Any Acceptances this year with High GPAs and high 140 LSAT scores?

[Legallyanxious]

I feel awful. I had to drive to Seattle to take my LSAT in January and got a 149 on the test. I have a super high B3 and L2 but fuck I am just so disappointed and scared. Is my chance completely gone? 

[throwaway123]

You never know, BUT, I had a similar LSAT, with a super high GPA. I was rejected at all of the schools I applied to last cycle. Hope that gives you some perspective.

 

[Legallyanxious]

1 minute ago, throwaway123 said:

You never know, BUT, I had a similar LSAT, with a super high GPA. I was rejected at all of the schools I applied to last cycle. Hope that gives you some perspective.

 

Thank you for saying that! The you never know helps. Like each of my references are two pages, I am the president of multiple clubs, I thought my personal statement was good. I just, Idk I really wanted to get in this year. I guess I will be rewriting in June so I can have the last test with logic games lol

[Fyodor]

I havent seen any yet but if they come it will probably be later in the cycle so dw rn

[Legallyanxious]

28 minutes ago, Fyodor said:

I havent seen any yet but if they come it will probably be later in the cycle so dw rn

Thank you so much, is it possible for someone to get in with a 149?

[Fyodor]

3 minutes ago, Legallyanxious said:

Thank you so much, is it possible for someone to get in with a 149?

I've lurked in these threads for years and I've seen people report it. However, it is far from common. I'd approach this as chill out see what happens, worst case you rewrite and it can probably open a million more doors :). I know the LSAT struggle and it was a super bumpy road for me

[MyWifesBoyfriend]

42 minutes ago, Legallyanxious said:

Thank you for saying that! The you never know helps. Like each of my references are two pages, I am the president of multiple clubs, I thought my personal statement was good. I just, Idk I really wanted to get in this year. I guess I will be rewriting in June so I can have the last test with logic games lol

How many takes are you on? If you're at #3, I'd shoot for a later date until you can start PT'ing in the high 150s/low 160s reliably. You're only permitted 5 takes a year/over the course of 5 years, and 7 over a lifetime. 

3 minutes ago, Legallyanxious said:

Thank you so much, is it possible for someone to get in with a 149?

It's happened in some of the prairie schools per historical reporting on this forum, but the possibility is very low I'd assume. You'd likely need some extraordinary softs to offset a sub-50th percentile LSAT score. 

[Legallyanxious]

8 minutes ago, MyWifesBoyfriend said:

How many takes are you on? If you're at #3, I'd shoot for a later date until you can start PT'ing in the high 150s/low 160s reliably. You're only permitted 5 takes a year/over the course of 5 years, and 7 over a lifetime. 

It's happened in some of the prairie schools per historical reporting on this forum, but the possibility is very low I'd assume. You'd likely need some extraordinary softs to offset a sub-50th percentile LSAT score. 

I heard from a friend in law school they don't really care how many tests you do (of course under 7) as long as you eventually get a reportable score. As for softs, on my personal statement I talked about how I am wanting to pursue legal studies so I can become an litigator/mediator in family law. I extensively spoke about my family's battle with child-abuse and custody which inspired me to choose this path. I haven't talked about it on this forum, but in full transparency I disclosed to admissions that from the legal trauma I was diagnosed with Complex post traumatic stress and I also had my lawyer write a personal letter for supporting documentation basically corroborating what I was saying

(sorry that's a lot lol)

[Lawstudents20202020]

A 149 is a really hard sell regardless of the other aspects. It's not impossible but you are almost in the bottom third of test takers. 

A score like that should tell you there is something fundamentally wrong between you and the test. If you want to get into law school, you need to take a step back and be brutally honest with yourself on what is going wrong.

If you can't work through that, then you need to consider that maybe law school isn't for you. That's not an indictment of your intelligence or self worth, but noone has the skill set for everything and that's ok.

[Legallyanxious]

Just now, Legallyanxious said:

I heard from a friend in law school they don't really care how many tests you do (of course under 7) as long as you eventually get a reportable score. As for softs, on my personal statement I talked about how I am wanting to pursue legal studies so I can become an litigator/mediator in family law. I extensively spoke about my family's battle with child-abuse and custody which inspired me to choose this path. I haven't talked about it on this forum, but in full transparency I disclosed to admissions that from the legal trauma I was diagnosed with Complex post traumatic stress and I also had my lawyer write a personal letter for supporting documentation basically corroborating what I was saying

(sorry that's a lot lol)

Oh as above, I am also president of the law club at my university, I'm a Dean's List student, I volunteer, and a member of a few other clubs and associations. 

[MyWifesBoyfriend]

I have no intent to drag you through the coals here, but I'm going to be frank:

18 minutes ago, Legallyanxious said:

I heard from a friend in law school they don't really care how many tests you do (of course under 7) as long as you eventually get a reportable score.

My concern wasn't with the number of takes hurting your competitivity, my concern was with the fact that you're currently scoring lower than a 50th percentile, and as @Lawstudents20202020's stated, there is a fundamental issue with your test taking that needs to be addressed first. You may run the risk of never getting into a Canadian law school if you keep repeatedly re-taking without addressing your test weaknesses first. 

18 minutes ago, Legallyanxious said:

I haven't talked about it on this forum, but in full transparency I disclosed to admissions that from the legal trauma I was diagnosed with Complex post traumatic stress and I also had my lawyer write a personal letter for supporting documentation basically corroborating what I was saying

Are you submitting an access claim with documentation? While this can make a compelling narrative, I'd tread lightly with the 'insurmountable-hardship-into-law' trope, as plenty of applicants face their own challenges. 

17 minutes ago, Legallyanxious said:

Oh as above, I am also president of the law club at my university, I'm a Dean's List student, I volunteer, and a member of a few other clubs and associations. 

I won't say these are 'average' softs, but if you peruse previous accepted threads, they fall closer to the median. I do not think these will demonstrate aptitude in lieu of a competitive LSAT score. 

Edited January 31 by MyWifesBoyfriend

[capitalttruth]

Re-write the LSAT and get it out of the way. Use a tutor if you have to. In my view, the hard part is securing a high GPA. The LSAT is a relatively easier variable to control once you get the hang of it.

[JackoMcSnacko]

OP - any reason you are so focused on the other aspects of your application in this thread?  Your LSAT is the problem and needs to be your focus as others have said. 

Your application isn't judged in a vacuum.  It's judged against other applicants that get accepted. Based on what you've disclosed so far in this thread, here's what you're up against:  To every admissions officer that reviews thousands of applications - yours is one of many.  Your softs, recommendations or personal circumstances which are special/important/good/worthy of consideration to you is, in the eyes of an admissions officer against the backdrop of hundreds of excellent candidates with circumstances worthy of consideration that are accepted every year, just good or ok relative to those that get offers and moves the needle slightly towards acceptance.  

Your LSAT, on the other hand, in the eyes of an admissions officer against the backdrop of hundreds of excellent candidates that are accepted every year, is abysmal relative to those that get offers - it's likely low even amongst the lowest LSATs that eventually get offers.  This is likely a red flag, and question is does your pile of "good" outweigh this single point that's abysmal?  Maybe. 

Alternatively, if you have something extraordinary to offset the red flag, maybe then as well you could be accepted.  And I mean truly extraordinary, not deans list, president of student clubs or recommendation letters, but things so extraordinary they shine even amongst the best candidates - gold medalists, high societal honors, individuals with singular perspectives (e.g. see https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/rumana-monzur-graduates-ubc-law-1.4130511). If that's you and you haven't mentioned it, yeah maybe you have a shot.  Otherwise, focus all your efforts on the LSAT, which you have the power to change.

 

[SNAILS]

You realistically need to forget about this cycle and focus on the next cycle. If you get into law school my some miracle, take it as a bonus.

You probably feel that having to wait one more year to go to law school is an eternity. It's not. Study hard and take another LSAT in 6-8 months. The good news about a 149 is it is easy (for most people) to improve that score through studying. Take a hard look at HOW you are studying. Are you taking time after completing a timed PT to review your answers and consider them before checking your score?

People with a low GPA and a 160+ are in a worse spot because it's harder to improve an LSAT through studying at that level.

 

[luckycharm]

On 1/31/2024 at 1:03 PM, Legallyanxious said:

Oh as above, I am also president of the law club at my university, I'm a Dean's List student, I volunteer, and a member of a few other clubs and associations. 

Consider hiring a private tutor

[NONAMER]

I applied as an Access applicant to Thompson Rivers University, University of Ottawa, and Queens University with a 143 last cycle. To be completely honest and transparent, my cumulative grade point average is approximately 4.00. I was waitlisted at the above schools last cycle. I have a severe learning disability in reading and math. I sat for the exam with no accommodations (35 minutes per section). 

And, even though I am wiling to fight tooth and nail to achieve a score as close to 160 as possible and am continuing my prep, I am more confident about receiving an offer during this cycle given my score of 149 produced by the January 2024 exam.  

[MyWifesBoyfriend]

1 hour ago, PRINCE604 said:

I sat for the exam with no accommodations (35 minutes per section). 

So wouldn’t you want to get accommodations? Especially if you have a severe learning disability?

[MyWifesBoyfriend]

29 minutes ago, PRINCE604 said:

I managed to do well without any accommodations

Realistically, a 149 is not 'doing well'. 

If there's accommodations available, and your disability is as well-documented as per your other post, then you're doing yourself a great disservice by not taking this route. 

[MyWifesBoyfriend]

10 minutes ago, PRINCE604 said:

 

I still hold that I managed to do well, given the score increase, and would hold that at least some admission departments in Canada may agree that 149, in comparison to 143, is doing well.

 

Well there ya go. Seems like you’ve got it all figured out. Good luck.

[Diplock]

27 minutes ago, PRINCE604 said:

I still hold that I managed to do well, given the score increase, and would hold that at least some admission departments in Canada may agree that 149, in comparison to 143, is doing well.

Some of my clients think they are doing well because they haven't robbed anyone in two years, whereas prior to that relative vacation from committing violent crime (or at least being caught for it) they hadn't gone more than six months without getting arrested for quite some time. Some of them quite genuinely expect they should get quite a lot of credit from the Court for the improvement they have shown.

Just saying.

[WiseGhost]

I think people are being much meaner they need to be. But I'd say that it is unreasonable not to apply for accommodations for the LSAT when you have a documented learning disability. Refusing accommodations in law school out of pride will burn you during exams given the emphasis on reading and processing information quickly. 

A 149 is certainly an improvement over a 143, but I would not describe it as doing well, especially when the LSAT score is compared to your GPA. I hope that you get in with your current score, but I would urge you to take to advantage of all the resources available to you for the LSAT and in the future. 

[Diplock]

1 hour ago, WiseGhost said:

I think people are being much meaner they need to be.

I personally know someone who got into law school with a LSAT in the 140s. She had a nearly perfect GPA otherwise, but the individual I'm responding to says they fit a similar profile so hey, it could happen.

I'm not saying @PRINCE604 shouldn't apply. I'm not saying it's a waste of time, or that they should give up. I'm saying self-delusion is a bad look on anyone, and 149 is objectively a very poor LSAT. Trying to pretend it's not is just dumb. Imagining any admissions committee is going to look at someone who had an extremely bad score, and then a score that's simply bad, and say "we're going to treat this bad score as better than the bad score it is because it's now less bad than it used to be" is dumb in the extreme.

Guy (or gal) may still get into law school, just as my friend did. And good luck to them. But if they were scored on the aptitude they've displayed in this discussion they'd be completely screwed.

[WiseGhost]

I respect the no-bullshit approach @Diplock. But I also see the applicant's perspective.

Applying to law school can feel deeply personal. Applicants study hard to take something that is supposed to measure your potential, put a chunk of themselves onto the page writing statements, and then ask people to vouch for who they are as a person. Not to mention the effort put into earning above average undergraduate grades. 

So being told that the all the work isn't good enough and that they might have to tell everyone you're applying again next year has to hurt. As such, I think that comparing someone who insists that an increase from 143-149 should suffice for getting into law school (after being waitlisted with a 143) to delusional recidivists is snarkier than the circumstances warrant. 

You're definitely not wrong, but I think this forum would be a better resource if more users tempered frankness with sympathy. 

[Diplock]

39 minutes ago, WiseGhost said:

You're definitely not wrong, but I think this forum would be a better resource if more users tempered frankness with sympathy. 

This is the existential debate at the very heart of this forum. And I disagree, or at least I can't remotely muster the sympathy you would wish, but let me add one point on your side first.

While I disagree with what you've actually said, the less extreme point lurking behind it is important. We should be kind as well as honest. Too often the pleasure of dumping on someone - often in florid terms - becomes its own sport here. And I don't endorse that, even though I've been guilty of it in the past. It's a bad instinct. It makes for a worse community, and it's honestly kind of poisonous to the individual doing it also. Sometimes I can't help myself if I enjoy it a little when I smack down someone who really deserves it, but I've become a lot more serious in my middle age about being sure they do deserve it.

As an aside, I wouldn't have dumped on the person I replied to after the first silly post. It was just the doubling down on it that brought out my snarky streak. And I won't apologize for it here even though I agree with you generally about kindness.

Now, that said, even though I endorse kindness (and I'm choosing that word over "sympathy" because I think it captures the idea I want better) I will stand by the next point until the end of my career and far beyond. It is never an act of kindness to delude someone or to encourage their self-delusion. If someone's circumstances are bad, they deserve to be told exactly how bad they are. And you can add a heaping of sympathy, sure (and here I'll use "sympathy") but that should never skew your understanding of the situation, or the way you present it. Because that is not kindness. In fact it's possible for sympathy to interfere with kindness in exactly this way.

To put this another way, I interact every day with clients who are dealing with far worse things than a poor LSAT score. I'm talking about addiction, poverty, mental illness, etc. And often as a related consequence of these very sad realities, I need to tell them that they are heading for an outcome they don't want to believe or take seriously - that their criminal charges may likely result in conviction and they are going to jail. If the sympathy I feel for these clients were ever to colour my analysis of their situations, not only would that not be a kindness but it would actually be professionally negligent. The truth is the truth, however I feel about it.

Anyway, I agree with you about kindness. I really do. But if I ever seem a bit callous about it, even after agreeing with you, just remember that yesterday I probably explained to some distraught mother that the fact that her son suffered a brain injury crossing the street when he was twelve years old will not keep him out of jail now that he's stabbed someone as an adult. So you can imagine how little I'm inclined to push it to the limit when someone has trouble hearing that their objectively shitty LSAT score may keep them out of law school until they improve it. I mean, I do believe in kindness. But learn to live in the world too. Just saying.

Edited February 5 by Diplock

[JackoMcSnacko]

33 minutes ago, Diplock said:

It is never an act of kindness to delude someone or to encourage their self-delusion. If someone's circumstances are bad, they deserve to be told exactly how bad they are

The forum should sell t-shirts with this on the front.  And then on the back it should list out all the people on here that say they're following this principle when they are really just spouting mean comments at random people on the internet.