. Forum

[lymenheimer]

Why isn't this thread locked?

not spam

[052220152]

I congratulate you on using punctuation in that TLS post. I guess you rolled up your sleeves for that one so you could deploy your wisdom-enhancing law school experience to claim TLS troll/humor after the fact .

Lol you're a dweeb

[FredTheFish]

While this whole thing turned into a shitstorm and OP seems like either a d-bag or someone who can't cope with the fact that people disagree with him, he actually brings up some good points that the so-called "hivemind" here overlooks/doesn't understand. Just wanted to throw some love to our dentist friend/foe for a second to make him feel better since I majored in a soft science/pre-med as well as political science in undergrad, and have the same gripes with law school admissions.


1.) It is asinine that law schools do not take into account what you majored in or what school you went to. It's seriously a joke. This doesn't need an explanation.

2.) Even more of a joke? LSAC recalculates your GPA to "standardize" it, yet still counts A+, which only some colleges even have, as a 4.3. Let's not forget they also don't give a fuck that schools are notorious for grade inflation or deflation.

3.) Why is there no blow-back over law school's use of an arbitrary/bullshit/fucking dumb ranking like US News as the sole basis of their admissions standards and criteria? There was blow-back in the past over law school's being hush-hush on employment outcomes, then we got LawSchoolTransparency to help fight back. Seriously, end US News for law school rankings, or rankings in general, in the same way high school students and parents found a way to fight back over the heavy reliance of the SAT/ACT in undergrad admissions.

4.) You are not always a "failed-doctor" if you became a dentist. A high percentage of people with good enough grades to get into med school choose dental school because the schooling isn't as rigorous and leads to a high paying job with less hours. It also gives you a better chance to open your own practice rather than working for a shitty hospital. Also, a high percentage of the so-called "failed-doctors" are certainly qualified to become doctors, but med schools do not accept anywhere near enough students to even deal with demand of the profession (law school has the opposite effect where law schools accept WAY TOO MANY STUDENTS).

[deant286]

this thread is the gift that keeps on giving

[A. Nony Mouse]

While this whole thing turned into a shitstorm and OP seems like either a d-bag or someone who can't cope with the fact that people disagree with him, he actually brings up some good points that the so-called "hivemind" here overlooks/doesn't understand. Just wanted to throw some love to our dentist friend/foe for a second to make him feel better since I majored in a soft science/pre-med as well as political science in undergrad, and have the same gripes with law school admissions.

1.) It is asinine that law schools do not take into account what you majored in or what school you went to. It's seriously a joke. This doesn't need an explanation.

2.) Even more of a joke? LSAC recalculates your GPA to "standardize" it, yet still counts A+, which only some colleges even have, as a 4.3. Let's not forget they also don't give a fuck that schools are notorious for grade inflation or deflation.

3.) Why is there no blow-back over law school's use of an arbitrary/bullshit/fucking dumb ranking like US News as the sole basis of their admissions standards and criteria? There was blow-back in the past over law school's being hush-hush on employment outcomes, then we got LawSchoolTransparency to help fight back. Seriously, end US News for law school rankings, or rankings in general, in the same way high school students and parents found a way to fight back over the heavy reliance of the SAT/ACT in undergrad admissions.

While I know this thread should be put out of it's misery, you realize that the "hivemind" telling people how law school admissions works doesn't remotely mean the "hivemind" agrees that this is how admissions *should* work, right?

[Alive97]

4.) You are not always a "failed-doctor" if you became a dentist. A high percentage of people with good enough grades to get into med school choose dental school because the schooling isn't as rigorous and leads to a high paying job with less hours. It also gives you a better chance to open your own practice rather than working for a shitty hospital. Also, a high percentage of the so-called "failed-doctors" are certainly qualified to become doctors, but med schools do not accept anywhere near enough students to even deal with demand of the profession (law school has the opposite effect where law schools accept WAY TOO MANY STUDENTS).

But I thought the failed doctor argument was a "cogent" point? Better claim I was just kidding on that one .

[ihenry]

the gift that keeps on giving

I learn something new on TLS every day.

[ihenry]

4.) You are not always a "failed-doctor" if you became a dentist. A high percentage of people with good enough grades to get into med school choose dental school because the schooling isn't as rigorous and leads to a high paying job with less hours. It also gives you a better chance to open your own practice rather than working for a shitty hospital. Also, a high percentage of the so-called "failed-doctors" are certainly qualified to become doctors, but med schools do not accept anywhere near enough students to even deal with demand of the profession (law school has the opposite effect where law schools accept WAY TOO MANY STUDENTS).

But I thought the failed doctor argument was a "cogent" point? Better claim I was just kidding on that one .

Yes, instead of criticizing law school admissions, let's criticize med schools: they are accepting way too few candidates which is one of the primary causes for stellar medical and dental costs, doing not much good to the social welfare. How medical schools work therefore urgently needs to be fixed.

[seashell.economy]

Why is there no blow-back over law school's use of an arbitrary/bullshit/fucking dumb ranking like US News as the sole basis of their admissions standards and criteria? There was blow-back in the past over law school's being hush-hush on employment outcomes, then we got LawSchoolTransparency to help fight back. Seriously, end US News for law school rankings, or rankings in general, in the same way high school students and parents found a way to fight back over the heavy reliance of the SAT/ACT in undergrad admissions.

There is blowback on the issue of U.S. News and law school rankings (and the other issues you mentioned) but unfortunately it is mostly in academic journals. See: Wendy Espeland and Micheal Sauder, Vernellia Randall, David Segal, Vikram Amar and Kevin Johnson, and William Kidder. I also wonder why applicants and current students don't rise up against the asinine way law schools conduct admissions, it would do us (and the whole legal profession) some good.

[A. Nony Mouse]

How are current applicants and students supposed to do that?

[PSPSPSPS]

Why is there no blow-back over law school's use of an arbitrary/bullshit/fucking dumb ranking like US News as the sole basis of their admissions standards and criteria? There was blow-back in the past over law school's being hush-hush on employment outcomes, then we got LawSchoolTransparency to help fight back. Seriously, end US News for law school rankings, or rankings in general, in the same way high school students and parents found a way to fight back over the heavy reliance of the SAT/ACT in undergrad admissions.

There is blowback on the issue of U.S. News and law school rankings (and the other issues you mentioned) but unfortunately it is mostly in academic journals. See: Wendy Espeland and Micheal Sauder, Vernellia Randall, David Segal, Vikram Amar and Kevin Johnson, and William Kidder. I also wonder why applicants and current students don't rise up against the asinine way law schools conduct admissions, it would do us (and the whole legal profession) some good.

1. How did high school students fight back against ACT/SAT ?. Still extremely important in UG admissions/ no sign of changing
2. To change anything it would have to come from lawmakers/institutional. Law students can't "rise up" What would that do?
3. Skewing admissions to favor the science majors wouldn't make much sense for law schools. Look at the applicant pools (major wise) this would be of no benefit to law schools
4. Rankings are natural. Med schools ranked, dental, UG,etc.

[Danger Zone]

Ole Yeller this thing, Nony.

[FredTheFish]

Why is there no blow-back over law school's use of an arbitrary/bullshit/fucking dumb ranking like US News as the sole basis of their admissions standards and criteria? There was blow-back in the past over law school's being hush-hush on employment outcomes, then we got LawSchoolTransparency to help fight back. Seriously, end US News for law school rankings, or rankings in general, in the same way high school students and parents found a way to fight back over the heavy reliance of the SAT/ACT in undergrad admissions.

There is blowback on the issue of U.S. News and law school rankings (and the other issues you mentioned) but unfortunately it is mostly in academic journals. See: Wendy Espeland and Micheal Sauder, Vernellia Randall, David Segal, Vikram Amar and Kevin Johnson, and William Kidder. I also wonder why applicants and current students don't rise up against the asinine way law schools conduct admissions, it would do us (and the whole legal profession) some good.

1. How did high school students fight back against ACT/SAT ?. Still extremely important in UG admissions/ no sign of changing
2. To change anything it would have to come from lawmakers/institutional. Law students can't "rise up" What would that do?
3. Skewing admissions to favor the science majors wouldn't make much sense for law schools. Look at the applicant pools (major wise) this would be of no benefit to law schools
4. Rankings are natural. Med schools ranked, dental, UG,etc.

1.) It has started to change with schools already not making standardized tests a mandatory component of your application (see GWU and Wesleyan undergrad). Over 100 schools already consider standardized tests optional in their admissions and that number is only going to increase in the future. Yes, it wasn't just high school students who helped accomplish this, but that is certainly where it started.

2.) Agree to an extent. Doing nothing certainly won't accomplish anything. And no, I don't have some perfect solution already set in mind, just trying to keep the dialogue going about some changes that I believe should happen.

3.) This is not to skew admissions to favor the science majors. It should be to skew admissions to the people that have proven that they can work hard. It just so happens that the science majors have to work the hardest due to the rigorous curriculum and hours spent in the lab. The same extra weight should be given to people who work full-time jobs in the real world as well, or who hold a masters/doctorate in something. All of these take more time, effort, and mental capacity than a liberal arts major. And yes, the sciences do not prepare you actual legal work any better than a liberal arts major does, but it certainly prepares you to spend more hours studying in the library and the ability to handle the rigors of law school much better. The way I see it is that your LSAT score indicates if you are capable of doing the work law school asks of you, while GPA indicates if you are actually going to do the work (GPA is supposedly a direct reflection of how hard you worked). If you agree that GPA is an indication of how hard you worked, then science majors obviously deserve a bump because a 3.5 in any science major took much more work than a 3.5 in any liberal arts major. Regardless, science majors make up a very small percentage of law school applicants. Giving them a bump admits just as qualified/even more qualified students, but since it hurts rankings it will never happen.

4.) Naturally there will always be rankings. We crave things to be ranked. But taking the merit and weight they carry is what I am trying to get at.

[FredTheFish]

While this whole thing turned into a shitstorm and OP seems like either a d-bag or someone who can't cope with the fact that people disagree with him, he actually brings up some good points that the so-called "hivemind" here overlooks/doesn't understand. Just wanted to throw some love to our dentist friend/foe for a second to make him feel better since I majored in a soft science/pre-med as well as political science in undergrad, and have the same gripes with law school admissions.

1.) It is asinine that law schools do not take into account what you majored in or what school you went to. It's seriously a joke. This doesn't need an explanation.

2.) Even more of a joke? LSAC recalculates your GPA to "standardize" it, yet still counts A+, which only some colleges even have, as a 4.3. Let's not forget they also don't give a fuck that schools are notorious for grade inflation or deflation.

3.) Why is there no blow-back over law school's use of an arbitrary/bullshit/fucking dumb ranking like US News as the sole basis of their admissions standards and criteria? There was blow-back in the past over law school's being hush-hush on employment outcomes, then we got LawSchoolTransparency to help fight back. Seriously, end US News for law school rankings, or rankings in general, in the same way high school students and parents found a way to fight back over the heavy reliance of the SAT/ACT in undergrad admissions.

While I know this thread should be put out of it's misery, you realize that the "hivemind" telling people how law school admissions works doesn't remotely mean the "hivemind" agrees that this is how admissions *should* work, right?

Of course, I was mainly pointing out the people ridiculing OP with stupid cliches. Apologies for attributing those people to the hivemind. The rhetoric this site says has actually been insanely helpful to me in the whole law school admissions process.

[ihenry]

Anyone who posts below this line is a douchebag:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[seashell.economy]

Thanks, Ihenry, for the title suggestion, but I'd like to respond to Nony's question:

How are current applicants and students supposed to do that?

As with many things, coming up with solutions that work is much more difficult than pointing out the problems. I could wax on for days on this subject, but it would be an incredibly long post that no one would read. In short, I think applicants and students could wage battles the same way other college and grad students have raised issues: through activism, press, and otherwise pressuring law schools, USN, and the ABA for changes. There are many issues to be concerned with, from tuition to diversity.

I know I threw out a lot of names, but two pieces by Espeland are really worth the read if you are into this subject. Rankings and Reactivity, discusses the effect of USN on law school applicant's choices in which schools to attend, and how a law school's budget can be linked to rankings and how that can drawn funds and attention away from the students currently enrolled - with that attention and money put into the numbers game. It also talks about the challenges law school adcomms face when rankings are so heavily tied to LSAT scores. It is a 41 page journal article.

Rankings and Diversity talks about the consequences of a law school admissions system that so heavily values USN rankings. One adcomm is quoted as saying "[USN] rankings changed everything. It is sometimes hard to put your finger on their effects and sometimes they aren’t tangible but they have influenced almost every aspect of legal education in some way. They are omnipresent.” The ranking, she says, forces every school to pay much closer attention to their numbers...many prospective students who would once have been admitted, people whose records suggest they have a good chance of succeeding in law school, now do not get in. [The adcomm] contends that the rankings have decreased diversity “in the broadest sense of the word.”

And Amar and Johnson's article also talks about USN and it offers some concrete solutions.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Thanks, seashell.

And I think DZ is right (or I'll be going off on my standard rant about "no scientists aren't automatically harder workers/smarter than humanities majors get over yourself" and no one wants to hear that).