OK writing a novel here so get ready :)

I would strongly encourage you to set aside law school while considering undergrad institutions. I know it seems as though your whole life is planned out right now--and it's great to have a sense of direction--but you are surely 17 or 18. Things change. I switched majors twice in college and ended up with a humanities degree and two minors (one pre-professional). I took courses that I NEVER could have imagined. College will open your mind to new ideas and schools of thought that you've never even considered before. Be open to everything, take a wide variety of courses as a freshman, and just be a sponge. Don't worry about which majors will prep you best for law school, which school is best at mock trial, etc.

First, there is no one ideal major, and the difference between philosophy and history is not significant (electrical engineering versus English is obviously a different story, but it sounds as though you're almost certainly non-STEM). Take courses that interest you and follow your gut. Double major or pursue multiple minors if you want.

Second, leadership opportunities will be available at all schools. Yeah, maybe being president of a major club will be more competitive at Cornell, but you'll have more opportunities to research (most likely) and take advantage of alumni networks. As I noted above, plans change--you might end up wanting to work a few years in between undergrad and law, and alumni networks can be very helpful in finding jobs. In fact, most (if not all) dual degree students have work experience, so it's kind of doubtful you'll be heading to law school straight away. And what if you decide not to go the law route…then you'll definitely want to be at a school where you have great career opportunities. For this reason alone, I'd probably avoid Furman.

Third, GPA is the primary concern when applying to law schools (along with LSAT score). Everything beyond that is a "soft" factor. That being said, I think you're needlessly stressing yourself out about Cornell. You got in--CONGRATS--so you're smart enough. Put in the time and you'll get great grades. Do NOT let the fear of not getting good grades stop you from going to a school you really want to go to. I'm happy to discuss this further through PM, so feel free to reach out, but I absolutely do not think this should be part of your decision-making process. A great GPA is possible anywhere when you're smart enough to get into Cornell.

If you can, visit schools and see which vibes best with you personally. Don’t choose a school or major based on your law school aspirations. DEFINITELY don't choose all your extracurriculars for transactional reasons either. College isn't just a vehicle to get to law school--it's a wonderful experience all on its own. You're mentioning VERY different schools with very different students. It's totally possible that Clemson is the perfect school for you. Or maybe you totally fall in love with Furman and are willing to take a bit of a risk in the career services department. But you have to look beyond majors, clubs, and your chance at a 4.0…one's an enormous public institution well-known for sports and parties (nothing wrong with that!), one's a small & not so well-known LAC, and one's a very well-known Ivy in Ithaca (which some people love and others absolutely hate). Of course, finances are also a consideration, and that's a serious issue to contend with.

I would absolutely retake. You can definitely do better, and if you applied with just a Feb score, you also applied late. Retake over the summer or in September and apply before Thanksgiving. As a URM with a great GPA and a 165+ LSAT (which should be totally doable if you were PTing in the 160s) you should be in the running for not insignificant scholarships at lower T14s (if not higher).

I recently interviewed and was admitted, as well, and you've definitely done a great job outlining the process. I'd add (or reiterate) that the interview felt quite transactional compared to other law school interviews and job interviews that I've done…they definitely had a set of questions that they wanted to get through. For me, there was VERY little response to my answers…once I delivered my answer, we moved directly into the next question. I was nervous that I hadn't built strong rapport with my interviewer, but in the end, it was clearly fine. TLDR: if things feel iffy and a little "off" during the interview, don't worry--Chicago's interview process is just a little less conversational, so prepare using the questions provided in the OP, gear your responses to Chicago's vibe (intellectual, emphasis on ideological debate, less clinical/practical), and good luck!

I wouldn’t read into this too much. i think a lot of schools do like to see a classical liberal arts curriculum, but the skewed results you’re seeing on LAN are more likely due to the lack of respondents. Make sure your essays are strong and your LORs are excellent. Maximize your LSAT and stay positive. For the most part, it’s your grades, not your specific classes, that matter

How late is late? Do you mean you submitted in early January, or do you mean that you submitted the day before the deadlines?

Is there a possibility that one of your LORs is not fabulous? IIRC, you're a grad student…as the above poster noted, did you include a Why Law that makes your pivot toward a more professional profession (you know what I mean) seem sensible, well thought out, and not just a result of a bad academic job market?

That sad, weird things happen. A T6 school that I professed my love to has absolutely ghosted me. Another accepted me in under a month and I had a borderline error in my personal statement (repeated a prepositional phrase at the beginning of a sentence within the span of just a paragraph). This cycle is weird and so much of this, especially at top schools, is highly subjective. I wouldn't give up, but if your goal is legal academia, it probably does make sense to hold out for T6 (preferably T3)--and that should totally be possible with your numbers, which are truly excellent

Yup, you can def ask now. Alternatively, you could let her know now and just submit the request closer to when you’ll be submitting. If they know you well enough to write a LOR, they shouldn’t forget over the summer. Don’t worry about dates

I think a number of factors are considered that impact your GPA. In addition to the subject of the major, you have to consider the school as well; certain institutions are well known for grade deflation/inflation.

Yes, there are softer majors out there. That said, I think it's important to note that humanities and social sciences prepare people well for law school. In fact, some law schools even note that they prefer a classical liberal arts curriculum over preprofessional courses of study (business, pre-law, etc.). That's not to say that poli sci kids are smarter or inherently better prepared; I don't think that at all. But do bear in mind that law school is a lot of reading and writing, so students who spent a ton of time doing those things will likely be at an advantage. I definitely don't want to be interpreted as suggesting that engineering students are automatically worse at these skills, but they likely have not been reading and writing -- especially crafting arguments -- to the same extent.

Overall, from what I've heard, STEM majors (but not really business majors) get a bit of a break. If your school had a curve in the business program, note that in an addendum and, if true, point out that your higher grades tended to appear in reading/writing-intensive courses (indicating strong skills for law school). If you can tie your course of study into your law-related aspirations, do so. And make sure your supplementals are outstanding. Of course, LSAT is a great place to make up for a slightly lower LSAT, and people who are better with numbers tend to be good at logic games (or so it seems)

another idea might be add to add a Law-Related Work Experience section, or one titled Relevant Experience. That way, you can list it all; that said, it'll look a bit weird if you don't have at least 2 jobs under the Law-Related/Relevant heading

How long have you been studying? How intense were you studying? If it was a year+ at 10+ hours a week, then maybe 168 is your peak. But if it was just 6 months and you still have 5+ unused PTs, I'd retake. I took the LSAT 3x and am so grateful I did. Your GPA is solid enough that, with a 170, you could see money at lower T14s (including, possibly, Michigan).

Does not matter if they're a lecturer or a university professor in a named chair…all that matters is that they know you and your work. With law school admissions, they're preferably someone whose seen your writing, ability to reason through tough material, and proficiency as a public speaker or discussion participant in class. If you were applying to grad school in an academic field (like you wanted a PhD in philosophy), I think it's different--then, you don't want a TA or lecturer (I think)

Get a start on the PS now but definitely put most of your effort toward the LSAT. I'd brainstorm and then dig into the PS after the test. Shouldn't take more than a few weeks to pump out a draft and then revise, revise, revise. Get feedback from others and feel free to reach out to people here

@ said:

@ said:

For Point at Issue in which our two characters disagree, we want our answer choice to be one to which one person would say, "YES!" and the other would say, "NO!" In other words, we want our characters to have starkly opposite reactions to the answer choice.

Answer choice D does just that. Character A (the moralist) would fully agree. In fact, the answer choice is just reiterating his argument, essentially. Character B (the host) would disagree, screaming "NO" if he heard that answer choice. He is unsure as to whether there is a moral decline in the first place--and if there is one, it isn't due to TV. In other words, TV is not a cause of moral decline. So D's our answer.

As for how much to assume, I don't really think you need to assume anything to solve this question. For Point at Issue, you want to stay really rooted in the text and focus on the exact words of both characters, as well as their main conclusions

Then do I have to ignore the part “by inviting guests”? I am bothered by that qualification...

I don't think you need to ignore it in order to answer the question. Yes, you kind of need to assume that both characters think that is the case, but it's not a big jump. The TV talk show host talks about content being restricted (which would amount to censorship)--one can pretty much assume that he means the types of guests he's bringing in. @ makes a great point as well…the qualifier doesn't really matter here

Schedule for September. Accept that you will perhaps be retaking in December. I don't say that to imply you'll do poorly--I just think that most LSAT takers benefit from taking more than once. I took it 3 times

I'm sorry the LSAT didn't go well. I took the LSAT for the first time in September 2017 and totally bombed it. Nerves got the best of me, and I cancelled my score. I then scored 17X on both December and February…so don't give up hope! A bad first experience is just that. Don't let it color your future takes.

As for the work experience thing…law schools don't care that much. They just don't. As long as you don't become a criminal in the next few months (I kid), you'll be fine. Try to start volunteering a few hours a week while you continue looking for jobs. Just make sure you're not doing "nothing" entirely. Going to law school straight out of undergrad (or even just a year out) actually isn't the norm anymore, and plenty of people don't jump straight from college into investment banking or some other prestigious career before law school. Life happens, and it's not perfect. Admissions committees know that. Will you be able to swing a Yale acceptance after a period of unemployment? Maybe not--but frankly, your LSAT goals indicate T3 schools weren't really your plan anyway. So don't worry--most of the T14, T20, etc. won't care.

Oh and your reference letters won't seem old if you use them next cycle. Don't let that concern you.

Happy to discuss further over PM. My cycle has gone really well and my work schedule is very flexible, so I want to give back here on 7Sage. Let me know if you want help developing a strategy moving forward. You got this :)

If I were you, I'd ask this to LSAC (and get it in writing--not just over the phone)

For Point at Issue in which our two characters disagree, we want our answer choice to be one to which one person would say, "YES!" and the other would say, "NO!" In other words, we want our characters to have starkly opposite reactions to the answer choice.

Answer choice D does just that. Character A (the moralist) would fully agree. In fact, the answer choice is just reiterating his argument, essentially. Character B (the host) would disagree, screaming "NO" if he heard that answer choice. He is unsure as to whether there is a moral decline in the first place--and if there is one, it isn't due to TV. In other words, TV is not a cause of moral decline. So D's our answer.

As for how much to assume, I don't really think you need to assume anything to solve this question. For Point at Issue, you want to stay really rooted in the text and focus on the exact words of both characters, as well as their main conclusions

I agree with the above poster on GPA—that’s holding you back. Do you have any mitigating factors that you could address in an addendum? (Very low avg GPA in your major, working a lot during undergrad, undiagnosed issue, etc). I don’t say that to shame you—your GPA is very good! But at these tip top schools, a 3.5 is a more difficult sell

3x. Canceled first

Former 7Sager, current HYS student here: I wrote about a high school experience and how it influenced my path to college and (very briefly) beyond. I think one of the keys is that you need your essay to be something an adult applying to law school would write, NOT something a high schooler writing a college admissions essay would. In other words, if it's mature and thoughtful (both in substance and form) then the topic doesn't much matter.

@ said:

@ thanks so much for the thoughtful and informative response :) Forgot to mention I am a first generation American, but am guessing that won't help (might even hurt?) because I'm Asian-American... Will have to focus on getting a really absurdly good LSAT score!

This could make for a good diversity statement, but yeah, being a first gen American on its own won’t help you (unless you’re also working class or a first gen college student). Being Asian won’t help or hinder—it doesn’t make you URM

In the grand scheme of things, 3 years isn’t that much. The work experience will help you, both for law school admissions and OCI, but it’s not enough to make them disregard your GPA. It would probably take 5+ years. 3 is a very standard amount of time to take between undergrad and law

You’ll want to target schools that are splitter-friendly. If you score as high as you want to, Columbia and a big scholarship to Northwestern will be in play. T6 (other than CLS) will be an uphill battle with that GPA unless you have some real mitigating factors (like 2 STEM majors, a prestigious undergrad institution known for grade deflation, URM or first gen, major upward trend in grades, illness or family disaster during school, etc). 3.65 is a good GPA—and in fact a great one in most cases—but the reality is that applicants to elite law schools tend to be a pretty neurotic bunch of liberal arts majors, so the grades are inflated. Since you’re in consulting with a not crazy high GPA, I assume you have a STEM background. That’ll help somewhat in many cases. Honestly, I think you have a very good shot at getting in to lower T14s with a 169+ LSAT, but as most on this site and others would say, paying sticker isn’t a good move for most people.

Your time now is best spent on the LSAT. With good work experience and nice softs from your undergrad years, you’re in a nice position. But, as you probably already know, scoring in the mid 170s is really hard—especially when studying while working a demanding (and I assume travel-intensive) full-time job! Take your time, and good luck :)

I agree with @

Also, correlation does not equal causation. Lawyers/law students at elite firms/PI jobs/schools are perfectionistic, type A humans. Those kinds of people tend to be more anxious

As @ stated, you should be totally fine. You have a very legit reason (congrats!) to take the exam now and apply later. It wouldn't really matter anyway, though. Plenty of people take the LSAT during or immediately after college with the intention of applying a few years down the road. A wait of two-three years is NBD

You can't lift it, and I wouldn't risk tilting it. Get used to reading it flat. As @ notes, you're probably marking it, which you can't do effectively unless it's on a flat surface

I'd go with business attire if you aren't admitted. I might still wear pretty formal stuff even if you are. Not necessarily a suit, and tie likely isn't needed, but you should have a dress shirt on. If you're female, nice pants/skirt + blazer + fancy flats are probably the way to go

@ yeah, I didn't get the sense that my interviewer was up for jokes. They were polite and seemed nice but clearly wanted serious answers. I had other interviews that felt MUCH more casual, and there are other schools whose admissions office just seem more chill and casual in general (Michigan comes to mind…their emails, at least to admitted students, are very playful)