Law school admissions is flawed

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
LockBox
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 8:05 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby LockBox » Fri May 11, 2012 4:17 pm

Liquox wrote:
splitter13 wrote:I want you to think about this scenario for a minute.

You have a chemical engineering major who is at the top of his major with a 2.7 GPA. Getting a C+ in a class is hard. He took Calc 5, Physics 3, Econometric's, ect.

You have a Communication major who has a 3.7 GPA. If you don't get a B+ in a class you're mentally retarded. He took Communications 101, Interpersonal Communication.

The communication major scores a 165, the engineering major scores a 175. The communication major gets into Cornell. The engineering major would be lucky to break >30.

Explain to me how this makes sense? I would like to hear some non liberal arts majors too.


at 165, comm major isn't getting into cornell. at 167, maybe. and cornell definitely does make exceptions for hard majors/minors. and yeah, chem engineering is hard, but not that hard. (i'm biochem/finances, and i've taken chem-e classes). the comm major still has to study; these engineers should manage less than a 1.0 difference.

not that i'm one to talk, but why is a chem-e going to law school?


Perhaps the same reason the comm major is going to law school? Just because a chem-e can find work that pays somewhat well doesn't mean they shouldn't go....just like a comm major SHOULDN'T go just because they don't know what to do with their degree

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby dowu » Fri May 11, 2012 4:24 pm

:shock: :shock:
Last edited by dowu on Sun Apr 17, 2016 7:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BarcaCrossesTheAlps
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 11:43 am

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby BarcaCrossesTheAlps » Fri May 11, 2012 4:27 pm

splitter13 wrote:I want you to think about this scenario for a minute.

You have a chemical engineering major who is at the top of his major with a 2.7 GPA. Getting a C+ in a class is hard. He took Calc 5, Physics 3, Econometric's, ect.

You have a Communication major who has a 3.7 GPA. If you don't get a B+ in a class you're mentally retarded. He took Communications 101, Interpersonal Communication.

The communication major scores a 165, the engineering major scores a 175. The communication major gets into Cornell. The engineering major would be lucky to break >30.

Explain to me how this makes sense? I would like to hear some non liberal arts majors too.


If you are upset over the admissions process, I have some bad news for you..... life is guaranteed to hand you many more lemons.


This...
--ImageRemoved--
...will not help you.

wearefoxsports
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:54 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby wearefoxsports » Fri May 11, 2012 5:11 pm

Dean Deal wrote:I’ve re-read Asha’s comment that you mention and I’m going to interpret her remarks by focusing on her use of the word “all” when talking about science and engineering. I personally believe that science /engineering backgrounds are valuable and most certainly are not viewed here at SLS as a weakness. That said, though, not all science/engineering applicants come to the table with their best foot forward. For example, I don’t like to see an engineering major’s transcript with only (or all – here’s my connection to Asha’s comment) science-type courses. I want to see you branch out of your safe and secure science world and take a walk on the wild side and enter the humanities world, for example. Now, I know the engineering major does not leave a whole lot of room for exploring, but there is room and you should most definitely take advantage of that to round out your academic program of study. Likewise, I like to see the English major take a walk on the wild side as well so this advice does not only apply to the science kids.


I read that comment too, but it still doesn't say much though. Sure, science/engineering background is generally not considered as a weakness, but according those two deans, it is not considered as an advantage either. Does it make sense? I think so. Is it fair? Well, is LIFE fair?

sequins
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby sequins » Fri May 11, 2012 5:14 pm

I have a lot of friends (including my so) who are engineering majors. Their grades range from everything between the 3.5+ to 2.5 range. However all the 2.5 engineers definitely didn't study much. One was my roommate one year so I definitely know he spent maybe 20-30% of the time studying than he did. My so who does engineering also says that it isn't that difficult. It takes work and studying but she still gets better grades in her engineering classes than she does in the humanities classes she had to take for ge's. Bear in mind those ge's are the lower division humanities classes which are no where near a true reflection of the upper division work. I'm guessing your main experience with humanities classes is through those too. Well you should try taking intro physics for humanities majors too. I did and it was the easiest class I've ever taken. Does that mean physics is easy? No. But until you have actually done a whole major and done hard upper division classes you wouldn't know. Also you spent four years taking classes involving calculus or plugging numbers which isn't. Law school admissions aren't trying to determine which candidates worked the hardest for the last four years of undergrad.They are trying to determine the best candidates who will succeed in Law School, a subject that involves a lot of heavy reading, very good verbal analytical skills, to parse through vast quantities of text and make connections and interpretations, and heavy loads of writing. For that purpose a 4.0 in Engineering actually tells the Law admissions far less about the candidate than a 4.0 in English, or even a 3.0. Not saying all engineers can not write - but being a successful engineer does not mean you can read/write well - and that is what law schools are interested in.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby 09042014 » Fri May 11, 2012 5:27 pm

sequins wrote:I have a lot of friends (including my so) who are engineering majors. Their grades range from everything between the 3.5+ to 2.5 range. However all the 2.5 engineers definitely didn't study much. One was my roommate one year so I definitely know he spent maybe 20-30% of the time studying than he did. My so who does engineering also says that it isn't that difficult. It takes work and studying but she still gets better grades in her engineering classes than she does in the humanities classes she had to take for ge's. Bear in mind those ge's are the lower division humanities classes which are no where near a true reflection of the upper division work. I'm guessing your main experience with humanities classes is through those too. Well you should try taking intro physics for humanities majors too. I did and it was the easiest class I've ever taken. Does that mean physics is easy? No. But until you have actually done a whole major and done hard upper division classes you wouldn't know. Also you spent four years taking classes involving calculus or plugging numbers which isn't. Law school admissions aren't trying to determine which candidates worked the hardest for the last four years of undergrad.They are trying to determine the best candidates who will succeed in Law School, a subject that involves a lot of heavy reading, very good verbal analytical skills, to parse through vast quantities of text and make connections and interpretations, and heavy loads of writing. For that purpose a 4.0 in Engineering actually tells the Law admissions far less about the candidate than a 4.0 in English, or even a 3.0. Not saying all engineers can not write - but being a successful engineer does not mean you can read/write well - and that is what law schools are interested in.


Most Engineers do not to worse in Gen Eds than they do in engineer classes. Quite the opposite. They are generally viewed as easy As and GPA boosters.

User avatar
chem
Posts: 867
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:14 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby chem » Fri May 11, 2012 5:58 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
sequins wrote:I have a lot of friends (including my so) who are engineering majors. Their grades range from everything between the 3.5+ to 2.5 range. However all the 2.5 engineers definitely didn't study much. One was my roommate one year so I definitely know he spent maybe 20-30% of the time studying than he did. My so who does engineering also says that it isn't that difficult. It takes work and studying but she still gets better grades in her engineering classes than she does in the humanities classes she had to take for ge's. Bear in mind those ge's are the lower division humanities classes which are no where near a true reflection of the upper division work. I'm guessing your main experience with humanities classes is through those too. Well you should try taking intro physics for humanities majors too. I did and it was the easiest class I've ever taken. Does that mean physics is easy? No. But until you have actually done a whole major and done hard upper division classes you wouldn't know. Also you spent four years taking classes involving calculus or plugging numbers which isn't. Law school admissions aren't trying to determine which candidates worked the hardest for the last four years of undergrad.They are trying to determine the best candidates who will succeed in Law School, a subject that involves a lot of heavy reading, very good verbal analytical skills, to parse through vast quantities of text and make connections and interpretations, and heavy loads of writing. For that purpose a 4.0 in Engineering actually tells the Law admissions far less about the candidate than a 4.0 in English, or even a 3.0. Not saying all engineers can not write - but being a successful engineer does not mean you can read/write well - and that is what law schools are interested in.


Most Engineers do not to worse in Gen Eds than they do in engineer classes. Quite the opposite. They are generally viewed as easy As and GPA boosters.


Agreed. All the engineers in my school see the G.E classes they take that are blow off classes and easy A's

sequins
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby sequins » Fri May 11, 2012 5:58 pm

Well that was anecdotal but out of my friends, my s.o who has a 3.5+ found the 'easy' g.e.'s a lot harder, and my other two friends who were also 3.5+ engineers also did worse. Not like failing badly, but getting B+,-A- rather than the A- to A's they usually get in engineering classes. That said they are all truly interested and talented as engineers, and all of them are in graduate programs now. My Engineering C average friends, some of which I've taken ge's with all scored in the C's/B's in the ge's - barely passing the mandatory writing class too. Simply said their grades pretty much matched up with or were below their average engineering grades. Most engineers are in there because they liked engineering and were good at it, but that didn't mean they were good at analysing music or reading history books. In fact they mostly hated it and couldn't figure out what to do to write a 'good' english paper.

But my main point is that whether or not your engineering classes were harder shouldn't matter for Law school admissions because they're not trying to see how hard you can study, they are trying to see how well you can study the material in Law School. Being able to study formulas and math problems, even if they are harder does not mean that you are able to study 1000 page books of law. Sure it doesn't preclude you from it, but there are lots of examples of very good engineers who are not able to write a coherent essay or read an average novel without reaching for a dictionary. On the flip side it is impossible for someone to get a 4.0 in english without at least being able to read massive volumes and write a coherent essay. So you may have proven you can work hard - but you have not proven your ability to be a law student. As someone said earlier, a 4.0 in English or Economics, or even (to fit your definition of hard) Pure Maths or even Pure Physics, doesn't mean you can succeed in med school. i.e. why med schools require bio/chem classes. Just be glad that law schools don't mandate 9 semesters of English/History/Social Science classes before they let you apply like Med schools do for chem/bio/physics/maths.
And before you claim that's unnecessary my s.o. who is a brilliant engineer btw - has no idea about the background of civil rights, that there is an election going on, or how the constitution or legislative system works. So even though she would have the gpa to apply for law schools if she wants, I think she'd definitely have benefited from a few Poli-sci and American History classes before enrolling right?

sequins
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby sequins » Fri May 11, 2012 6:01 pm

Most Engineers do not to worse in Gen Eds than they do in engineer classes. Quite the opposite. They are generally viewed as easy As and GPA boosters.[/quote]

Agreed. All the engineers in my school see the G.E classes they take that are blow off classes and easy A's[/quote]

Oh and just on that - I considered the science g.e.'s I had to take easy A's too - but I was also not naive enough to expect that Physics 1 or Intro Calculus was in any way similar to upper division classes of the same subject.

User avatar
Liquox
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:46 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby Liquox » Sat May 12, 2012 12:42 am

Desert Fox wrote:
Most Engineers do not to worse in Gen Eds than they do in engineer classes. Quite the opposite. They are generally viewed as easy As and GPA boosters.


not true. it's more of a 50-50 split. many of them are incredibly gifted in the abstract, but can't reason their way out of a paper box in real life. and some of their ability to explain coherently to non-science people is like that of a toddler's to bike... mostly nonexistent. then there are the ones who can't write, can't spell, can't speak in public, sweat up a storm when asked to speak in public, sweat up a storm when asked to speak to classmates, and/or barely speak english. i'm definitely not saying engineering is easy; it's just not as hard as the engineers try to make it look. and it's not uncommon to see a mech-e or double-e struggle through an intro lit class.

User avatar
1776
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:49 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby 1776 » Sat May 12, 2012 9:31 pm

I don't think it's safe to assume hard science majors would have higher grades with liberal arts majors, or that liberal arts majors would do worse in the hard sciences. I don't think people should conclude that majors with indisputablely right answers is harder than majors where there are many answers that could be right.

User avatar
togepi
Posts: 533
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 10:13 am

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby togepi » Mon May 14, 2012 1:31 pm

Well take this for what it's worth, but I was one of the laziest people in my engineering class.

I made terrible grades in all my engineering courses because I never went to class.

I made As and Bs in all my non engineering courses and I didn't go to class.

Honestly, you can sit there and defend the liberal arts majors, but at the end of the day I'm sure more engineers can do better in liberal arts classes than liberal arts majors can do in engineering classes.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5834
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby 2014 » Mon May 14, 2012 5:32 pm

I have a friend who graduated this weekend in some sort of chemical engineering with a 2.5 and walked into a job with Halliburton that pays 75k his first year and up to 120k by year 3 with great job security.

How about you go get a damn job with your engineering degree and never look back, I'm sure if a lot of us liberal arts folks could do that we would without the TLS bitch fest.

User avatar
chem
Posts: 867
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:14 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby chem » Mon May 14, 2012 6:36 pm

2014 wrote:I have a friend who graduated this weekend in some sort of chemical engineering with a 2.5 and walked into a job with Halliburton that pays 75k his first year and up to 120k by year 3 with great job security.

How about you go get a damn job with your engineering degree and never look back, I'm sure if a lot of us liberal arts folks could do that we would without the TLS bitch fest.


Yeah, but engineering tops around 120 usually, unless you shift to management, which is never a guarantee. 120 is good money though, I just hate engineering.

User avatar
rinkrat19
Posts: 13918
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:35 am

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby rinkrat19 » Mon May 14, 2012 6:39 pm

2014 wrote:I have a friend who graduated this weekend in some sort of chemical engineering with a 2.5 and walked into a job with Halliburton that pays 75k his first year and up to 120k by year 3 with great job security.

How about you go get a damn job with your engineering degree and never look back, I'm sure if a lot of us liberal arts folks could do that we would without the TLS bitch fest.
U mad we're taking ur spots in law school and ur jerbs?

I don't want to be an engineer anymore. Sorry you majored in something useless.

User avatar
moonman157
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:26 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby moonman157 » Mon May 14, 2012 6:43 pm

togepi wrote:Well take this for what it's worth, but I was one of the laziest people in my engineering class.

I made terrible grades in all my engineering courses because I never went to class.

I made As and Bs in all my non engineering courses and I didn't go to class.

Honestly, you can sit there and defend the liberal arts majors, but at the end of the day I'm sure more engineers can do better in liberal arts classes than liberal arts majors can do in engineering classes.


The thing is, though, that doing well in engineering courses isn't as indicative of future law school success as (some) liberal arts majors. Sure, as a liberal arts major, I would drown taking engineering classes. But law schools don't care much about that. They care whether or not I can write, read critically, analyze and make arguments, etc. It's not about which major is "harder." It's about which one will help you develop the skill set necessary to succeed in law school.

ajaxconstructions
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 12:24 am

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby ajaxconstructions » Mon May 14, 2012 6:44 pm

moonman157 wrote:
togepi wrote:Well take this for what it's worth, but I was one of the laziest people in my engineering class.

I made terrible grades in all my engineering courses because I never went to class.

I made As and Bs in all my non engineering courses and I didn't go to class.

Honestly, you can sit there and defend the liberal arts majors, but at the end of the day I'm sure more engineers can do better in liberal arts classes than liberal arts majors can do in engineering classes.


The thing is, though, that doing well in engineering courses isn't as indicative of future law school success as (some) liberal arts majors. Sure, as a liberal arts major, I would drown taking engineering classes. But law schools don't care much about that. They care whether or not I can write, read critically, analyze and make arguments, etc. It's not about which major is "harder." It's about which one will help you develop the skill set necessary to succeed in law school.


Are you in law school? Neither majors will help you develop the skill set necessary to succeed in law school.

User avatar
rinkrat19
Posts: 13918
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:35 am

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby rinkrat19 » Mon May 14, 2012 6:45 pm

moonman157 wrote:
togepi wrote:Well take this for what it's worth, but I was one of the laziest people in my engineering class.

I made terrible grades in all my engineering courses because I never went to class.

I made As and Bs in all my non engineering courses and I didn't go to class.

Honestly, you can sit there and defend the liberal arts majors, but at the end of the day I'm sure more engineers can do better in liberal arts classes than liberal arts majors can do in engineering classes.


The thing is, though, that doing well in engineering courses isn't as indicative of future law school success as (some) liberal arts majors. Sure, as a liberal arts major, I would drown taking engineering classes. But law schools don't care much about that. They care whether or not I can write, read critically, analyze and make arguments, etc. It's not about which major is "harder." It's about which one will help you develop the skill set necessary to succeed in law school.
And yet, engineers score higher on average on the LSAT, and LSAT score is the best (although still not a great) predictor of 1L success.

User avatar
moonman157
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:26 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby moonman157 » Mon May 14, 2012 6:47 pm

rinkrat19 wrote:
moonman157 wrote:
togepi wrote:Well take this for what it's worth, but I was one of the laziest people in my engineering class.

I made terrible grades in all my engineering courses because I never went to class.

I made As and Bs in all my non engineering courses and I didn't go to class.

Honestly, you can sit there and defend the liberal arts majors, but at the end of the day I'm sure more engineers can do better in liberal arts classes than liberal arts majors can do in engineering classes.


The thing is, though, that doing well in engineering courses isn't as indicative of future law school success as (some) liberal arts majors. Sure, as a liberal arts major, I would drown taking engineering classes. But law schools don't care much about that. They care whether or not I can write, read critically, analyze and make arguments, etc. It's not about which major is "harder." It's about which one will help you develop the skill set necessary to succeed in law school.
And yet, engineers score higher on average on the LSAT, and LSAT score is the best (although still not a great) predictor of 1L success.


Most engineers don't take the LSAT. The ones that do tend to be more focused on things related to law school/have the reading and writing skills necessary to do well on the LSAT. A huge chunk of poli sci majors, from the smartest to the dumbest, take the LSAT because they don't know what else to do.

User avatar
Tom Joad
Posts: 4542
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby Tom Joad » Mon May 14, 2012 6:48 pm

Also the average engineering major is just flat out smarter than the average liberal arts major. That doesn't mean there aren't super smart liberal arts majors and super dumb engineers.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby 09042014 » Mon May 14, 2012 6:49 pm

Liquox wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
Most Engineers do not to worse in Gen Eds than they do in engineer classes. Quite the opposite. They are generally viewed as easy As and GPA boosters.


not true. it's more of a 50-50 split. many of them are incredibly gifted in the abstract, but can't reason their way out of a paper box in real life. and some of their ability to explain coherently to non-science people is like that of a toddler's to bike... mostly nonexistent. then there are the ones who can't write, can't spell, can't speak in public, sweat up a storm when asked to speak in public, sweat up a storm when asked to speak to classmates, and/or barely speak english. i'm definitely not saying engineering is easy; it's just not as hard as the engineers try to make it look. and it's not uncommon to see a mech-e or double-e struggle through an intro lit class.


I'm basically illiterate and I did .7 higher in gen eds than in engineering classes.

sequins
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:44 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby sequins » Mon May 14, 2012 7:13 pm

Any engineers who are thinking of law school i.e. you, and the peer group you probably hung out with are likely people who ARE able to read and write well - and perhaps even people for whom a liberal arts course would have fit better than engineering. As such it isn't surprising you found engineering classes harder than liberal arts.
But for a lot of other engineering students I know, writing an essay or reading long texts and analysing them poses a far larger challenge than understanding formulae and working with complex equations. And because of that an engineering gpa provides less information than a Philosophy gpa as to someones ability to perform of law school. I'm not saying ALL engineers cannot read or write well - but a high engineering gpa does not prove that they can. A high gpa in philosophy DOES prove they can read and write well, ergo engineering gpa is worth less than a philosophy gpa in this particular case. Just like a 4.0 in English does not mean one can be a good engineer or a good doctor, but it doesn't preclude someone having a 4.0 in English from being stellar at maths.

User avatar
FantasticMrFox
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby FantasticMrFox » Mon May 14, 2012 10:15 pm

splitter13 wrote:Law schools need to adopt standards for admission. You can't compare a chemical engineering major to a communication major.

they do have standards: numbers

User avatar
FantasticMrFox
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 3:00 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby FantasticMrFox » Mon May 14, 2012 10:16 pm

Tom Joad wrote:Also the average engineering major is just flat out smarter than the average liberal arts major. That doesn't mean there aren't super smart liberal arts majors and super dumb engineers.

that's mainly because dumb students don't flock to engineering

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5834
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: Law school admissions is flawed

Postby 2014 » Mon May 14, 2012 10:31 pm

rinkrat19 wrote:
2014 wrote:I have a friend who graduated this weekend in some sort of chemical engineering with a 2.5 and walked into a job with Halliburton that pays 75k his first year and up to 120k by year 3 with great job security.

How about you go get a damn job with your engineering degree and never look back, I'm sure if a lot of us liberal arts folks could do that we would without the TLS bitch fest.
U mad we're taking ur spots in law school and ur jerbs?

I don't want to be an engineer anymore. Sorry you majored in something useless.

If only someone would have told my stupid 18 year old self that Econ was a fancy word for liberal arts + calculus.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest