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

[abl]

I also don't think you can assume that George won't get in to a similar set of schools as John. For at least the top couple schools known for both quality and intellectual rigor (places like Caltech and Princeton and the little ivies), there does seem to be much more GPA flexibility in law school admission departments. Maybe 3.4 is just too much to overcome in your example, but change it to 3.6 or 3.7 and you're in business.

Ps if the point you're making is that GPAs should be more adjusted for school and program, I agree. GPAs are an exceptional indicator of effort and aptitude--both of which are important to law school admissions. The problem as I see it isn't that they are overweighted by admissions. It's that admissions offices don't do enough to compensate for just how hard certain programs are. Having taught and been a student at a wide range of schools, I can say first hand that there is an enormous difference between getting an A in a Harvard-type course and getting an A in a directional state school-type course. It is often the case that Harvard gives out more As, but the quality (and usually also quantity) of work necessary is far greater at Harvard. Unsurprisingly, Harvard has many more students willing and capable of doing A work.

And not all top schools have equivalent grade inflation--Stanford As come much more easily than Princeton As for example. I think the top adcoms adjust for this some but not enough.

[jbagelboy]

I also don't think you can assume that George won't get in to a similar set of schools as John. For at least the top couple schools known for both quality and intellectual rigor (places like Caltech and Princeton and the little ivies), there does seem to be much more GPA flexibility in law school admission departments. Maybe 3.4 is just too much to overcome in your example, but change it to 3.6 or 3.7 and you're in business.

Ps if the point you're making is that GPAs should be more adjusted for school and program, I agree. GPAs are an exceptional indicator of effort and aptitude--both of which are important to law school admissions. The problem as I see it isn't that they are overweighted by admissions. It's that admissions offices don't do enough to compensate for just how hard certain programs are. Having taught and been a student at a wide range of schools, I can say first hand that there is an enormous difference between getting an A in a Harvard-type course and getting an A in a directional state school-type course. It is often the case that Harvard gives out more As, but the quality (and usually also quantity) of work necessary is far greater at Harvard. Unsurprisingly, Harvard has many more students willing and capable of doing A work.

And not all top schools have equivalent grade inflation--Stanford As come much more easily than Princeton As for example. I think the top adcoms adjust for this some but not enough.

Okay, we basically agree then. Clearly GPA must be considered, but I'm not convinced the efficiency gains from considering the single, universal LSAC reported grade point average justify the gross lack of nuance.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Having taught and been a student at a wide range of schools, I can say first hand that there is an enormous difference between getting an A in a Harvard-type course and getting an A in a directional state school-type course. It is often the case that Harvard gives out more As, but the quality (and usually also quantity) of work necessary is far greater at Harvard. Unsurprisingly, Harvard has many more students willing and capable of doing A work.

I don't think the bolded is strictly true, to the extent it suggests that an A student at Directional U wouldn't also be an A student at Harvard - the top students at Directional would be top students anywhere. (I know you're not directly contradicting that, but to the extent it's implied, I wanted to throw that out there.) I agree that you're going to have way more students able to pull off As at Harvard than Directional U, though (and that Harvard is generally going to require a greater quantity of work, though there's a lot of variation within and across schools, so it's hard to generalize except at the margins).

I'm also going to suggest John the Women's Studies major could actually be legitimately smarter/a better student than George the mechanical engineer so choosing him over the mechanical engineer could be perfectly reasonable. I agree that median-boosting is a huge motive, though.

Re: single, universal LSAC reported GPA - my question is, barring holistic review, what's the alternative? Only consider LSAT? LSAT's already weighted more heavily and I don't think that LSAT alone would lead to a better/fairer evaluation.

Clearly yes, true holistic review would be best. But in the absence of that, I think it's fair to consider both GPA and LSAT, flawed as both those things are.

[ihenry]

All interests, commitments and personal choices aside, B+ students in my school, when they are on exchange in U.S. public universities or T30 privates, can easily pull straight A's for equivalent courses (i. e. same course contents). What makes you GPAfans think an A- student is smarter or more hardworking and thus should be given priority in admission over him? I also know some top private universities in U.S. are "notoriously" harder than others -- in fact, the fact that people like the word "notorious" here is sarcastic; I guess there's nothing wrong with being hard.

Re: single, universal LSAC reported GPA - my question is, barring holistic review, what's the alternative? Only consider LSAT? LSAT's already weighted more heavily and I don't think that LSAT alone would lead to a better/fairer evaluation.

Easy - take LSAT as the sole quantitative indicator, and let GPA be qualitative. If someone gets a 2.5 -- I'm not going to argue field still matters here -- he probably didn't study hard in college so fine, ding him. But 3.8 over 3.5 for sheer number? Nah.

ETA: I know people here are kind and are just giving honest advice based on reality. But to say sheer GPA numbers make sense because, well, they make sense, which is because USNWR lets them make sense, is circular reasoning and sometimes appealing to authority.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm just baffled at everyone's conviction that GPAs are such bullshit, and that the LSAT is a much better indicator of someone's ability.

[mist4bison]

Re: single, universal LSAC reported GPA - my question is, barring holistic review, what's the alternative? Only consider LSAT? LSAT's already weighted more heavily and I don't think that LSAT alone would lead to a better/fairer evaluation.

So I stumbled upon this last night and found it kind of interesting. Just found it again and figured I'd share: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... hool.shtml

Jumping into this topic late, but I do think there are better ways to evaluate a student beyond LSAT + GPA. I don't necessarily agree with all of what the above article says (especially what it implies re: AA, but I won't get into that), but I do think the study itself makes an important point that GPA and LSAT aren't necessarily the best predictors of good lawyering.

ETA: I searched for the actual project report last night, but had no luck. The link at the bottom didn't work for me.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I do completely agree that GPA and LSAT alone are terrible ways to evaluate applicants and don't measure a lot of skills necessary for success as a lawyer. A truly holistic review would be better. I just don't think that in the absence of that holistic review, using even less information (just LSAT) would be a better way to evaluate. I've already pointed out that most schools weight LSAT more heavily anyway.

[ihenry]

I'm just baffled at everyone's conviction that GPAs are such bullshit, and that the LSAT is a much better indicator of someone's ability.

If you've been through Chinese education system where admissions to high school, college and grad school are solely determined by one single test you'll know. It's fair in its own way, but sure unfair in others. People are thinking of bringing in GPAs for alternative means of admissions for college, but still, I think high school GPAs make much more sense, since everybody is studying same subjects with similar caliber (established by government authorities and most importantly, that terminal exam).

One of the few times I can think of when college GPA truly matters is when you apply to specific graduate schools in your major. For example, to apply to computer science master's and PhD your performance in common foundational courses say, data structures and algorithms, should get looked at. Still, what grades your got for those outside this major (second majors, minors, electives) are much less relevant -- they can be used to tell who have been slackers, but whether you are a high achiever or very high achiever doesn't make much difference... Sure, I understand the need to filter out massive candidates to fill limited seats, so there's dilemma...like many other things in the world.

[mist4bison]

I do completely agree that GPA and LSAT alone are terrible ways to evaluate applicants and don't measure a lot of skills necessary for success as a lawyer. A truly holistic review would be better. I just don't think that in the absence of that holistic review, using even less information (just LSAT) would be a better way to evaluate. I've already pointed out that most schools weight LSAT more heavily anyway.

Oh, yeah if we're talking no holistic review and only the current measures (LSAT and GPA) are available, then I agree that GPA should be included. It would be interesting if they somehow restructured the LSAT, though. I actually think the writing portion should be viewed more highly than it is. It's such a basic skill and so important in both law school and the legal field, but everyone disregards it because it doesn't have a score.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yeah, there are a lot of perverse incentives in the whole application process.

[ihenry]

I actually think the writing portion should be viewed more highly than it is. It's such a basic skill and so important in both law school and the legal field, but everyone disregards it because it doesn't have a score.

+1. Writing is an incredibly important skill incredibly downplayed in standardized tests... or may be it's because the test is "standardized"?

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[ihenry]

Sorry, but I beg to differ. It's nearly 6am here but I feel a compulsion to criticize an imperfect institution and refute an argument I deem faulty. Look, we know it's flawed; we understand the circumstances that led to the flaw; we have an attitude to seek for means to make it better; but the last thing we should do is to find excuses to defend this flawed system.

The LSAT is very easy to prepare for, so much that given enough time (3-6 months) of intensive study, I could get any college grad into the 170s.

I doubt it; I've seen plenty of people, despite their continuous efforts, cannot score in the 170's. This affirmative, absolutist statement is an insult for those who prepared diligently but failed to achieve an elite score. But now for the arguments' sake let's say it's true: after several months of intense prep an average Joe can score in 170s from an initial score of, say, 135. During this period, his reading comprehension and logical reasoning, two essential skills in law school (I'm a 0L from China but I guess this holds true, no?) must have vastly improved. On the other hand, this average Joe, if he wants a high GPA, can choose go to an easy college, easy major, lightest course load, and get a high enough GPA not to be precluded from any school, say 3.8-ish (4.0 is not needed right?). But what does he gain from this process? Nothing. What can this say about his ability? Literally nothing. Even worse, this rewards those people who game the system which screams unfairness. I don't have a stellar GPA, but if I want to maximize my GPA from the beginning I would take a different route and have a much higher number, although I would be dumber and less technically capable than I am now. I believe most people are the same.

While GPAs can vary from college to college and major to major, and even professor to professor, they still tend to demonstrate the same qualities, but for four years rather than 6 months.

Great to see you admit that not all GPA's are born equal. But what the hell is they "tend to demonstrate the same qualities"? Math or literature, everyone? Do you mean intelligence and work ethic? Okay, it's indeed four years, but that doesn't mean those with a higher GPA had better four years than those with lower. I am confident that there are schools in the U.S. like my school (I dislike my school for many aspects btw), where a B+ student can pull straight A's in almost every other place. Is it fair to say they are inferior?

Also, in my experience, the smartest and hardest working students will rise to the top of any school/major. I don't care what you major in, getting a 4.0 is extremely difficult. Therefore, the two together can form a rough (though by no means perfect) picture of an applicant's abilities and work ethic.

Lol, "smartest and hardest working student". The best player in your school's volleyball team may hardly make it into another school's team, although the Olympic champion is surely the best player in every school team; is that what you mean? 4.0 is difficult, okay, can 3.5 be difficult? Maybe, maybe more, maybe less. But does it make sense to reject that 3.5 based on the number alone?

That's pretty much it, and oh,

(and you better believe adcomms who have done this for years know how these grades compare to other applicants that year and in the past)

Wait, did anyone mention USNWR? No?

[A. Nony Mouse]

Eh, during LSAT prep, someone learns to take the LSAT. That's about it. Someone who preps for a few months and raises their score isn't any smarter or better a student than they were before they started. They're just better at taking the test.

Saying that a 3.8 tells you nothing about an applicant is overblown. Taking an "easy" major and a "light" load doesn't mean someone gets nothing out of the experience and it doesn't mean they don't have any ability. That's just full of assumptions.

Again, there are absolutely problems with GPA. That doesn't make it meaningless or that schools shouldn't consider it. Why shouldn't a person who "earns" (by your standards) a high GPA benefit from that? How is it fair to throw that out?

(I also highly doubt every B+ student from your school is going to get all As in every US school, but that's probably a different argument.)

[ihenry]

Eh, during LSAT prep, someone learns to take the LSAT. That's about it. Someone who preps for a few months and raises their score isn't any smarter or better a student than they were before they started. They're just better at taking the test.

Saying that a 3.8 tells you nothing about an applicant is overblown. Taking an "easy" major and a "light" load doesn't mean someone gets nothing out of the experience and it doesn't mean they don't have any ability. That's just full of assumptions.

Again, there are absolutely problems with GPA. That doesn't make it meaningless or that schools shouldn't consider it. Why shouldn't a person who "earns" (by your standards) a high GPA benefit from that? How is it fair to throw that out?

(I also highly doubt every B+ student from your school is going to get all As in every US school, but that's probably a different argument.)

I was enjoying editing my wording and didn't see your new post and hence the "edit" footnote...

I never said a 3.8 or 4.0 is not reputable; the "easiest" majors and courses have their value. And I never said a high GPA is never gained through hard work. But the thing is we are comparing candidates. If the ground of accepting a student with 3.8 over another with 3.5 is this number alone, the system is faulty; it requires much bigger assumptions and can cost candidates with very high potentials, and can foster an unhealthy GPA game.

Regarding your doubt, maybe not every, but many -- I can even say it's the vast majority, provided they have such chance -- and that would justify my argument. There is even a Quora thread full of this testimony (I'm not going to paste the link because it will out me). And I have to no intention to brag about my school or the students -- they ("we") are good at exams, but suck at many other aspects, and I often regret the decision. But we are talking about exams and grades here right? It's not about your ability to found a tech startup, but how many conceptual/algorithm questions you get correct on a paper during random 2 hours.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Well, there are lots of very different kinds of exams, and also other ways of measuring student achievement.

And mostly I think that there are so many different problems with the law school application system, that GPA is by far not the most egregious or unfair, and that all in all it provides a lot of useful information to adcomms, which is all they can ask for. I also think the "costs" of a lower GPA are somewhat overblown here, as no one is entitled to admission based on their native intelligence.

(Let me also be clear that I don't think GPA is an IQ test or anything of the sort - it's a measure of one person's performance in one specific course of study over a period of time, nothing more. But I also think people generally overestimate their understanding of how grading works and overestimate grades' arbitrariness because of that, especially high achievers who have generally received good grades.)

[ihenry]

Well, there are lots of very different kinds of exams, and also other ways of measuring student achievement.

And mostly I think that there are so many different problems with the law school application system, that GPA is by far not the most egregious or unfair, and that all in all it provides a lot of useful information to adcomms, which is all they can ask for. I also think the "costs" of a lower GPA are somewhat overblown here, as no one is entitled to admission based on their native intelligence.

(Let me also be clear that I don't think GPA is an IQ test or anything of the sort - it's a measure of one person's performance in one specific course of study over a period of time, nothing more. But I also think people generally overestimate their understanding of how grading works and overestimate grades' arbitrariness because of that, especially high achievers who have generally received good grades.)

Alright then. Studying hard both for LSAT and GPA is honorable, I think nobody would dispute that.

And MistakenGenius -- I clicked your profile and saw you had a great GPA/LSAT combo and got into Yale, which is fantastic. I won't get into Yale. But may I remind you that in order to offer you this spot they have to reject hundreds of applicants, among whom many may be equally capable and qualified, but just were struck out due to this lame GPA measurement. It's always a virtue to be humble.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[ihenry]

However, it's flawed logic to assume that just because they've worked hard on something and failed to achieve it, they're incapable of doing so. If anything, your statements are far more insulting and hurtful to these applicants. I'm saying they possess all the innate intelligence to make this score if they work hard and understand how to correctly go about the test. You're saying that no matter what they do, they are just not smart enough to make that score.

I did not say they are NEVER incapable of doing so. Someone may prepare for six months can still can't break 165, but if they devote three years of reading serious and dense materials they may eventually break 175. Oh well, if that's what you mean by "correct methods", I have no issue. I am just amazed about how you attempted to segregate with LSAT capabilities with law school potential. I have yet to attend law school, so yeah, I am in no position to dispute you with this matter. But in preparing for LSAT I read dense articles and practice my logic; if your "correct" method does not involve this, well I don't know, and if you insist this has nothing to do with law school, well, I don't know either, and it is probably LSAC to blame for inventing this "irrelevant" test. Apart from that, I know some analogies -- those who study hard for their junior middle school maths are probably good at algebra, and those who are good at algebra are GENERALLY good at trigonometry, calculus, and game theory -- they are completely different disciplines, but if they are better with numbers they probably continue to excel at maths. And look, it is you who proposed the word "smart" first; just because someone doesn't do well in LSAT doesn't mean they are not smart. I know plenty of very good mathematics students whose reading and writing abilities are at best average, but I am in no position to deny their intelligence.

But the most important point of LSAT is that its fairness does not lie in preparing for the exam; rather, it is the exam itself where everyone is exposed to similar questions and evaluated on the same footing. Nobody is entitled in or out and it is reputable if they devote time to improve their abilities in a fair test. If many people feel LSAT is too easy, fine, make it harder (as LSAC has been doing) or raise the ceiling. But at no point when GPA, this ridiculously flawed number, should chime in and even match its importance.

I don't believe for a second that a 3.8+ GPA is easy in the US no matter what route you take.

I had just done a group project on computer vision this morning. One of my teammates went to Notre Dame for exchange last year. His grades here are similar to mine -- <removed> In ND he pulled a 4.0 with almost no effort. Georgia Tech, a school you often referred to as a "grade deflation" school, handed out A's to our friends in engineering whom to us are neither smart nor very hardworking. Our school, like many Asian universities, gather all exam-smart people and grade them on a B or B- curve. Many people walk out of the exam hall and think "too easy, absolutely A", and ended up with B-'s. But, as Nony said, this is not really relevant. It is just IGNORANT to say all 3.8 are born equal and a 3.6 deserves to be beaten by a 3.8. And yes, it may perfectly require intelligence and work ethic, but we are making COMPARISONS. A 3.5 may have both better intelligence and work ethic than 4.0, and you shouldn't reject the 3.5 based on this number alone IF YOU WANT intelligence and/or ethic. That's it! I've repeated multiple times. Where's your 180 RC skill?

Your series of "maybe" in the next paragraph does nothing but to confirm to the above opinion. What I argue is GPA should not be looked at in vacuum, nor should be numbers compared directly against, and reject people solely on this basis. Who said I favor 3.4 over 4.0 regardless?

And I'm surprised you turned to self-bragging subsequently. I am <removed>. I am in Chinese <edited out for my protection> and started to learn English at 10 as a school subject, yet I scored over 99% in an English verbal reasoning test yadda yadda yadda. But what do you want to say? Your 3.8 is not a joke? Okay, maybe, but does that add anything? "Benefit of doubt", yes, precisely because of this benefit of doubt many people start to take easy courses and avoid challenges as much as they can, which works against the intellectual rigor/quality that admissions long claim to champion. They are inconsistent on its own merits.

Nony misinterpreted my arguments first; the reason I did not correct is I do not want to come off as too "cherry-picked". People certainly gain something from their college education, and what I mean is in pulling up your LSAT, you are improving your abilities, while to keep you GPA up, you may waste opportunities to do so (of course many other people choose to study hard which I already admitted that it is honorable).

when did I mention USNWR here?

Not you, but I put this to echo my first post.

So since you obviously think I need to learn humility, could you please explain to me how I'm being arrogant and waving numbers in everyone's faces? As far as I see, you're the first person to mention my GPA/LSAT. Hell, I haven't talked about myself in any of my posts in this thread. Yes, I have discussed Harvard and Stanford and Yale admissions in particular. But that's because the question is, "is there anything I can do to get into HYS?"

I made this very clear. You have vested interest, sorry to be blunt. They may reject a 3.4 with hard double majors to accept SOMEONE with 3.8 in economics, and the former is smarter and more diligent. Your religious belief in GPA insults the person who worked hard but failed to attain top results because of the courseload or grading, and I hence respond to this statement:

He's not getting into Yale because he's not good enough.

Shit, they've rejected people because of a poor LSAT writing sample. That's how it is. You have 5,000 applicants vying for your school, the vast majority of whom are qualified and capable, and you have to narrow it down to ~250. When it's that competitive, every single factor is important.

Yes, they can draw a lottery based on candidates' LSAC numbers and/or names, because they are so baffled by so many qualified applicants, and I think they are perfectly justifiable to do this, just that those not admitted are not necessarily not good enough. For GPA: I already acknowledged the dilemma and I understand the circumstance to fill very limited seats from mass applicants, and I never claimed GPA has no merit at all (I proposed a "qualitative" way to look at it). But someone who got in at the cost of another perhaps more deserving students would probably better avoid making definitive judgments.

Just because you're a splitter (assuming since you already said you didn't have a good GPA) doesn't mean you cannot look at this objectively and understand why GPA has some merit.

I'm an international student who does not have a reportable GPA (so why am I writing this when I could play PS4?); I said won't get into Yale mostly because of my international status (I checked their grid and 5 people above 175 with no GPA applied, 0 accepted; they surprisingly admitted multiple high 160's, and I think the odds are too small). Why so eager to prove you are arrogant and "need humility"?


ETA: you are free to continue to respond in this thread if you disagree. No. Or, you can start a megathread in the lounge to debate GPA. Yeah you may consider that I may do that some time No I wont. because, yes, this thread has already derailed.

[IAmLawSchool]

I'm just baffled at everyone's conviction that GPAs are such bullshit, and that the LSAT is a much better indicator of someone's ability.

If you've been through Chinese education system where admissions to high school, college and grad school are solely determined by one single test you'll know. It's fair in its own way, but sure unfair in others. People are thinking of bringing in GPAs for alternative means of admissions for college, but still, I think high school GPAs make much more sense, since everybody is studying same subjects with similar caliber (established by government authorities and most importantly, that terminal exam).

One of the few times I can think of when college GPA truly matters is when you apply to specific graduate schools in your major. For example, to apply to computer science master's and PhD your performance in common foundational courses say, data structures and algorithms, should get looked at. Still, what grades your got for those outside this major (second majors, minors, electives) are much less relevant -- they can be used to tell who have been slackers, but whether you are a high achiever or very high achiever doesn't make much difference... Sure, I understand the need to filter out massive candidates to fill limited seats, so there's dilemma...like many other things in the world.

That's ridiculous to say, I mean how about the people that don't really go to school in high school? I liked to joke when I was going back to school to start college that i'm not going back, i'm really going to school for the first time. It isn't the european education system, in Romania-we have the baccalaureate- is it literally equivalent to going to a CC. I honestly think high school should be graded on a pass/fail basis (and it is, unless you want to get into top schools straight out of H.S.) Also, in any college you will have Gen Ed.

[ihenry]

I'm just baffled at everyone's conviction that GPAs are such bullshit, and that the LSAT is a much better indicator of someone's ability.

If you've been through Chinese education system where admissions to high school, college and grad school are solely determined by one single test you'll know. It's fair in its own way, but sure unfair in others. People are thinking of bringing in GPAs for alternative means of admissions for college, but still, I think high school GPAs make much more sense, since everybody is studying same subjects with similar caliber (established by government authorities and most importantly, that terminal exam).

One of the few times I can think of when college GPA truly matters is when you apply to specific graduate schools in your major. For example, to apply to computer science master's and PhD your performance in common foundational courses say, data structures and algorithms, should get looked at. Still, what grades your got for those outside this major (second majors, minors, electives) are much less relevant -- they can be used to tell who have been slackers, but whether you are a high achiever or very high achiever doesn't make much difference... Sure, I understand the need to filter out massive candidates to fill limited seats, so there's dilemma...like many other things in the world.

That's ridiculous to say, I mean how about the people that don't really go to school in high school? I liked to joke when I was going back to school to start college that i'm not going back, i'm really going to school for the first time. It isn't the european education system, in Romania-we have the baccalaureate- is it literally equivalent to going to a CC. I honestly think high school should be graded on a pass/fail basis (and it is, unless you want to get into top schools straight out of H.S.) Also, in any college you will have Gen Ed.

That's interesting to know. I recommend you to watch a recent BBC documentary "Chinese schools" if you want to know more. Basically, in Romania you probably won't be competing jobs with tens of MILLIONS (literally) college graduates, and that's where the strict hierarchy of universities in China comes from.

The result is, those in top Chinese universities are ridiculously talented and hardworking. I don't study in a Chinese university but I've seen papers from them, and papers from top American universities. If I were to rank difficulty, China >> us >>>> America. I have friends from Peking University (a Top-2 uni) who went on exchange here, and they say our assessments are quite easier than theirs; one had 87/100 average back there, studied pretty hard here, and got A's and A-'s. Regarding Georgia Tech, they said it was a joke. Although one of my best friends is in GT I admit.

ETA: in case any of GPAfans treat this as part of my argument -- being too exam smart in college, to me, is not a great thing. That's part of the reason I don't extremely like my school, and part of reason I think the importance of GPA is overblown.

[Hildegard15]

Post removed.

[ihenry]

Please stop with the "my country's academics are so superior to the US" You give the example Notre dame and Georgia tech. That's only two universities in the whole country off of which to be basing this generalization.

It's not academic, just the (average) students' ability to take exams. America has world's best professors, facilities and resources, many of our courses are modeled after American counterparts, and our textbooks are written by Americans; who am I to pass the judgment that my country is superior in academics? And why am I applying to American schools?

Well, if you would like, I can give more examples <removed> Don't know about your major.. <removed>

Again, again, again, it has absolutely nothing to do with teaching/research/employment opportunities, just students' taking exams (and our school, as I admitted, is not strongest in this aspect in the region). I also thought there is nothing too remarkable in letting students self-study, then set a hard paper to trick students. Besides, I brought in this point mainly to argue not all equally big GPA numbers are equal. And I withhold my sweeping judgment and said something like I'm sure there are very competitive schools in America (to make my argument relevant).

[ihenry]

Alright, I quit. It's becoming less and less relevant and I am more prone to be misunderstood. All schools I mentioned are fantastic schools, and I very much had wanted to attend one of them, most importantly for higher teaching quality and better employment/grad school outcomes.

Regarding GPA argument, if you agree with me, just bless me in your heart that I will get into every school I applied to If you don't, well... just be nice because I will bless you too

[unknown666]

This thread blew up while I was gone. Thanks for the reply everyone.

I don't think it's very realistic to go to a lower ranked school then expect to transfer to HYS.

As for working the next five years to build a business, NGO, etc., they sound like great ideas (not just for the purpose of LS, but for life in general), but I also am not sure how realistic it is to actually pull it off. I would appreciate ideas on how to get started.

I thought of another idea: to go back for another undergrad degree when I am more of an adult. I spent the majority of my college years without any motivation or goals, until shortly before I graduated, which was when I decided that I wanted to shoot for a good law school, but by then it was too late. Getting another undergrad degree and getting a high GPA there won't change the LSAC GPA, but it will still be something I can write on my application to show that I am able to handle law school courses and deserve admission. In addition, I may be able to work with a professor at the undergrad institution to work on an academic paper, which could be a nice soft.

As for the GPA debate, I acknowledge that it's a good indicator of hard work, and I have no problem with law schools judging applicants by it. What I don't like, however, is the fact that LSAC GPA is fixed after the first undergrad degree and it won't change ever. Texas has an "academic fresh start" (http://www.collegeforalltexans.com/inde ... A6C20D1C97) and it seems like a decent idea.

And one more thing. How bad is the age discrimination in biglaw, if it exists? If I pull off the above, I'll probably be about 33 years old when I graduate from law school. Is it something I can avoid by simply not putting down when I did my (first) undergrad degree? If I do somehow get into HYS, would age even matter?