. Forum

Mrocky2 · Post by **Mrocky2** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 12:23 pm

Undergraduate? Was it the summer program?

nothingtosee · Post by **nothingtosee** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:01 pm

Research is much better than teaching. Neither will make you outperform your numbers, but will give you a boost over a k-jd with the same numbers.

UpandDown97 · Post by **UpandDown97** » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:11 pm

nothingtosee wrote:Research is much better than teaching. Neither will make you outperform your numbers, but will give you a boost over a k-jd with the same numbers.

This is wrong. It's a good soft and will help. It's not on par with things like Rhodes Scholars and such, but expect a boost.

Ca2021 · Post by **Ca2021** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:02 am

grades?? · Post by **grades??** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:14 am

No real boost. Most t14s have multiple fulbright scholars a year. It might help at the margins but its not something that will get you in over someone with better stats. If it was a rhodes, then yeah that makes a difference. But the fulbright isn't as prestigious as it was 10-20 years ago. Nowadays, many more people are receiving a fulbright.

Edit: I think a good comparison is teach for america. It used to be a way stronger resume line but nowadays a t14 class with have 10+ teach for america alums in each class.

asdfdfdfadfas · Post by **asdfdfdfadfas** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 11:54 am

UpandDown97 · Post by **UpandDown97** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 2:39 pm

grades?? wrote:No real boost. Most t14s have multiple fulbright scholars a year. It might help at the margins but its not something that will get you in over someone with better stats. If it was a rhodes, then yeah that makes a difference. But the fulbright isn't as prestigious as it was 10-20 years ago. Nowadays, many more people are receiving a fulbright.

Edit: I think a good comparison is teach for america. It used to be a way stronger resume line but nowadays a t14 class with have 10+ teach for america alums in each class.

And do you think each of those multiple fulbrights or even multiple TFAs had the same stats as everyone else? You're assuming what your setting to prove: just because there are multiple doesn't mean they didn't recieve a boost, and just because there more common doesn't mean it isn't something important. It could be that each of these multiple people were below in the 25th percentile in each category, thus making it totally discretionary for admissions. Your logic is circular.

asdfdfdfadfas · Post by **asdfdfdfadfas** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 3:02 pm

jnwa · Post by **jnwa** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 4:29 pm

UpandDown97 wrote:
grades?? wrote:No real boost. Most t14s have multiple fulbright scholars a year. It might help at the margins but its not something that will get you in over someone with better stats. If it was a rhodes, then yeah that makes a difference. But the fulbright isn't as prestigious as it was 10-20 years ago. Nowadays, many more people are receiving a fulbright.

Edit: I think a good comparison is teach for america. It used to be a way stronger resume line but nowadays a t14 class with have 10+ teach for america alums in each class.
And do you think each of those multiple fulbrights or even multiple TFAs had the same stats as everyone else? You're assuming what your setting to prove: just because there are multiple doesn't mean they didn't recieve a boost, and just because there more common doesn't mean it isn't something important. It could be that each of these multiple people were below in the 25th percentile in each category, thus making it totally discretionary for admissions. Your logic is circular.

The only softs that matter are the rare ones.

grades?? · Post by **grades??** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:16 pm

asdfdfdfadfas wrote:
UpandDown97 wrote:
grades?? wrote:No real boost. Most t14s have multiple fulbright scholars a year. It might help at the margins but its not something that will get you in over someone with better stats. If it was a rhodes, then yeah that makes a difference. But the fulbright isn't as prestigious as it was 10-20 years ago. Nowadays, many more people are receiving a fulbright.

Edit: I think a good comparison is teach for america. It used to be a way stronger resume line but nowadays a t14 class with have 10+ teach for america alums in each class.
And do you think each of those multiple fulbrights or even multiple TFAs had the same stats as everyone else? You're assuming what your setting to prove: just because there are multiple doesn't mean they didn't recieve a boost, and just because there more common doesn't mean it isn't something important. It could be that each of these multiple people were below in the 25th percentile in each category, thus making it totally discretionary for admissions. Your logic is circular.
Do you know what circular logic is? It's like saying I have a black pen; therefore, my pen is black.

The poster's argument was: Fullbright isn't a strong soft because there are many applicants with that specific soft. Because that soft is more numerous among applicants, it won't be looked at as something to overcome other issues such as a lower GPA or LSAT.

I think the poster's argument is a dumb way of looking at softs- as you should be using softs in comparing X candidate with Y candidate with similar stats not as a means to compensate for a comparatively lower GPA or LSAT, but I don't think any thing in the argument above was "circular".

To answer Op's question- what constitutes as a strong soft, do you think? Do you think a full bright scholarship is comparable to getting a gold medal in the Olympics or a purple heart in Iraq?

It's something that is positive in relation to someone who doesn't have one and something you should certainly be proud of; however, I'd argue it isn't "strong".

I'd also say "strong" is relatively subjective, so......... it depends on what is strong to whomever it is that is analyzing your application.

Thank you for understanding my argument. The point is, fulbright/teach for america, etc are not rare anymore, so they aren't very strong softs. Strong softs tend to be highly unique/ very rare. For example, the Rhodes. Maybe 1-2 people a year apply to law school with a Rhodes. Plus the Rhodes carries such a strong name with it that you will automatically get some sort of boost in the admissions process. Being an olympic athlete is another. Something that is unique, that the school can put on the recruiting materials.

The point being is maybe a fulbright helps a little, but it wont make a perceivable difference. To OP, whatever your numbers are will more or less be what is available to you for admissions. Your numbers, if they wont get you into Georgetown (I don't know this is the case, just hypo here), then I doubt the fulbright will get you into Columbia. However, the fulbright MIGHT help in deciding a tie between you and someone of similar stats/URM status. Say you have a 3.X and a 170 and the other person has a 3.X and a 170. The fulbright MIGHT help differentiate you on the micro scale, but this is not a soft that an admissions officer reads and says we need to admit OP right now even if the numbers don't reach what is normally expected.

Does this make sense? TLDR: you might get a minor bump, but it will likely be imperceivable.

nothingtosee · Post by **nothingtosee** » Sat Apr 30, 2016 5:29 pm

grades?? wrote:
asdfdfdfadfas wrote:
UpandDown97 wrote:
grades?? wrote:No real boost. Most t14s have multiple fulbright scholars a year. It might help at the margins but its not something that will get you in over someone with better stats. If it was a rhodes, then yeah that makes a difference. But the fulbright isn't as prestigious as it was 10-20 years ago. Nowadays, many more people are receiving a fulbright.

Edit: I think a good comparison is teach for america. It used to be a way stronger resume line but nowadays a t14 class with have 10+ teach for america alums in each class.
And do you think each of those multiple fulbrights or even multiple TFAs had the same stats as everyone else? You're assuming what your setting to prove: just because there are multiple doesn't mean they didn't recieve a boost, and just because there more common doesn't mean it isn't something important. It could be that each of these multiple people were below in the 25th percentile in each category, thus making it totally discretionary for admissions. Your logic is circular.
Do you know what circular logic is? It's like saying I have a black pen; therefore, my pen is black.

The poster's argument was: Fullbright isn't a strong soft because there are many applicants with that specific soft. Because that soft is more numerous among applicants, it won't be looked at as something to overcome other issues such as a lower GPA or LSAT.

I think the poster's argument is a dumb way of looking at softs- as you should be using softs in comparing X candidate with Y candidate with similar stats not as a means to compensate for a comparatively lower GPA or LSAT, but I don't think any thing in the argument above was "circular".

To answer Op's question- what constitutes as a strong soft, do you think? Do you think a full bright scholarship is comparable to getting a gold medal in the Olympics or a purple heart in Iraq?

It's something that is positive in relation to someone who doesn't have one and something you should certainly be proud of; however, I'd argue it isn't "strong".

I'd also say "strong" is relatively subjective, so......... it depends on what is strong to whomever it is that is analyzing your application.

Thank you for understanding my argument. The point is, fulbright/teach for america, etc are not rare anymore, so they aren't very strong softs. Strong softs tend to be highly unique/ very rare. For example, the Rhodes. Maybe 1-2 people a year apply to law school with a Rhodes. Plus the Rhodes carries such a strong name with it that you will automatically get some sort of boost in the admissions process. Being an olympic athlete is another. Something that is unique, that the school can put on the recruiting materials.

The point being is maybe a fulbright helps a little, but it wont make a perceivable difference. To OP, whatever your numbers are will more or less be what is available to you for admissions. Your numbers, if they wont get you into Georgetown (I don't know this is the case, just hypo here), then I doubt the fulbright will get you into Columbia. However, the fulbright MIGHT help in deciding a tie between you and someone of similar stats/URM status. Say you have a 3.X and a 170 and the other person has a 3.X and a 170. The fulbright MIGHT help differentiate you on the micro scale, but this is not a soft that an admissions officer reads and says we need to admit OP right now even if the numbers don't reach what is normally expected.

Does this make sense? TLDR: you might get a minor bump, but it will likely be imperceivable.

+1

. Forum

.

Re: How much of a soft is a Fulbright Scholarship?

Re: How much of a soft is a Fulbright Scholarship?

Re: How much of a soft is a Fulbright Scholarship?

.

Re: How much of a soft is a Fulbright Scholarship?

Re: How much of a soft is a Fulbright Scholarship?

Re: How much of a soft is a Fulbright Scholarship?

Re: How much of a soft is a Fulbright Scholarship?

Re: How much of a soft is a Fulbright Scholarship?

Re: How much of a soft is a Fulbright Scholarship?

Re: How much of a soft is a Fulbright Scholarship?