Are USC/UCLA possible ? Forum

[UVA2B]

I totally understand and I made it sound like a joke but my logic is that if I get a chance to go to ucla or USC and I
Screw up and land in a jobless or crap paying position then that's something I'll have to answer for it. I can do it, no matter what.

Again, confidence is great, but it doesn't actually pay the bills. Just to give you a more specific taste, I'm going to have approximately $120k in debt after graduation, which is pretty damn good, all things considered. But let's say that things don't go my way during OCI, so I don't get the biglaw job I was banking on. Now I still have $120k in debt, but my likely starting salary is $45-60k. In order to pay my debt off in 10 years, I need to make payments of around $1400 a month. That's 20-33% of my salary before taxes, which means that it's more like half my salary after tax.

Now, that's still manageable for me. But you're talking about taking on more than double my debt when you pay sticker price. So if you wanted to pay your loans off in 10 years, you'd need to make payments of closer to $3,000 a month. That's doable (not comfortable, but doable) on a six-figure salary. But if you miss the biglaw gravy train, you are literally incapable of keeping that payment schedule. And all the can-do attitude in the world won't fix that.

More than half of the class at UCLA and USC ends up not landing biglaw. Hard work isn't enough.

I understand, but what reason is there that OCI doesn't work out? I'm not trying to oversimplify the matter and say "just work hard". Because that itself is the hardest part. Your best effort might not be enough and you'd need to work to increase that capacity and that's no joke either. But I'm highly skeptical of this idea that it's not the best of the best going into those top positions.

My position is a little more extreme. It's do or die (not actually die). So For me it's not that im confident because I'm not. Idk how it'll turn out. I'm not confident in myself I'm confident in Hard sweaty bloody teary work, catch my drift?

It doesn't work out because getting the grades necessary to be in the 50% who end up with Biglaw (this is a bit simplistic because the top 50% of GPAs won't correlate perfectly with those who get Big law, but it's a decent proxy for determining your shot at the outcome you want when it's more or less a coin flip) has nothing and everything to do with hard work. Good grades in law school generally require hard work, intellect, and drive. These things are necessary (outside of a select few who are preternaturally disposed to writing law school exams), but they aren't necessarily sufficient. Plus BIglaw hiring is more holistic than simply having the right GPA from your school.

Do you understand how a forced curve works in law school? This is a foundational thing to understand before you understand why you can't moxie and sweat your way to the outcome you want when it's a coin flip chance (more or less) of getting Biglaw.

[Kewlaidxx]

I totally understand and I made it sound like a joke but my logic is that if I get a chance to go to ucla or USC and I
Screw up and land in a jobless or crap paying position then that's something I'll have to answer for it. I can do it, no matter what.

Again, confidence is great, but it doesn't actually pay the bills. Just to give you a more specific taste, I'm going to have approximately $120k in debt after graduation, which is pretty damn good, all things considered. But let's say that things don't go my way during OCI, so I don't get the biglaw job I was banking on. Now I still have $120k in debt, but my likely starting salary is $45-60k. In order to pay my debt off in 10 years, I need to make payments of around $1400 a month. That's 20-33% of my salary before taxes, which means that it's more like half my salary after tax.

Now, that's still manageable for me. But you're talking about taking on more than double my debt when you pay sticker price. So if you wanted to pay your loans off in 10 years, you'd need to make payments of closer to $3,000 a month. That's doable (not comfortable, but doable) on a six-figure salary. But if you miss the biglaw gravy train, you are literally incapable of keeping that payment schedule. And all the can-do attitude in the world won't fix that.

More than half of the class at UCLA and USC ends up not landing biglaw. Hard work isn't enough.

I understand, but what reason is there that OCI doesn't work out? I'm not trying to oversimplify the matter and say "just work hard". Because that itself is the hardest part. Your best effort might not be enough and you'd need to work to increase that capacity and that's no joke either. But I'm highly skeptical of this idea that it's not the best of the best going into those top positions.

My position is a little more extreme. It's do or die (not actually die). So For me it's not that im confident because I'm not. Idk how it'll turn out. I'm not confident in myself I'm confident in Hard sweaty bloody teary work, catch my drift?

It doesn't work out because getting the grades necessary to be in the 50% who end up with Biglaw (this is a bit simplistic because the top 50% of GPAs won't correlate perfectly with those who get Big law, but it's a decent proxy for determining your shot at the outcome you want when it's more or less a coin flip) has nothing and everything to do with hard work. Good grades in law school generally require hard work, intellect, and drive. These things are necessary (outside of a select few who are preternaturally disposed to writing law school exams), but they aren't necessarily sufficient. Plus BIglaw hiring is more holistic than simply having the right GPA from your school.

Do you understand how a forced curve works in law school? This is a foundational thing to understand before you understand why you can't moxie and sweat your way to the outcome you want when it's a coin flip chance (more or less) of getting Biglaw.

My understanding is that those who write. The exam based on how the professor thinks it should be written set the curve right?

[cavalier1138]

I understand, but what reason is there that OCI doesn't work out? I'm not trying to oversimplify the matter and say "just work hard". Because that itself is the hardest part. Your best effort might not be enough and you'd need to work to increase that capacity and that's no joke either. But I'm highly skeptical of this idea that it's not the best of the best going into those top positions.

My position is a little more extreme. It's do or die (not actually die). So For me it's not that im confident because I'm not. Idk how it'll turn out. I'm not confident in myself I'm confident in Hard sweaty bloody teary work, catch my drift?

I'm confident in your potential classmates. I think that you're vastly underestimating the intelligence and drive of the other few hundred people who are going to have the same goals as you do.

Remember, law school grades are curved. So when you say that you're going to work your way into the top 10% of your class, you are also saying that 90% of the class won't work as hard as you do. And if your best effort actually isn't enough, you won't have the chance to "increase that capacity," because your 1L grades will already be set in stone. If hard work was the difference between an A and a B on an exam, then the top students would always be the ones who put in the most time studying. And that's just not the case.

[Kewlaidxx]

I understand, but what reason is there that OCI doesn't work out? I'm not trying to oversimplify the matter and say "just work hard". Because that itself is the hardest part. Your best effort might not be enough and you'd need to work to increase that capacity and that's no joke either. But I'm highly skeptical of this idea that it's not the best of the best going into those top positions.

My position is a little more extreme. It's do or die (not actually die). So For me it's not that im confident because I'm not. Idk how it'll turn out. I'm not confident in myself I'm confident in Hard sweaty bloody teary work, catch my drift?

I'm confident in your potential classmates. I think that you're vastly underestimating the intelligence and drive of the other few hundred people who are going to have the same goals as you do.

Remember, law school grades are curved. So when you say that you're going to work your way into the top 10% of your class, you are also saying that 90% of the class won't work as hard as you do. And if your best effort actually isn't enough, you won't have the chance to "increase that capacity," because your 1L grades will already be set in stone. If hard work was the difference between an A and a B on an exam, then the top students would always be the ones who put in the most time studying. And that's just not the case.

Exactly. And again, I'm not confident in my ability to wipe out 90% of my class in terms of grades. I am , again, confident that if I do better than 90% then I'll win. I'm not underestimating these people, after all, I'm the one going in with the splitter profile.

[cavalier1138]

Exactly. And again, I'm not confident in my ability to wipe out 90% of my class in terms of grades. I am , again, confident that if I do better than 90% then I'll win. I'm not underestimating these people, after all, I'm the one going in with the splitter profile.

But you just contradicted yourself. If you aren't confident that you're going to place in the top 10% (and you shouldn't be), then stop calculating your outcomes based on what it looks like for the top 10%.

The bottom half of the class is almost entirely composed of people who didn't want to be there and who didn't think they would be.

[UVA2B]

My understanding is that those who write. The exam based on how the professor thinks it should be written set the curve right?

I can't explain this any better than I have before, so I'm just going to quote myself on this exact issue.

It's not that it's all based on one exam exactly, it's that you're working on a forced curve. So while drive, work ethic, and intelligence are necessary, they aren't sufficient to guarantee you end up on the right side of that median. Imagine you're given a fact pattern that has 16 different legal issues that should be discussed. You identify 13 of them, and discuss them to 60% of what the professor was looking for. Objectively you may have done pretty well on that exam. But then it so happens that this was a pretty easy exam and 60% of your classmates identified 14 issues and discussed them to 75% of what the professor was looking for. You know what just happened? You very possibly ended up below median on that exam. It wasn't because you underprepared, and it wasn't because you aren't smart enough. The reality is too many of your classmates either identified issues you missed in the fact pattern or articulated the legal issues slightly better than you did, but as a result your grade drops to a B (or whatever grade is considered below median at that school).

And just because you sound very optimistic and might think to yourself, "well why am I not identifying all 16 issues and why am I not able to discuss 100% of what the professor wanted to see?" I'll just answer that question now. Few to no students will ever accomplish this. One of my 1L professors said 70% on an exam is fantastic, 60% is really good, 50% is still doing well, 40% meh, 30% you're starting to get in trouble. Separately he mentioned that the best raw grade he's ever given was an 85%, and he felt like the student was sitting on his shoulder when he wrote the exam.

ETA: The numbers in the first paragraph are entirely illustrative and grading will be significantly more nuanced than that, but it paints the picture of what grading will look like in law school

[Kewlaidxx]

Look I totally get what you guys r saying. some of you guys are in the top schools in the country. It's obvious that you're facing competition from the best. But there is this notion that because only 10% make it, then you're more likely that not to miss the mark. All things equal, you are definitely correct. In reference to the curve explanation you gave, why would you only identify 14/16 ideas while a classmate who has access to the same resources get 16/16? Sure, getting an A on a scale where an A is say 14-16 ideas identified, is easier than a scale dependent on who writes the best papers.

This isn't aimed at you guys...but let us put aside the kindness for a second and I swear I won't be offended if you guys clap back hard at me for this, but I think it's a tough and deterministic view you guys r taking on this. If I do my BEST and I miss more things than the guy next to me, then he's obviously BETTER...why should I get the better grade? It's a competition right? Maybe I could have gone to one more office hour or asked one more question but I didn't.

My poli sci professor who taught undergrad "law" courses at UCI (Professor S. Sellgren) also graded us on a forced curve (she taught at UCI Law and wanted to prepare us for the grading scheme). I would get a B and my friend got an A. I looked at his paper and it was considerably better and he got the better grade just as he should have.

This obviously makes it Greatly harder to make good grades but it only means you have to try harder. And sometimes we are afraid to think that we can tear our asses and not make it, so we look for other reasons, but if it came down to you and I, the hardest and smartest of us will take the A and I don't think I'm smarter than any of you and I don't think I'm dumber, but I will rip myself to shreds and if it isn't good enough, then I will shake your hand and give you the figurative trophy lol.


By putting this whole scenario in this view that I've described, I am in no way trying to simplify the bullets you guys sweat working your asses off. And I don't have 1% of the law school knowledge that you guys have. But some of the people on this forum and in law school itself, will do an unthinkable amount of work and not make it because someone in their class did more work, understood it better somehow, or they got lucky...but that's how life works...no one wants to faiI but that doesn't mean a thing. I don't think I'm entitled to a better grade, nor do I think that I'm some whiz who will knock the curve out the park. My grades show that I'm a little above average at BEST. In relation to those at the top schools, I'm a chump. But I will do my absolute best to work smarter and harder towards my goal. Whether one of you do better is up to you and whether or not you or I go the extra mile. all I'm trying to say is that it's going to be a hell of a fight. That's all.

If I put in all the work in the world and I fail, it's not your fault for doing better, it's my fault and it's something I'll have to answer for.

[UVA2B]

Do you actually get what we're saying, or are you continuing to qualify what we're saying with your continued belief that how you perform on an exam entirely relies on how hard you worked to get there? And this has nothing to do with where we go to school: this is a reality EVERYWHERE in law schools (outside Yale because Yale basically doesn't do grades for most of the all-important 1L year).

Not only did you misread my hypothetical of your law school exam, but you failed to understand the implications of it. A law school exam typically involves a very nuanced, easy to miss fact pattern that has legal analysis issues buried in the facts that you have to derive from them. Professors write the exams (to the extent law school profs are a monolith, which they aren't, and some will do it slightly differently) with a bunch of legal concepts within that doctrinal course (e.g. contracts, torts, criminal law, etc.) that they're looking for you to discuss. They won't be entirely staring you in the face beyond your ability to apply the black letter law to a new set of facts if you're able to identify there is a legal issue in that given subset of facts. And there are more reasons than I can point to why you might miss a legal issue that needs to be discussed. It might be oversight because you focused on more apparent legal issues more heavily, it might be because you never fully grasped that concept and how it can manifest in a differing set of facts, or maybe you just dropped the ball and failed to see it in the fact pattern. Also important to remember that I said no one identifies everything, and equally important, law profs writing the exams might not even realize every potential legal concept that they've inferred in the fact pattern (and might even give you a few extra points if you provide persuasive analysis why that legal concept is relevant in that fact pattern, but usually law students are just stupidly trying to stretch the legal concepts to put more words on a page in a time-pressured window).

You're naive if you think getting good grades and getting a desired outcome is just to try harder until it happens. You'll be barely more than a blind squirrel for the majority of your first semester as you try to figure out how to synthesize the materials you're learning without any feedback that you're fully grasping the material. The entirety of the feedback you receive (unless your prof is nice enough to do a midterm, preferably that won't affect your grade, to gauge where you are in the course material) will come after you've already finished the time-pressured exam where you're just trying to put down everything you can think of onto the page before time expires.

If you afford people like Cav and myself, along with any other posters willing to help you in understanding this, the amount of deference you should considering we've been through it and understand the intricate realities of law school, then maybe you should take a step back and realize that your ideas about how to approach this decision (and why it's a perfectly acceptable result to nab USC or UCLA at sticker) are misguided and need to be revisited and revised.

Everyone in law school (with possibly a few exceptions that don't actually want to be there) will work hard. They will all be smart. They will all be striving to get ahead and get the types of jobs you want. You want to bet on yourself in outworking and outperforming at least half of them and getting a coveted Biglaw job. You're willing to stake $300k on that in nondischargeable debt. That debt would literally hang over your head as a crippling cloud as you can't do any of the things you'll eventually want to do financially.

Going to a place like USC or UCLA is a great outcome if you can minimize cost to the extent you're able (like you can't help that your GPA is less than desirable). That means you should be focused on a smart application strategy so as to maximize negotiation leverage.

[Kewlaidxx]

UVA I get that you guys know this topic better than I do and I'm not here to huff and puff and try n say that you guys don't work hard or that it's just hard work, I might be missing something here... I'm just having a hard time understanding. I'm here to learn. Maybe first I should put aside these ideas I have and get my first step in order.

So I have that crap GPA (3.28) and a 169. I'm hoping that discussing my business in an addendum to my GPA or as part of my personal statement hold some kind of weight...and I'm hoping that my application can be perfect aside from my scores, and that I can frame it that way.

USC and UCLA....if you would be so kind as to advise me on my next step...Do I get my applications in within this week or do I retake and risk it for the biscuit?

Again, thank you guys for taking the time here to go back and forth. I hope I haven't offended in any way and if I have, I apologize...I'm just in a tight spot now.

[UVA2B]

Ok, I'll try to help you to maximize your options:

1. Retake. Even a 170 will help if you can get it. Forget about this "January is so late" BS. If you don't have good options when the application cycle is over, you apply again next cycle. If you have the capacity to improve on the LSAT, that will only help (with diminishing returns when you get in the 175ish range in your specific situation). If you score lower, you still have that 169, which is all the schools you're worried about will care about. You're still exactly where you started, plus you won't have to wonder if you could've improved your LSAT and your chances of an outcome you want.

2. Once you have that retake finished, apply to USC, UCLA, UCI, and the T13 at least from Penn and below, but I would even include Columbia, Chicago, and NYU because you want as many potential negotiating chips as possible when the time comes. Get your application solid. Don't write an addendum because you ran a business during college. It won't help your application, and it could hurt if it comes off poorly. GPA addenda are rarely worth it, and your situation is not one worthy of it. Write a compelling PS, make your resume flawless, make sure your LORs are academic and reflect highly of you (to overcome your GPA). Once all of that is done, and you've submitted your applications (whether that is in January or next cycle), you wait.

3. Schools will start to accept, waitlist, or deny you (in this tier of schools denials are pretty rare, but they happen). Once you have acceptances, start figuring out if any of them are offering merit-based tuition discounts. If they are/aren't, start using the ones that are to negotiate with the ones that aren't or are for less. If USC is offering you $20k/year discount, and you have an acceptance to Northwestern, bring the Northwestern acceptance and see if USC will bump it up. Use your judgment to figure out which school will reconsider their aid package based on other aid packages. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Don't stop negotiating until you have run out of negotiation options, and decide which option is best for your goals. Also think long and hard whether that option is good enough to take the risk on the investment you're about to make (based on your posting, I feel like you'll fail to fully do this, but it's a critical step in making a financially responsible decision. This is an investment not that indifferent from buying stock. The only difference is you're debt-financing it and it's somewhat in your control whether the investment works out).

4. If you're struggling with this process, come back when you have options, or you have more directly relevant questions, because the TLS community is generally very receptive to helping people with these kinds of problems. You've pushed my patience a bit, but I'm still sitting here on a Sunday night trying to help you figure out how to handle this entire law school admissions process. We'll help, so long as you're receptive to the advice you're given.

[Kewlaidxx]

Ok, I'll try to help you to maximize your options:

1. Retake. Even a 170 will help if you can get it. Forget about this "January is so late" BS. If you don't have good options when the application cycle is over, you apply again next cycle. If you have the capacity to improve on the LSAT, that will only help (with diminishing returns when you get in the 175ish range in your specific situation). If you score lower, you still have that 169, which is all the schools you're worried about will care about. You're still exactly where you started, plus you won't have to wonder if you could've improved your LSAT and your chances of an outcome you want.

2. Once you have that retake finished, apply to USC, UCLA, UCI, and the T13 at least from Penn and below, but I would even include Columbia, Chicago, and NYU because you want as many potential negotiating chips as possible when the time comes. Get your application solid. Don't write an addendum because you ran a business during college. It won't help your application, and it could hurt if it comes off poorly. GPA addenda are rarely worth it, and your situation is not one worthy of it. Write a compelling PS, make your resume flawless, make sure your LORs are academic and reflect highly of you (to overcome your GPA). Once all of that is done, and you've submitted your applications (whether that is in January or next cycle), you wait.

3. Schools will start to accept, waitlist, or deny you (in this tier of schools denials are pretty rare, but they happen). Once you have acceptances, start figuring out if any of them are offering merit-based tuition discounts. If they are/aren't, start using the ones that are to negotiate with the ones that aren't or are for less. If USC is offering you $20k/year discount, and you have an acceptance to Northwestern, bring the Northwestern acceptance and see if USC will bump it up. Use your judgment to figure out which school will reconsider their aid package based on other aid packages. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Don't stop negotiating until you have run out of negotiation options, and decide which option is best for your goals. Also think long and hard whether that option is good enough to take the risk on the investment you're about to make (based on your posting, I feel like you'll fail to fully do this, but it's a critical step in making a financially responsible decision. This is an investment not that indifferent from buying stock. The only difference is you're debt-financing it and it's somewhat in your control whether the investment works out).

4. If you're struggling with this process, come back when you have options, or you have more directly relevant questions, because the TLS community is generally very receptive to helping people with these kinds of problems. You've pushed my patience a bit, but I'm still sitting here on a Sunday night trying to help you figure out how to handle this entire law school admissions process. We'll help, so long as you're receptive to the advice you're given.

Ah you're great. So September vs December isn't a big deal in relation to when I apply? A 169 now vs a 170 later , a 170 is still favorable?

[UVA2B]

Ok, I'll try to help you to maximize your options:

1. Retake. Even a 170 will help if you can get it. Forget about this "January is so late" BS. If you don't have good options when the application cycle is over, you apply again next cycle. If you have the capacity to improve on the LSAT, that will only help (with diminishing returns when you get in the 175ish range in your specific situation). If you score lower, you still have that 169, which is all the schools you're worried about will care about. You're still exactly where you started, plus you won't have to wonder if you could've improved your LSAT and your chances of an outcome you want.

2. Once you have that retake finished, apply to USC, UCLA, UCI, and the T13 at least from Penn and below, but I would even include Columbia, Chicago, and NYU because you want as many potential negotiating chips as possible when the time comes. Get your application solid. Don't write an addendum because you ran a business during college. It won't help your application, and it could hurt if it comes off poorly. GPA addenda are rarely worth it, and your situation is not one worthy of it. Write a compelling PS, make your resume flawless, make sure your LORs are academic and reflect highly of you (to overcome your GPA). Once all of that is done, and you've submitted your applications (whether that is in January or next cycle), you wait.

3. Schools will start to accept, waitlist, or deny you (in this tier of schools denials are pretty rare, but they happen). Once you have acceptances, start figuring out if any of them are offering merit-based tuition discounts. If they are/aren't, start using the ones that are to negotiate with the ones that aren't or are for less. If USC is offering you $20k/year discount, and you have an acceptance to Northwestern, bring the Northwestern acceptance and see if USC will bump it up. Use your judgment to figure out which school will reconsider their aid package based on other aid packages. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Don't stop negotiating until you have run out of negotiation options, and decide which option is best for your goals. Also think long and hard whether that option is good enough to take the risk on the investment you're about to make (based on your posting, I feel like you'll fail to fully do this, but it's a critical step in making a financially responsible decision. This is an investment not that indifferent from buying stock. The only difference is you're debt-financing it and it's somewhat in your control whether the investment works out).

4. If you're struggling with this process, come back when you have options, or you have more directly relevant questions, because the TLS community is generally very receptive to helping people with these kinds of problems. You've pushed my patience a bit, but I'm still sitting here on a Sunday night trying to help you figure out how to handle this entire law school admissions process. We'll help, so long as you're receptive to the advice you're given.

Ah you're great. So September vs December isn't a big deal in relation to when I apply? A 169 now vs a 170 later , a 170 is still favorable?

Yes, a 170 is always better than a 169 if you follow the rest of my advice. and a 171 is better than a 170, etc.

[Kewlaidxx]

Ok, I'll try to help you to maximize your options:

1. Retake. Even a 170 will help if you can get it. Forget about this "January is so late" BS. If you don't have good options when the application cycle is over, you apply again next cycle. If you have the capacity to improve on the LSAT, that will only help (with diminishing returns when you get in the 175ish range in your specific situation). If you score lower, you still have that 169, which is all the schools you're worried about will care about. You're still exactly where you started, plus you won't have to wonder if you could've improved your LSAT and your chances of an outcome you want.

2. Once you have that retake finished, apply to USC, UCLA, UCI, and the T13 at least from Penn and below, but I would even include Columbia, Chicago, and NYU because you want as many potential negotiating chips as possible when the time comes. Get your application solid. Don't write an addendum because you ran a business during college. It won't help your application, and it could hurt if it comes off poorly. GPA addenda are rarely worth it, and your situation is not one worthy of it. Write a compelling PS, make your resume flawless, make sure your LORs are academic and reflect highly of you (to overcome your GPA). Once all of that is done, and you've submitted your applications (whether that is in January or next cycle), you wait.

3. Schools will start to accept, waitlist, or deny you (in this tier of schools denials are pretty rare, but they happen). Once you have acceptances, start figuring out if any of them are offering merit-based tuition discounts. If they are/aren't, start using the ones that are to negotiate with the ones that aren't or are for less. If USC is offering you $20k/year discount, and you have an acceptance to Northwestern, bring the Northwestern acceptance and see if USC will bump it up. Use your judgment to figure out which school will reconsider their aid package based on other aid packages. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Don't stop negotiating until you have run out of negotiation options, and decide which option is best for your goals. Also think long and hard whether that option is good enough to take the risk on the investment you're about to make (based on your posting, I feel like you'll fail to fully do this, but it's a critical step in making a financially responsible decision. This is an investment not that indifferent from buying stock. The only difference is you're debt-financing it and it's somewhat in your control whether the investment works out).

4. If you're struggling with this process, come back when you have options, or you have more directly relevant questions, because the TLS community is generally very receptive to helping people with these kinds of problems. You've pushed my patience a bit, but I'm still sitting here on a Sunday night trying to help you figure out how to handle this entire law school admissions process. We'll help, so long as you're receptive to the advice you're given.

Ah you're great. So September vs December isn't a big deal in relation to when I apply? A 169 now vs a 170 later , a 170 is still favorable?

Yes, a 170 is always better than a 169 if you follow the rest of my advice. and a 171 is better than a 170, etc.

Great. And just to add, this is my last push. I've already sat out a cycle and I can't sit out again, all this time off is depressing. im going to follow your advice to the letter, but next cycle isn't possible. Does this change anything?

[UVA2B]

Ok, I'll try to help you to maximize your options:

1. Retake. Even a 170 will help if you can get it. Forget about this "January is so late" BS. If you don't have good options when the application cycle is over, you apply again next cycle. If you have the capacity to improve on the LSAT, that will only help (with diminishing returns when you get in the 175ish range in your specific situation). If you score lower, you still have that 169, which is all the schools you're worried about will care about. You're still exactly where you started, plus you won't have to wonder if you could've improved your LSAT and your chances of an outcome you want.

2. Once you have that retake finished, apply to USC, UCLA, UCI, and the T13 at least from Penn and below, but I would even include Columbia, Chicago, and NYU because you want as many potential negotiating chips as possible when the time comes. Get your application solid. Don't write an addendum because you ran a business during college. It won't help your application, and it could hurt if it comes off poorly. GPA addenda are rarely worth it, and your situation is not one worthy of it. Write a compelling PS, make your resume flawless, make sure your LORs are academic and reflect highly of you (to overcome your GPA). Once all of that is done, and you've submitted your applications (whether that is in January or next cycle), you wait.

3. Schools will start to accept, waitlist, or deny you (in this tier of schools denials are pretty rare, but they happen). Once you have acceptances, start figuring out if any of them are offering merit-based tuition discounts. If they are/aren't, start using the ones that are to negotiate with the ones that aren't or are for less. If USC is offering you $20k/year discount, and you have an acceptance to Northwestern, bring the Northwestern acceptance and see if USC will bump it up. Use your judgment to figure out which school will reconsider their aid package based on other aid packages. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Don't stop negotiating until you have run out of negotiation options, and decide which option is best for your goals. Also think long and hard whether that option is good enough to take the risk on the investment you're about to make (based on your posting, I feel like you'll fail to fully do this, but it's a critical step in making a financially responsible decision. This is an investment not that indifferent from buying stock. The only difference is you're debt-financing it and it's somewhat in your control whether the investment works out).

4. If you're struggling with this process, come back when you have options, or you have more directly relevant questions, because the TLS community is generally very receptive to helping people with these kinds of problems. You've pushed my patience a bit, but I'm still sitting here on a Sunday night trying to help you figure out how to handle this entire law school admissions process. We'll help, so long as you're receptive to the advice you're given.

Ah you're great. So September vs December isn't a big deal in relation to when I apply? A 169 now vs a 170 later , a 170 is still favorable?

Yes, a 170 is always better than a 169 if you follow the rest of my advice. and a 171 is better than a 170, etc.

Great. And just to add, this is my last push. I've already sat out a cycle and I can't sit out again, all this time off is depressing. im going to follow your advice to the letter, but next cycle isn't possible. Does this change anything?

Yes, because you're setting arbitrary and unnecessary roadblocks to starting this career on the right foot. Stop doing that.

[Kewlaidxx]

Ok, I'll try to help you to maximize your options:

1. Retake. Even a 170 will help if you can get it. Forget about this "January is so late" BS. If you don't have good options when the application cycle is over, you apply again next cycle. If you have the capacity to improve on the LSAT, that will only help (with diminishing returns when you get in the 175ish range in your specific situation). If you score lower, you still have that 169, which is all the schools you're worried about will care about. You're still exactly where you started, plus you won't have to wonder if you could've improved your LSAT and your chances of an outcome you want.

2. Once you have that retake finished, apply to USC, UCLA, UCI, and the T13 at least from Penn and below, but I would even include Columbia, Chicago, and NYU because you want as many potential negotiating chips as possible when the time comes. Get your application solid. Don't write an addendum because you ran a business during college. It won't help your application, and it could hurt if it comes off poorly. GPA addenda are rarely worth it, and your situation is not one worthy of it. Write a compelling PS, make your resume flawless, make sure your LORs are academic and reflect highly of you (to overcome your GPA). Once all of that is done, and you've submitted your applications (whether that is in January or next cycle), you wait.

3. Schools will start to accept, waitlist, or deny you (in this tier of schools denials are pretty rare, but they happen). Once you have acceptances, start figuring out if any of them are offering merit-based tuition discounts. If they are/aren't, start using the ones that are to negotiate with the ones that aren't or are for less. If USC is offering you $20k/year discount, and you have an acceptance to Northwestern, bring the Northwestern acceptance and see if USC will bump it up. Use your judgment to figure out which school will reconsider their aid package based on other aid packages. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Don't stop negotiating until you have run out of negotiation options, and decide which option is best for your goals. Also think long and hard whether that option is good enough to take the risk on the investment you're about to make (based on your posting, I feel like you'll fail to fully do this, but it's a critical step in making a financially responsible decision. This is an investment not that indifferent from buying stock. The only difference is you're debt-financing it and it's somewhat in your control whether the investment works out).

4. If you're struggling with this process, come back when you have options, or you have more directly relevant questions, because the TLS community is generally very receptive to helping people with these kinds of problems. You've pushed my patience a bit, but I'm still sitting here on a Sunday night trying to help you figure out how to handle this entire law school admissions process. We'll help, so long as you're receptive to the advice you're given.

Ah you're great. So September vs December isn't a big deal in relation to when I apply? A 169 now vs a 170 later , a 170 is still favorable?

Yes, a 170 is always better than a 169 if you follow the rest of my advice. and a 171 is better than a 170, etc.

Great. And just to add, this is my last push. I've already sat out a cycle and I can't sit out again, all this time off is depressing. im going to follow your advice to the letter, but next cycle isn't possible. Does this change anything?

Yes, because you're setting arbitrary and unnecessary roadblocks to starting this career on the right foot. Stop doing that.

I understand what you're saying and why, but please believe me that another year off isn't feasible. I know it's my future and another year means jack compared to the rest of my life and I wish I could just retake up until next year and assure a victory but some of this will have to be up to chance for me. I really can't. But say I score a 170 in December and I apply this cycle.

[UVA2B]

Best of luck. Come back when you have actual options and want to approach the rest of your career with maturity, rational thought, and financial logic. We can help when you have all of that.

[Gitaroo_Dude]

Don't have time to go through the last page, but just as a general data point I'm attending UCLA and got in with 168/3.4. If you have a good application packet put together you'll have a decent shot at UCLA; USC I can't speak to because they seemed like GPA sticklers last cycle and I dunno what they'd make of a 3.2 this year. Feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions.

Also, just to piggyback on what I imagine UVA and Cavalier have already said, do not expect to simply out-hustle your classmates here. I too attended UC Irvine for my UG and there is a HUGE disparity between the collective intelligence of peers there and here. I feel pretty confident saying that you will not have experienced the kind of shock that comes from being surrounded by people as smart and in many cases smarter than you are. It is disorienting and intimidating at first. And once the first impression subsides you realize that pretty much everyone is able to work hard, AND work smart.

[pricon]

Look I totally get what you guys r saying. some of you guys are in the top schools in the country. It's obvious that you're facing competition from the best. But there is this notion that because only 10% make it, then you're more likely that not to miss the mark. All things equal, you are definitely correct. In reference to the curve explanation you gave, why would you only identify 14/16 ideas while a classmate who has access to the same resources get 16/16? Sure, getting an A on a scale where an A is say 14-16 ideas identified, is easier than a scale dependent on who writes the best papers.

This isn't aimed at you guys...but let us put aside the kindness for a second and I swear I won't be offended if you guys clap back hard at me for this, but I think it's a tough and deterministic view you guys r taking on this. If I do my BEST and I miss more things than the guy next to me, then he's obviously BETTER...why should I get the better grade? It's a competition right? Maybe I could have gone to one more office hour or asked one more question but I didn't.

My poli sci professor who taught undergrad "law" courses at UCI (Professor S. Sellgren) also graded us on a forced curve (she taught at UCI Law and wanted to prepare us for the grading scheme). I would get a B and my friend got an A. I looked at his paper and it was considerably better and he got the better grade just as he should have.

This obviously makes it Greatly harder to make good grades but it only means you have to try harder. And sometimes we are afraid to think that we can tear our asses and not make it, so we look for other reasons, but if it came down to you and I, the hardest and smartest of us will take the A and I don't think I'm smarter than any of you and I don't think I'm dumber, but I will rip myself to shreds and if it isn't good enough, then I will shake your hand and give you the figurative trophy lol.


By putting this whole scenario in this view that I've described, I am in no way trying to simplify the bullets you guys sweat working your asses off. And I don't have 1% of the law school knowledge that you guys have. But some of the people on this forum and in law school itself, will do an unthinkable amount of work and not make it because someone in their class did more work, understood it better somehow, or they got lucky...but that's how life works...no one wants to faiI but that doesn't mean a thing. I don't think I'm entitled to a better grade, nor do I think that I'm some whiz who will knock the curve out the park. My grades show that I'm a little above average at BEST. In relation to those at the top schools, I'm a chump. But I will do my absolute best to work smarter and harder towards my goal. Whether one of you do better is up to you and whether or not you or I go the extra mile. all I'm trying to say is that it's going to be a hell of a fight. That's all.

If I put in all the work in the world and I fail, it's not your fault for doing better, it's my fault and it's something I'll have to answer for.

Why not start doing this now by raising your LSAT up another five points? It's easy to say, "Yeah, I'll prove what I'm worth . . . tomorrow!"

[Kewlaidxx]

Look I totally get what you guys r saying. some of you guys are in the top schools in the country. It's obvious that you're facing competition from the best. But there is this notion that because only 10% make it, then you're more likely that not to miss the mark. All things equal, you are definitely correct. In reference to the curve explanation you gave, why would you only identify 14/16 ideas while a classmate who has access to the same resources get 16/16? Sure, getting an A on a scale where an A is say 14-16 ideas identified, is easier than a scale dependent on who writes the best papers.

This isn't aimed at you guys...but let us put aside the kindness for a second and I swear I won't be offended if you guys clap back hard at me for this, but I think it's a tough and deterministic view you guys r taking on this. If I do my BEST and I miss more things than the guy next to me, then he's obviously BETTER...why should I get the better grade? It's a competition right? Maybe I could have gone to one more office hour or asked one more question but I didn't.

My poli sci professor who taught undergrad "law" courses at UCI (Professor S. Sellgren) also graded us on a forced curve (she taught at UCI Law and wanted to prepare us for the grading scheme). I would get a B and my friend got an A. I looked at his paper and it was considerably better and he got the better grade just as he should have.

This obviously makes it Greatly harder to make good grades but it only means you have to try harder. And sometimes we are afraid to think that we can tear our asses and not make it, so we look for other reasons, but if it came down to you and I, the hardest and smartest of us will take the A and I don't think I'm smarter than any of you and I don't think I'm dumber, but I will rip myself to shreds and if it isn't good enough, then I will shake your hand and give you the figurative trophy lol.


By putting this whole scenario in this view that I've described, I am in no way trying to simplify the bullets you guys sweat working your asses off. And I don't have 1% of the law school knowledge that you guys have. But some of the people on this forum and in law school itself, will do an unthinkable amount of work and not make it because someone in their class did more work, understood it better somehow, or they got lucky...but that's how life works...no one wants to faiI but that doesn't mean a thing. I don't think I'm entitled to a better grade, nor do I think that I'm some whiz who will knock the curve out the park. My grades show that I'm a little above average at BEST. In relation to those at the top schools, I'm a chump. But I will do my absolute best to work smarter and harder towards my goal. Whether one of you do better is up to you and whether or not you or I go the extra mile. all I'm trying to say is that it's going to be a hell of a fight. That's all.

If I put in all the work in the world and I fail, it's not your fault for doing better, it's my fault and it's something I'll have to answer for.

Why not start doing this now by raising your LSAT up another five points? It's easy to say, "Yeah, I'll prove what I'm worth . . . tomorrow!"

It is easy to say. And my score went up 10 points not five. So maybe it's easy to do as well. Maybe I should layed off the pot the night before. Oh well, I'll just wait a few years and take the LSAT until I get a 180 and maybe then I'd have the seal of approval from here to apply. Or maybe some new restriction will arise. Very low energy.

[pricon]

Whatever that restriction would be, you would have another excuse for it.

[mcmand]

Ok, I'll try to help you to maximize your options:

1. Retake. Even a 170 will help if you can get it. Forget about this "January is so late" BS. If you don't have good options when the application cycle is over, you apply again next cycle. If you have the capacity to improve on the LSAT, that will only help (with diminishing returns when you get in the 175ish range in your specific situation). If you score lower, you still have that 169, which is all the schools you're worried about will care about. You're still exactly where you started, plus you won't have to wonder if you could've improved your LSAT and your chances of an outcome you want.

2. Once you have that retake finished, apply to USC, UCLA, UCI, and the T13 at least from Penn and below, but I would even include Columbia, Chicago, and NYU because you want as many potential negotiating chips as possible when the time comes. Get your application solid. Don't write an addendum because you ran a business during college. It won't help your application, and it could hurt if it comes off poorly. GPA addenda are rarely worth it, and your situation is not one worthy of it. Write a compelling PS, make your resume flawless, make sure your LORs are academic and reflect highly of you (to overcome your GPA). Once all of that is done, and you've submitted your applications (whether that is in January or next cycle), you wait.

3. Schools will start to accept, waitlist, or deny you (in this tier of schools denials are pretty rare, but they happen). Once you have acceptances, start figuring out if any of them are offering merit-based tuition discounts. If they are/aren't, start using the ones that are to negotiate with the ones that aren't or are for less. If USC is offering you $20k/year discount, and you have an acceptance to Northwestern, bring the Northwestern acceptance and see if USC will bump it up. Use your judgment to figure out which school will reconsider their aid package based on other aid packages. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Don't stop negotiating until you have run out of negotiation options, and decide which option is best for your goals. Also think long and hard whether that option is good enough to take the risk on the investment you're about to make (based on your posting, I feel like you'll fail to fully do this, but it's a critical step in making a financially responsible decision. This is an investment not that indifferent from buying stock. The only difference is you're debt-financing it and it's somewhat in your control whether the investment works out).

4. If you're struggling with this process, come back when you have options, or you have more directly relevant questions, because the TLS community is generally very receptive to helping people with these kinds of problems. You've pushed my patience a bit, but I'm still sitting here on a Sunday night trying to help you figure out how to handle this entire law school admissions process. We'll help, so long as you're receptive to the advice you're given.

Ah you're great. So September vs December isn't a big deal in relation to when I apply? A 169 now vs a 170 later , a 170 is still favorable?

Yes, a 170 is always better than a 169 if you follow the rest of my advice. and a 171 is better than a 170, etc.

Great. And just to add, this is my last push. I've already sat out a cycle and I can't sit out again, all this time off is depressing. im going to follow your advice to the letter, but next cycle isn't possible. Does this change anything?

Yes, because you're setting arbitrary and unnecessary roadblocks to starting this career on the right foot. Stop doing that.

I understand what you're saying and why, but please believe me that another year off isn't feasible. I know it's my future and another year means jack compared to the rest of my life and I wish I could just retake up until next year and assure a victory but some of this will have to be up to chance for me. I really can't. But say I score a 170 in December and I apply this cycle.

Are you middle-aged and concerned about age discrimination when you try to get a job during/after law school? If the answer is no, you can always wait a year.

Don't let the mad urgency and rush of prepping for this push you into bad decisions. The rest of your life will be vastly better if you think you have the ability to move that LSAT score a little, or if you get a bad cycle of apps and want to re-apply.

I say this as someone who did allow some urgency to pressure me into going into it without retaking. I went to a decent law school (T30), I got a biglaw job, but more than 70% of my classmates DID NOT get biglaw jobs, even those with better grades/more accolades than me. When other posters say it's "holistic," it means literally anything could affect the hiring decision after you get past being screened for grades, journal, etc. It borders on arbitrary. I still don't understand how I lucked into this. And I still have $170k in debt hanging over me (that includes interest that capitalized so far). If I could do it over, I'd do what it takes to nudge that down even just $10k. I'm not eager for when these loan payments start, because that's money out of my pocket that I could be putting to other uses, like saving, spending on things I actually want to buy, repaying other debts, etc. And if I didn't have this job? I would be in a world of hurt unless I was on PSLF and IBR, and even then it's still money I'd rather keep every month.

In sum:
Calm the f down. Your life will not stop if you are not in law school this time next year. You will be the prudent and smart person for having waited.

Go ahead and apply, and go ahead and retake, and when you have all your responses from schools and your score back, re-evaluate, and take your emotional and confirmation biases out to the woodshed when you do. This is a very critical decision that you cannot rush. People bankrupt themselves with this kind of debt and permanently ruin their credit and lives. They weren't bad people who didn't work hard or didn't care enough. Sometimes life deals you a bad hand. Having $300k debt (or even $170k debt, or $100k debt) makes that bad hand monumentally worse. Use your head and take our advice.

[Kewlaidxx]

Whatever that restriction would be, you would have another excuse for it.

You're literally the one making excuses as to why I can't do what I want to do. I'm not the one making excuses you are. I have no problems.

[Kewlaidxx]

Ok, I'll try to help you to maximize your options:

1. Retake. Even a 170 will help if you can get it. Forget about this "January is so late" BS. If you don't have good options when the application cycle is over, you apply again next cycle. If you have the capacity to improve on the LSAT, that will only help (with diminishing returns when you get in the 175ish range in your specific situation). If you score lower, you still have that 169, which is all the schools you're worried about will care about. You're still exactly where you started, plus you won't have to wonder if you could've improved your LSAT and your chances of an outcome you want.

2. Once you have that retake finished, apply to USC, UCLA, UCI, and the T13 at least from Penn and below, but I would even include Columbia, Chicago, and NYU because you want as many potential negotiating chips as possible when the time comes. Get your application solid. Don't write an addendum because you ran a business during college. It won't help your application, and it could hurt if it comes off poorly. GPA addenda are rarely worth it, and your situation is not one worthy of it. Write a compelling PS, make your resume flawless, make sure your LORs are academic and reflect highly of you (to overcome your GPA). Once all of that is done, and you've submitted your applications (whether that is in January or next cycle), you wait.

3. Schools will start to accept, waitlist, or deny you (in this tier of schools denials are pretty rare, but they happen). Once you have acceptances, start figuring out if any of them are offering merit-based tuition discounts. If they are/aren't, start using the ones that are to negotiate with the ones that aren't or are for less. If USC is offering you $20k/year discount, and you have an acceptance to Northwestern, bring the Northwestern acceptance and see if USC will bump it up. Use your judgment to figure out which school will reconsider their aid package based on other aid packages. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Don't stop negotiating until you have run out of negotiation options, and decide which option is best for your goals. Also think long and hard whether that option is good enough to take the risk on the investment you're about to make (based on your posting, I feel like you'll fail to fully do this, but it's a critical step in making a financially responsible decision. This is an investment not that indifferent from buying stock. The only difference is you're debt-financing it and it's somewhat in your control whether the investment works out).

4. If you're struggling with this process, come back when you have options, or you have more directly relevant questions, because the TLS community is generally very receptive to helping people with these kinds of problems. You've pushed my patience a bit, but I'm still sitting here on a Sunday night trying to help you figure out how to handle this entire law school admissions process. We'll help, so long as you're receptive to the advice you're given.

Ah you're great. So September vs December isn't a big deal in relation to when I apply? A 169 now vs a 170 later , a 170 is still favorable?

Yes, a 170 is always better than a 169 if you follow the rest of my advice. and a 171 is better than a 170, etc.

Great. And just to add, this is my last push. I've already sat out a cycle and I can't sit out again, all this time off is depressing. im going to follow your advice to the letter, but next cycle isn't possible. Does this change anything?

Yes, because you're setting arbitrary and unnecessary roadblocks to starting this career on the right foot. Stop doing that.

I understand what you're saying and why, but please believe me that another year off isn't feasible. I know it's my future and another year means jack compared to the rest of my life and I wish I could just retake up until next year and assure a victory but some of this will have to be up to chance for me. I really can't. But say I score a 170 in December and I apply this cycle.

Are you middle-aged and concerned about age discrimination when you try to get a job during/after law school? If the answer is no, you can always wait a year.

Don't let the mad urgency and rush of prepping for this push you into bad decisions. The rest of your life will be vastly better if you think you have the ability to move that LSAT score a little, or if you get a bad cycle of apps and want to re-apply.

I say this as someone who did allow some urgency to pressure me into going into it without retaking. I went to a decent law school (T30), I got a biglaw job, but more than 70% of my classmates DID NOT get biglaw jobs, even those with better grades/more accolades than me. When other posters say it's "holistic," it means literally anything could affect the hiring decision after you get past being screened for grades, journal, etc. It borders on arbitrary. I still don't understand how I lucked into this. And I still have $170k in debt hanging over me (that includes interest that capitalized so far). If I could do it over, I'd do what it takes to nudge that down even just $10k. I'm not eager for when these loan payments start, because that's money out of my pocket that I could be putting to other uses, like saving, spending on things I actually want to buy, repaying other debts, etc. And if I didn't have this job? I would be in a world of hurt unless I was on PSLF and IBR, and even then it's still money I'd rather keep every month.

In sum:
Calm the f down. Your life will not stop if you are not in law school this time next year. You will be the prudent and smart person for having waited.

Go ahead and apply, and go ahead and retake, and when you have all your responses from schools and your score back, re-evaluate, and take your emotional and confirmation biases out to the woodshed when you do. This is a very critical decision that you cannot rush. People bankrupt themselves with this kind of debt and permanently ruin their credit and lives. They weren't bad people who didn't work hard or didn't care enough. Sometimes life deals you a bad hand. Having $300k debt (or even $170k debt, or $100k debt) makes that bad hand monumentally worse. Use your head and take our advice.

Not at all I'm young but that's not the point. Some of these people will have you believe that it wasn't your hard work that's the reason you've made it but pure chance that you happen to write the best essay lol. You can't think that way to the top and I'm sure you didn't either. The waiting part wasn't the advice I had a problem with. It makes sense. I would lol I swear. I'd work hard and try to do better on the lsat and give myself a better chance but I'm at a point where that's not an option.

[cavalier1138]

Not at all I'm young but that's not the point. Some of these people will have you believe that it wasn't your hard work that's the reason you've made it but pure chance that you happen to write the best essay lol. You can't think that way to the top and I'm sure you didn't either. The waiting part wasn't the advice I had a problem with. It makes sense. I would lol I swear. I'd work hard and try to do better on the lsat and give myself a better chance but I'm at a point where that's not an option.

No, you're at a point where you want to tell yourself that it's not an option. As you said, you're young. You have plenty of time to get your shit together and go to law school, but you know what you don't get the chance to do after 1L? Retake your 1L classes for better grades.

No one is saying that your grades come down to pure luck. But you're grossly underestimating how competent your potential classmates are going to be. And for every time you say "lol" or "maybe I shouldn't smoke pot next time before the exam" (that right there should be a hint that you need some time to mature), you realize that you're telling actual law students and lawyers that they don't know how law school works. Trust me, we all know a metric fuckton more than you, which is why no one is telling you that your go-get-'em-tiger attitude is going to make the difference.

[mcmand]

Not at all I'm young but that's not the point. Some of these people will have you believe that it wasn't your hard work that's the reason you've made it but pure chance that you happen to write the best essay lol. You can't think that way to the top and I'm sure you didn't either. The waiting part wasn't the advice I had a problem with. It makes sense. I would lol I swear. I'd work hard and try to do better on the lsat and give myself a better chance but I'm at a point where that's not an option.

How is it not an option, other than you choosing it not to be an option? The only rationale you've provided so far is you just can't wait any longer. What is forcing you to make an unwise decision?

I phrase it this way to indulge you, despite the fact there actually is almost no true now-or-never situation with law school. If you don't have a terminal disease, there is always time.

Addendum: Of course I worked hard. So did the vast majority of my classmates and peers. So do most of the law students/grads on this forum. That's why luck comes into play. The irony of law school is that randomly during those moments when I didn't work hard or prep for class or for interviews and networking like my classmates, I would still get the A or the internship or some other thing. And then, just as randomly, during the majority of the time I was busting my ass for a particular class or job I wanted, I'd get a crummy grade, or a form rejection letter (if that), or otherwise be stonewalled from my goal. The point is that I could have worked EVEN HARDER and still outcomes would have been either the same (unlikely) or worse.

What we're trying to explain to you is that all things being equal (hard work, intelligence, skill, study habits, etc.), the outcomes are akin to what one of my adjunct professors told me after I didn't get a job I really wanted: throwing a pile of resumes down a flight of stairs and picking the one that landed nearest. Or in the middle, or the bottom, or wherever. When you're basically playing a very expensive lottery, you may as well try to minimize your exposure on the decent chance your winning numbers aren't drawn in the first few rounds (or ever).