emkay625 wrote: moneybagsphd wrote: emkay625 wrote:
Real Madrid wrote:I'm not sure why so many people think TFA is some incredible soft that's going to overcome a poor GPA or LSAT. Is it a good soft? Yes, probably one of the better ones. But in the end, LSAT and GPA trump all, and while it might give you a slight boost, I'd generally rather have an extra point or 2 on my LSAT score or an extra tenth of a point on my GPA than have TFA on my resume.
ETA: And as the TFA funding grows (and therefore the corps sizes grow), the "uniqueness" factor continues to decline, and the competition for the scholarships and spots at elite schools continues to rise. TFA is by no means a rare soft anymore.
Agreed. I am a current corps member and don't think TFA will help my cycle at all.
Did you put it on your resume? Why? Because it's definitely going to help your cycle.
It is all over my resume and the subject of personal statement and 1 of my lor's. but TFA is nothing more than a good soft. i do not think i will get in anywhere than my numbers would have gotten me into otherwise. (i welcome adcomms to prove me wrong.....)
i have 5 friends who went through last year's cycle. none of them got into a school they wouldn't have anyway. one of them DID get into harvard, but she also had a 4.0/175.
Consider that there are actually many people who are qualified by their stats. You might want to stand out among these applicants. That's where I feel you're undervaluing your TFA experience. It could mean the difference between getting admitted and waitlisted, or getting straight up denied.
I know it's different at every school, but softs can amount to something numerically (eventually), which is to say that once they've decided to seriously review your application they can add points to your index score. The guy with 173/3.8/no experience loses out to the guy with 173/3.7/TFA because the TFA adds 2 points to his index score. Again, it varies by school and what they're looking for, but I didn't just make that up. It's also completely compatible with "numbers>all," so don't think I'm disagreeing with you about that.