Top Law Schools

Long-time intermittent lurker here. I could tell you more, but I doubt most of you would care.

I came across this Slate piece this morning, and felt (insomniac and) compelled to post a comment here, necessitating my TLS registration. Yes, I did search for another comment on this article before posting, snarky or otherwise, but did not find one. Anyway, please be tolerant; I don't always correct my grammar and punctuation online.

The Admissions Process at Elite Schools Has Long Been A Mystery. Here's How to Lift the Veil
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... naked.html
I don't know if I am allowed to post URLs s a new user. You can find this on Slate today, under the 'Double X' category.

It seems to some extent, she is talking about college and university admission in general. But she also gives examples from her X-years as Dean of Admissions at YLS. If there's one message I got early on from reading this forum, and then saw repeated over and over and over - it's that the law school admissions process is, for the most part, the opposite of a big mystery. Two numbers largely determine everything, even at the very top.

I really should get ready for work.

The article seems to be more of a call to action aimed at admissions officers than an actual story about the process. It does have a few tips sprinkled in, but those are all available on her blog already. Also, LSAT/GPA isn't universally predictive (or close) for YLS, so it makes sense in this context. But again, I think the piece is aimed at all admissions (including undergrad, where things actually are at least somewhat holistic).

Interesting first post ever.

Getting outside help isn’t automatic grounds for rejection (unless the student lies about it), just as not getting help isn’t an automatic in. But knowing the kind of assistance an applicant received provides an additional data point about that person and context for weighing other parts of an application, like a recommender’s assessment of the applicant’s writing ability, or how well the student performed in writing-intensive courses.

It seems as if Yale actually considers this a "data point" they are pretty much removed from reality facing the rest of law schools today. After all, Pacific Law just lost two points in its LSAT median AND 87 students.

Finnpower wrote:

Getting outside help isn’t automatic grounds for rejection (unless the student lies about it), just as not getting help isn’t an automatic in. But knowing the kind of assistance an applicant received provides an additional data point about that person and context for weighing other parts of an application, like a recommender’s assessment of the applicant’s writing ability, or how well the student performed in writing-intensive courses.

It seems as if Yale actually considers this a "data point" they are pretty much removed from reality facing the rest of law schools today. After all, Pacific Law just lost two points in its LSAT median AND 87 students.

titcr

crestor wrote:

Finnpower wrote:

Getting outside help isn’t automatic grounds for rejection (unless the student lies about it), just as not getting help isn’t an automatic in. But knowing the kind of assistance an applicant received provides an additional data point about that person and context for weighing other parts of an application, like a recommender’s assessment of the applicant’s writing ability, or how well the student performed in writing-intensive courses.

It seems as if Yale actually considers this a "data point" they are pretty much removed from reality facing the rest of law schools today. After all, Pacific Law just lost two points in its LSAT median AND 87 students.

titcr

Why would it be a surprise to anyone that the school with an 80%+ yield, a small class size, and a huge endowment isn't facing the same problems that other schools are facing?

What other law schools ask whether an applicant has used "outside" help.