Chances at Columbia for admitted MBA Forum

[PotentialApplicant00]

Hi all,

I was accepted to Columbia Business School in November to begin in August 2017. Law has always interested me, and my girlfriend (who works at a law school) is putting some pressure on me to try to apply to the law school by February 15th for a JD/MBA. I am very confident I'd do well on the LSAT (GMAT was 760 out of 800 - 99th percentile), but I'm afraid that my GPA of 3.35 would completely screw me over. Let's say I score a 172 or higher on LSAT, could that offset the low GPA? Would my admission to the business school have any effect? If chances are +30%, I'd be more than willing to not sleep for the next month and knock out a law school application. I'd also consider myself somewhat of an "expert" on b-school admissions. So I think that with some research, I could quickly get acclimated to law school admissions as well.

A little bit about my background.. I'm an accountant with a CFA and CPA, working in investment accounting for a large insurance company. I went to Univ of Delaware, honors program, graduating with 3.35 in Accounting and Finance. My post-MBA goal is investment management, but with a law degree, I think the venture capital/private equity space would be more accessible, or I could work in securities law. I also have great volunteer/extracurricular experiences. 28 years (at matriculation) white male w/ 4 years of professional work experience.

THANK YOU!

[heythatslife]

Hate to break it to you but your chances at CLS with a 3.35 GPA is pretty bleak even with a 172 LSAT. I know that in B-school admissions the soft factors are materially important and can overcome a weaker undergrad GPA but law school admissions doesn't work like that. It's mostly about that LSAT-GPA combo in this ball game. Also, if you don't have an LSAT score now, I don't think you can apply this cycle anyway.

[big_willy_style_333]

.

[34iplaw]

Yeah... I think you can look to see whether you can apply in your first year as an MBA. A lot of schools offer JDs to apply to their MBAs in their first year at the very least. CLS is pretty friendly to splitters which is good, but it also means you would need to crush the LSAT. If you hit their 75th for the cycle (typically median+1), you should have a good shot at getting in.

Regarding LSAT & GMAT, rumor is the LSAT is harder, but I primarily read about JD & JD-MBA from the JD perspective so that is likely skewed. That said, I wouldn't be certain of a 170 without prep esp. if you lost most of your points in the sections more pertinent to the LSAT (i.e. not quant). Either way, try to take a PT in test conditions and see how you fare. Maybe apply as a first year in the MBA.

[dabigchina]

I think you have an ok shot.

CPA, CFA, real work experience are pretty solid softs that CLS cares about. I got in with similar numbers without the MBA cross-admit.

Edit: I just saw that you don't have a real LSAT score. I wouldn't just assume you can get a 172 because you got 760 on the GMAT.

[GreenEggs]

there's definitely a sizable bump in cross mba/jd admissions at cls. but anyway you need to actually have an lsat before going through this exercise

[PotentialApplicant00]

You guys have all been tremendous. Thanks a ton for your help.

With little time to research, I felt like going to a forum would provide me the quickest and most accurate answer. Maybe I will do more research and consider applying next year. Anyways, thanks again for all your help!

[mathis1490]

there's definitely a sizable bump in cross mba/jd admissions at cls. but anyway you need to actually have an lsat before going through this exercise

+1

[appind]

A 760 GMAT doesn't at all mean that you will do well in LSAT. LSAT is whole different beast. you may be able to do well but it's not mainly because your GMAT is good.

LSAT RC is an order of magnitude more harder to score well than any gmat RC.
the way scores are scaled, an lsat 172 is 99%, but gmat 760 is not.
there are so many people who get 780 in gmat, but can't break 170 in lsat after multiple tries and hard work.

[echonov]

A 760 GMAT doesn't at all mean that you will do well in LSAT. LSAT is whole different beast. you may be able to do well but it's not mainly because your GMAT is good.

LSAT RC is an order of magnitude more harder to score well than any gmat RC.
the way scores are scaled, an lsat 172 is 99%, but gmat 760 is not.
there are so many people who get 780 in gmat, but can't break 170 in lsat after multiple tries and hard work.

You're right that a good GMAT doesn't necessarily equate to a good LSAT, and LSAT RC/LR are generally more challenging (although LSAT doesn't have content questions, so it's a pretty fundamentally different test anyways).

But a GMAT 760 is 99th percentile. I'm not sure where you're getting that information -- the GMAT scale is similarly skewed at the high end (although you can score lower on one of the two relevant sections and still get an overall high percentile -- e.g. a 49Q/48V/770 total would equate to 81%/99%/99% respectively, whereas the LSAT doesn't do that breakdown). I'm sure there are GMAT high scorers who struggle with the LSAT, but that doesn't mean that a 750+ score is common or that the GMAT is super easy or something -- not that you're necessarily saying that, but I do see that perspective on these boards sometimes. Equally, a high LSAT scorer could easily bomb the GMAT. (Although yes, there are more 750+ GMAT scorers than 172+ LSAT scorers, simply because more people take the GMAT.)

[appind]

A 760 GMAT doesn't at all mean that you will do well in LSAT. LSAT is whole different beast. you may be able to do well but it's not mainly because your GMAT is good.

LSAT RC is an order of magnitude more harder to score well than any gmat RC.
the way scores are scaled, an lsat 172 is 99%, but gmat 760 is not.
there are so many people who get 780 in gmat, but can't break 170 in lsat after multiple tries and hard work.

You're right that a good GMAT doesn't necessarily equate to a good LSAT, and LSAT RC/LR are generally more challenging (although LSAT doesn't have content questions, so it's a pretty fundamentally different test anyways).

But a GMAT 760 is 99th percentile. I'm not sure where you're getting that information -- the GMAT scale is similarly skewed at the high end (although you can score lower on one of the two relevant sections and still get an overall high percentile -- e.g. a 49Q/48V/770 total would equate to 81%/99%/99% respectively, whereas the LSAT doesn't do that breakdown). I'm sure there are GMAT high scorers who struggle with the LSAT, but that doesn't mean that a 750+ score is common or that the GMAT is super easy or something -- not that you're necessarily saying that, but I do see that perspective on these boards sometimes. Equally, a high LSAT scorer could easily bomb the GMAT. (Although yes, there are more 750+ GMAT scorers than 172+ LSAT scorers, simply because more people take the GMAT.)

i didn't realize that 760 gmat does seem to fall into the very lower bound of 99% for gmat test takers. i guess the point i was making is that 760 gmat is not substantially different than 730-730 gmat, which is 94-96%, even for top bschools HSW. you'd not be denied to HSW simply because your gmat was 730 and not 760. they are looking mainly for all roundedness so a high gmat percentile doesn't impress them much and a very high gmat of 790 or such may even work against an applicant in some cases. it make take test takers a big hump to go from 95% to 99% in LSAT but it's not such a big obstacle for gmat test takers, mainly because of the nature of the test.

i think in general the verbal portion of gmat is very easy compared to the RC/LR of lsat, not that they are testing for the exact same skills. RC though is clearly significantly harder for LSAT. if a high lsat scorer isn't able to get a high gmat score, it'd be mainly because gmat has the math portion. but other than that i think it's much easier for a high LSAT scorer to kill the gmat verbal than it's for a gmat high scorer in verbal portion to do well in LSAT. another difference to consider to normalize the percentiles in these two tests is that LSAT test takers typically have more advanced Verbal/RC skills to begin with than GMAT test takers. that is, the pool itself is more able in language ability. so a 99% verbal score in gmat still is easier to get than a 99% score range in LSAT for the RC/LR sections, which is at least 75% of the test.

[vmxnn]

hate to say this, my gre:1500+/1600 about 4-5years ago, and I messed up my lsat. lsat and gmat/gre are different.

[echonov]

i didn't realize that 760 gmat does seem to fall into the very lower bound of 99% for gmat test takers. i guess the point i was making is that 760 gmat is not substantially different than 730-730 gmat, which is 94-96%, even for top bschools HSW. you'd not be denied to HSW simply because your gmat was 730 and not 760. they are looking mainly for all roundedness so a high gmat percentile doesn't impress them much and a very high gmat of 790 or such may even work against an applicant in some cases. it make take test takers a big hump to go from 95% to 99% in LSAT but it's not such a big obstacle for gmat test takers, mainly because of the nature of the test.

i think in general the verbal portion of gmat is very easy compared to the RC/LR of lsat, not that they are testing for the exact same skills. RC though is clearly significantly harder for LSAT. if a high lsat scorer isn't able to get a high gmat score, it'd be mainly because gmat has the math portion. but other than that i think it's much easier for a high LSAT scorer to kill the gmat verbal than it's for a gmat high scorer in verbal portion to do well in LSAT. another difference to consider to normalize the percentiles in these two tests is that LSAT test takers typically have more advanced Verbal/RC skills to begin with than GMAT test takers. that is, the pool itself is more able in language ability. so a 99% verbal score in gmat still is easier to get than a 99% score range in LSAT for the RC/LR sections, which is at least 75% of the test.

The GMAT is definitely less important as an application factor than the LSAT, true; MBA admissions in general are much more rounded in what they consider. (Although I've never heard anyone say that a 790 would hurt you -- I'd be curious where you heard that.) There is still a meaningful break at 750, in terms of top b-school chances, but yes, MBA programs are generally much more forgiving of a lower GMAT and/or a lower GPA.

GMAT verbal is definitely easier than LSAT, so I'd agree there. My only point is that the GMAT isn't exactly a breeze, and a 99th percentile score is impressive just like a 99th percentile LSAT score is -- they just measure different things.

[lawlorbust]

Hi all,

I was accepted to Columbia Business School in November to begin in August 2017. Law has always interested me, and my girlfriend (who works at a law school) is putting some pressure on me to try to apply to the law school by February 15th for a JD/MBA. I am very confident I'd do well on the LSAT (GMAT was 760 out of 800 - 99th percentile), but I'm afraid that my GPA of 3.35 would completely screw me over. Let's say I score a 172 or higher on LSAT, could that offset the low GPA? Would my admission to the business school have any effect? If chances are +30%, I'd be more than willing to not sleep for the next month and knock out a law school application. I'd also consider myself somewhat of an "expert" on b-school admissions. So I think that with some research, I could quickly get acclimated to law school admissions as well.

A little bit about my background.. I'm an accountant with a CFA and CPA, working in investment accounting for a large insurance company. I went to Univ of Delaware, honors program, graduating with 3.35 in Accounting and Finance. My post-MBA goal is investment management, but with a law degree, I think the venture capital/private equity space would be more accessible, or I could work in securities law. I also have great volunteer/extracurricular experiences. 28 years (at matriculation) white male w/ 4 years of professional work experience.

THANK YOU!

The JD part aside, it's very unlikely that'll you break into investment management either.

[appind]

i didn't realize that 760 gmat does seem to fall into the very lower bound of 99% for gmat test takers. i guess the point i was making is that 760 gmat is not substantially different than 730-730 gmat, which is 94-96%, even for top bschools HSW. you'd not be denied to HSW simply because your gmat was 730 and not 760. they are looking mainly for all roundedness so a high gmat percentile doesn't impress them much and a very high gmat of 790 or such may even work against an applicant in some cases. it make take test takers a big hump to go from 95% to 99% in LSAT but it's not such a big obstacle for gmat test takers, mainly because of the nature of the test.

i think in general the verbal portion of gmat is very easy compared to the RC/LR of lsat, not that they are testing for the exact same skills. RC though is clearly significantly harder for LSAT. if a high lsat scorer isn't able to get a high gmat score, it'd be mainly because gmat has the math portion. but other than that i think it's much easier for a high LSAT scorer to kill the gmat verbal than it's for a gmat high scorer in verbal portion to do well in LSAT. another difference to consider to normalize the percentiles in these two tests is that LSAT test takers typically have more advanced Verbal/RC skills to begin with than GMAT test takers. that is, the pool itself is more able in language ability. so a 99% verbal score in gmat still is easier to get than a 99% score range in LSAT for the RC/LR sections, which is at least 75% of the test.

The GMAT is definitely less important as an application factor than the LSAT, true; MBA admissions in general are much more rounded in what they consider. (Although I've never heard anyone say that a 790 would hurt you -- I'd be curious where you heard that.) There is still a meaningful break at 750, in terms of top b-school chances, but yes, MBA programs are generally much more forgiving of a lower GMAT and/or a lower GPA.

GMAT verbal is definitely easier than LSAT, so I'd agree there. My only point is that the GMAT isn't exactly a breeze, and a 99th percentile score is impressive just like a 99th percentile LSAT score is -- they just measure different things.

i went through the application process for one of the top 3 business schools at one point so have a first hand experience. i think scoring 99 percentile in gmat is much much easier for me than scoring 99 percentile in lsat. someone with very little experience in math, may think differently though. gmat took me just a few days of study, lsat years.

the way a 790 gmat may hurt someone at a top school is if they don't rid the adcomm of the notion that they are not bookish type elsewhere in their application through their resume and essays. if someone has 790 gmat and say 3.7+ gpa in engineering from a preftigious engineering school, but is sparse in terms of so called soft skills and leadership accomplishments in b school jargon, then for schools like hbs a 790 may make adcomm look at the applicant as a bookish/academic type. they'd be much more inclined to admit someone with same gpa but only 700-730 gmat and app essays focusing on outgoing and leadership qualities.

[echonov]

i went through the application process for one of the top 3 business schools at one point so have a first hand experience. i think scoring 99 percentile in gmat is much much easier for me than scoring 99 percentile in lsat. someone with very little experience in math, may think differently though. gmat took me just a few days of study, lsat years.

the way a 790 gmat may hurt someone at a top school is if they don't rid the adcomm of the notion that they are not bookish type elsewhere in their application through their resume and essays. if someone has 790 gmat and say 3.7+ gpa in engineering from a preftigious engineering school, but is sparse in terms of so called soft skills and leadership accomplishments in b school jargon, then for schools like hbs a 790 may make adcomm look at the applicant as a bookish/academic type. they'd be much more inclined to admit someone with same gpa but only 700-730 gmat and app essays focusing on outgoing and leadership qualities.

I've also been through the application process at several top business schools. Again, my only point is the "for me" clause in your second sentence. I've taken both, and I found the GMAT worse/more obnoxious by an order of magnitude -- I have plenty of experience in math and scored well on both tests in the end, I just found the GMAT to focus a lot more on "tricky" questions. I don't know if I'd say one is easier/harder, just because that seems like applying an objective standard to something that is inherently super subjective. Either way, if someone is scoring in the 99th percentile, it likely (although not definitely) means they're good at testing and would probably have a leg up on either test.

In your 790 example, what's hurting the applicant is that they don't have a record of soft skills and leadership accomplishments, not that they have a 790. I would be really surprised if you could find me a case where an adcomm would favor a lower score in the case of two otherwise identical applicants. The 790 doesn't hurt, it just doesn't help as much as, say, a 179 would in law school applications.