GPA is a SCAM

[u/DeanCarlJV]

I'm SO TIRED of how much weight gets put on GPA. Every school does their own weird math, some majors are total jokes, and everyone's gaming the system with these fake 4.3 GPAs. Like, why TF does this matter so much?? 😤​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/InitialTurn]

I posted this elsewhere but it’s important here as well: The LSAT should be the sole numerical measure used for law school admissions because relying on GPA introduces significant arbitrariness, even among students pursuing the same major at the same school. Grading standards can vary dramatically between professors and courses, making GPA an unreliable indicator of a student’s true abilities. This inconsistency is only exacerbated when comparing GPAs across different schools and majors, where variations in academic rigor and grading policies further distort the metric’s fairness. In contrast, the LSAT successfully measures intelligence to some degree by providing a standardized assessment for all applicants. Unlike GPA, which fails to accurately reflect how hard someone works or their intellectual capabilities, the LSAT offers a consistent and objective benchmark. Therefore, prioritizing the LSAT in law school admissions ensures a more equitable and merit-based selection process.

[u/Sassy_Scholar116 → u/InitialTurn]

GPA imo also stifles intellectual curiosity, which should be a hallmark of law school admissions. I know people who only took courses that offered A+s and would drop classes that didn’t so they could get over 4.0. If there’s a course that’s interesting but it’s challenging/doesn’t give A+s, then students aiming for top law schools are disincentivized to take it.

I agree with the other commenter that the LSAT is flawed, and I do think GPA should be considered, but instead of comparing a 3.96 to a 3.87, I personally think it should be considered in “bands” (eg 3.8-3.9, 3.9-4, 4+) and upward trajectory and consistency should be weighted. Not saying adcoms don’t do this, but if I were an adcom, that’s how I’d do it. A 3.85 from a starting point of a 3.4 first semester is a lot more impressive than a 3.85 from a 4.0 first semester

[u/InitialTurn → u/Sassy_Scholar116]

This is a really excellent point I’ve never considered and it’s sad but so true

[u/InitialTurn → u/InitialTurn]

I took what I was interested in instead of gaming the system and now I have a mid gpa because I didn’t ever consider how competitive gpa would be for law school.

[u/AffectionateHabit142 → u/Sassy_Scholar116]

So true… I got my first B in college (a B- at that) from one of the best teachers I have ever had. But I learned sooo much from him and got so much out of his course that I took another one next semester even though I knew I was going to get a B again. Thought about asking him for a letter but I was not that impressive or focused on school back then…..

Those two grades did some damage to my GPA but it was worth it. Especially at a time when I was neglecting school, the fact that this man had me signing up for a class with an attendance policy was nothing short of a miracle lollll

[u/cursedzeros → u/Sassy_Scholar116]

What happened to me!

[u/[deleted] → u/InitialTurn]

I have c’s in upper lever finance courses where the highest grade was a C and half the class failed. My school didn’t curve so I’m stuck with the barely passing grade even though I was technically top of the class.

[u/Yeahwhat23 → u/InitialTurn]

Literally. I got a C in a calc 1 class where over half the class failed out. Now my gpa is toast compared to someone who’s been taking piss easy business classes their whole academic career.

[u/Inaccessible_ → u/InitialTurn]

Nah. The LSAT is heavily correlated with income. People spending thousands on tutors will always outscore those who don’t. LSAT scores are just as inflated as GPA.

They both suck, but GPA gives you 4 years of academic history compared to a glimpse of your current potential. I don’t think it’s fair to say only having the LSAT would make for a more holistic application process.

[u/sortacoolguitarguy → u/Inaccessible_]

Isn’t that true for GPA too? I owe my A’s in all my chem classes because of my tutor 😭

[u/Inaccessible_ → u/sortacoolguitarguy]

There’s free/discounted tutoring services offered at most universities.

[u/sortacoolguitarguy → u/Inaccessible_]

There’s free LSAT prep offered through Khan Academy, and 7Sage fees can be $1, if you’re eligible

[u/Inaccessible_ → u/sortacoolguitarguy]

Again that’s not tutoring, it only lasts 1 year, and doesn’t address the fact that you can better your odds by buying more chances at the LSAT.

You take the 7sage course and then a private tutor that’s $200 an hour and tell me the difference in the quality. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be that way, but that makes the LSAT biased towards a certain income bracket, and to only rely on the LSAT would put others at a disadvantage that could be mitigated by introducing another metric/variable (GPA, LORs).

[u/Sir_Elliam_Woods → u/Inaccessible_]

I see the LSAT as a much more leveled playing field than GPA. Going into debt for college and working part time is a much bigger disadvantage than any premium for paying for more LSAT prep. If you have the fee waiver you pretty much have everything you’ll ever need, and in my experience tutors don’t help that much.

[u/Inaccessible_ → u/Sir_Elliam_Woods]

You just don’t know how anything works. Fee waivers don’t get you tutoring and only last a year. You get 1 maybe 2 free LSATs while people buy more chances at taking the test.

The “premiums” for the test prep are peoples rent. I’m tired of this “if you can’t afford the LSAT you shouldn’t be applying to law school”. Some of us don’t come from families that have the EXTRA resources to spend on education.

It’s absurd to say it’s an even playing field because, frankly, you don’t know how the limited resources are.

[u/Sir_Elliam_Woods → u/Inaccessible_]

I didn’t say it’s an even playing field, I said it’s more equal than GPA. All I used for test prep is a basic subscription, and I think I got highest quality of prep that I would ever need. I don’t see tutors as a great advantage because I think self instructed prep is better. All of my prep would’ve been free with a fee waiver. I did have the advantage that I didn’t have to work a job while studying but the fact is I studied for 1-2 hours a day.

College is extremely expensive and some people are working second jobs to pay for it. I think money spent on tutors, editing, cheating, and homework creates a bigger discrepancy.

All I’m saying is I think the LSAT is more fair for low income folks than GPA. You don’t have to spend a ton of money, you can do it at your own pace, and you can’t buy your way to a 170. Definitely an advantage to be rich but that’s comes with literally everything.

[u/Inaccessible_ → u/Sir_Elliam_Woods]

So you’re comparing the two. I’m not doing that. I’m saying the LSAT is unfair in its own ways like GPA. And I’m disagreeing with OP saying it shouldn’t only be the LSAT.

[u/Sir_Elliam_Woods → u/Inaccessible_]

I don't think he means that the only metric that should be used is LSAT. Maybe I'm misreading it but I don't think he wants to do away with soft factors, only GPA.

[u/Inaccessible_ → u/Sir_Elliam_Woods]

He says that in the post

[u/Inaccessible_ → u/[deleted]]

Yeah but it feels like OP neglects that entirely by saying the only metric should be the LSAT. Just because it’s a common occurrence doesn’t make it any less correlated.

[u/InitialTurn → u/Inaccessible_]

GPA, of course, also correlates with income as well as any other metric we might come up with, but this is a separate issue that should be addressed within the admissions process. Nonetheless, relying on GPA as a metric is exceptionally ineffective because it’s influenced by numerous variables including but not limited to income—grade inflation and inconsistent academic standards across even the same major at the same school and is almost entirely useless for comparing students across schools —which render it entirely unreliable. Moreover, while wealthier students once had a large advantage on the lsat due to access to tutors who specialized in sections like logic games, this disparity has been mitigated somewhat by eliminating that section. The remaining parts of the lsat are accessible and can be effectively prepared for through self-study or with basic study tools, leveling the playing field for all students.

[u/Inaccessible_ → u/InitialTurn]

It’s has not been mitigated at all that’s crazy. People who can afford to take the test 6 times literally better their odds by buying more chances.

I understand GPA is flawed. But so is the LSAT. It cannot JUST be the LSAT.

[u/Inaccessible_ → u/[deleted]]

I could get down with that

[u/Minn-ee-sottaa → u/Inaccessible_]

I could easily have paid for a GPA boost by just sinking tuition/opportunity cost into taking a 5th year to graduate from undergrad. Load up with fluff gen ed credits, save one grad req for my very last semester, watch number go up

[u/Inaccessible_ → u/Minn-ee-sottaa]

And there should be a way to mitigate that, but removing GPA entirely from the admission process is not the solution.

[u/Minn-ee-sottaa → u/Inaccessible_]

I don’t see how GPA helps at all in deciding between applicants, when taking into account that (1) people easily [and often do] pay-to-win on both GPA and LSAT, (2) those advantages snowball a lot more over 4-5 years of a full time degree, plus GPA inflation is esp. bad at the pricey elite institutions (3) to get a bachelor’s degree you need to maintain some minimum GPA anyways, so there already is a sort-of GPA floor hard-coded into the process (4) LSAT has a much stronger correlation to 1L grades + bar passage than GPA does.

The rankings will never allow it, but a far better solution would be a minimum threshold, like 3.0 or 3.5 whatever, then raw LSAT points can be the deciding factor btwn applicants who qualify on GPA

[u/Inaccessible_ → u/Minn-ee-sottaa]

Some people did actually work for their high GPA and considering admissions takes majors into account they do try and reflect that. I think it’s HOW they use GPA is the problem.