Kevinlomax wrote: Void wrote:
I understand that this is how the law school application works and I will work to the best of my ability in the system, but I still think the admissions process is slightly flawed.
Out of curiosity, why do you think the system would be improved if GPAs were somehow weighted more comparatively? What benefit to the law schools? In other words, what would be better about a system that gave preference to "harder" majors from "better" schools (assuming you could somehow quantify these)?
Success in a rigorous academic environment such as a difficult major or school, should illustrate work ethic, motivation, and overall the ability to be successful both in law school and as a lawyer
Why would (the best, don't forget we're speaking about the best) schools care about scores, but not intelligence and ability and motivation to do the work in law school? (Pause for a moment and recognize the absurdity of that proposition.) ---- stolen from another thread
Maybe success at a difficult major indicates success in law school, but it doesn't necessarily correlate to success on the LSAT, which of course is a test exclusively designed to measure potential for success in law school:http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leit ... rgrad.html
Note that philosophy/religion, international relations, Government/Service, Anthropology/Geography, History, and English are all in the top 10, despite typically being regarded as joke majors- especially compared to STEM studies. Also note that engineering is not on this list.
Also, why should law schools accept students based upon their ability to perform well in law school? Because they want to produce successful alumni in order to be perceived as a good law school, right? And how do law schools improve public perception about their caliber? USNWR rank. So until "number of awesome, hardworking, and smart attorneys in alumni base" becomes a ranking criteria, schools won't be very motivated to recruit students holistically.