An Appeal to LSAC! Agree or Disagree Forum

[billbraski2013]

First of all, do you think that law schools give less weight to graduate school because the LSAC only uses undergraduate gpa in the OVERALL gpa (or what should be an OVERALL gpa)?

I think that graduate grades should be averaged into the overall GPA.

Graduate school is more difficult than undergraduate school, and it is still representative of one's academic ability.

It also sets a precedent that once students have finished undergraduate school, there is no considerable option for them to improve their gpa.

If someone gets a 3.0 in undergrad for whatever reason, then they get a 4.0 masters degree, then that should be reflected in their overall gpa.

I'm calling for an appeal to LSAC. They are practically a monopoly, and like all ranking systems in the U.S., the law school rankings are falling victim to the numbers that are reported to them, and only those numbers. It's flaws are similar to that of the BCS. It will become the only ranking system, and all the other important factors that go into admissions and making a good law school will be forgotten the same way all those number 3 and 4 teams that deserved to play in championship games were forgotten. So we need to try and fix as many flaws to this system as possible starting with the important recognition of graduate school grades. If you think about how it would all average out, it just makes since. Its logical if you will, which is why I vote to agree. Peace out.

[nick637]

Most grad schools are known for their epic grade inflation so lsac is correct

[dutchstriker]

Terrible idea. Everyone gets As in grad programs.

[starsong]

Most grad schools are known for their epic grade inflation so lsac is correct

+1

[kswiss]

Nah....grad school GPAs are inflated. It wouldn't be fair.

I would, however, support an overhaul in methods they use to calculate GPA. For example, I would prefer that instead of creating their new LSAC UGPA, they instead pass along the GPA from the degree granting institution, along with straight up photocopies of the transcripts.

It would take all of 10 seconds for adcomms to look down the transcript for anything weird, and it would let schools weigh stuff however they want. Instead, there are some arbitrary methods of determining LSAC GPA where 2 students that did the exact same thing with the same grades can have drastically different GPAs based on how their schools annotate the transcript. LSAC GPA is so determinative in the admissions process that the student at the school that denotes retakes with a blank rather than a *(grade) has a distinct advantage over the other, with no difference in actual performance.

[sumus romani]

I sure wish that they would include grad GPA.

But I definitely see why they don't: all of the problems with undergrad GPA (grade inflation in some schools, difference in grades in areas of specialization, grade-pandering by students, etc.) are present and worse in grad GPA's.

[cubswin]

Throwing grad GPAs into the mix creates more opportunities for people to game the system. This isn't the only argument against it (graduate school grade inflation is probably the strongest one), but doing this would create an incentive for someone to pursue a fully-funded MA at some shit college in a bullshit discipline solely for the purpose of artificially boosting their GPA to get into law school.

[OneSixtySix]

No.

Theres just so many reasons to keep Grad GPA separate.

Its one thing to discuss the differences in GPA for ones major, which constitutes about 35-60% of ones overall curriculum. Its another to ask we factor in graduate degrees which are 100% concentrated in any given area, with no standard or core curriculum to compare candidates across.

Further graduate GPAs tend to be (read: are ALWAYS) higher than undergrad GPAs, thus creating an unfair advantage for holders of graduate degrees. Most Adcomms use GPA and LSAT to gauge somebody's raw potential to study the law and capacity for intelligence, not as indicators of achievements in other fields, which is exactly what a graduate degree is.

[sca218ml]

Disagree. Law school admissions is already too skewed towards advantaging those with means (people with means have the ability to study for and take multiple LSATs). Just undergrad grades is a level playing field.

[skamike]

Are they necessarily inflated, or is it just that those who pursue a master's program are capable of getting those A's. Maybe it's different here in Canada, but our master's program doesn't inflate grades. The quality of work is just that good.

[CG614]

A failing grade is a C in lots of grad schools, therefore most people easily get A's and B's... bad idea. Next!

[iShotFirst]

Masters grade inflation in the USA sucks... I have an Australian MBA and my GPA is 3.3, I was #1 in the class. Really looks crappy on a resume haha

[CG614]

Masters grade inflation in the USA sucks... I have an Australian MBA and my GPA is 3.3, I was #1 in the class. Really looks crappy on a resume haha

Why put the gpa on your resume? You control that. Put ranked first in class. Done. Come on, people.

PS. Not all grade inflate, but lots do, so using it with UGPA is not a good idea.

[im_blue]

Let me guess, you have a crap LSAC GPA and think your A's in grad classes should help you. As mentioned by many others, grad A's are given out like candy and thus are meaningless.

[cubswin]

If your graduate school work is actually interesting, it should make you stand out as an applicant. It's not as if the ad-comms are prohibited from considering your graduate work entirely.

[billbraski2013]

I posted this poll and I changed my position. This is my reason.

I changed my vote. I think admissions committees should be held responsible for giving more weight to graduate school and not lsac. I did have a biased decision because my ugpa is lower than my grad, but I still think that I made a good point. LSAC's reported numbers of LSATs and UGPAs will be the only credentials that matter for ranking law schools. Its pretty much that way now. These numbers are by far the two most important factors, and they are good factors. But they are not the only factors that predict a good law student, and they are definitely not the only factors in a good law school. It seems like law schools are becoming more and more dependent on these two factors in choosing law students, and the other factors, which should matter and we all know what they are (the softs) will soon be obsolete.

I do believe that the LSAT and ugpa should probably count at least 75% of admissions, but I think they are being weighed much heavier than that, and it is growing. Like maybe 90% +. For the record I think these are the two most important factors in the admissions process.

Although graduate grades are inflated, graduate degrees and graduate courses are very difficult and they should be acknowledged as an important factor in one's academic abilities. This is the point I was really trying to make!

The top 14 law schools are in a world of their own, but the top 20 and lower should not get sucked into this trap, because the soft factors could actually be far more important. So agree to disagree, but I think admissions committees need to open their eyes to this trend.

[MURPH]

You would be better off writing an appeal to USNWR, asking them to publish the % of students who go to grad school before admission. If they did that the adcoms would give students credit for grad school immediately.

[KibblesAndVick]

I think one of the reasons LSAC is against this is that they don't want to know if you're a capable student so much as how you compare to all the other people applying to a law school. They have way more applicants than they have spaces and they need a way to see what makes Applicant A better than Applicant B. If Applicant A has a 3.5 UG GPA but got a 4.0 doing grad work it is evidence that they are "better" than the 3.5 suggests. However, if they're vying with Applicant B, who also has a 3.5 UG GPA but no grad work, it doesn't help you compare the two students. You have no way of knowing what grades Applicant B would receive in grad school so you can't knock him for it.

They want things that separate applicants. This is the whole idea of the LSAT. Everyone has to take the same test and gets a comparable score. Everyone goes to different colleges, has different majors, and takes different professors. This makes it a doozy to tell which student you should admit and which you shouldn't. Adding Grad GPA would just add another layer of differences that makes it hard to compare applicant's GPA's.