Was this a bad cycle for splitters and T14? Forum

[4'sup]

I applied on Jan31st with a 167 LSAT. I then received a 176 in February. So my stats are now 3.52, 176 with mediocre softs.

A combination of applying late and having the LSAT score change altered my cycle.

IN: UCLA, Vandy $$, Texas$$, WUSTL $$$,

WL: USC, GTown, Duke, Cornell, NU, Michigan, UVA, Berkeley.

I'm gonna apply again next cycle. Dreaming of Harvard but would be really happy with Columbia or Penn. As an aside, isn't it sad how no matter how well you do, you start looking down on your current situation and dreaming for better? When I got the 167, I would have been stoked to get into Northwestern or Cornell. Now I feel like Columbia is a given and I'm disappointed Harvard or Stanford aren't likely. Can't I just be happy with success 99.9 percent of others dream of? Why do i have to compare myself against HYS now. it's pathetic. End rant.

You're better off applying ED to NU than likely paying sticker or close to it at CCNP with those numbers if you're debt-financing.

Nah. If I don't get a butler at columbia, ill hopefully get duke money and go there.

You'll end up in the same place with way more debt but okay.

You really think NU will open up the same opportunities as columbia? You don't think paying a tiny bit more for Duke is worth it? Pardon my ignorance, it is all new to me and I am constantly struggling with ranking vs.debt and I think i will end up making the mature decision and go for less debt so that if i hate it I'm not stuck.
Also, Chicago has such a high COL, durham would be much cheaper. Is it unlikely to get a big scholarship without ED?

[cavalier1138]

I applied on Jan31st with a 167 LSAT. I then received a 176 in February. So my stats are now 3.52, 176 with mediocre softs.

A combination of applying late and having the LSAT score change altered my cycle.

IN: UCLA, Vandy $$, Texas$$, WUSTL $$$,

WL: USC, GTown, Duke, Cornell, NU, Michigan, UVA, Berkeley.

I'm gonna apply again next cycle. Dreaming of Harvard but would be really happy with Columbia or Penn. As an aside, isn't it sad how no matter how well you do, you start looking down on your current situation and dreaming for better? When I got the 167, I would have been stoked to get into Northwestern or Cornell. Now I feel like Columbia is a given and I'm disappointed Harvard or Stanford aren't likely. Can't I just be happy with success 99.9 percent of others dream of? Why do i have to compare myself against HYS now. it's pathetic. End rant.

You're better off applying ED to NU than likely paying sticker or close to it at CCNP with those numbers if you're debt-financing.

Nah. If I don't get a butler at columbia, ill hopefully get duke money and go there.

You'll end up in the same place with way more debt but okay.

You really think NU will open up the same opportunities as columbia? You don't think paying a tiny bit more for Duke is worth it? Pardon my ignorance, it is all new to me and I am constantly struggling with ranking vs.debt and I think i will end up making the mature decision and go for less debt so that if i hate it I'm not stuck.

What opportunities do you specifically see Columbia opening up for you that a school like Northwestern won't?

Or rather, what are your career goals?

[4'sup]

I applied on Jan31st with a 167 LSAT. I then received a 176 in February. So my stats are now 3.52, 176 with mediocre softs.

A combination of applying late and having the LSAT score change altered my cycle.

IN: UCLA, Vandy $$, Texas$$, WUSTL $$$,

WL: USC, GTown, Duke, Cornell, NU, Michigan, UVA, Berkeley.

I'm gonna apply again next cycle. Dreaming of Harvard but would be really happy with Columbia or Penn. As an aside, isn't it sad how no matter how well you do, you start looking down on your current situation and dreaming for better? When I got the 167, I would have been stoked to get into Northwestern or Cornell. Now I feel like Columbia is a given and I'm disappointed Harvard or Stanford aren't likely. Can't I just be happy with success 99.9 percent of others dream of? Why do i have to compare myself against HYS now. it's pathetic. End rant.

You're better off applying ED to NU than likely paying sticker or close to it at CCNP with those numbers if you're debt-financing.

Nah. If I don't get a butler at columbia, ill hopefully get duke money and go there.

You'll end up in the same place with way more debt but okay.

You really think NU will open up the same opportunities as columbia? You don't think paying a tiny bit more for Duke is worth it? Pardon my ignorance, it is all new to me and I am constantly struggling with ranking vs.debt and I think i will end up making the mature decision and go for less debt so that if i hate it I'm not stuck.

What opportunities do you specifically see Columbia opening up for you that a school like Northwestern won't?

Or rather, what are your career goals?

That's a good question. Nothing too ambitious. want to go with little debt so i can save a ton once i go into big-law, then exit and start my own small practice in the pacific northwest, hopefully affording me more flexibility for traveling and enjoying life than a big-law lifer career would allow. but really not sure. I don't want to work in New York City tbh, COL is too high, and I'm not really a huge city person; I'll definitely be attempting to get Big-Law in Northern California or Texas(I have ties to both), and I like the idea of working in Portland too.
From a non-career standpoint, schools with sports and those that have a true campus appeal to me. NU law is off-campus which is a negative for me, similarly, this is why NYU has little appeal to me. Columbia and Duke have great campuses. Duke probably being the one I would like the most because of the sports and opportunities for hiking etc right outside the campus. I would love to experience and explore new york too(I'm from the west coast).
I realize this may be a naive or superfluous consideration though lol. I had both of these qualities in my undergrad and I should be more concerned with career stuff when choosing a law school.

Thanks for replying and allowing me to share my thoughts!

[cavalier1138]

That's a good question. Nothing too ambitious. want to go with little debt so i can save a ton once i go into big-law, then exit and start my own small practice in the pacific northwest, hopefully affording me more flexibility for traveling and enjoying life than a big-law lifer career would allow. but really not sure. I don't want to work in New York City tbh, COL is too high, and I'm not really a huge city person; I'll definitely be attempting to get Big-Law in Northern California or Texas(I have ties to both), and I like the idea of working in Portland too.
From a non-career standpoint, schools with sports and those that have a true campus appeal to me. NU law is off-campus which is a negative for me, similarly, this is why NYU has little appeal to me. Columbia and Duke have great campuses. Duke probably being the one I would like the most because of the sports and opportunities for hiking etc right outside the campus. I would love to experience and explore new york too(I'm from the west coast).
I realize this may be a naive or superfluous consideration though lol. I had both of these qualities in my undergrad and I should be more concerned with career stuff when choosing a law school.

Thanks for replying and allowing me to share my thoughts!

Those sound like pretty reasonable goals that can be achieved from a lot of the schools you're likely to get offers from this cycle.

But I think you may be getting a little blinded by rankings and other less important factors (like the campus, etc.). If you don't want to work in New York, then I can't see Columbia or Duke being a good fit for you, since they both place heavily in NYC. And in the case of Columbia, you'd be living there.

If you want biglaw in Northern California, then Berkeley is obviously your best choice. But as someone mentioned, you have a shot at some really good money from Northwestern if you ED there, and your GPA might hold you back from similar offers elsewhere. That's not a guarantee, but it's something to consider during your cycle. And since you already have connections in the regions you want to work in, I think that it would be reasonable for you to go to a school that doesn't traditionally place a lot of people in those regions (likely due to self-selection).

Just to reiterate, though: don't pay so much attention to USNWR rankings, and definitely don't look at things like campuses or hiking opportunities. Focus on whether the school can get you the job you want without putting you in too much debt to reasonably pay off.

[Catsinthebag]

to my knowledge lawl school admissions is way more numbers driven than bizz school

Right, I am saying if you are evaluating two people with a 177 and it comes down to X or Y and X has 3.6 and Y has 3.7 and they both have an undergrad major in Finance and you choose Y simply because he/she has a 3.7 that is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It's like saying X won the fight against Y because the scorecard says X landed 2 more punches.

I won't comment on this again because I don't want to start this debate again, but I really hope that isn't what they are doing.

that is literally exactly what they are doing most likely, except kind of the other way around in that they would look at the GPA and LSAT before anything else

I just think it is an unrealistic way of thinking about people that doesn't represent that reality of the situation. It is a cop out essentially to make adcom's jobs easier. I have had this debate in another thread and it gets lengthy so I don't want to start it here. It just really grinds my gears.

Anyway, any other numbers with 2.X gpas?

Looking at the myLSN data, for nearly every T14 school (minus Stanford and Yale) you can pretty much predict the outcomes for about 70% of the applicants by just looking at LSAT and GPA.

Its probably a normal distribution. There will be the folks one tail that have such amazing softs or such an amazing story, their numbers won't really matter, and a subset of folks that because of their PS or LoR or C&F issue, they will not do as well as their numbers. For everyone in the big juicy center of the normal curve, numbers are the separator.

Plus there huge sums of money at stake with the USNews rankings, and one part of that, that is in the control of schools, is medians and yield. Saying that law schools are acting in a way that coincides with their incentives doesn't seem unreasonable.

None of this detracts from what I said in my previous post. There are incentives to behave in all sorts of ways in life, that doesn't mean you should do so nor does that mean that by adhering to those incentives you are behaving in a logical manner. As a hyperbole, there is an incentive right now for you to buy up a bunch of armaments and sell them to Russia. You would make a lot of money! That doesn't mean you should do it?

All things held equal, simply saying X has a higher GPA than Y by .1 therefore we choose Y is literally the absolute dumbest way I could ever imagine evaluating two people and shows a complete lack of understanding of how undergraduate education works and a complete inability to subjectively judge human beings. That isn't the point though because they need someway to filter out people so the use it as an excuse to not have to go about it the hard way and critically think about every single applicant. It would take too long and this is easier!

If you want to continue this feel free to PM me. I will talk about it there but I am not going to go back and forth in this thread about it.

I honestly don't want to have this debate.

Reading through this thread and now you have piqued my interest... I understand half of your position (that picking 3.7 over 3.6 all other things equal is stupid and bad), but I don't know that I've seen an alternative (again, assuming all things are equal). Curious!

[sluggla]

I'm curious what you guys think of my cycle! I'm pretty happy with my end result..but I don't think I had an amazing cycle by any stretch:

Stats: 169/3.3

Accepted:
-NW
-Michigan (half tuition scholarship..but after some negotiation. Also where I decided to go.)

WL'ed:
-Gtown (priority waitlisted... still kind of mystified about this one)
-Cornell
-UVA
-Penn
-Duke

Rejected:
-Harvard (I know it was a complete longshot... but fuck it, I wanted to apply to goddamned Harvard.)
-U of Chicago
-NYU

When did you submit your apps?

[asdfdfdfadfas]

to my knowledge lawl school admissions is way more numbers driven than bizz school

Right, I am saying if you are evaluating two people with a 177 and it comes down to X or Y and X has 3.6 and Y has 3.7 and they both have an undergrad major in Finance and you choose Y simply because he/she has a 3.7 that is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It's like saying X won the fight against Y because the scorecard says X landed 2 more punches.

I won't comment on this again because I don't want to start this debate again, but I really hope that isn't what they are doing.

that is literally exactly what they are doing most likely, except kind of the other way around in that they would look at the GPA and LSAT before anything else

I just think it is an unrealistic way of thinking about people that doesn't represent that reality of the situation. It is a cop out essentially to make adcom's jobs easier. I have had this debate in another thread and it gets lengthy so I don't want to start it here. It just really grinds my gears.

Anyway, any other numbers with 2.X gpas?

Looking at the myLSN data, for nearly every T14 school (minus Stanford and Yale) you can pretty much predict the outcomes for about 70% of the applicants by just looking at LSAT and GPA.

Its probably a normal distribution. There will be the folks one tail that have such amazing softs or such an amazing story, their numbers won't really matter, and a subset of folks that because of their PS or LoR or C&F issue, they will not do as well as their numbers. For everyone in the big juicy center of the normal curve, numbers are the separator.

Plus there huge sums of money at stake with the USNews rankings, and one part of that, that is in the control of schools, is medians and yield. Saying that law schools are acting in a way that coincides with their incentives doesn't seem unreasonable.

None of this detracts from what I said in my previous post. There are incentives to behave in all sorts of ways in life, that doesn't mean you should do so nor does that mean that by adhering to those incentives you are behaving in a logical manner. As a hyperbole, there is an incentive right now for you to buy up a bunch of armaments and sell them to Russia. You would make a lot of money! That doesn't mean you should do it?

All things held equal, simply saying X has a higher GPA than Y by .1 therefore we choose Y is literally the absolute dumbest way I could ever imagine evaluating two people and shows a complete lack of understanding of how undergraduate education works and a complete inability to subjectively judge human beings. That isn't the point though because they need someway to filter out people so the use it as an excuse to not have to go about it the hard way and critically think about every single applicant. It would take too long and this is easier!

If you want to continue this feel free to PM me. I will talk about it there but I am not going to go back and forth in this thread about it.

I honestly don't want to have this debate.

Reading through this thread and now you have piqued my interest... I understand half of your position (that picking 3.7 over 3.6 all other things equal is stupid and bad), but I don't know that I've seen an alternative (again, assuming all things are equal). Curious!

It's called progressive credentialism and, in this case, it is a cop out from Adcom in order to not have to actually do their homework and evaluate candidates holistically. Instead they equate GPA on a numerical basis rather than, you know, do any of that hard tedious work of evaluating people based on who they are as an individual rather than simply their SICK stats. I mean certainly you'd agree people are more than just numbers right? Most schools are simply looking for numbers to report to US news to boost their rating over competitor X school so that they supposedly will have more candidates apply to their school given their US news ranking is ranked 5 instead of 6.

Maybe so, but someone who picks a school based on the school's US news ranking being number 6 instead of number 5 is just as fucking stupid as someone who thinks someone with a 3.7 GPA in feminism and oil painting is clearly more intelligent and valuable than someone who has 3.6 GPA in Petroleum Engineering. Then again, the Petroleum Engineering major doesn't really have to go to law school and isn't in a position of having to borrow 300k+ in order to start their career now are they?

An alternative? Sitting down, going through every single resume, interviewing every single candidate with a set of a questions and critically thinking about why they actually want to attend.

Throw away everyone who says money, they like to argue, they think it's a prestigious career, and every other bullshit answer people spew out who haven't done their research. Put to the top of the pile someone who can actually put together a coherent argument as to why they should attend, why it is in their best interest, and why they have some interest in studying law rather than saying oh that person's personal statement made me feel nice and tingly. Also, extra points for willing to work an excessive amount of unhealthy hours and people who are willing to answer the phone at any time in the middle of the night to be a slave to partners for at least 3 years. Also extra points for someone who has suffered through a personal tragedy in life and managed to show some gritt and get through it.

I am not really qualified though as I am not a lawyer, I actually did my homework and decided that the 1% who's mommy and daddy are footing the bill or the University is paying for their education are the ones benefiting at the cost of all those people willing to subsidize their costs borrowing 200K+ to attend.

[jnwa]

It's called progressive credentialism and, in this case, it is a cop out from Adcom in order to not have to actually do their homework and evaluate candidates holistically. Instead they equate GPA on a numerical basis rather than, you know, do any of that hard tedious work of evaluating people based on who they are as an individual rather than simply their SICK stats. I mean certainly you'd agree people are more than just numbers right? Most schools are simply looking for numbers to report to US news to boost their rating over competitor X school so that they supposedly will have more candidates apply to their school given their US news ranking is ranked 5 instead of 6.

Maybe so, but someone who picks a school based on the school's US news ranking being number 6 instead of number 5 is just as fucking stupid as someone who thinks someone with a 3.7 GPA in feminism and oil painting is clearly more intelligent and valuable than someone who has 3.6 GPA in Petroleum Engineering. Then again, the Petroleum Engineering major doesn't really have to go to law school and isn't in a position of having to borrow 300k+ in order to start their career now are they?

To simplify all this funness- law schools are preying on all you desperate humanities major to borrow a bunch of money, subsidize their wages, and if it doesn't work out tell you well you choose to come here, that was your choice! Oh you can't find a job paying you 150k you thought you were entitled to? Keep looking!!!

But don't worry my special snowflake you are better than those pussies. You can be in that top 5% of your class at a t-14 because you clearly did well on a standardized test and law schools practically the same thing, just sign on the dotted line, ok?

Only in academia does this outlandish thinking prosper.

In Canada, theres no USNews, i guess law school admission here is more holistic but its still 85% a numbers game. I think its better that way, id rather have objective criteria for admissions than have some adcom decide whether someones Bsc gives them a .3 or .5 GPA boost. The current method is flawed but at least its largely transparent.

The feminism major has at least had to to research and write for a good chunk of her undergrad career, skills he/she will need in law school. The notion that doing well in some sciency major makes you better equipped to do well in a program that is completely unrelated to it is ridiculous. The best argument for not using GPA is the ridiculous inconsistency with regards to grade inflation.

Law schools are preying on people who want to be humanities majors, med schools are preying on science majors, Mcdonalds preys on fat people. Stats show that biglaw is attainable for most people at most t14s if someone is unable to get it, its shitty but idk that the school should be held responsible for not having 100% employment. Ive seen a lot of reasonable arguments about the lack of ethics of law schools, the fact that not everyone graduating a t14 doesnt gets a 150k job doesnt seem like one.

The second last paragraph sounds like some "kids these days are so entitled/spoiled" bullshit. Im sure back in youre day you walked uphill both ways to school and no one got participation medals yadaa yada yadda.

[Catsinthebag]

I hear you and I'm interested to hear any and all thoughts people might have on how to disrupt that system, but right now just don't see how it's feasible. I'm not sure how valuable it would be to have as a criteria "actually put together a coherent argument as to why....." You can research all you want, but the true answer to those questions you mentioned are, for a lot, maybe most, folks not something they could possibly know at the time of application. And that's regardless of whether they're K-JD or have some time off in between. Other than a few things I had heard/read in passing, I had no idea what arbitration was when I began. Not because of some overwhelming ignorance, but because my career had me focused on a whole different set of problems / issues. Today, arbitration is a major part of what I'm learning/researching/etc.

You have good points man, but then what? To your choosing a law school based on 5 and 6... Let's go with 4 (Columbia, tied with Chi) and 6 (NYU). Why is someone stupid for choosing 4 over 6 because 4 is 4 (assuming relatively same/similar $ offerings)?

[Catsinthebag]

It's called progressive credentialism and, in this case, it is a cop out from Adcom in order to not have to actually do their homework and evaluate candidates holistically. Instead they equate GPA on a numerical basis rather than, you know, do any of that hard tedious work of evaluating people based on who they are as an individual rather than simply their SICK stats. I mean certainly you'd agree people are more than just numbers right? Most schools are simply looking for numbers to report to US news to boost their rating over competitor X school so that they supposedly will have more candidates apply to their school given their US news ranking is ranked 5 instead of 6.

Maybe so, but someone who picks a school based on the school's US news ranking being number 6 instead of number 5 is just as fucking stupid as someone who thinks someone with a 3.7 GPA in feminism and oil painting is clearly more intelligent and valuable than someone who has 3.6 GPA in Petroleum Engineering. Then again, the Petroleum Engineering major doesn't really have to go to law school and isn't in a position of having to borrow 300k+ in order to start their career now are they?

To simplify all this funness- law schools are preying on all you desperate humanities major to borrow a bunch of money, subsidize their wages, and if it doesn't work out tell you well you choose to come here, that was your choice! Oh you can't find a job paying you 150k you thought you were entitled to? Keep looking!!!

But don't worry my special snowflake you are better than those pussies. You can be in that top 5% of your class at a t-14 because you clearly did well on a standardized test and law schools practically the same thing, just sign on the dotted line, ok?

Only in academia does this outlandish thinking prosper.

In Canada, theres no USNews, i guess law school admission here is more holistic but its still 85% a numbers game. I think its better that way, id rather have objective criteria for admissions than have some adcom decide whether someones Bsc gives them a .3 or .5 GPA boost. The current method is flawed but at least its largely transparent.

The feminism major has at least had to to research and write for a good chunk of her undergrad career, skills he/she will need in law school. The notion that doing well in some sciency major makes you better equipped to do well in a program that is completely unrelated to it is ridiculous. The best argument for not using GPA is the ridiculous inconsistency with regards to grade inflation.

Law schools are preying on people who want to be humanities majors, med schools are preying on science majors, Mcdonalds preys on fat people. Stats show that biglaw is attainable for most people at most t14s if someone is unable to get it, its shitty but idk that the school should be held responsible for not having 100% employment. Ive seen a lot of reasonable arguments about the lack of ethics of law schools, the fact that not everyone graduating a t14 doesnt gets a 150k job doesnt seem like one.

The second last paragraph sounds like some "kids these days are so entitled/spoiled" bullshit. Im sure back in youre day you walked uphill both ways to school and no one got participation medals yadaa yada yadda.

Yep.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

It's called progressive credentialism and, in this case, it is a cop out from Adcom in order to not have to actually do their homework and evaluate candidates holistically. Instead they equate GPA on a numerical basis rather than, you know, do any of that hard tedious work of evaluating people based on who they are as an individual rather than simply their SICK stats. I mean certainly you'd agree people are more than just numbers right? Most schools are simply looking for numbers to report to US news to boost their rating over competitor X school so that they supposedly will have more candidates apply to their school given their US news ranking is ranked 5 instead of 6.

Maybe so, but someone who picks a school based on the school's US news ranking being number 6 instead of number 5 is just as fucking stupid as someone who thinks someone with a 3.7 GPA in feminism and oil painting is clearly more intelligent and valuable than someone who has 3.6 GPA in Petroleum Engineering. Then again, the Petroleum Engineering major doesn't really have to go to law school and isn't in a position of having to borrow 300k+ in order to start their career now are they?

To simplify all this funness- law schools are preying on all you desperate humanities major to borrow a bunch of money, subsidize their wages, and if it doesn't work out tell you well you choose to come here, that was your choice! Oh you can't find a job paying you 150k you thought you were entitled to? Keep looking!!!

But don't worry my special snowflake you are better than those pussies. You can be in that top 5% of your class at a t-14 because you clearly did well on a standardized test and law schools practically the same thing, just sign on the dotted line, ok?

Only in academia does this outlandish thinking prosper.

In Canada, theres no USNews, i guess law school admission here is more holistic but its still 85% a numbers game. I think its better that way, id rather have objective criteria for admissions than have some adcom decide whether someones Bsc gives them a .3 or .5 GPA boost. The current method is flawed but at least its largely transparent.

The feminism major has at least had to to research and write for a good chunk of her undergrad career, skills he/she will need in law school. The notion that doing well in some sciency major makes you better equipped to do well in a program that is completely unrelated to it is ridiculous. The best argument for not using GPA is the ridiculous inconsistency with regards to grade inflation.

Law schools are preying on people who want to be humanities majors, med schools are preying on science majors, Mcdonalds preys on fat people. Stats show that biglaw is attainable for most people at most t14s if someone is unable to get it, its shitty but idk that the school should be held responsible for not having 100% employment. Ive seen a lot of reasonable arguments about the lack of ethics of law schools, the fact that not everyone graduating a t14 doesnt gets a 150k job doesnt seem like one.

The second last paragraph sounds like some "kids these days are so entitled/spoiled" bullshit. Im sure back in youre day you walked uphill both ways to school and no one got participation medals yadaa yada yadda.

Lol your first sentence you pretty much contradict yourself.

Right but objectively evaluating two people with two different majors from two different schools with two different teachers is fucking comical. Well clearly our country is better than your country because our GDP is higher durp da durp.

Congrats she had to research things...... wow. That is so impressive learning about things that aren't relevant to making an income or to life in general and that are factually inaccurate. Totally worth that tuition money especially given the fact all of that is all over the internet now. Clearly you have earned your right at Harvard over Mr. Petroleum Engineering.

Med schools arn't preying on science majors, Mcdonalds is a private corporation but, again, nice comparisons.

lol sure on your second to last paragraph. I mean, at the end of the day, I don't care what you do. This is just a dumb downed blunt version of my thoughts on it all after spending two years on here, speaking with lawyers practicing in Biglaw who are my family members and good friends, and begrudgingly deciding not to attend for now.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

I hear you and I'm interested to hear any and all thoughts people might have on how to disrupt that system, but right now just don't see how it's feasible. I'm not sure how valuable it would be to have as a criteria "actually put together a coherent argument as to why....." You can research all you want, but the true answer to those questions you mentioned are, for a lot, maybe most, folks not something they could possibly know at the time of application. And that's regardless of whether they're K-JD or have some time off in between. Other than a few things I had heard/read in passing, I had no idea what arbitration was when I began. Not because of some overwhelming ignorance, but because my career had me focused on a whole different set of problems / issues. Today, arbitration is a major part of what I'm learning/researching/etc.

You have good points man, but then what? To your choosing a law school based on 5 and 6... Let's go with 4 (Columbia, tied with Chi) and 6 (NYU). Why is someone stupid for choosing 4 over 6 because 4 is 4 (assuming relatively same/similar $ offerings)?

I was simply stating that choosing Columbia ONLY because it is ranked 4 over NYU ONLY because it is 6 is stupid. I think anyone would agree that other factors about the school should clearly outweigh whether or not US news deems it 6 or 4 or 5. The same could be said about GPA

I am not asking you to state the nuances of arbitration, I am asking you to put together a sensical argument that shows you have done some research into the pros and cons of law school and why given your general background, you want to attend.

[4'sup]

That's a good question. Nothing too ambitious. want to go with little debt so i can save a ton once i go into big-law, then exit and start my own small practice in the pacific northwest, hopefully affording me more flexibility for traveling and enjoying life than a big-law lifer career would allow. but really not sure. I don't want to work in New York City tbh, COL is too high, and I'm not really a huge city person; I'll definitely be attempting to get Big-Law in Northern California or Texas(I have ties to both), and I like the idea of working in Portland too.
From a non-career standpoint, schools with sports and those that have a true campus appeal to me. NU law is off-campus which is a negative for me, similarly, this is why NYU has little appeal to me. Columbia and Duke have great campuses. Duke probably being the one I would like the most because of the sports and opportunities for hiking etc right outside the campus. I would love to experience and explore new york too(I'm from the west coast).
I realize this may be a naive or superfluous consideration though lol. I had both of these qualities in my undergrad and I should be more concerned with career stuff when choosing a law school.

Thanks for replying and allowing me to share my thoughts!

Those sound like pretty reasonable goals that can be achieved from a lot of the schools you're likely to get offers from this cycle.

But I think you may be getting a little blinded by rankings and other less important factors (like the campus, etc.). If you don't want to work in New York, then I can't see Columbia or Duke being a good fit for you, since they both place heavily in NYC. And in the case of Columbia, you'd be living there.

If you want biglaw in Northern California, then Berkeley is obviously your best choice. But as someone mentioned, you have a shot at some really good money from Northwestern if you ED there, and your GPA might hold you back from similar offers elsewhere. That's not a guarantee, but it's something to consider during your cycle. And since you already have connections in the regions you want to work in, I think that it would be reasonable for you to go to a school that doesn't traditionally place a lot of people in those regions (likely due to self-selection).

Just to reiterate, though: don't pay so much attention to USNWR rankings, and definitely don't look at things like campuses or hiking opportunities. Focus on whether the school can get you the job you want without putting you in too much debt to reasonably pay off.

Thanks so much for this reply man. I really really appreciate it. This helps a lot.

[Catsinthebag]

It's called progressive credentialism and, in this case, it is a cop out from Adcom in order to not have to actually do their homework and evaluate candidates holistically. Instead they equate GPA on a numerical basis rather than, you know, do any of that hard tedious work of evaluating people based on who they are as an individual rather than simply their SICK stats. I mean certainly you'd agree people are more than just numbers right? Most schools are simply looking for numbers to report to US news to boost their rating over competitor X school so that they supposedly will have more candidates apply to their school given their US news ranking is ranked 5 instead of 6.

Maybe so, but someone who picks a school based on the school's US news ranking being number 6 instead of number 5 is just as fucking stupid as someone who thinks someone with a 3.7 GPA in feminism and oil painting is clearly more intelligent and valuable than someone who has 3.6 GPA in Petroleum Engineering. Then again, the Petroleum Engineering major doesn't really have to go to law school and isn't in a position of having to borrow 300k+ in order to start their career now are they?

To simplify all this funness- law schools are preying on all you desperate humanities major to borrow a bunch of money, subsidize their wages, and if it doesn't work out tell you well you choose to come here, that was your choice! Oh you can't find a job paying you 150k you thought you were entitled to? Keep looking!!!

But don't worry my special snowflake you are better than those pussies. You can be in that top 5% of your class at a t-14 because you clearly did well on a standardized test and law schools practically the same thing, just sign on the dotted line, ok?

Only in academia does this outlandish thinking prosper.

In Canada, theres no USNews, i guess law school admission here is more holistic but its still 85% a numbers game. I think its better that way, id rather have objective criteria for admissions than have some adcom decide whether someones Bsc gives them a .3 or .5 GPA boost. The current method is flawed but at least its largely transparent.

The feminism major has at least had to to research and write for a good chunk of her undergrad career, skills he/she will need in law school. The notion that doing well in some sciency major makes you better equipped to do well in a program that is completely unrelated to it is ridiculous. The best argument for not using GPA is the ridiculous inconsistency with regards to grade inflation.

Law schools are preying on people who want to be humanities majors, med schools are preying on science majors, Mcdonalds preys on fat people. Stats show that biglaw is attainable for most people at most t14s if someone is unable to get it, its shitty but idk that the school should be held responsible for not having 100% employment. Ive seen a lot of reasonable arguments about the lack of ethics of law schools, the fact that not everyone graduating a t14 doesnt gets a 150k job doesnt seem like one.

The second last paragraph sounds like some "kids these days are so entitled/spoiled" bullshit. Im sure back in youre day you walked uphill both ways to school and no one got participation medals yadaa yada yadda.

Lol your first sentence you pretty much contradict yourself.

Right but objectively evaluating two people with two different majors from two different schools with two different teachers is fucking comical. Well clearly our country is better than your country because our GDP is higher durp da durp.

Congrats she had to research things...... wow. That is so impressive learning about things that aren't relevant to making an income or to life in general and that are factually inaccurate. Totally worth that tuition money especially given the fact all of that is all over the internet now. Clearly you have earned your right at Harvard over Mr. Petroleum Engineering.

Med schools arn't preying on science majors, Mcdonalds is a private corporation but, again, nice comparisons.

lol sure on your second to last paragraph. I mean, at the end of the day, I don't care what you do. This is just a dumb downed blunt version of my thoughts on it all after spending two years on here, speaking with lawyers practicing in Biglaw who are my family members and good friends, and begrudgingly deciding not to attend for now.

Not relevant to life in general and factually inaccurate? I haven't studied feminism (though I did take a class in undergrad on the sexual revolution!), but I think it's unfair to categorize a movement that empowered millions of women to have ambitions beyond the home, even if you're a Mad Men type of dude, as not relevant to life in general. As for factually inaccurate, what're you even trying to say? Working to achieve rights and equality for women is factually inaccurate...?

[asdfdfdfadfas]

It's called progressive credentialism and, in this case, it is a cop out from Adcom in order to not have to actually do their homework and evaluate candidates holistically. Instead they equate GPA on a numerical basis rather than, you know, do any of that hard tedious work of evaluating people based on who they are as an individual rather than simply their SICK stats. I mean certainly you'd agree people are more than just numbers right? Most schools are simply looking for numbers to report to US news to boost their rating over competitor X school so that they supposedly will have more candidates apply to their school given their US news ranking is ranked 5 instead of 6.

Maybe so, but someone who picks a school based on the school's US news ranking being number 6 instead of number 5 is just as fucking stupid as someone who thinks someone with a 3.7 GPA in feminism and oil painting is clearly more intelligent and valuable than someone who has 3.6 GPA in Petroleum Engineering. Then again, the Petroleum Engineering major doesn't really have to go to law school and isn't in a position of having to borrow 300k+ in order to start their career now are they?

To simplify all this funness- law schools are preying on all you desperate humanities major to borrow a bunch of money, subsidize their wages, and if it doesn't work out tell you well you choose to come here, that was your choice! Oh you can't find a job paying you 150k you thought you were entitled to? Keep looking!!!

But don't worry my special snowflake you are better than those pussies. You can be in that top 5% of your class at a t-14 because you clearly did well on a standardized test and law schools practically the same thing, just sign on the dotted line, ok?

Only in academia does this outlandish thinking prosper.

In Canada, theres no USNews, i guess law school admission here is more holistic but its still 85% a numbers game. I think its better that way, id rather have objective criteria for admissions than have some adcom decide whether someones Bsc gives them a .3 or .5 GPA boost. The current method is flawed but at least its largely transparent.

The feminism major has at least had to to research and write for a good chunk of her undergrad career, skills he/she will need in law school. The notion that doing well in some sciency major makes you better equipped to do well in a program that is completely unrelated to it is ridiculous. The best argument for not using GPA is the ridiculous inconsistency with regards to grade inflation.

Law schools are preying on people who want to be humanities majors, med schools are preying on science majors, Mcdonalds preys on fat people. Stats show that biglaw is attainable for most people at most t14s if someone is unable to get it, its shitty but idk that the school should be held responsible for not having 100% employment. Ive seen a lot of reasonable arguments about the lack of ethics of law schools, the fact that not everyone graduating a t14 doesnt gets a 150k job doesnt seem like one.

The second last paragraph sounds like some "kids these days are so entitled/spoiled" bullshit. Im sure back in youre day you walked uphill both ways to school and no one got participation medals yadaa yada yadda.

Lol your first sentence you pretty much contradict yourself.

Right but objectively evaluating two people with two different majors from two different schools with two different teachers is fucking comical. Well clearly our country is better than your country because our GDP is higher durp da durp.

Congrats she had to research things...... wow. That is so impressive learning about things that aren't relevant to making an income or to life in general and that are factually inaccurate. Totally worth that tuition money especially given the fact all of that is all over the internet now. Clearly you have earned your right at Harvard over Mr. Petroleum Engineering.

Med schools arn't preying on science majors, Mcdonalds is a private corporation but, again, nice comparisons.

lol sure on your second to last paragraph. I mean, at the end of the day, I don't care what you do. This is just a dumb downed blunt version of my thoughts on it all after spending two years on here, speaking with lawyers practicing in Biglaw who are my family members and good friends, and begrudgingly deciding not to attend for now.

Not relevant to life in general and factually inaccurate? I haven't studied feminism (though I did take a class in undergrad on the sexual revolution!), but I think it's unfair to categorize a movement that empowered millions of women to have ambitions beyond the home, even if you're a Mad Men type of dude, as not relevant to life in general. As for factually inaccurate, what're you even trying to say? Working to achieve rights and equality for women is factually inaccurate...?

No, pardon me. I actually believe in complete equality and rights for women. My general view on Feminism has been warped to see the extremes of it on a daily basis.

I don't want to get into the Patriarchy vs Gynocentrism debate. However, in my opinion, studying Feminism isn't equivalent, as rigorous, or as valuable to society as studying Math, Physics, Engineering, or other similar fields.

[jnwa]

No, pardon me. I actually believe in complete equality and rights for women. My general view on Feminism has been warped to see the extremes of it on a daily basis.

I don't want to get into the Patriarchy vs Gynocentrism debate. However, in my opinion, studying Feminism isn't equivalent, as rigorous, or as valuable to society as studying Math, Physics, Engineering, or other similar fields.

Why should law schools give a shit that you're smart enough to do physics when you're applying to receive law degree. Law schools are gambling on your ability to suceed in law school based on your pre-law credentials. A 4.0 in math tells me you're great at math but if you're some math wiz that can't write, read, research then why should a school admit you because of the value of your major to society. At the very least the English major 4.0 has some transferrable skills even if their major is less rigourous. When comparing both, there's a decent argument for gambling on either to do better(rigour vs transferrable skills) which is why think it's fair to just equate them.

Also my last post's first sentence isnt a contradiction. Canadian admissions are more holistic yet still numbers based. I don't understand how that's confusing. I agree that objectivity in admissions is flawed but I'm saying that subjectivity would be worse at least objectivity has the bonus of transparency.

The feminism major learned skills(research) that are relevant to law school which an important consideration in LAW SCHOOL ADMISSIONS. Why should I care about her ability to solve equations if that skill isn't relevant to the profession she is trying to enter. The petroleum engineers that want to make an income are engineering petroleum not trying to get into law school based on their ability to do so.

Med schools get their money from science majors using the same methods. MCAT GPA softs. The market for doctors is obviously better but that's not relevant when discussing t14 schools who largely have good employment numbers.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

No, pardon me. I actually believe in complete equality and rights for women. My general view on Feminism has been warped to see the extremes of it on a daily basis.

I don't want to get into the Patriarchy vs Gynocentrism debate. However, in my opinion, studying Feminism isn't equivalent, as rigorous, or as valuable to society as studying Math, Physics, Engineering, or other similar fields.

Why should law schools give a shit that you're smart enough to do physics when you're applying to receive law degree. Law schools are gambling on your ability to suceed in law school based on your pre-law credentials. A 4.0 in math tells me you're great at math but if you're some math wiz that can't write, read, research then why should a school admit you because of the value of your major to society. At the very least the English major 4.0 has some transferrable skills even if their major is less rigourous. When comparing both, there's a decent argument for gambling on either to do better(rigour vs transferrable skills) which is why think it's fair to just equate them.

Because it shows that you are capable of critically thinking and thus can choose a major that has value in the real world. What was your plan with your feminism degree, to teach other feminist? Brilliant.

Also my last post's first sentence isnt a contradiction. Canadian admissions are more holistic yet still numbers based. I don't understand how that's confusing. I agree that objectivity in admissions is flawed but I'm saying that subjectivity would be worse at least objectivity has the bonus of transparency.

Yes it is. Is the United States 87% percent based on numbers but 13% holistic? Who is to say the United States isn't 84 percent based on numbers but 16% holistic? How did you determine the United States is less holistic based on your made up 85% number? It isn't confusing, actually, at all.



The feminism major learned skills(research) that are relevant to law school which an important consideration in LAW SCHOOL ADMISSIONS. Why should I care about her ability to solve equations if that skill isn't relevant to the profession she is trying to enter. The petroleum engineers that want to make an income are engineering petroleum not trying to get into law school based on their ability to do so.

Yeah because reading about feminism shows that you can research something. Because people who have Physics as their major score higher on the LSAT on average than people who major in feminism. Shocking.

Petroleum Engineers can decide to change careers too you know. It isn't just humanity majors who are working at Starbucks looking for career changes.

Med schools get their money from science majors using the same methods. MCAT GPA softs. The market for doctors is obviously better but that's not relevant when discussing t14 schools who largely have good employment numbers.

What about the folks at Mcdonalds? Do explain that one ...... Also, YEAH and the doctors who don't have to take out any debt are clearly the winners over the doctors who have to borrow 400k. Either way the teacher is the one winning. Also, people graduating with MD's and people graduating with JDS are going into VERY different careers. The average career in Biglaw is 3 years, if you get biglaw.

[jnwa]

Because it shows that you are capable of critically thinking and thus can choose a major that has value in the real world. What was your plan with your feminism degree, to teach other feminist? Brilliant.


Is legal practice not in the real world. I have no problem with adcoms letting math majors in. Its not because they are good at picking majors. Its because if you got a 4.0 in Math youre some combination of smart and hardworking and im willing to on you doing it again in law school. The value of your math major to the "real world" is fucking irrelevant. Youre advocating for picking a math major for admission to law school because they have a wider variety of options in the event that they were to leave law? That makes sense to you?

Yes it is. Is the United States 87% percent based on numbers but 13% holistic? Who is to say the United States isn't 84 percent based on numbers but 16% holistic? How did you determine the United States is less holistic based on your made up 85% number? It isn't confusing, actually, at all.

I applied to schools in both countries. The University of Toronto for example uses a policy of 2/3 GPA and LSAT and 1/3 Personal Statement/softs. Thats less numbers-based than American schools. Other schools are more numbers based but im familiar with U of T because i attended undergrad there. I said 85% to emphasize the point that it is more holistic yet still very numbers based. Youre being purposefully dense by fixating on the number rather than my point.


Yeah because reading about feminism shows that you can research something. Because people who have Physics as their major score higher on the LSAT on average than people who major in feminism. Shocking.

Petroleum Engineers can decide to change careers too you know. It isn't just humanity majors who are working at Starbucks looking for career changes.

Philosophy majors score higher than everyone but physics/math majors is that shocking? Does that make philosophy more rigorous? The LSAT is separate from GPA and doesnt test research skills. The fact that physics majors score higher is irrelevant because this hypothetical Feminism major will also have a 95th percentile LSAT score to go with her good GPA in order to get into a t14. LSAT and GPA together give You still havent discussed why adcoms should care about career changes when choosing LAW SCHOOL students and future LAWYERS.

What about the folks at Mcdonalds? Do explain that one ...... Also, YEAH and the doctors who don't have to take out any debt are clearly the winners over the doctors who have to borrow 400k. Either way the teacher is the one winning. Also, people graduating with MD's and people graduating with JDS are going into VERY different careers. The average career in Biglaw is 3 years, if you get biglaw.

I was pointing out the fact that just because people pay for a good doesnt mean they are being exploited. If you have a problem with med students taking out debt as well then your issue isnt with law its with the high cost of education which is fine i guess. Teachers are winning because they work for the school and get paid for their work...oh what a scam. Ill agree that the ballooning of educational costs is an issue but running a university costs money, attracting good profs costs money, its up to students to decide if its a good investment. I already conceded that JD's have worse career prospects than MD's but they also have less debt and if were talking about the t14 they have solid career prospects. Look at the BL+FC thread, factor in some PI self selection and its clear that a majority of students at these schools who want biglaw get it. Yes the job lasts an average of three years but you dont just turn to dust after its over, people find new legal jobs that pay less but still more than the vast majority of citizens. Hopefully whatever debt the individual incurred resulted in an increase in earning potential that justifies it. It might not, but the same could be said for any investment. TLS does a great job of encouraging people to go into the whole process eyes wide open.

[landshoes]

No, pardon me. I actually believe in complete equality and rights for women. My general view on Feminism has been warped to see the extremes of it on a daily basis.

I don't want to get into the Patriarchy vs Gynocentrism debate. However, in my opinion, studying Feminism isn't equivalent, as rigorous, or as valuable to society as studying Math, Physics, Engineering, or other similar fields.

Why should law schools give a shit that you're smart enough to do physics when you're applying to receive law degree. Law schools are gambling on your ability to suceed in law school based on your pre-law credentials. A 4.0 in math tells me you're great at math but if you're some math wiz that can't write, read, research then why should a school admit you because of the value of your major to society. At the very least the English major 4.0 has some transferrable skills even if their major is less rigourous. When comparing both, there's a decent argument for gambling on either to do better(rigour vs transferrable skills) which is why think it's fair to just equate them.

Because it shows that you are capable of critically thinking and thus can choose a major that has value in the real world. What was your plan with your feminism degree, to teach other feminist? Brilliant.

Also my last post's first sentence isnt a contradiction. Canadian admissions are more holistic yet still numbers based. I don't understand how that's confusing. I agree that objectivity in admissions is flawed but I'm saying that subjectivity would be worse at least objectivity has the bonus of transparency.

Yes it is. Is the United States 87% percent based on numbers but 13% holistic? Who is to say the United States isn't 84 percent based on numbers but 16% holistic? How did you determine the United States is less holistic based on your made up 85% number? It isn't confusing, actually, at all.



The feminism major learned skills(research) that are relevant to law school which an important consideration in LAW SCHOOL ADMISSIONS. Why should I care about her ability to solve equations if that skill isn't relevant to the profession she is trying to enter. The petroleum engineers that want to make an income are engineering petroleum not trying to get into law school based on their ability to do so.

Yeah because reading about feminism shows that you can research something. Because people who have Physics as their major score higher on the LSAT on average than people who major in feminism. Shocking.

Petroleum Engineers can decide to change careers too you know. It isn't just humanity majors who are working at Starbucks looking for career changes.

Med schools get their money from science majors using the same methods. MCAT GPA softs. The market for doctors is obviously better but that's not relevant when discussing t14 schools who largely have good employment numbers.

What about the folks at Mcdonalds? Do explain that one ...... Also, YEAH and the doctors who don't have to take out any debt are clearly the winners over the doctors who have to borrow 400k. Either way the teacher is the one winning. Also, people graduating with MD's and people graduating with JDS are going into VERY different careers. The average career in Biglaw is 3 years, if you get biglaw.

There are people with low GPAs who are intelligent and good at thinking critically, and then there's you

[Hildegard15]

First off, in most of these posts that talk about "some stupid student with a useless major" the hypothetical student is a woman. Stop that.

Second, it's really insulting to say that those of us who studied the humanities can't think critically cuz supposedly our studies will lead to us being unemployed. I had a job lined up before I graduated. The fact that I had excelled in school and was a good writer mattered more to my potential employers than the supposedly "useless" nature of my degree.

[jnwa]

First off, in most of these posts that talk about "some stupid student with a useless major" the hypothetical student is a woman. Stop that.

Second, it's really insulting to say that those of us who studied the humanities can't think critically cuz supposedly our studies will lead to us being unemployed. I had a job lined up before I graduated. The fact that I had excelled in school and was a good writer mattered more to my potential employers than the supposedly "useless" nature of my degree.

Nah you can't be smart according to asdhsjshdhd because you didn't study engineering. What possible value could you add to the world without studying petroleum engineering? The dude with a Engineering degree and a 2.5 GOA is clearly more qualified for law school admission.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

No, pardon me. I actually believe in complete equality and rights for women. My general view on Feminism has been warped to see the extremes of it on a daily basis.

I don't want to get into the Patriarchy vs Gynocentrism debate. However, in my opinion, studying Feminism isn't equivalent, as rigorous, or as valuable to society as studying Math, Physics, Engineering, or other similar fields.

Why should law schools give a shit that you're smart enough to do physics when you're applying to receive law degree. Law schools are gambling on your ability to suceed in law school based on your pre-law credentials. A 4.0 in math tells me you're great at math but if you're some math wiz that can't write, read, research then why should a school admit you because of the value of your major to society. At the very least the English major 4.0 has some transferrable skills even if their major is less rigourous. When comparing both, there's a decent argument for gambling on either to do better(rigour vs transferrable skills) which is why think it's fair to just equate them.

Because it shows that you are capable of critically thinking and thus can choose a major that has value in the real world. What was your plan with your feminism degree, to teach other feminist? Brilliant.

Also my last post's first sentence isnt a contradiction. Canadian admissions are more holistic yet still numbers based. I don't understand how that's confusing. I agree that objectivity in admissions is flawed but I'm saying that subjectivity would be worse at least objectivity has the bonus of transparency.

Yes it is. Is the United States 87% percent based on numbers but 13% holistic? Who is to say the United States isn't 84 percent based on numbers but 16% holistic? How did you determine the United States is less holistic based on your made up 85% number? It isn't confusing, actually, at all.



The feminism major learned skills(research) that are relevant to law school which an important consideration in LAW SCHOOL ADMISSIONS. Why should I care about her ability to solve equations if that skill isn't relevant to the profession she is trying to enter. The petroleum engineers that want to make an income are engineering petroleum not trying to get into law school based on their ability to do so.

Yeah because reading about feminism shows that you can research something. Because people who have Physics as their major score higher on the LSAT on average than people who major in feminism. Shocking.

Petroleum Engineers can decide to change careers too you know. It isn't just humanity majors who are working at Starbucks looking for career changes.

Med schools get their money from science majors using the same methods. MCAT GPA softs. The market for doctors is obviously better but that's not relevant when discussing t14 schools who largely have good employment numbers.

What about the folks at Mcdonalds? Do explain that one ...... Also, YEAH and the doctors who don't have to take out any debt are clearly the winners over the doctors who have to borrow 400k. Either way the teacher is the one winning. Also, people graduating with MD's and people graduating with JDS are going into VERY different careers. The average career in Biglaw is 3 years, if you get biglaw.

There are people with low GPAs who are intelligent and good at thinking critically, and then there's you

Omg seriously stop. My feelings hurt. I mean why even write this? Do you think you I am now shaking my head oh ok I must be stupid because landshoes on TLS said so, wow I am really hurt......

[asdfdfdfadfas]

Because it shows that you are capable of critically thinking and thus can choose a major that has value in the real world. What was your plan with your feminism degree, to teach other feminist? Brilliant.


Is legal practice not in the real world. I have no problem with adcoms letting math majors in. Its not because they are good at picking majors. Its because if you got a 4.0 in Math youre some combination of smart and hardworking and im willing to on you doing it again in law school. The value of your math major to the "real world" is fucking irrelevant. Youre advocating for picking a math major for admission to law school because they have a wider variety of options in the event that they were to leave law? That makes sense to you?

None of this makes sense to me. In fact, it is so terribly written I am not even going to respond.

Yes it is. Is the United States 87% percent based on numbers but 13% holistic? Who is to say the United States isn't 84 percent based on numbers but 16% holistic? How did you determine the United States is less holistic based on your made up 85% number? It isn't confusing, actually, at all.

I applied to schools in both countries. The University of Toronto for example uses a policy of 2/3 GPA and LSAT and 1/3 Personal Statement/softs. Thats less numbers-based than American schools. Other schools are more numbers based but im familiar with U of T because i attended undergrad there. I said 85% to emphasize the point that it is more holistic yet still very numbers based. Youre being purposefully dense by fixating on the number rather than my point.

No...... no I am not.

Yeah because reading about feminism shows that you can research something. Because people who have Physics as their major score higher on the LSAT on average than people who major in feminism. Shocking.

Petroleum Engineers can decide to change careers too you know. It isn't just humanity majors who are working at Starbucks looking for career changes.

Philosophy majors score higher than everyone but physics/math majors is that shocking? Does that make philosophy more rigorous? The LSAT is separate from GPA and doesnt test research skills. The fact that physics majors score higher is irrelevant because this hypothetical Feminism major will also have a 95th percentile LSAT score to go with her good GPA in order to get into a t14. LSAT and GPA together give You still havent discussed why adcoms should care about career changes when choosing LAW SCHOOL students and future LAWYERS.

No it isn't shocking and who knows, maybe in some people's opinion Philosophy is more intellectually challenging. What type of "research" skills are feminism majors gathering up by the bunches, by the way? If I major in children's TV shows from the 1990s am I gaining research skills? Certainly if I had a 4.0 I would be a prime candidate for top law schools.........

...... So if I go to college and major in underwater basket weaving but walk out with a 4.0, so long as I sit around in my mother's basement and do well on the LSAT I am more desirable than let's say someone who is a well known Engineer who took the test while working? LSAT and GPA together give ........what? Also, I am not stating they should care, I am stating that humanity majors aren't the only one's changing careers and I am pretty sure their real world work experience would be more applicable to being lawyer than researching feminism.


What about the folks at Mcdonalds? Do explain that one ...... Also, YEAH and the doctors who don't have to take out any debt are clearly the winners over the doctors who have to borrow 400k. Either way the teacher is the one winning. Also, people graduating with MD's and people graduating with JDS are going into VERY different careers. The average career in Biglaw is 3 years, if you get biglaw.

I was pointing out the fact that just because people pay for a good doesnt mean they are being exploited. If you have a problem with med students taking out debt as well then your issue isnt with law its with the high cost of education which is fine i guess. Teachers are winning because they work for the school and get paid for their work...oh what a scam. Ill agree that the ballooning of educational costs is an issue but running a university costs money, attracting good profs costs money, its up to students to decide if its a good investment. I already conceded that JD's have worse career prospects than MD's but they also have less debt and if were talking about the t14 they have solid career prospects. Look at the BL+FC thread, factor in some PI self selection and its clear that a majority of students at these schools who want biglaw get it. Yes the job lasts an average of three years but you dont just turn to dust after its over, people find new legal jobs that pay less but still more than the vast majority of citizens. Hopefully whatever debt the individual incurred resulted in an increase in earning potential that justifies it. It might not, but the same could be said for any investment. TLS does a great job of encouraging people to go into the whole process eyes wide open.

Just lol. Do you understand how they get paid for their work? You understand they use the student loan market to artificially raise the prices of education right?

Some of them have less debt.........

Here...... just read this. After that go to the vale of tears thread that has 58,000 posts or whatever the number is.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=261392

[asdfdfdfadfas]

First off, in most of these posts that talk about "some stupid student with a useless major" the hypothetical student is a woman. Stop that.

Second, it's really insulting to say that those of us who studied the humanities can't think critically cuz supposedly our studies will lead to us being unemployed. I had a job lined up before I graduated. The fact that I had excelled in school and was a good writer mattered more to my potential employers than the supposedly "useless" nature of my degree.

Firstly, Lol what? Can males not major in Feminism? I don't think anyone mentioned a woman specifically here.

Secondly, what was the job and what was your degree that you are assuming I think is useless?

[jnwa]

None of this makes sense to me. In fact, it is so terribly written I am not even going to respond.

You said that the math major was valuable because is shows that the person was smart enough to pick a math major. I told you that your rationale is stupid and that criteria should not matter at all to admcoms.


No it isn't shocking and who knows, maybe in some people's opinion Philosophy is more intellectually challenging. What type of "research" skills are feminism majors gathering up by the bunches, by the way? If I major in children's TV shows from the 1990s am I gaining research skills? Certainly if I had a 4.0 I would be a prime candidate for top law schools.........

...... So if I go to college and major in underwater basket weaving but walk out with a 4.0, so long as I sit around in my mother's basement and do well on the LSAT I am more desirable than let's say someone who is a well known Engineer who took the test while working? LSAT and GPA together give ........what? Also, I am not stating they should care, I am stating that humanity majors aren't the only one's changing careers and I am pretty sure their real world work experience would be more applicable to being lawyer than researching feminism.

Did you take a humanities class during your undergrad? I took a few. In a Women and Development course, i had to research feminist development theories then write a paper discussing their impact on development practice and make a case for the one i thought was the most successful. Is that directly related to law school? No. But its a lot more relevant to it than the math class i took.

Theres tons of 4.0s. If you get one then get a 167+ on the LSAT, THEN youre a prime candidate for a t14 law school. At that point however youve given an indication that you can do well on a test that correlates fairly well with law school grades. Taking the test while working isnt that hard, it just takes longer. If youre not saying that adcoms should care then youre missing the entire point. This discussion started as an argument for whether or not law school adcoms should be more holistic in their analysis of candidates; you started there and then devolved into a bad argument about why engineers are the greatest.

If youre a 4.0 in underwater basketweaving and got a 170 on the LSAT, yes, id rather gamble on you doing better in law school than the 3.3 165 famous engineer bro.

Just lol. Do you understand how they get paid for their work? You understand they use the student loan market to artificially raise the prices of education right?

Some of them have less debt.........

Here...... just read this. After that go to the vale of tears thread that has 58,000 posts or whatever the number is.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=261392

Teachers didnt create the student loan system, the government did. It may be a bad idea but ill leave it to you to think of a better idea that allows education to be accessible. If youre some priviledged dude who thinks student loans shouldnt exist and the only people who should be allowed to go to school are the rich then youre stupid. Because theres a biglawyer who hates his job and people in the vale that didnt get jobs i should think what?

What the fuck is your point exactly? I replied initially because i was arguing that the objective admissions criteria we have now is preferable to one where adcoms make subjective judgements about major difficulty. You turned it into a rant about random parts of law school and higher ed that you dont like. I get it., you dont want to go to law school, judging by your reasoning skills its probably for the best.