Hattori Hanzo wrote: managamy wrote:
fidesverita wrote:Imho, having a 179/3.9 is great but it doesn't necessarily mean you'll be a strong lawyer. If anything, I wish more schools looked at your work experiences, PS, and leadership roles. I don't want a lawyer who only knows how to study!
But with that being said... of course good numbers are still important.
You make a very compelling point, but I'm glad that most Admissions Committees don't share your opinion. My stats >>>> my softs. That said, I do think that Stanford and other top schools evaluate the factors that you describe, since many of their applicants have extremely strong stats already.
AMEN BROTHER! I have no softs whatsoever and I don't mean like people who have been club president/volunteered in Bangeladesh/etc. and claim to have no softs. REALLY no softs other than one year of WE. I sure hope they care much more about stats than softs.
Haha.. and that's why admissions is always a toss up. They want people who are smart numbers-wise (who can do the work and excel as a student) and who are people-smart (future leaders, yadda yadda). I find that great numbers will get you in most
of the time... but I also know people who have strong numbers (but certainly not 3.8, 175+) who got in because of the extensive work that they've done (be it in publishing, starting a business, become a local leader for various reasons etc). The softs are just harder to predict because you never know what they'll find interesting and what they find annoying.
Either way, it all makes for a more interesting entering class!