Soft skills??? Forum

[AmIElleWoodsYet]

Just curious...what would be considered average, good, and exceptional soft skills? Just trying to evaluate where I fall. Thanks!

[lymenheimer]

Why don't you list your softs and then ppl can evaluate [read: judge] you accordingly?

[87mm]

semi subjective to me but here is my best shot at it based on this board....

God Tier: Nobel Prize. Military medals (medal of honor, navy cross etc). You're donald trump etc...

Top Tier: URM + economically disadvantaged. Rhodes Scholar. Published books. Started your own busines/charity.

High Tier: Work experience (engineering/science, finance, qualitative legal experience). Graduate work in STEM. non URM minority with unique background (lived abroad etc).

Mid Tier: Graduate work in non-stem (not hating on non stem, but its more rare to leave STEM when you have a grad degree). Extra curriculars such as greek leadership, student body leadership, club leadership. Teach for america (maybe move it up a tier, not familiar with TFA)

Low Tier (but still not bad): Work experience (barista, stockroom etc....). Living abroad as an exchange student. Participation in school clubs. Your undergrad institution and degree ranking.


I would say the best way to think about is how your softs are unique compared to the population applying to law school. Few people ever get a nobel prize or medal of honor. There are some who get published books. More people have high impact work experience. Even more have non-stem graduate degrees etc...

If I'm wrong please call me out. I'm only giving my best guess.

[RZ5646]

semi subjective to me but here is my best shot at it based on this board....

God Tier: Nobel Prize. Military medals (medal of honor, navy cross etc). You're donald trump etc...

Top Tier: URM + economically disadvantaged. Rhodes Scholar. Published books. Started your own busines/charity.

High Tier: Work experience (engineering/science, finance, qualitative legal experience). Graduate work in STEM. non URM minority with unique background (lived abroad etc).

Mid Tier: Graduate work in non-stem (not hating on non stem, but its more rare to leave STEM when you have a grad degree). Extra curriculars such as greek leadership, student body leadership, club leadership. Teach for america (maybe move it up a tier, not familiar with TFA)

Low Tier (but still not bad): Work experience (barista, stockroom etc....). Living abroad as an exchange student. Participation in school clubs. Your undergrad institution and degree ranking.


I would say the best way to think about is how your softs are unique compared to the population applying to law school. Few people ever get a nobel prize or medal of honor. There are some who get published books. More people have high impact work experience. Even more have non-stem graduate degrees etc...

If I'm wrong please call me out. I'm only giving my best guess.

In other words, 98% of people shouldn't even worry about softs because if they don't have impressive softs already, they'll never have them.

[jrass]

semi subjective to me but here is my best shot at it based on this board....

God Tier: Nobel Prize. Military medals (medal of honor, navy cross etc). You're donald trump etc...

Top Tier: URM + economically disadvantaged. Rhodes Scholar. Published books. Started your own busines/charity.

High Tier: Work experience (engineering/science, finance, qualitative legal experience). Graduate work in STEM. non URM minority with unique background (lived abroad etc).

Mid Tier: Graduate work in non-stem (not hating on non stem, but its more rare to leave STEM when you have a grad degree). Extra curriculars such as greek leadership, student body leadership, club leadership. Teach for america (maybe move it up a tier, not familiar with TFA)

Low Tier (but still not bad): Work experience (barista, stockroom etc....). Living abroad as an exchange student. Participation in school clubs. Your undergrad institution and degree ranking.


I would say the best way to think about is how your softs are unique compared to the population applying to law school. Few people ever get a nobel prize or medal of honor. There are some who get published books. More people have high impact work experience. Even more have non-stem graduate degrees etc...

If I'm wrong please call me out. I'm only giving my best guess.

In other words, 98% of people shouldn't even worry about softs because if they don't have impressive softs already, they'll never have them.

Nonsense. There's a hero in all of us. The trick with softs is to not write about things you've actually done, but about things your inner hero might have done as though you've actually done them. This is the key to success.

[clovis]

Reflect on what you have done in your life and why you have done those things. Talk to family members and other people who have known you a long time. Make lists and draw out common themes. Produce one (or however many are required) of the best pieces of writing that you have ever produced, in which you present some of those experiences and tie them together with an overarching theme. Relate that theme directly to your reason for wanting to go to law school. That reason should be a good, interesting, and perhaps unusual one.

Softs come into play when law schools are actually trying to admit a diverse, talented, interesting, and thoughtful class by choosing among people who have more or less the same numbers. This is when admissions staff actually get to be people and get to enjoy their jobs because they're doing them for human reasons rather than for US News. So this is where you need to be honest and thoughtful as a human appealing to other humans. The idea that softs can be objectively schematized in various tiers as if they were simply another standardized test is I think deeply mistaken. Perhaps, among two equally boring and unreflective people (neither of whom, of course, in reality, is likely to be a Rhodes Scholar or a published novelist) with more or less the same numbers, the one with a more impressive-sounding job will win out over the one with a less-impressive sounding job, or the one who was president of X club will win out over the one who was treasurer of Y club. The person with no work experience (and more or less the same numbers) who can write eloquently and thoughtfully about her life and her reasons for wanting to study law will win out over both of them. At least, this is the case at the top schools. The one caveat I think is with URM status, which can give a palpable boost. However, a thoughtful perspective on one's background can be (especially at Yale) at least as important as the fact of one's race or ethnicity.

In other words, this is the part where you need to not be a competitive dick and actually think about your life. I suppose it is possible that you have had a boring and uninteresting life, completely devoid of passions, interests, and meaningful pursuits. However, what I think is more likely is that your thinking will be skewed by the kind of gunnerish mentality described above, and you will have overlooked the meaningful experiences of your life in favor of seeing it as just another test to be gamed. Or perhaps you have actually gone through much of your life as if it were such a test. If that is the case, you probably have a consultant who can tell you what to do.

[87mm]

Reflect on what you have done in your life and why you have done those things. Talk to family members and other people who have known you a long time. Make lists and draw out common themes. Produce one (or however many are required) of the best pieces of writing that you have ever produced, in which you present some of those experiences and tie them together with an overarching theme. Relate that theme directly to your reason for wanting to go to law school. That reason should be a good, interesting, and perhaps unusual one.

Softs come into play when law schools are actually trying to admit a diverse, talented, interesting, and thoughtful class by choosing among people who have more or less the same numbers. This is when admissions staff actually get to be people and get to enjoy their jobs because they're doing them for human reasons rather than for US News. So this is where you need to be honest and thoughtful as a human appealing to other humans. The idea that softs can be objectively schematized in various tiers as if they were simply another standardized test is I think deeply mistaken. Perhaps, among two equally boring and unreflective people (neither of whom, of course, in reality, is likely to be a Rhodes Scholar or a published novelist) with more or less the same numbers, the one with a more impressive-sounding job will win out over the one with a less-impressive sounding job, or the one who was president of X club will win out over the one who was treasurer of Y club. The person with no work experience (and more or less the same numbers) who can write eloquently and thoughtfully about her life and her reasons for wanting to study law will win out over both of them. At least, this is the case at the top schools. The one caveat I think is with URM status, which can give a palpable boost. However, a thoughtful perspective on one's background can be (especially at Yale) at least as important as the fact of one's race or ethnicity.

In other words, this is the part where you need to not be a competitive dick and actually think about your life. I suppose it is possible that you have had a boring and uninteresting life, completely devoid of passions, interests, and meaningful pursuits. However, what I think is more likely is that your thinking will be skewed by the kind of gunnerish mentality described above, and you will have overlooked the meaningful experiences of your life in favor of seeing it as just another test to be gamed. Or perhaps you have actually gone through much of your life as if it were such a test. If that is the case, you probably have a consultant who can tell you what to do.

I like this more than what I wrote.

[clovis]

Reflect on what you have done in your life and why you have done those things. Talk to family members and other people who have known you a long time. Make lists and draw out common themes. Produce one (or however many are required) of the best pieces of writing that you have ever produced, in which you present some of those experiences and tie them together with an overarching theme. Relate that theme directly to your reason for wanting to go to law school. That reason should be a good, interesting, and perhaps unusual one.

Softs come into play when law schools are actually trying to admit a diverse, talented, interesting, and thoughtful class by choosing among people who have more or less the same numbers. This is when admissions staff actually get to be people and get to enjoy their jobs because they're doing them for human reasons rather than for US News. So this is where you need to be honest and thoughtful as a human appealing to other humans. The idea that softs can be objectively schematized in various tiers as if they were simply another standardized test is I think deeply mistaken. Perhaps, among two equally boring and unreflective people (neither of whom, of course, in reality, is likely to be a Rhodes Scholar or a published novelist) with more or less the same numbers, the one with a more impressive-sounding job will win out over the one with a less-impressive sounding job, or the one who was president of X club will win out over the one who was treasurer of Y club. The person with no work experience (and more or less the same numbers) who can write eloquently and thoughtfully about her life and her reasons for wanting to study law will win out over both of them. At least, this is the case at the top schools. The one caveat I think is with URM status, which can give a palpable boost. However, a thoughtful perspective on one's background can be (especially at Yale) at least as important as the fact of one's race or ethnicity.

In other words, this is the part where you need to not be a competitive dick and actually think about your life. I suppose it is possible that you have had a boring and uninteresting life, completely devoid of passions, interests, and meaningful pursuits. However, what I think is more likely is that your thinking will be skewed by the kind of gunnerish mentality described above, and you will have overlooked the meaningful experiences of your life in favor of seeing it as just another test to be gamed. Or perhaps you have actually gone through much of your life as if it were such a test. If that is the case, you probably have a consultant who can tell you what to do.

I like this more than what I wrote.

lol thanks

For good advice, check out the Ask Asha blog posts on the website of Yale Law School. Her advice on personal statements and other things is very relevant regardless of where you're applying.