if they change their mind during law school and decide they want BigLaw or BigFed or an A3 clerkship? They'd be in for a heck of an uphill struggle. OTOH, someone at a T13 with BigLaw ambitions coming in could easily switch to local public interest work, with a T13 LRAP backing up their decision financially. And what if someone starts law school wanting to practice locally, but then, for personal or family reasons, wants or needs to move elsewhere? Someone attending Yale could easily pack up and go to California or Texas. Not so for the UConn law student.

TLDR: TLS craps on people's dreams/plans all the time. It is mostly well-intentioned & they are probably (but not certainly) right.

Thanks, I do think we are well-intentioned. I disagree that we "crap" on people's dreams. Quite the contrary: Our straight talk is directly intended to help people's dreams come true. As a previous poster trenchantly pointed out, you always want to be the rule; you don't want to needlessly put yourself in a position where you need to fight to be the exception to the rule.

[Npret]

I do think this thread took a bit of a harsh turn. As a 0L, the advice I received on TLS was overwhelmingly to retake. I chose not to and cruised into my TT school with a partial scholarship and a median LSAT score. Yes, everyone bets on themselves to perform well and pay off their massive loans. In my case, I was able to perform quite well in as a 1L and saw my scholy increase so my total tuition for 3 yrs was less than 30k (this does not include what I had to borrow for living expenses). So, I see BOTH SIDES of the argument now. In retrospect, I wonder what kind of LSAT score I could have gotten with a retake and what doors that would have opened for me (as a reverse splitter, I suspect a T6). However, I had other factors to consider in that I wanted to stay in a certain geographic region and my school places plenty of people in that market. So, for me it worked out, but if my dream were to work on the hill, this school would not get me there. On the other hand, most law students seem to change their career goals once they enter LS and are exposed to different areas of law. As a 3L, I no longer have the same career goals.

TLDR: TLS craps on people's dreams/plans all the time. It is mostly well-intentioned & they are probably (but not certainly) right.

A big reason to avoid $350,000 of debt is because of changing goals. Lots of people decide to chase the biglaw paycheck instead of PI and that’s a huge amount of debt to repay. Maybe PSLF will work for OP but it’s not certain.

It’s not crapping on people’s dream to tell them they can’t get there from certain schools or that they shouldn’t completely mortgage their future.

Certainly OP can stick their fingers in their ears and say “la,la,la,” but none of this was bad advice telling OP to not go for their highly competitive dream career. OP wants to assume they know more, or we know nothing, but the assertion that Yale and UConn are the same pretty much erases that idea.

[joefresh]

With respect to people telling OP to re-write and re-apply, I think it is important to consider how - one year from now - affirmative action may (is reasonably likely) to be overturned in the Supreme Court. It isn't unreasonable to argue that this is OP's last chance to take advantage of affirmative action scholarships.

If anyone doubts that this would have a drastic effect on OP's acceptance/scholarship rate, just plug 161/3.8 into mylsn excluding any URM status. (her odds of acceptance drop dramatically according to LSN's available data).

OP should go to a T14 while the getting is good imo.

[QContinuum]

With respect to people telling OP to re-write and re-apply, I think it is important to consider how - one year from now - affirmative action may (is reasonably likely) to be overturned in the Supreme Court. It isn't unreasonable to argue that this is OP's last chance to take advantage of affirmative action scholarships.

If anyone doubts that this would have a drastic effect on OP's acceptance/scholarship rate, just plug 161/3.8 into mylsn excluding any URM status. (her odds of acceptance drop dramatically according to LSN's available data).

OP should go to a T14 while the getting is good imo.

You know, this is a good point, and one that I (and I suspect many of the other posters ITT) didn't consider.

That said, while it's a close call, I don't think this changes the ultimate advice here (to retake and reapply). First, it's impossible to predict whether the Supreme Court will eliminate affirmative action at all, let alone whether it will eliminate affirmative action at all educational levels, let alone whether it will take such a drastic step in one fell swoop during the current Term. In other legal areas (see: Voting Rights Act), the Roberts Court in recent years has preferred to move incrementally first before taking the final plunge several years later.

Second, even assuming the Supreme Court actually wipes out affirmative action this Term across the board, our advice here isn't for OP to reapply next cycle with a 161/3.8. Those are the numbers OP currently has. With a 3.8, OP's well-placed to compete at the T13 for both admission and $ - even without a URM boost - if they get their LSAT score up.

[Go Nats!]

QContinuum is right. It would be unwise for any potential applicant to decide whether to apply based on what the Supreme Court might do. The case that they do eventually take up could be an as-applied challenge or some narrow decision.

[cavalier1138]

QContinuum is right. It would be unwise for any potential applicant to decide whether to apply based on what the Supreme Court might do. The case that they do eventually take up could be an as-applied challenge or some narrow decision.

Yeah, if we're going to speculate about what SCOTUS will do, let's speculate about what they'll actually do. I really doubt they're going to overrule Grutter outright. And the current AA cases that bear on law school admissions aren't going to make it near SCOTUS for at least a couple of years.

But yes, it's a bad idea to make any admissions decisions based on speculation about the future state of the legal market, law school admissions, PSLF, etc.

[HillandHollow]

OP, if you are still here:

I got lost ITT, but I think you said you have not applied to Vandy and Emory. You should apply to those schools (and as many of the T14 as you can afford to apply to). Feel free to PM me for more thoughts, if you want, otherwise good luck.

[Go Nats!]

This has been mentioned before but I want to highlight it with even more specificity: If you are a URM and you have a decent GPA (3.5 and above) and LSAT (160 and above) you should apply to every school in the T14, with the possible exception of HYS. Law School Numbers and others don't do the best job of guessing how URM cycles go. LSN said I didn't have a chance anywhere above Cornell and I was accepted UVA, denied at UT, and waitlisted at Georgetown and Cornell.

However, getting in the door doesn't mean you get in the door with money. The point of doing this isn't just to get acceptances, it's to leverage it into money. Once I had that UVA acceptance, lower ranked schools were much more willing to talk scholarships.

[QContinuum]

This has been mentioned before but I want to highlight it with even more specificity: If you are a URM and you have a decent GPA (3.5 and above) and LSAT (160 and above) you should apply to every school in the T14, with the possible exception of HYS. Law School Numbers and others don't do the best job of guessing how URM cycles go. LSN said I didn't have a chance anywhere above Cornell and I was accepted UVA, denied at UT, and waitlisted at Georgetown and Cornell.

I think a critical caveat to MyLSN is that its results are only reliable if there are sufficient data points. For URMs, that often isn't the case. It can be very dangerous to rely on MyLSN to predict outcomes for any particular school if you see <10 data points for your stats for that school.

One way to improve reliability in those situations is to widen LSAT and GPA range to sweep in more data points. Usually, for non-URM candidates with typical LSATs/GPAs, I like to use a LSAT range of +/- 1 (e.g., 167-169 if actual LSAT is 168), and a GPA range of +/- 0.05 (e.g., 3.85-3.95 if actual GPA is 3.90). But for URMs, due to scarcity of data, it's often necessary to use broader ranges. Further, the lower the GPA or LSAT, the broader the range to use (and this is true for both URMs and non-URMs). Once you have a GPA or LSAT that's lower than a school's 25%, precisely how low the number is starts to matter less - if a school's 25% is 3.56, it's not going to make too much of a difference whether the applicant's GPA is 3.03 or 3.23. Precision only becomes critical when you can meet or exceed a school's 25%/50%/75% - thus, if a school's 25% is 3.56, it's likely to distinguish between an applicant with a 3.5 and another applicant with a 3.6.

Of course, another caveat is that when MyLSN indicates one has little odds of acceptance, and shows a red bar, that doesn't guarantee rejection. Even a 10% chance, which sounds very low, means that on average 1 out of every 10 applicants with those stats will be accepted! So, I'm not overly surprised to hear that you got into UVA and were WLd at Cornell, even though MyLSN recommended that you target the T20 and down. Rather, I think MyLSN's recommendation was accurate; as your results indicated, you in fact had low (but nonzero) odds of getting into the T13.

However, getting in the door doesn't mean you get in the door with money. The point of doing this isn't just to get acceptances, it's to leverage it into money. Once I had that UVA acceptance, lower ranked schools were much more willing to talk scholarships.

Very good advice, highlighting the importance of applying broadly.