VegasLaw702 wrote:My question pertained to "traditional" softs (although the title of the post is a bit more general). While I would consider WE a soft, I wouldn't consider it a traditional soft in the same category as things like volunteering, extra curriculars, church participation (I know a bunch of people who have listed this on their apps, which is why I mentioned it) etc. I'm aware that WE would be looked at as a soft. I was more concerned with my lack of TRADITIONAL softs and how it might look on my application, since I'm sure many applicants will have at least some work experience, and traditional softs like the ones mentioned above would probably help distinguish an applicant just little bit more.
As for why I'm now considering law? I've been considering law the whole time, I just put my UG on hold for a while to cash in on the opportunity I had to move up in the ranks.
1. It doesn't matter what "you consider." The only thing that matters is what adcoms think. Substantial, meaningful, leadership-oriented WE >>>> "Church participation, volunteering, etc...." Get this through your head.
2. Your friends all included this other shit on their resumes because they had to fill the page SOMEHOW. The summer job at Banana Republic and helping Uncle John roof the house weren't quite cutting it. Fluff is fluff.
3. If A BUNCH of people have these so called "traditional softs" on their resumes, how is it that these common inclusions will help "distinguish" the applicant? If everyone does it, it's not distinguishing. YOUR WE WILL DISTINGUISH YOU.
4. I still don't understand how you think "participating in church" and "volunteering" demonstrates a greater potential as a lawyer/law student than 8 years of WE in a leadership position. Any schmuck with a pulse can serve lunch at a soup kitchen.
5. Stating HOW LONG you've wanted law for doesn't answer the question of WHY you want law.
6. Oh yea and LSAT>>GPA>>>>>>>>>>>>>Everything else. You're over-thinking this.