This has me worried

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
anstone1988
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:04 pm

This has me worried

Postby anstone1988 » Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:53 pm

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/law ... ities.html

What sallyawp wrote as me worried. Is it true?

User avatar
luckyme
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 9:41 pm

Re: This has me worried

Postby luckyme » Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:57 pm

stats?

sullidop
Posts: 351
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: This has me worried

Postby sullidop » Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:57 pm

anstone1988 wrote:http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/law-school/1190559-re-extracurricular-activities.html

What sallyawp wrote as me worried. Is it true?


Yes.

User avatar
Kilpatrick
Posts: 1073
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:06 am

Re: This has me worried

Postby Kilpatrick » Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:00 pm

Soft factors are overrated and sallyawp sounds like she doesn't know anything about law school admissions. It depends on the range of school. At T6 schools that can afford to be choosy about applicants, soft factors probably matter more. But for the vast majority of schools, get a high enough LSAT and it doesn't matter what extracurriculars you have or how half-assed your personal statement is.

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: This has me worried

Postby firemed » Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:10 pm

Kilpatrick wrote:Soft factors are overrated and sallyawp sounds like she doesn't know anything about law school admissions. It depends on the range of school. At T6 schools that can afford to be choosy about applicants, soft factors probably matter more. But for the vast majority of schools, get a high enough LSAT and it doesn't matter what extracurriculars you have or how half-assed your personal statement is.


Yeah, to a large degree I agree with this. 90% is numbers, 10% is softs. A few schools will care more one way or the other, but most can be relied on with these numbers. Still, if you have zero softs then you will get passed over for people who actually have them with similar numbers to yours. So go get some softs.

acrossthelake
Posts: 4431
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: This has me worried

Postby acrossthelake » Mon Aug 08, 2011 9:33 pm

anstone1988 wrote:http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/law-school/1190559-re-extracurricular-activities.html

What sallyawp wrote as me worried. Is it true?


Unless she is defining "top schools" as only Yale, Stanford, and Harvard, no she's wrong. Even at Harvard, a lot of "softs" can be sorta run-of-the-mill generic.

Considering some "oops!" mistakes I saw some posters make this cycle (ex: inserting the wrong school into the "and this is why I want to go to ____" statements, etc.) and the acceptances they still received at Top 10 schools, I'm dubious.

sparty99
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:41 pm

Re: This has me worried

Postby sparty99 » Mon Aug 08, 2011 9:52 pm

Softs mean almost nothing. It is all about the LSAT. Don't believe me? Look at how many people with 2.8 to 3.2 gpa's and 170+ LSATS get significant scholarships at Top 25. If you have a high GPA and LSAT below 150, you gotta FIGHT to get admissions to a top 80.

I actually bucked the trend, with a HORRENDOUS LSAT. My "softs" - work experience, race, visiting the admissions directors - got me a full ride at a Top 35. But really, it is all about the LSAT.

User avatar
IamJosh
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:35 am

Re: This has me worried

Postby IamJosh » Mon Aug 08, 2011 10:54 pm

No school is going to put "We only care about your numbers, because that's what our rankings are based on" on their admissions website. The 3.8 170's are not going to be competing with the 3.9+ 175+'s because they were involved in their communities, but the 3.8 170 who never left the library will probably fall to the 3.8 170 who volunteered and was active on campus.

gens1tb
Posts: 315
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:36 pm

Re: This has me worried

Postby gens1tb » Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:45 pm

IamJosh wrote:No school is going to put "We only care about your numbers, because that's what our rankings are based on" on their admissions website. The 3.8 170's are not going to be competing with the 3.9+ 175+'s because they were involved in their communities, but the 3.8 170 who never left the library will probably fall to the 3.8 170 who volunteered and was active on campus.


Does it really give you an edge though? It's not like you can objectively measure softs. So really, it's going to come down to what the person(s) reading your app 'like(s).'

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: This has me worried

Postby CanadianWolf » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:12 pm

The poster on the other website is overstating the importance of ECs for those with solid numbers according to a few books written by current & former law school admissions officers.

If you read the entire thread on the other website, the poster admits that she has never sat in during a law school admissions session.

I recall the poster in question from a few years ago & , if I recall correctly, she claims to have been a legal headhunter/recruiter in NYC.

firemed
Posts: 1195
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: This has me worried

Postby firemed » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:37 pm

gens1tb wrote:
IamJosh wrote:No school is going to put "We only care about your numbers, because that's what our rankings are based on" on their admissions website. The 3.8 170's are not going to be competing with the 3.9+ 175+'s because they were involved in their communities, but the 3.8 170 who never left the library will probably fall to the 3.8 170 who volunteered and was active on campus.


Does it really give you an edge though? It's not like you can objectively measure softs. So really, it's going to come down to what the person(s) reading your app 'like(s).'



This is true to some degree, but remember that the adcomms are also lawyers who have been trained to see it from both sides...


In short: They tend to like people who aren't boring. People who don't do anything aren't going to look as interesting as people who have.

Of course, if you are boring as shit with a 3.9 and 178 you are pretty much golden. Enjoy the fruits of never having done a damn thing but study for 4 years. Mozel Tov. :roll:

User avatar
IamJosh
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:35 am

Re: This has me worried

Postby IamJosh » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:35 pm

gens1tb wrote:
IamJosh wrote:No school is going to put "We only care about your numbers, because that's what our rankings are based on" on their admissions website. The 3.8 170's are not going to be competing with the 3.9+ 175+'s because they were involved in their communities, but the 3.8 170 who never left the library will probably fall to the 3.8 170 who volunteered and was active on campus.


I feel like the edge--and this is just based on things I've read/heard about the admissions process, usually on schools' websites--comes down to the fact that doing nothing but studying for four years and having a 3.8 is less impressive to most people than having a life with the same GPA. But you're right in the sense that the "wow factor" (regardless of how minimal it is) that someone gets from softs is definitely subjective in most cases. The way I view it, is that softs don't have numerical translations, they just tell people who you are as a person, which becomes the deciding factor if one is numerically identical to another applicant and it is up to whoever is reading the applications to decide what the softs mean in that case.

albanach
Posts: 1011
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:05 pm

Re: This has me worried

Postby albanach » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:42 pm

For most ordinary applicants, lawschoolpredictor is pretty accurate, and it doesn't take account of softs, just LSAT and GPA.

Of course for some schools it will tell applicants they are a 'consider'. Your softs might matter at those schools.

At the others, all that matters are the numbers.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], BobBoblaw, brewpub16, cavalier1138, CHyde, genjustice, lawschoolbound2017, MSNbot Media, newbie2017, Pugnax, q2w3e, Thomas Hagan, ESQ., zerato5, zot1 and 8 guests