3.27 uGPA/161 LSAT/first-gen nonURM/currently Patent Agent in BigLaw Forum

[DreamingofT14]

Hi all,

What do you think my chances are of getting into a T14 law school, UCLA or USC? What LSAT range should I aim for?

Background:
3.27 uGPA in a STEM field from a top 20 school.
3.8 graduate GPA in my PhD program in a life science field
161 LSAT
Currently working in a biglaw firm as a patent agent.

I'm curious if the PhD and the work experience will help overcome the low GPA? I didn't plan on pursuing law in undergraduate so I never cared for my GPA since my focus was on research but now that I've pivoted into the patent law field, I regret the low GPA but nothing I can do now except aim for a higher LSAT.

Took the July 2019 LSAT since I wanted to see how I would do, as I have until Sept to cancel score.I plan on retaking the LSAT as the score I received was without much studying, took only about 10 practice tests (5 full length, 5 as drills), so I know I can improve my score with a more regimented study schedule. I plan to ramp it up as much as I can since I'm still working full time, to hopefully score around the 168-170 range. I've consistently been getting -0 on LG, so I know my focus will be on RC and LR.

[cavalier1138]

I'm curious if the PhD and the work experience will help overcome the low GPA?

It won't. Focus on getting your LSAT up, because right now, you aren't competitive at all for the schools you've identified.

[Access]

Your graduate GPA doesn't matter. You have good softs but they won't overcome your stats. ugpa matters because it's what usnwr looks at, not because the law schools care. If you come back with a 170 (much easier said than done) you'll be a splitter, and should then apply and see what happens, but you're probably still more likely to get in at a place like Washington U St Louis than a T14.

You might want to check out a regional school and network with IP lawyers in the meantime, since sometimes it's possible to get biglaw from a lesser school for patent eligible.

[dvlthndr]

The calculus is wonky for people in big-law prosecution. Schools that cater to the IP crowd will cut you a little slack on the GPA. That said, your numbers are putting you out of the running for any worthwhile day program. Right now your best option is trying for Georgetown nights and relocating (but even that is a stretch unless you bring the LSAT up a bit).

If you have the time to retest and crack 170 (or even the high 160's), things open up a lot. If you actually had a 170, you could start throwing apps into the T14 + UCLA + USC.

Worst case, just do the local night program. Plenty of life-science prosecutors out there make bank with Loyola/Fordham/Suffolk/Santa Clara on their resume.

[DreamingofT14]

Thanks for the responses. Seems like a lot of the schools still care about uGPA and LSAT, regardless of what admission officers from various schools have told me that "we consider all things such as graduate gpa and work experience etc etc". I figured that's the PC answer they're supposed to give.

I've started ramping up my LSAT studies, and I've noticed my score improving since I took it in July ever since I used LSAT trainer. Hoping to be able to break the 170+ mark and become a splitter candidate. Any other book recommendations? I also have the powerscore bible trilogy and Nathan Fox's logical reasoning encyclopedia. I'm averaging around -7 for each LR and RC section.

Editted: wanted to clarify that my average is actual closer to -7 than -5. I've gotten -5 only when the sections seem to be easier for me.

[DreamingofT14]

The calculus is wonky for people in big-law prosecution. Schools that cater to the IP crowd will cut you a little slack on the GPA. That said, your numbers are putting you out of the running for any worthwhile day program. Right now your best option is trying for Georgetown nights and relocating (but even that is a stretch unless you bring the LSAT up a bit).

If you have the time to retest and crack 170 (or even the high 160's), things open up a lot. If you actually had a 170, you could start throwing apps into the T14 + UCLA + USC.

Worst case, just do the local night program. Plenty of life-science prosecutors out there make bank with Loyola/Fordham/Suffolk/Santa Clara on their resume.

Yeah, it's hard to get a good gauge on this since a lot of people going from patent agent to attorney I've seen get into the T14 schools already have good uGPA (like 3.6+) and they have lsat scores around 166. A lot of them retook the exam to get better scholarship offers.

I'm definitely planning on retaking the test, as I took the July 2019 as a practice run to see how well I can do. My goal is to get a 168+ ideally 170+ so I've been dedicating more time into studying (which is hard sometimes during the weekday when I'm burnt out). I would also like the higher score since a lot of people that went patent agent --> patent attorney route have told me that it's worth it to try and get a scholarship with higher score, that way, you don't have to worry about claw back if you wanted to leave a big law firm (that's footing your tuition) for a different firm before X amount of years.

My back-up plan is a local night program as the firm I'm at has indicated they're willing to pay for part-time programs but not full-time programs. Ideally I'd be able to get into a top school full time, as I'm not getting any younger .

Edit: typos. Definitely been a long day for me.

[QContinuum]

I'm curious if the PhD and the work experience will help overcome the low GPA?

It won't. Focus on getting your LSAT up, because right now, you aren't competitive at all for the schools you've identified.

Correct. The Ph.D. and the BigLaw prosecution gig are strong "softs" so OP will likely overperform their uGPA/LSAT a bit (in terms of acceptances and especially in terms of merit scholarships), but as is almost always the case with law school admissions, uGPA and LSAT are still king.

[LSATWiz.com]

Every admissions office in every field says they take a holistic approach, because that's the language the Supreme Court used and also because it sounds much better than saying their admissions process is a numbers game. To some extent it's true, but really only at the margins. The fact you could perform well in a demanding job and have a phD is admirable, but isn't really unique enough to be worth 10 points on the LSAT from an admissions perspective. It's also difficult to objectively measure the value of your professional experience against someone else's Teach for America experience so numbers provide a means to avoid having to have that debate.

[QContinuum]

Every admissions office in every field says they take a holistic approach, because that's the language the Supreme Court used and also because it sounds much better than saying their admissions process is a numbers game. To some extent it's true, but really only at the margins. The fact you could perform well in a demanding job and have a phD is admirable, but isn't really unique enough to be worth 10 points on the LSAT from an admissions perspective. It's also difficult to objectively measure the value of your professional experience against someone else's Teach for America experience so numbers provide a means to avoid having to have that debate.

Right. So someone with a given uGPA/LSAT, plus a Ph.D., will almost certainly outperform a K-JD applicant with the same uGPA & LSAT. But they'd almost certainly be beat out by a K-JD applicant with the same uGPA but 5 more points on the LSAT. So maybe the Ph.D. is worth an equivalent of ~2-3 points on the LSAT, or a few tenths of uGPA, in terms of the 'boost' it offers over a K-JD.

[LSATWiz.com]

Every admissions office in every field says they take a holistic approach, because that's the language the Supreme Court used and also because it sounds much better than saying their admissions process is a numbers game. To some extent it's true, but really only at the margins. The fact you could perform well in a demanding job and have a phD is admirable, but isn't really unique enough to be worth 10 points on the LSAT from an admissions perspective. It's also difficult to objectively measure the value of your professional experience against someone else's Teach for America experience so numbers provide a means to avoid having to have that debate.

Right. So someone with a given uGPA/LSAT, plus a Ph.D., will almost certainly outperform a K-JD applicant with the same uGPA & LSAT. But they'd almost certainly be beat out by a K-JD applicant with the same uGPA but 5 more points on the LSAT. So maybe the Ph.D. is worth an equivalent of ~2-3 points on the LSAT, or a few tenths of uGPA, in terms of the 'boost' it offers over a K-JD.

Yeah, it's hard to say. I've routinely seen people with 3.9 GPA's from top universities get into schools with LSAT scores 9-10 points below a median despite being K-JD. I've also routinely seen extreme splitters with substantial work experience get the same outcome. I've actually never seen a non-URM get into a t-14 being slightly below both medians even with great softs. I'm sure this happens every year, but it seems less common than extreme splitters or reverse splitters. My sense is that adcoms are generally supposed to reject people below both medians so they may go into the app feeling like they have to be amazed to say yes whereas once someone hits a median, they may be looking for a reason to accept them. Of course, this is pure guesswork, and I have no idea what actually goes through their head.

But my observation is that OP's phD and experience would have the greatest impact if s/he hit a school's LSAT median. I think it would be the difference between not only not getting in somewhere versus getting in, but could also lead to a substantial scholarship where say someone with a 3.27 and 169 would otherwise not receive any scholarship.