# Chances? [2.7 cGPA, 3.7 b3, 175 LSAT]

## Recommended Posts

ECs are nothing special. I feel as if I could work on a strong PS.

Good

• 1

##### Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mn612 said:

ECs are nothing special. I feel as if I could work on a strong PS.

2.7GPA and 3.7 L3? How is that possible?

You have negative GPA for L1?

##### Share on other sites
On 9/11/2017 at 8:01 PM, Luckycharm said:

2.7GPA and 3.7 L3? How is that possible?

You have negative GPA for L1?

Lol. Assuming my calculations are correct, OP would have had to score lower than a 1.0 in L1 to make those statistics work.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SSH2013 said:

Lol. Assuming my calculations are correct, OP would have had to score lower than a 1.0 in L1 to make those statistics work.

3.7 ☓ 3 = 11.1 ÷ 4 =2.76

2.7 X 4 = 10.8

You need a negative GPA for L1 unless you have a very different course load or more than 4 years to complete.

just curious

• 1

##### Share on other sites

If they did 5 years it could be like this (give or take a few points)

1.0, 2.0, 3.7, 3.7, 3.7 = ~2.80

Many people do a fifth year so that's probably what happened

• 1

##### Share on other sites

My question is how someone with the capacity for a 175 manages to shit the bed as badly as op must have for two years? Unless it was a family illness or some tragedy, etc, in which case sorry for being insensitive.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pzabbythesecond said:

My question is how someone with the capacity for a 175 manages to shit the bed as badly as op must have for two years? Unless it was a family illness or some tragedy, etc, in which case sorry for being insensitive.

Ppl make mistakes. I'm empathetic to op.  Op has a better chance of getting in than I did.

##### Share on other sites

hey guys, sorry for the late reply. i did take five years to complete undergrad. i'm so anxious about my application (next cycle). @pzabbythesecond, there was a personal situation i was involved in at the time which caused me to fail every single class in my first year. other years, i did okay and i really pulled myself up the last two years.

##### Share on other sites
On 9/21/2017 at 11:17 PM, pzabbythesecond said:

My question is how someone with the capacity for a 175 manages to shit the bed as badly as op must have for two years? Unless it was a family illness or some tragedy, etc, in which case sorry for being insensitive.

Loads of people dick around in university. Loads of others have an illness (mental or physical), or a tragedy, etc.

OP I suspect your chances are good, based off of the fact that I know go to school (at UT) with several students like you: shocking GPA with an upward trend, ridiculous LSAT.

Edited by Ambit
• 1

##### Share on other sites

Lol my cGPA and B3 are nearly identical to the above stats. I have  a 2.9/4.0 cGPA because I was in a program I absolutely hated in first year (I had like a 55 average) and my grades skyrocketed after switching to something I actually liked. I have a 3.88/4.0 B3 and 3.9/4.0 L2.

• 1

##### Share on other sites

Guys I feel so stupid for asking this but what do B3 and L1/2 mean?!

##### Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SelTel said:

Guys I feel so stupid for asking this but what do B3 and L1/2 mean?!

Best three years, and last one/two years - basically it's just calculating the GPA for those years only, which sometimes admission committees give more weight over just cumulative GPA. Someone can be a stellar law school candidate while suffering badly in just one year.

Don't feel dumb - there's a ton of weird terminology that's really not used much outside of law school admissions stuff.

Edited by BeltOfScotch
• 1

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BeltOfScotch said:

Best three years, and last one/two years - basically it's just calculating the GPA for those years only, which sometimes admission committees give more weight over just cumulative GPA. Someone can be a stellar law school candidate while suffering badly in just one year.

Don't feel dumb - there's a ton of weird terminology that's really not used much outside of law school admissions stuff.

Thank you soo much! I keep seeing these terms in every law forum and I'm like what are these lol

## Create an account

Register a new account

• ### Recent Posts

• LSAT: 161 B3: 3.67
• I think there is a general opinion that some GPAs are inadmissible, but thats not the reality. I think there are GPAs that make up for ridiculously low(in my opinion anyways) LSATs and there are LSAT scores that could potentially make up for a very low GPA. For example, last year a TRU student was admitted with a 3.9 GPA and 148 LSAT. May be a bit off on the GPA but im certain about the LSAT. In the same way, assuming they are as holistic as they seem, they may be willing to take a 171 LSAT student with GPA numbers like yours.  I heard from a friend that she knew of somebody who got into Sask for law with a 2.5 or 2.7 GPA and a 175 LSAT. So take that as you will. This is verified by the way, she actually looked at his GPA. Then again, I'm sure some naysayer on here will tell you how thats impossible. Like you said though, nobody really knows for sure about the admissions process and how they go about making final decisions.
• Didn't make it to 2nd round
• Yup. I'm actually the applicant's parent, so I don't want to give too many identifying details. The stats and the result are accurate though. I made sure the applicant applied broadly. Don't feel bad for the applicant.
• I assume the concept of "billings vs collections" is the same.

I've worked at two firms now with the concept that your income is a percentage of what you actually collect from the bill sent to the client (which the client has paid). I think this is the same as the "receipted hours" concept, but correct me if I'm wrong. As you know, the collection rate on bills is never 100%. I think anywhere from 70-80% would be realistic in the private sector. Maybe a bit more, depending on the firm/work. However, if you work with institutional clients, your collection rate on bills can be much higher (almost 100%). As long as you are billing appropriately, they have the money to pay. With private clients, even if you bill for the right things in the right ways, they will fight you on the bill because they are unhappy with the result/don't understand the work performed. In sum, collection depends on the client's ability and willingness to pay. Do not expect 100% collections. A further obstacle in the collections world is that you may not have control over your work being cut. Senior lawyers will often write off your learning and cut anything that doesn't look polished to them/justifiable to picky clients. Your expected take-home pay can be affected drastically by factors completely out of your control/understanding. You did your work, you did what was asked, you took what you thought was an appropriate amount of time to complete the task, but many hours were cut anyways. The one thing I will say about that is that you will very quickly find a way to spend time on what is likely to be compensated. When you realize: "shit, I am making no money by doing task X/Y/Z" .. or "task X takes me way too long, and I won't get paid to take that long".. you will find ways, entirely ethical ways, to be efficient and profitable. Have the people cutting your hours sit down and explain them to you over lunch.. or a quick phone call. This is for your benefit. I went through hours after hours of cuts.. because my style is to learn the shit out of everything before doing. This is a god awful process in terms of billing.

The collections model is very stressful and unfortunate for junior counsel, especially if you are doing a lot of learning. The collections model, in all reality, is best suited for efficient lawyers who have gotten over any major learning curves. Not for learning a new area of law (as was my experience x 2). This is when you find the collections model starts making you more income than a basic salary with billable targets. Of course, most basic salaries come with bonuses upon reaching certain targets.. but I have found that you can make much more money on a solely-collections-based model, once you are efficient enough. In collections-based models, you need a "draw".. or an "advance": the living money you are receiving.. which is your baseline. You are likely trying to earn more than the baseline in a collections-based system. Say for example the base salary is 70k. You get your 70k as any other salaries employee. Quarterly, or whenever, your salary is adjusted based on the % you take from your collections. In my experience, no firm has clawed-back the base salary you receive, while you are starting out/learning (if you happen to under-perform). This should take some stress away, but may require a discussion about a grace period. Likely, your employer wants you earning as much as you can too. That said, I think if you put in a bit of extra time at the beginning ensuring that you are efficient, that you learn the basics of your practice, you will enjoy the freedom to earn more than a basic salary. I would say that all things being equal.. when you meet the "billable target" (say 1600 hours) in a collections-based system, you will likely earn more than in the salary/billable system -- barring any horrible issues with clients and senior lawyers. Anyways, hope that sheds some light on the collections system. I am happy to address anything else.

×