Numbers driven: Law school vs. college admissions Forum

[cyxdev17]

Is law school admissions more numbers-driven? When I was applying to college, I had stellar numbers (perfect GPA, near perfect SAT), but I wasn't a shoo-in for top schools. I got into one and not into others, and in no way did my numbers carry me all the way.

This forum gives me the impression that numbers, especially your LSAT, are pretty much everything, and as long as your softs are decent you'll be fine. Thoughts?

[Mal]

Law school is very much numbers driven.

[billyez]

With the caveat that none of us, I presume, are admission officers, there's a lot of evidence and motive for this to be a really numbers-driven process. TLS is a little more certain about this then it should be...but if you look at LSN, for the most part there are very few miracles that occur in the admissions process.

[DoubleChecks]

obviously its not only numbers driven...and i do believe that many adcomms at many schools do take time to really sift through the middle of the pack applicants, etc.

but i would say law school is more numbers driven than college admissions are

[nealric]

Here's the basic difference between law school and undergrad admissions:

In undergrad admissions, test scores mostly act as qualifiers. Your SAT score needs to be high enough- once it is, getting higher doesn't help you that much. In law school, the admissions, the LSAT acts as an affirmative credential- a much higher LSAT, with a few exceptions, can generally overcome otherwise weak credentials. Conversely, undergrad admissions seems to be much more willing to ignore bad test scores for an otherwise glowing application. In law school, a bad LSAT will sink you no matter what else you have done in life (within reason).

[dakatz]

In the average undergraduate class, there are a fairly large number of students. Hell, there are big public schools where you can have many thousands of people in a single class year. So if you take one student who has a terrible high school GPA but a wonderful back story and soft factors, it doesn't affect your median numbers. With law schools, the overall classes are MUCH smaller in most cases, so each student has a fairly significant effect on the total medians for the school. It will take a far greater story or soft factors for these ranking-obsessed schools to take a bad GPA or LSAT, since doing so may put their precious medians in jeopardy. Thus, law schools inevitably end up being more numbers-driven.

[dooterdude11]

Let's not forget that the LSAT, among standardized tests, is a remarkably good predictor of first year Law school performance. MUCH better than the SAT.

[hoopsguy6]

I don't think the difference is that great. The top law schools (HYS) care about softs, just like the top UG schools. Most of the UG schools after the top 15-20ish are numbers driven too. I remember splitting into a few of the 15-25ish UG schools despite a low gpa and weak softs. Personally, for my UG cycle, I got into every school where my numbers were at median or above, and rejected at every place where they were below median.

[brochocinco]

In the average undergraduate class, there are a fairly large number of students. Hell, there are big public schools where you can have many thousands of people in a single class year. So if you take one student who has a terrible high school GPA but a wonderful back story and soft factors, it doesn't affect your median numbers. With law schools, the overall classes are MUCH smaller in most cases, so each student has a fairly significant effect on the total medians for the school. It will take a far greater story or soft factors for these ranking-obsessed schools to take a bad GPA or LSAT, since doing so may put their precious medians in jeopardy. Thus, law schools inevitably end up being more numbers-driven.

This.

[jtemp320]

I am not an admissions officer but having heavily researched both processes while going through them my conclusion is that there is a consensus that law school is signficantly more numbers driven. The SAT is a critical factor in undergraduate admissions but for law schools the LSAT seems to frequently account for as much 50% of their decisionmaking. Berkeley a school which is always touted as having a highly holisitic admissions process makes the claim that GPA and LSAT only account for 2/3 of their criteria - only 2/3!

I also find it especially revealing that where you went to school as an undergraduate does not really seem to matter much nor does your major (with a few exceptions).

If you look at the admissions grids you can see that offers of admission seem to be highly predictable based on the applicants LSDAS GPA and LSAT score except for a small middle area where softs make the difference.

Even certain non GPA/LSAT factors such as URM status are given quantitative bonsus at most schools.

What does this mean? 1. Law school is more numbers based then undergraduate admissions, 2. take your numbers (to the extent you can still affect them) very seriously 3. Don't slack on your softs either - you might just one of those applicants on the line at your dream school

[jtemp320]

I don't think the difference is that great. The top law schools (HYS) care about softs, just like the top UG schools. Most of the UG schools after the top 15-20ish are numbers driven too. I remember splitting into a few of the 15-25ish UG schools despite a low gpa and weak softs. Personally, for my UG cycle, I got into every school where my numbers were at median or above, and rejected at every place where they were below median.

Both numbers (UGPA and LSAT) at/above Median? Just checking I am a minor splitter and am always curious how schools react to someone at their 25 on one and 75 on the other.