Is there anything I can do to get into HYS? Forum

[bpolley0]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I don't agree that those variables are so great as to make GPA unhelpful, but even so, none of that has anything to do with the idea that what is taught in academia is bunk, and that a 2.3 is some kind of resistance to the pointlessness of what is taught.

[IAmLawSchool]

Stanford and Yale are both pretty holistic. Do you have a good story? A good hook? What's your undergrad background? A 3.2 in engineering from Swarthmore is much more impressive than a 3.2 in communications from Texas Tech (which means that you'll have less ground to make up elsewhere in your application). That said, I have trouble imagining a white bread applicant with a 3.2 getting into HYS pretty much in any circumstances. If you're a Bosnian refuge or have some other similarly "woah" story, this would be different. But if not, you're probably out of luck this year.

If nothing about your application shines right now, at least relative to T14 applicants, and you are absolutely dedicated to going to HYS, spend the next ~5 years doing something extraordinary. Found an influential NGO (it doesn't have to be like NRDC, but it does have to be something that someone in the field would have heard of). Write a couple of papers that are notable in their field. Become incredibly successful in some semi-prestigious alternative career. Build a non-negligible company. Obviously none of these things are easy. But you're going to have to give the HYS admissions department a reason to accept you over hundreds if not thousands of better credentialed (and also fairly impressive) applicants--and that's going to take something pretty darn impressive.

I want to push back, though, about the idea that HYS are the only schools worth paying full sticker for. It just entirely depends on what your goals are. If your goals are public interest and you're planning on using LRAP, well, probably any T14 (or even any school with a decent LRAP) could be worth full sticker. It also entirely depends on the personal value that you assign to the marginal cost of the additional debt as compared to the marginal benefits (career-wise and experiential) of attending a top law school. The trend on this board over the past couple of years has been to downplay the benefits of going to a top school while focusing on the costs of debt. But the question isn't what the 15 or so active anti-debt posters on TLS think: it's what you think. It could be entirely rational to pay full sticker to go to Northwestern. Would you be better off taking a substantial scholarship at Cornell? Maybe. Probably. But that doesn't mean that someone without that alternative is necessarily making a bad decision to attend Northwestern at sticker. In other words, you've probably bought into the TLS "no debt" credo a bit too much. You probably are not getting into HYS, and you probably aren't getting merit aid at CCN, but that definitely doesn't mean that you shouldn't go to law school.

So having a 4.0 in Economics from UNLV, and whatever I get on my LSAT. + being born in Romania, and having had my entire family grow up in Communism (Parents still got degrees in Engineering, and my grandpa was a general of the tank brigade in the Army) I can have more confidence applying to HYS? I have read about diversity on applications, but it is still nice hearing opinions on my specific situation. I also plan on being part of numerous extracurricular activities. Thank you

[abl]

Stanford and Yale are both pretty holistic. Do you have a good story? A good hook? What's your undergrad background? A 3.2 in engineering from Swarthmore is much more impressive than a 3.2 in communications from Texas Tech (which means that you'll have less ground to make up elsewhere in your application). That said, I have trouble imagining a white bread applicant with a 3.2 getting into HYS pretty much in any circumstances. If you're a Bosnian refuge or have some other similarly "woah" story, this would be different. But if not, you're probably out of luck this year.

If nothing about your application shines right now, at least relative to T14 applicants, and you are absolutely dedicated to going to HYS, spend the next ~5 years doing something extraordinary. Found an influential NGO (it doesn't have to be like NRDC, but it does have to be something that someone in the field would have heard of). Write a couple of papers that are notable in their field. Become incredibly successful in some semi-prestigious alternative career. Build a non-negligible company. Obviously none of these things are easy. But you're going to have to give the HYS admissions department a reason to accept you over hundreds if not thousands of better credentialed (and also fairly impressive) applicants--and that's going to take something pretty darn impressive.

I want to push back, though, about the idea that HYS are the only schools worth paying full sticker for. It just entirely depends on what your goals are. If your goals are public interest and you're planning on using LRAP, well, probably any T14 (or even any school with a decent LRAP) could be worth full sticker. It also entirely depends on the personal value that you assign to the marginal cost of the additional debt as compared to the marginal benefits (career-wise and experiential) of attending a top law school. The trend on this board over the past couple of years has been to downplay the benefits of going to a top school while focusing on the costs of debt. But the question isn't what the 15 or so active anti-debt posters on TLS think: it's what you think. It could be entirely rational to pay full sticker to go to Northwestern. Would you be better off taking a substantial scholarship at Cornell? Maybe. Probably. But that doesn't mean that someone without that alternative is necessarily making a bad decision to attend Northwestern at sticker. In other words, you've probably bought into the TLS "no debt" credo a bit too much. You probably are not getting into HYS, and you probably aren't getting merit aid at CCN, but that definitely doesn't mean that you shouldn't go to law school.

So having a 4.0 in Economics from UNLV, and whatever I get on my LSAT. + being born in Romania, and having had my entire family grow up in Communism (Parents still got degrees in Engineering, and my grandpa was a general of the tank brigade in the Army) I can have more confidence applying to HYS? I have read about diversity on applications, but it is still nice hearing opinions on my specific situation. I also plan on being part of numerous extracurricular activities. Thank you

Yes. That will all help. I would focus now on getting very involved in a couple ECs rather than getting somewhat involved in many. Quality of involvement matters much more than quantity.

[IAmLawSchool]

Stanford and Yale are both pretty holistic. Do you have a good story? A good hook? What's your undergrad background? A 3.2 in engineering from Swarthmore is much more impressive than a 3.2 in communications from Texas Tech (which means that you'll have less ground to make up elsewhere in your application). That said, I have trouble imagining a white bread applicant with a 3.2 getting into HYS pretty much in any circumstances. If you're a Bosnian refuge or have some other similarly "woah" story, this would be different. But if not, you're probably out of luck this year.

If nothing about your application shines right now, at least relative to T14 applicants, and you are absolutely dedicated to going to HYS, spend the next ~5 years doing something extraordinary. Found an influential NGO (it doesn't have to be like NRDC, but it does have to be something that someone in the field would have heard of). Write a couple of papers that are notable in their field. Become incredibly successful in some semi-prestigious alternative career. Build a non-negligible company. Obviously none of these things are easy. But you're going to have to give the HYS admissions department a reason to accept you over hundreds if not thousands of better credentialed (and also fairly impressive) applicants--and that's going to take something pretty darn impressive.

I want to push back, though, about the idea that HYS are the only schools worth paying full sticker for. It just entirely depends on what your goals are. If your goals are public interest and you're planning on using LRAP, well, probably any T14 (or even any school with a decent LRAP) could be worth full sticker. It also entirely depends on the personal value that you assign to the marginal cost of the additional debt as compared to the marginal benefits (career-wise and experiential) of attending a top law school. The trend on this board over the past couple of years has been to downplay the benefits of going to a top school while focusing on the costs of debt. But the question isn't what the 15 or so active anti-debt posters on TLS think: it's what you think. It could be entirely rational to pay full sticker to go to Northwestern. Would you be better off taking a substantial scholarship at Cornell? Maybe. Probably. But that doesn't mean that someone without that alternative is necessarily making a bad decision to attend Northwestern at sticker. In other words, you've probably bought into the TLS "no debt" credo a bit too much. You probably are not getting into HYS, and you probably aren't getting merit aid at CCN, but that definitely doesn't mean that you shouldn't go to law school.

So having a 4.0 in Economics from UNLV, and whatever I get on my LSAT. + being born in Romania, and having had my entire family grow up in Communism (Parents still got degrees in Engineering, and my grandpa was a general of the tank brigade in the Army) I can have more confidence applying to HYS? I have read about diversity on applications, but it is still nice hearing opinions on my specific situation. I also plan on being part of numerous extracurricular activities. Thank you

Yes. That will all help. I would focus now on getting very involved in a couple ECs rather than getting somewhat involved in many. Quality of involvement matters much more than quantity.

And how exactly would admissions calculate the quantity? By the information you have provided to them? By climbing up in an organization, therefore, you will have a higher position you can list you were at the respective EC's?

[abl]

And how exactly would admissions calculate the quantity? By the information you have provided to them? By climbing up in an organization, therefore, you will have a higher position you can list you were at the respective EC's?

I just meant that being the president of one org matters more than being a member of three (which doesn't really matter at all). And there's no real "calculation" here -- it's just individual admissions officers looking at resumes and picking the ones that most excite them. You're a freshman. My advice to you is to get involved in what interests you, and do an excellent job at what you get involved in. If you do things for the sake of having things to put on your resume, your lack of passion is likely going to be apparent to the adcoms.

In other words, the best thing you can do for yourself now for law school is also the best thing that you can do for yourself as a person: get involved in the activities and classes that most interest you and do an excellent job at everything you do. I think you'll find that if you're doing what you enjoy and killing it, the rest will fall into place.

[IAmLawSchool]

And how exactly would admissions calculate the quantity? By the information you have provided to them? By climbing up in an organization, therefore, you will have a higher position you can list you were at the respective EC's?

I just meant that being the president of one org matters more than being a member of three (which doesn't really matter at all). And there's no real "calculation" here -- it's just individual admissions officers looking at resumes and picking the ones that most excite them. You're a freshman. My advice to you is to get involved in what interests you, and do an excellent job at what you get involved in. If you do things for the sake of having things to put on your resume, your lack of passion is likely going to be apparent to the adcoms.

In other words, the best thing you can do for yourself now for law school is also the best thing that you can do for yourself as a person: get involved in the activities and classes that most interest you and do an excellent job at everything you do. I think you'll find that if you're doing what you enjoy and killing it, the rest will fall into place.

Yes, well, that's how I feel about law, even though that sounds ironic, I just need to make sure everything falls into place for L/S, therefore, I need to rely on other passions right now to get into a top L/S. As I have mentioned before, I am only a freshman because I have decided I want to be a lawyer and go back to school, well actually ever going to school,(even though I graduated hs). (hence, I need to graduate UG first to be a lawyer, I am a 22 y/o freshman.)

[abl]

And how exactly would admissions calculate the quantity? By the information you have provided to them? By climbing up in an organization, therefore, you will have a higher position you can list you were at the respective EC's?

I just meant that being the president of one org matters more than being a member of three (which doesn't really matter at all). And there's no real "calculation" here -- it's just individual admissions officers looking at resumes and picking the ones that most excite them. You're a freshman. My advice to you is to get involved in what interests you, and do an excellent job at what you get involved in. If you do things for the sake of having things to put on your resume, your lack of passion is likely going to be apparent to the adcoms.

In other words, the best thing you can do for yourself now for law school is also the best thing that you can do for yourself as a person: get involved in the activities and classes that most interest you and do an excellent job at everything you do. I think you'll find that if you're doing what you enjoy and killing it, the rest will fall into place.

Yes, well, that's how I feel about law, even though that sounds ironic, I just need to make sure everything falls into place for L/S, therefore, I need to rely on other passions right now to get into a top L/S. As I have mentioned before, I am only a freshman because I have decided I want to be a lawyer and go back to school, well actually ever going to school,(even though I graduated hs). (hence, I need to graduate UG first to be a lawyer, I am a 22 y/o freshman.)

I'm sure there are lots of legal-related extracurricular activities you can do at UNLV. I'm also sure you have other interests. Whatever ECs it is that interest/excite you -- get involved in those. Law schools aren't going to be more impressed by a deep commitment to one type of EC (like debate) than they will another (like dancing). So there genuinely is no strategy here: do what you want to do. The only thing you can do beyond getting great grades and getting involved in one or more ECs to help your law school chances is to do an excellent job in and out of the classroom in other ways. If you impress your classmates, you'll be given leadership positions in your ECs. If you impress your professors, that'll be reflected in their recs.

And spend less time posting on these boards! Every minute you spend here is a lost minute that you could be spending making friends, getting good grades, or getting more involved in ECs.

[jbagelboy]

Nah. There are caveats to GPAs, of course, but they're not meaningless. Also, those prestigious institutions you're talking about are a part of academia, so whatever "goes on" in academia, they're fully immersed in it.

I am fully aware of that, unfortunately. I guess I should have been more specific- GPAS are not meaningless; however, when evaluating someone and making some sort of judgement about that individual basing it strictly on their GPA is an atrocious way of thinking- the way of thinking it seems a lot of the admissions committees and people on TLS think. Let's say Ken Griffin of Citadel Capital had a 2.5 GPA. Maybe at some point, in this hypothetical situation, he realized that what was being taught was theoretical nonsense laced with all sorts of ridiculous assumptions and instead of sitting around caring what other people thought of him he spent his time starting his own hedge fund instead.

People on here would imply some lady/ guy in Yale admissions is honestly thinking oh well he had a 2.5 GPA, not getting into Yale because I don't want it to put a blemish on our Us News Rankings!!It's absolutely hysterical and ridiculous.

This is just silly. To say that a low GPA doesn't necessarily reflect someone's ability is true, as is the converse of that - a low LSAT doesn't necessarily reflect someone's ability either. But that doesn't mean a high GPA doesn't say anything about a person, either - it might not truly reflect their ability, but it might. If you're an academic institution trying to evaluate applicants' potential for academic success, it's reasonable that they'd look at students' previous academic performance. Law schools aren't accepting applicants to run a hedge fund.

More to the point, none of this has anything to do with what's taught in academia. If you can't find college courses worth taking, that's on you. (Ken Griffin was happy enough to take his BA in Econ from Harvard and give Harvard a lot of money after the fact.)

Besides, schools don't judge someone just on GPA. They also care about LSAT. (Super holistic!!)

It may be reasonable to look at; however, I would argue not to significantly decide someones admission on especially when comparing people with a 3.6 vs a 3.8 vs a 4.0. There is a huge difference between someone's LSAT and someone's GPA- the LSAT is standardized. There are more variables that go into someone's GPA than someone's LSAT score. In fact, I would argue, to assume that GPA is even a remotely accurate standard to evaluate someone is completely nonsense. Let's take an extreme example. Two guys go to Harvard, one has a 4.0 and the other has a 3.6 in undergrad, same LSAT scores, and they so happened to take the exact same classes with the exact same teachers- a complete anomaly when evaluating candidates going to law school. Now all things held equal, you and Yale admissions would argue without knowing anything about the 4.0 student that he is "better" than the 3.7 student. Now what if I told you the 4.0 student had the test files for all of the tests prior to taking them yet the 3.7 student actually has a thorough grasp of the material but got like two D's in some stupid marketing class. There is a huge difference between those two people in terms of quality if one actually studied and didn't have the tests. This is obviously just an example but the problem becomes larger when you start involving different schools, grade inflation, different majors, different teachers, different classes with the same major etc. etc.

Also it wasn't a matter of taking courses you like, but really the content being taught. Yeah, going to Harvard has it's perks apparently, Mr. Griffin was also provided quite a bit of capital to start out.

I don't really get what you're arguing for. Nothing you've said implies that grades aren't an important signal for law schools. You just have indicated that law schools should look at grades more holistically because there are sometimes exceptional circumstances where a candidate's aptitude is not well represented by her GPA.

But my sense is that at least HYS generally do this. Applicants with GPAs that are reasonably but not extraordinarily good (~3.6-3. get a closer look--which includes some consideration of where that applicant went to undergrad, what they studied, whether their GPAs show an upwards trend, whether their GPAs are biased downwards by one bad semester (and whether there is an external reason for that), etc. Given that admissions departments don't have the resources to do this sort of examination with every applicant, this strikes me as being a reasonable use of one of the most helpful signals -- I believe that undergrad GPA is actually the strongest predictor of law school success.

My sense also is that applicants who fall out of this GPA range can also prompt a deeper look by explaining a GPA variance in their personal statement, or having something come up in a recommendation. There's a reason why HYS reject a substantial number of the >3.8 high LSAT applicants they get each year while accepting several <3.5 GPA applicants. Candidates with undeservedly high GPAs will often be revealed by their recommendations, their personal statements, or their LSATs. Candidates with undeservedly low GPAs will often similarly be rescued by these same factors.

Idk.. GPA is an okay indicator in broad strokes but it's still pretty weak IMO. We went to the same undergrad (or one of two essentially equivalent small colleges); my law school standing is way higher than my undergraduate grades, because I majored in STEM, I wasn't great at the major and there just weren't many A's given out in upper division courses (also freshmen year bad transition grades, ect.) I'm not saying the LSAT is better; law school exams are written and the LSAT is not, and my LSAT was comparable to the median at top schools but that did not predict my class rank. I just think cheating/stacking inflated coursework and large difference in grade distributions across majors/18 yr old emotional maturity vs. 25 yr/vast differences in the level of work expected or required from some universities or colleges compared to others, all taken together, significantly dilute the prospective value of undergraduate GPAas computed by LSAC for law school success.

[IAmLawSchool]

And how exactly would admissions calculate the quantity? By the information you have provided to them? By climbing up in an organization, therefore, you will have a higher position you can list you were at the respective EC's?

I just meant that being the president of one org matters more than being a member of three (which doesn't really matter at all). And there's no real "calculation" here -- it's just individual admissions officers looking at resumes and picking the ones that most excite them. You're a freshman. My advice to you is to get involved in what interests you, and do an excellent job at what you get involved in. If you do things for the sake of having things to put on your resume, your lack of passion is likely going to be apparent to the adcoms.

In other words, the best thing you can do for yourself now for law school is also the best thing that you can do for yourself as a person: get involved in the activities and classes that most interest you and do an excellent job at everything you do. I think you'll find that if you're doing what you enjoy and killing it, the rest will fall into place.

Yes, well, that's how I feel about law, even though that sounds ironic, I just need to make sure everything falls into place for L/S, therefore, I need to rely on other passions right now to get into a top L/S. As I have mentioned before, I am only a freshman because I have decided I want to be a lawyer and go back to school, well actually ever going to school,(even though I graduated hs). (hence, I need to graduate UG first to be a lawyer, I am a 22 y/o freshman.)

I'm sure there are lots of legal-related extracurricular activities you can do at UNLV. I'm also sure you have other interests. Whatever ECs it is that interest/excite you -- get involved in those. Law schools aren't going to be more impressed by a deep commitment to one type of EC (like debate) than they will another (like dancing). So there genuinely is no strategy here: do what you want to do. The only thing you can do beyond getting great grades and getting involved in one or more ECs to help your law school chances is to do an excellent job in and out of the classroom in other ways. If you impress your classmates, you'll be given leadership positions in your ECs. If you impress your professors, that'll be reflected in their recs.

And spend less time posting on these boards! Every minute you spend here is a lost minute that you could be spending making friends, getting good grades, or getting more involved in ECs.

I have been married for three years. I have had all the friends I ever wanted (and never wanted) even though I will create new ones, I'm over that phase of my life, I am only focused on law school. It is all to my advantage, people don't get to go in Freshman year with this mind state. I can't go into great detail, but I got to experience some extreme negatives/positives that have made me who I am the average individual doesn't. I have never posted on any boards before so TLS is a good one to waste my time on, I love it. I love anything that is about law school, I LOVE THIS SHIT

[abl]

Idk.. GPA is an okay indicator in broad strokes but it's still pretty weak IMO. We went to the same undergrad (or one of two essentially equivalent small colleges); my law school standing is way higher than my undergraduate grades, because I majored in STEM, I wasn't great at the major and there just weren't many A's given out in upper division courses (also freshmen year bad transition grades, ect.) I'm not saying the LSAT is better; law school exams are written and the LSAT is not, and my LSAT was comparable to the median at top schools but that did not predict my class rank. I just think cheating/stacking inflated coursework and large difference in grade distributions across majors/18 yr old emotional maturity vs. 25 yr/vast differences in the level of work expected or required from some universities or colleges compared to others, all taken together, significantly dilute the prospective value of undergraduate GPAas computed by LSAC for law school success.

My law school standing was also significantly higher than my undergraduate -- but I didn't major in STEM as an undergrad and most of my classes were taken in subjects that most on this board would probably say are easy (they weren't at my/our college). I agree that none of these things are perfect indicators of law school success, or even particularly great indicators. It's just that there probably aren't better ways to quickly assess incoming students than what law schools currently use (uGPA and LSAT, with an eye towards writing sample, recs, resume, etc).

[A. Nony Mouse]

Idk.. GPA is an okay indicator in broad strokes but it's still pretty weak IMO. We went to the same undergrad (or one of two essentially equivalent small colleges); my law school standing is way higher than my undergraduate grades, because I majored in STEM, I wasn't great at the major and there just weren't many A's given out in upper division courses (also freshmen year bad transition grades, ect.) I'm not saying the LSAT is better; law school exams are written and the LSAT is not, and my LSAT was comparable to the median at top schools but that did not predict my class rank. I just think cheating/stacking inflated coursework and large difference in grade distributions across majors/18 yr old emotional maturity vs. 25 yr/vast differences in the level of work expected or required from some universities or colleges compared to others, all taken together, significantly dilute the prospective value of undergraduate GPAas computed by LSAC for law school success.

More value than not considering it at all, though.

[bpolley0]

.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[bpolley0]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I didn't have a spectacular GPA, but I have no problem saying that someone who got a 4.0 is probably smarter or more hardworking than I am, or both.

[PoopyPants]

I didn't have a spectacular GPA, but I have no problem saying that someone who got a 4.0 is probably smarter or more hardworking than I am, or both.

Troof. I don't have a great GPA, mostly because I was lazy and unmotivated when I took my first run at college.

[Hildegard15]

Post removed.

[A. Nony Mouse]

The valedictorian at my college didn't have a 4.0, either - it just doesn't happen (or didn't when I was there). But to the same extent we can't know what a 2.8 really means, we can't know what a 4.0 really means either - in either direction. While it might be grade inflation etc., I also don't want to take anything away from the people who genuinely deserve those grades.

And really, while there are obviously issues with GPA measuring ability, it's not like grades are completely random, determined by lottery. They reflect someone's performance over 4 years, as opposed to for 5 35-minutes sections some random weekend.

[PoopyPants]

I didn't have a spectacular GPA, but I have no problem saying that someone who got a 4.0 is probably smarter or more hardworking than I am, or both.

Troof. I don't have a great GPA, mostly because I was lazy and unmotivated when I took my first run at college.

I hesitate to say this, just because my school had/has an active policy of grade deflation. They literally send a letter along with our transcript that says they deflate grades. I know a lot of people who got 4.0s at other universities that were not harder working or smarter than me. According to my CAS report, nobody from my school who took the LSAT in the last 3 years had a 4.0.

Yeah, and that's an argument people make in favor of the LSAT.

However, in general, I do think GPA reflects how much work someone is willing to put into their studies (of course, STEM courses are notoriously difficult, plus learning disabilities and access to resources matter, so there will be some exceptions).

Incidentally, when I first went to college, I majored in English. I did okay in the courses I was interested in, but I was exceptionally unmotivated, and my GPA was a 3.1. This time around, I'm a math major, and I have a 3.8 in all my major courses.

[hill1334]

Nah. There are caveats to GPAs, of course, but they're not meaningless. Also, those prestigious institutions you're talking about are a part of academia, so whatever "goes on" in academia, they're fully immersed in it.

I am fully aware of that, unfortunately. I guess I should have been more specific- GPAS are not meaningless; however, when evaluating someone and making some sort of judgement about that individual basing it strictly on their GPA is an atrocious way of thinking- the way of thinking it seems a lot of the admissions committees and people on TLS think. Let's say Ken Griffin of Citadel Capital had a 2.5 GPA. Maybe at some point, in this hypothetical situation, he realized that what was being taught was theoretical nonsense laced with all sorts of ridiculous assumptions and instead of sitting around caring what other people thought of him he spent his time starting his own hedge fund instead.

People on here would imply some lady/ guy in Yale admissions is honestly thinking oh well he had a 2.5 GPA, not getting into Yale because I don't want it to put a blemish on our Us News Rankings!!It's absolutely hysterical and ridiculous.

This is just silly. To say that a low GPA doesn't necessarily reflect someone's ability is true, as is the converse of that - a low LSAT doesn't necessarily reflect someone's ability either. But that doesn't mean a high GPA doesn't say anything about a person, either - it might not truly reflect their ability, but it might. If you're an academic institution trying to evaluate applicants' potential for academic success, it's reasonable that they'd look at students' previous academic performance. Law schools aren't accepting applicants to run a hedge fund.

More to the point, none of this has anything to do with what's taught in academia. If you can't find college courses worth taking, that's on you. (Ken Griffin was happy enough to take his BA in Econ from Harvard and give Harvard a lot of money after the fact.)

Besides, schools don't judge someone just on GPA. They also care about LSAT. (Super holistic!!)

It may be reasonable to look at; however, I would argue not to significantly decide someones admission on especially when comparing people with a 3.6 vs a 3.8 vs a 4.0. There is a huge difference between someone's LSAT and someone's GPA- the LSAT is standardized. There are more variables that go into someone's GPA than someone's LSAT score. In fact, I would argue, to assume that GPA is even a remotely accurate standard to evaluate someone is completely nonsense. Let's take an extreme example. Two guys go to Harvard, one has a 4.0 and the other has a 3.6 in undergrad, same LSAT scores, and they so happened to take the exact same classes with the exact same teachers- a complete anomaly when evaluating candidates going to law school. Now all things held equal, you and Yale admissions would argue without knowing anything about the 4.0 student that he is "better" than the 3.7 student. Now what if I told you the 4.0 student had the test files for all of the tests prior to taking them yet the 3.7 student actually has a thorough grasp of the material but got like two D's in some stupid marketing class. There is a huge difference between those two people in terms of quality if one actually studied and didn't have the tests. This is obviously just an example but the problem becomes larger when you start involving different schools, grade inflation, different majors, different teachers, different classes with the same major etc. etc.

Also it wasn't a matter of taking courses you like, but really the content being taught. Yeah, going to Harvard has it's perks apparently, Mr. Griffin was also provided quite a bit of capital to start out.

Of course their are myriad instances where LSAT and GPA don't do a great job of representing individuals' abilities. But that is not really the point. On the average--when you look at the population as whole--they are still the best predictive measures out there, and it makes sense that law schools use them in determining admissions. Personally, I think law schools should take into account other soft factors and school strength to a greater extent, but that does not really invalidate their use of GPA, and, in particular, does not invalidate law schools distinguishing between a 3.6 vs. 3.8 v.s 4.0, which are fairly considerable differences. A Yale law school with a 3.7 GPA median is going to be substantially different than one with a 3.93 gpa median.

I think you are focusing too much on the individual rather than aggregate, and that your own personal path to success is acting as a bit of a confirmation bias.

[hill1334]

I mean the simple fact that studies have shown GPA has a decent correlation with law school success. And, when undergrad strength is controlled for (which I admit is a bit of a big when), GPA has been shown to be the equal of the LSAT in predictive power.

I highly doubt anyone posting on this does not think law schools should be more holistic than they currently are. But just because GPA is overvalued does not make it a "terrible" metric.

[bpolley0]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I just also don't think you can assume John's 4.0 doesn't mean he's a good or better student, though. I used to teach college (in one of the despised "soft" fields) and it's not easy to get a 4.0 in any field, at any school.

[bpolley0]

.