dingbat wrote:TheThriller wrote:its a numbers game, softs only matter when candidates offer the same benefit median wise to schools.
Spoken like someone who thinks a soft is being president of your frat.
For most people, it's a numbers game, with softs only serving as tie-breakers. But that's because most people don't have the kind of softs that are unusual. As has already been said here, Fullbright/Rhodes is one (although, typically these come with an excellent GPA and will more often than not produce a high LSAT), Olympian is another, as is starting your own company and selling it for millions. Congressional medal of honor is another.
The list goes on, but as you can see, it's a very small pool of people who even have these softs, even less who then apply to law school. Basically, if it's something everyone has heard of and everyone knows it's very rare and incredibly difficult to accomplish, then it'll probably be a good soft.
If it's something no one ever heard of, maybe you can mention it in a PS and maybe the adcoms will go through the effort of looking it up and maybe they'll consider it something special. That's a lot of maybes.
Why would you go through the trouble of being extremely rude only to re-iterate my point?
OP, the point is, as most people have said on here, if your soft isn't brand name then it's probably wont be considered prestigious by the university. It's not that your soft isn't prestigious by any means, it's just how the university can benefit from being associated with: Olympian, Rhodes, Co-Founder of Instagram ect.