sbalive wrote:gatorlion wrote:eople who go into legal academia were stellar performers in undergraduate, as evidenced by their numerous accomplishments even before entering law school. What about that is so hard to understand? If you earned a 3.1 GPA, you probably did not win many substantial awards in undergrad, which means you have fewer accolades than your high-performing colleagues coming from the liberal arts. HYS are not full of nose-grinding 3.1 GPA students, they are the best students from all disciplines. Therefore, they will have a substantial advantage if they choose to enter legal academia. The adage about scholarships in academia, "Money follows money," could be paraphrased to mean "success begets success." The best of the best will become legal scholars. End of story.
You seem unable to comprehend the difference between correlation and causation. This may cause difficulty in future academic endeavours.
Achievement in undergrad = More likely to achieve in the future when compared to average students. Aeroplane is right that there is a massive hill to climb in order to get into legal academia. People who were more consistent in their achievement are more likely to have institutional inertia give them an edge in their pursuits. Having a low GPA does not preclude one from going into legal academia, but not going to HYS is already a significant blow to chances of doing so. Had Aeroplane performed better on the LSAT and throughout college, I would have no problem saying that he/she would have a terrific shot at legal academia. But he/she didn't and now the hurdles have been set up.
Also, I think I'm good on the correlation/causation front. As a current PhD student in a social science at a top public, I think I can offer my opinion from one of experience. My future academic endeavors look excellent, thank you.