Top Law Schools

edit

LSAT >> GPA = URM status >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Undergrad institution >>>>> Length of toenails >>>>>>>>>>> Soft factors

romothesavior wrote:LSAT >> GPA = URM status >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Undergrad institution >>>>> Length of toenails >>>>>>>>>>> Soft factors

titcr

Does it matter if you have minors? I have 2 minors (philosophy & women's studies) does this matter at all?

darby girl wrote:Does it matter if you have minors? I have 2 minors (philosophy & women's studies) does this matter at all?

No it doesn't, especially if those are your minors. (And I mean no offense... I'm a philosophy major.)

romothesavior wrote:

darby girl wrote:Does it matter if you have minors? I have 2 minors (philosophy & women's studies) does this matter at all?

No it doesn't, especially if those are your minors. (And I mean no offense... I'm a philosophy major.)

I've heard some law professors (my neighbor is one at Stetson) and other admissions folk that a Phi major is definitly admired for a law school hopeful. Maybe not then? I feel like my philosophy background REALLY helped me out, especially on the LSAT. Formal logic = common knowledge for us, and so on.

Also, I forget PS and LORs... but those would fall just to the left of academic institution.

Now if you write a stellar PS or have a truly game-changing soft, that could help. In addition, if you went to HYS or had a really difficult major, that could help a bit too. But for 90% of applicants, I think LORs, PS, undergrad institution, and softs aren't going to change much.

darby girl wrote:

romothesavior wrote:

darby girl wrote:Does it matter if you have minors? I have 2 minors (philosophy & women's studies) does this matter at all?

No it doesn't, especially if those are your minors. (And I mean no offense... I'm a philosophy major.)

I've heard some law professors (my neighbor is one at Stetson) and other admissions folk that a Phi major is definitly admired for a law school hopeful. Maybe not then? I feel like my philosophy background REALLY helped me out, especially on the LSAT. Formal logic = common knowledge for us, and so on.

Not even a little help.

darby girl wrote:

romothesavior wrote:

darby girl wrote:Does it matter if you have minors? I have 2 minors (philosophy & women's studies) does this matter at all?

No it doesn't, especially if those are your minors. (And I mean no offense... I'm a philosophy major.)

I've heard some law professors (my neighbor is one at Stetson) and other admissions folk that a Phi major is definitly admired for a law school hopeful. Maybe not then? I feel like my philosophy background REALLY helped me out, especially on the LSAT. Formal logic = common knowledge for us, and so on.

As far as admissions, no. It won't make a difference.

As far as building the foundation for success in law school, I think it can maybe help. I'd be willing to bet I've written and read more during my undergrad career than most of my soon-to-be-classmates. I'm not saying I'm smarter or more competent than my soon-to-be-classmates, but I do feel very well prepared for a legal education and I'm hopeful that will lead to better grades in law school. Ask me in a year how that pans out.

Desert Fox wrote:

darby girl wrote:

romothesavior wrote:

darby girl wrote:Does it matter if you have minors? I have 2 minors (philosophy & women's studies) does this matter at all?

No it doesn't, especially if those are your minors. (And I mean no offense... I'm a philosophy major.)

I've heard some law professors (my neighbor is one at Stetson) and other admissions folk that a Phi major is definitly admired for a law school hopeful. Maybe not then? I feel like my philosophy background REALLY helped me out, especially on the LSAT. Formal logic = common knowledge for us, and so on.

Not even a little help.

Well, being a Philosophy major does correlate to a comparatively high LSAT score (not asserting causation here, though). But beyond any help that a major may give in getting a good GPA/LSAT/LOR/WE/PS, a certain major does not give any tangible benefit in the admissions process.

xmrmckenziex wrote:I was curious why the disparity? Do Adcomms just paint a pretty picture that they don't really follow? Or do the TLS Forums just ignore these points for simplicity of analyzing chances?

Adcomms lie through their fucking teeth.

Bildungsroman wrote:Adcomms lie through their fucking teeth.

--ImageRemoved--

Hypotheticals:

Student 1- Major: Leisure Studies; GPA 3.86; LSAT:174, College: University of Bridgeport; No memberships, leadership roles, interests, or experience in anything

Result: In almost anywhere

Student 2- Major: double in Bio-Chem and economics; GPA 3.07; LSAT:155, College: CalTech; all kinds of memberships, leadership roles, interests, and experience.

Result: lucky to get into Tier 3

It sucks, but that's just the way it is. Softs mean next to nothing at most schools.

Lawof_theLand wrote:Hypotheticals:

Student 1- Major: Leisure Studies; GPA 3.86; LSAT:174, College: University of Bridgeport; No memberships, leadership roles, interests, or experience in anything

Result: In almost anywhere

Student 2- Major: double in Bio-Chem and economics; GPA 3.07; LSAT:155, College: CalTech; all kinds of memberships, leadership roles, interests, and experience.

Result: lucky to get into Tier 3

It sucks, but that's just the way it is. Softs mean next to nothing at most schools.

Why does that suck? Student 2 probably isn't that smart.

Lawof_theLand wrote:Hypotheticals:

Student 1- Major: Leisure Studies; GPA 3.86; LSAT:174, College: University of Bridgeport; No memberships, leadership roles, interests, or experience in anything

Result: In almost anywhere

Student 2- Major: double in Bio-Chem and economics; GPA 3.07; LSAT:155, College: CalTech; all kinds of memberships, leadership roles, interests, and experience.

Result: lucky to get into Tier 3

It sucks, but that's just the way it is. Softs mean next to nothing at most schools.

So what's your point? We can't compare them because they went to different schools and had different majors? Okay, well they both took the LSAT right? The difference between someone with a 174 and a 155 is HUGE.

Lawof_theLand wrote:Hypotheticals:

Student 1- Major: Leisure Studies; GPA 3.86; LSAT:174, College: University of Bridgeport; No memberships, leadership roles, interests, or experience in anything

Result: In almost anywhere

Student 2- Major: double in Bio-Chem and economics; GPA 3.07; LSAT:155, College: CalTech; all kinds of memberships, leadership roles, interests, and experience.

Result: lucky to get into Tier 3

It sucks, but that's just the way it is. Softs mean next to nothing at most schools.

I feel like the difficulty of the courses should play a major role. It is much easier for me to get an A in my English classes than it is for my friends to get an A in their economics courses, at least from my experience and from what others have shared with me. GPA just as a number isn't very fair to those who take more difficult classes.

darby girl wrote:
I feel like the difficulty of the courses should play a major role. It is much easier for me to get an A in my English classes than it is for my friends to get an A in their economics courses, at least from my experience and from what others have shared with me. GPA just as a number isn't very fair to those who take more difficult classes.

I'm sure many people on TLS wish it was that way too. A lot of people on here are engineering majors (like Desert Fox) who have brutal curves that deflate their GPAs, but have great LSATs to compensate.

But that isn't how it is. The US News rankings drive most of the admissions process. GPA is a major factor, and course difficulty is not as major factor. Look at the LSAT as an equalizer... we all take it, and it is how we can all be compared to each other.

romothesavior wrote:

darby girl wrote:
I feel like the difficulty of the courses should play a major role. It is much easier for me to get an A in my English classes than it is for my friends to get an A in their economics courses, at least from my experience and from what others have shared with me. GPA just as a number isn't very fair to those who take more difficult classes.

I'm sure many people on TLS wish it was that way too. A lot of people on here are engineering majors (like Desert Fox) who have brutal curves that deflate their GPAs, but have great LSATs to compensate.

But that isn't how it is. The US News rankings drive most of the admissions process. GPA is a major factor, and course difficulty is not as major factor. Look at the LSAT as an equalizer... we all take it, and it is how we can all be compared to each other.

Good for me, bad for most . I was reading about a law school in Canada that doesn't release the average LSAT nor GPA of it's students. I wonder if that college puts more attention on softs. Would be interesting to know the data and what they look for when it isn't a numbers game.