Should law schools provide reasons for ding'ing applicants? Forum

[Knock]

Although I know it'll never happen, it would definitely be nice!

[eandy]

No, it would cause even more complaining than there is already.

[vanwinkle]

Dear Applicant,

We are required to consider thousands of applications per year and choose the 360 best applicants. However, due to your [low GPA/low LSAT/pale skin color/massive spelling errors throughout your application] you were not selected for admission at this time. Just for full clarity, even if not for your [low GPA/low LSAT/pale skin color/massive spelling errors throughout your application] you still would not have been chosen due to your [massive spelling errors throughout your application/low LSAT/low GPA/pale skin color]. We wish you the best of luck in attending a lower-ranked institution.

Sincerely,

Dean of Admissions
Yale Law School

Yeah, that'll go over well.

[Cavalier]

Dumb idea. People who aren't smart enough to figure this out on their own clearly don't have what it takes to handle law school. Really, either your grades or LSAT wasn't good enough, your personal statement sucked, your letters of recommendation were negative, you had a history of criminal conduct or academic dishonesty, you applied too late, or you didn't do enough to convince a school that you were actually interested in attending (in other words, you got yield protected). It's that simple.

[vanwinkle]

Dumb idea. People who aren't smart enough to figure this out on their own clearly don't have what it takes to handle law school.

Not really. Subjective factors eliminate candidates all the time. From the Dean of Harvard Law Admissions:

Each year we end up with surprised candidates that are shocked when their 3.9+ GPA, 178 LSAT does not result in an offer of admission....

Link - --LinkRemoved--

Someone with a 178/3.9 seems passionate enough and possibly even smart, but surely, subjective factors (eg. PS, experiences, etc) kept him/her out. It'd be nice to know as to what exactly kept a 178/3.9 out instead of having to wonder and ponder about it.

Yes, but if you're smart enough you should be able to go back and figure out what subjective factor kept you out. There are only so many.

[eandy]

I also feel that if you give a reason, it opens you up to lawsuits.

Law school: We dinged you because _____________
Applicant: Actually, ____________ is not true. See attached documents.

[tomhobbes]

To avoid lawsuits, and to save time, they'd just say the same thing they say now: "There wasn't anything wrong with you, everyone else was just really good."

[Kohinoor]

If I was an adcomm, for an extra 100 per application, I'd be happy to mail back a copy of your app with a blank page on top saying "Poor fit."

[yeff]

Wouldn't this just force them to be even more number-driven than they already are?

[traehekat]

Do you EVER make a bad thread?

[j.wellington]

According to the UW admissions site, if there's an academic integrity or C&F issue that might be grounds for denial they'll contact you about it first and give you a chance to respond. I thought that was a fair policy and keeping with judicial principles.

But otherwise, no. A school does not need to explain itself to every 26-year-old gunner it disappoints.

[r6_philly]

Character and Fitness.

People don't even disclose legitimate reasons in divorces, you are not going to get a real knowledge of why you get ding'ed.

[kalvano]

Either your numbers suck or you're a cracker and they have too many of them.

People applying to law school should be able to figure out which it is.