Top Law Schools

To me this whole admissions thing comes down to maybe four things: 1. LSAT. 2. The color of your skin 3. GPA 4. If you're in-state or not.

I've talked to some law professors and looked at several law predictors and those seem to really be the only things they care about. You shouldn't have a felony or some kind of history of academic dishonesty but that pretty much goes for everything.

All that other stuff just seems like a "tie-breaker" type thing that's not even worth one point on the LSAT or 0.05 of GPA.

Student23 wrote:To me this whole admissions thing comes down to maybe four things: 1. LSAT. 2. The color of your skin 3. GPA 4. If you're in-state or not.

I've talked to some law professors and looked at several law predictors and those seem to really be the only things they care about. You shouldn't have a felony or some kind of history of academic dishonesty but that pretty much goes for everything.

All that other stuff just seems like a "tie-breaker" type thing that's not even worth one point on the LSAT or 0.05 of GPA.

I think some softs MIGHT be worth more than .05 or 1 LSAT point, but like really awesome stuff. Rhodes Scholar, Combat veteran, Cured cancer type stuff. But it'd have to be pretty spectacular.

emkay625 wrote:

Student23 wrote:To me this whole admissions thing comes down to maybe four things: 1. LSAT. 2. The color of your skin 3. GPA 4. If you're in-state or not.

I've talked to some law professors and looked at several law predictors and those seem to really be the only things they care about. You shouldn't have a felony or some kind of history of academic dishonesty but that pretty much goes for everything.

All that other stuff just seems like a "tie-breaker" type thing that's not even worth one point on the LSAT or 0.05 of GPA.

I think some softs MIGHT be worth more than .05 or 1 LSAT point, but like really awesome stuff. Rhodes Scholar, Combat veteran, Cured cancer type stuff. But it'd have to be pretty spectacular.

This.

Also depends on the individual reviewer and the institution. We forget that these things are, at the end of the day, reviewed by a person. I imagine their highest incentives are to the numbers, but something that really grabs attention can help I'm sure.

In other news water is wet

Personal Statement. Should be at least ok enough to not break you, but if its shit...will def matter alot more. Also, recommendations same thing. If youve got someone talking shit about you in a rec it can be a prob. Just make sure those things are at least decent/average.

lulzalicious wrote:Personal Statement. Should be at least ok enough to not break you, but if its shit...will def matter alot more. Also, recommendations same thing. If youve got someone talking shit about you in a rec it can be a prob. Just make sure those things are at least decent/average.

Has this ever happened? I would be furious if someone agreed to write me a letter of recommendation for me and they actually did the opposite.

lulzalicious wrote:Personal Statement. Should be at least ok enough to not break you, but if its shit...will def matter alot more. Also, recommendations same thing. If youve got someone talking shit about you in a rec it can be a prob. Just make sure those things are at least decent/average.

This. And, not just because I'm biased. I have a hard time believing that an adcomm would greenlight someone who can't put a sentence together, no less make a decent argument. Well, maybe at Cooley they would.

I would switch the order up, but in general this is correct

Student23 wrote:To me this whole admissions thing comes down to maybe four things: 1. LSAT. 2. GPA 3. The color of your skin 4. If you're in-state or not.

I've talked to some law professors and looked at several law predictors and those seem to really be the only things they care about. You shouldn't have a felony or some kind of history of academic dishonesty but that pretty much goes for everything.

All that other stuff just seems like a "tie-breaker" type thing that's not even worth one point on the LSAT or 0.05 of GPA.

Political, family and business connections.

ColtsFan88 wrote:

lulzalicious wrote:Personal Statement. Should be at least ok enough to not break you, but if its shit...will def matter alot more. Also, recommendations same thing. If youve got someone talking shit about you in a rec it can be a prob. Just make sure those things are at least decent/average.

Has this ever happened? I would be furious if someone agreed to write me a letter of recommendation for me and they actually did the opposite.

Haha yep. One of my friends got a rec from a prof that agreed to write it (she didnt know him very well, just took the class and got the A.) But the rec said something about her 'lack of organization' because she had to keep chasing him up and sending him forms which annoyed him, then he related that to when she had to ask for an extension on a paper. At a job interview they asked her about it Luckily it wasnt for LS apps but Im sure plenty of people could be in danger of making a similar mistake.

emkay625 wrote:

Student23 wrote:To me this whole admissions thing comes down to maybe four things: 1. LSAT. 2. The color of your skin 3. GPA 4. If you're in-state or not.

I've talked to some law professors and looked at several law predictors and those seem to really be the only things they care about. You shouldn't have a felony or some kind of history of academic dishonesty but that pretty much goes for everything.

All that other stuff just seems like a "tie-breaker" type thing that's not even worth one point on the LSAT or 0.05 of GPA.

I think some softs MIGHT be worth more than .05 or 1 LSAT point, but like really awesome stuff. Rhodes Scholar, Combat veteran, Cured cancer type stuff. But it'd have to be pretty spectacular.

Yeah. The points given to softs depend on who the person is, demography, etc. Softs have to be put into context.

If you've run a successful multimillion-dollar startup, it will be more impressive if you are a 19-y/o, inner-city, son of Hatian Immigrants, and who graduated HS at 16 - and college three years later (Magna/Phi Beta) while working full-time during UG - than if you are a white, male, 48 year-old, old money distant relative of George Bush.

The former will get 10 or more additional points on the LSAT while the other gets a yawn, or maybe a point or two for being older and crazy enough to try law school.

Student23 wrote:To me this whole admissions thing comes down to maybe four things: 1. LSAT. 2. The color of your skin 3. GPA 4. If you're in-state or not.

This is basically correct, except I would change #2 to read "The color of your skin and difficulty of related experiences." A hardship-overcame inner city AA male will get a better boost than somebody privileged like Obama.

Also, it is kind of weird how the GPA/ LSAT relationship appears to function for URM candidates. A 3.85/ 165 AA male is SET all the way up to YHS. A 3.1/172 is not similarly set, despite the fact that they are splitting the medians and quartiles the same way but in reverse. This could just be my subjective perception, but the average high-GPA mid-LSAT URM does better than the low-GPA high-LSAT URM. It's just a trend I've noticed on LSN.

I kind of feel this is how it should be / best way to judge a candidate tbh. I'd be pissed if decisions came down to such things as who's LOR wrote a better letter