. Forum

[tjw242]

.

[Burger in a can]

There is plenty of evidence on LSN that it doesn't have to come down to applicants identical in numbers for softs to matter. Of course, if you have a 4.0/179 like Elle Woods you're getting accepted to H regardless barring a terrible app, but for the overwhelming majority of people that are in the middle - where admissions could feasibly yield an acceptance, rejection, or waitlist, softs are NOT the overwhelming exception but instead a critical part of the application process. Engineering IS a soft in its own way. A 3.9 in bioE from a rigorous program is a very respectable soft in fact, and the diversity of the applicant in comparison to the swarm of political science applicants is a bonus.

I'm still not seeing the evidence on LSN, particularly to support the claim that "for the overwhelming majority of people that are in the middle... softs are NOT the overwhelming exception but instead a critical part of the application process." I agree that softs matter, softly, but disagree that they come anywhere near mattering as much as hard numbers. That said, I could be wrong when it comes to the T14 because I'll be the first to admit that I didn't have the credentials to apply to any of those schools. I did, however, complete an entire application cycle.

I know what I'm saying is somehow offensive to you because you are about to start the application process and it's hard not to think that your file will get special consideration, but I think once you're done with your cycle you will turn back and realize that it was nearly entirely all about your numbers. Good luck, by the way. (I mean that sincerely!)

[Kafka]

Go into something else bro. People go to law school because their liberal arts degrees are worthless. But you can actually do something with those credentials.

]

what would you recommend doing then? haha
also, i am a girl. it's funny that everyone assumes i am a guy.
elle woods is my role model...hahaha jk but i do actually look like her. i once based a campaign for student gov around her harvard admissions video hahaha.

My bad girl.

I don't know. Maybe something in the medical field? Is that something that interests you? Engineering in itself is a very slight bump in admissions, but nothing crazy. I just don't get why you would go through four years of rigorous training and discipline in engineering just to go to law school. The legal market is obviously fucked and job is not a certainty unless you go to YHS, and even there (HS) "certainty" is a bit of a stretch. If law school is something you choose to do because you can't think of anything else to do, then I don't think you should go. You are obviously intelligent and very talented, so I think you should consider other options before deciding on law school.

[OG Loc]

FWIW bioengineering, from my experience, is a weird major in which the market for new graduates is very small. Most of the bioengineers that I knew in college were using it as a pre-med degree, and the few that didn't either got an MS out of necessity or were un/underemployed. I heard complaints that the engineering school had zero career contacts or job postings for bioengineers, while in contrast, folks were beating down the door to hire us civils (pre-recession, mind you). So I definitely understand where she is coming from. Granted, I bet OP would find good paying work with her credentials, and I am a believer in work experience before law school, but it's not as rosy as you people make it out to be.

OP: I think law school is a good option, especially if you score above 170, which should be no problem. There's a healthy market for IP lawyers, and to me it seems like they enjoy their work more than most other lawyers. I would also consider your other options though. Getting some professional experience, even if it's not your dream job, is never a bad idea. And med school, though it seems extremely boring to me, will undoubtedly get you rich.

And whoever said bioengineering was easy:

[czelede]

There is plenty of evidence on LSN that it doesn't have to come down to applicants identical in numbers for softs to matter. Of course, if you have a 4.0/179 like Elle Woods you're getting accepted to H regardless barring a terrible app, but for the overwhelming majority of people that are in the middle - where admissions could feasibly yield an acceptance, rejection, or waitlist, softs are NOT the overwhelming exception but instead a critical part of the application process. Engineering IS a soft in its own way. A 3.9 in bioE from a rigorous program is a very respectable soft in fact, and the diversity of the applicant in comparison to the swarm of political science applicants is a bonus.

I'm still not seeing the evidence on LSN, particularly to support the claim that "for the overwhelming majority of people that are in the middle... softs are NOT the overwhelming exception but instead a critical part of the application process." I agree that softs matter, softly, but disagree that they come anywhere near mattering as much as hard numbers. That said, I could be wrong when it comes to the T14 because I'll be the first to admit that I didn't have the credentials to apply to any of those schools. I did, however, complete an entire application cycle.

I know what I'm saying is somehow offensive to you because you are about to start the application process and it's hard not to think that your file will get special consideration, but I think once you're done with your cycle you will turn back and realize that it was nearly entirely all about your numbers. Good luck, by the way. (I mean that sincerely!)

I'm not offended, I'm not under any delusions that I will be a special snowflake by any means.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that numbers aren't everything - but only once you get past the initial threshold to qualify you. Does that make sense? Your softs won't get you anywhere your numbers wouldn't have gotten you to begin with (with few exceptions which are just that, exceptions), but in between the range of likely-deny and auto-admit, softs are way more important than people often think. I really don't think it comes down to one LSAT point when you're within a certain range to begin with, and would be happy to show you the LSN evidence for a good deal of T14 schools (although let's be honest, I'm lazy and would prefer not to dig it up ).

I feel that engineering is probably the most helpful soft for splitters really, not in that it gives a GPA boost but more that some schools are willing to "ignore" your less than shiny grades in exchange for a sparkling LSAT on the off-chance that the rigor of your undergraduate studies may explain why your grades don't automatically translate to major suck-age in LS. This mostly has to do with undergraduate degree GPA medians. Still, I stand by my assertion that OPs softs of a stellar GPA in an Ivy school (and the Ivies do like their Ivy undergrads) would put them over the edge in comparison to your average fashion major even if there is a 1-2 point discrepancy between their LSATs.

[Burger in a can]

I feel that engineering is probably the most helpful soft for splitters really, not in that it gives a GPA boost but more that some schools are willing to "ignore" your less than shiny grades in exchange for a sparkling LSAT on the off-chance that the rigor of your undergraduate studies may explain why your grades don't automatically translate to major suck-age in LS. This mostly has to do with undergraduate degree GPA medians. Still, I stand by my assertion that OPs softs of a stellar GPA in an Ivy school (and the Ivies do like their Ivy undergrads) would put them over the edge in comparison to your average fashion major even if there is a 1-2 point discrepancy between their LSATs.

See, I still don't understand why you think that admissions committees care whether you will perform well in law school. Because of the curve, a certain percentage of the class MUST do poorly, the majority of the class MUST do ok, and a small percentage MUST do really well. As an adcomm, even if you admit only 180/4.0 applicants, you have to know that some of them are going to suck. It would be insane of you to want all of your applicants to do well, because that is an impossibility.

Likewise, it makes no sense to go about the business of admitting people based on the likelihood that they will or won't get top 10%, because everybody comes in with almost the exact same chances, and 90% of the class is guaranteed to not make top 10%. See what I mean? For this reason alone, I don't believe that potential for success is really considered by adcomms, no matter what they claim.

(this is obviously not applicable at Yale or other schools that don't have grades)

Edit: But whatever. I don't really mind if anyone disagrees with this. I am already a law student and I'm happy with how my cycle turned out. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from anything, just trying to share a little of what I learned in the admissions process. I thought I was a very unusual/atypical candidate (PM me if you want to know specifics) and went into this process with many of the same assumptions a lot of you guys have, and I've since learned that those assumptions were incorrect. That's all.

[Bildungsroman]

See, I still don't understand why you think that admissions committees care whether you will perform well in law school. Because of the curve, a certain percentage of the class MUST do poorly, the majority of the class MUST do ok, and a small percentage MUST do really well. As an adcomm, even if you admit only 180/4.0 applicants, you have to know that some of them are going to suck. It would be insane of you to want all of your applicants to do well, because that is an impossibility.

Law schools care whether you will do well because:

1. High attrition rates hurt the institution and its image (people for whom the material is truly overwhelming are much more likely to fail out or drop out).
2. Low bar passage rates hurt the institution and its image.
3. Producing consistently less capable lawyers hurts the institution's image.

So, while the curve means that there's guaranteed to be some bad grades and class rankings will always have a bottom, the law schools care about ensuring that even the people at the bottom of the class are capable of being educated well enough to graduate and become decent lawyers. Law students at almost any given school (excluding those that do not rank) will run the gamut from top of his/her class to dead last, but taken in the larger context of the legal field the school has a definite interest in ensuring even the people rounding out the bottom of the class rankings are going to help, or at least not hurt, the school and its image. By saying that a law school wants all of its students to do well, someone is typically saying not that they want everyone to do well on the curve, which would be impossible, but that a school wants everyone to do well as far as understanding the material and applying it goes.

[ShiftyOne]

Back on the main topic, 168 should get you into the top 14. With a 170+ you should get into most of the top14 and one of CCN. Shoot for a 173+ for harvard. Yale and Stanford is a tossup for whatever your lsat.