Robert Anderson

Professor of Law Pepperdine University School of Law

My Articles


  • The information on this blog is provided for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. Information contained in this blog, the comments, or any correspondence with the author or others do not create an attorney-client relationship and are not a substitute for professional legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.
Blog powered by Typepad

« Do the capital markets value Delaware corporate law? | Main | JDs in the Boardroom (2014 Edition) »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

You should account for how/whether someone studied for the lsat.

You should account for undergraduate institution. All A's are not created equal.

You should also account for different majors as well.

You should report the exact percentile that equals your chance of achieving that percentile.

I'm in top 2% after 2 years. Predictor said 10% chance of being in top 10.

This is the dumbest idea. While I understand it's possible, given the normal curve, to make predictions based on statistical analysis... there are simply too many variables in life to make broad generalizations like this. I had a 2.57 UGPA (computer engineering) and a 160 LSAT = 1% chance of being in top 20% and yet here I am. If you enjoy law school and learn to play the game, you'll be fine!

tl;dr even if you're "academically disadvantaged," you can still be very successful in law school given sufficient preparation.

This is fundamentally flawed if there's an upper limit on the GPA I'm allowed to enter for my school that is below what I actually scored.

The comments to this entry are closed.