True or False Forum

[Palavra]

True of false?


1. GPA/LSAT addendums exist only so that law schools can attract people with low numbers to apply to theirs schools although, in practice, the addendum doesn’t really boost your chances of being accepted. What matters is your numbers and, to a much lesser extend, your PS and softs.

2. The top law schools will always accept one applicant with considerable lower LSAT and GPA in order to attract more applicants and create an illusion that they don’t only focus on the numbers. They don’t mention that the person who was accepted with a 3.0 GPA and 150 LSAT found the cure for cancer while climbing Mount Everest.

[bk1]

Cynical much?

That being said, I don't think schools look at their application process itself as the primary way of drawing more application money.

[Wholigan]

Cynical much?

That being said, I don't think schools look at their application process itself as the primary way of drawing more application money.

I thought OP was implying they want to lure more applicants to keep their acceptance percentage low.

[bk1]

Cynical much?

That being said, I don't think schools look at their application process itself as the primary way of drawing more application money.

I thought OP was implying they want to lure more applicants to keep their acceptance percentage low.

Well that's another aspect of it. But I still don't think that the two things mentioned by OP are the ways in which they do that (especially the latter).

[Palavra]

Why not? If I pay $70 to apply to school X that's $70 more to school X. Sure they need staff to review my application but, honestly, how much time do they spend on each applicant? The look at my numbers: If they are high, they make sure I'm not a jackass by glossing over my personal statement. If they are low, the look for olympic gold medals but if they don't find any I get rejected. Am I wrong?

Cynical much?

That being said, I don't think schools look at their application process itself as the primary way of drawing more application money.

[mattviphky]

i believe this is true to an extent. It helps schools support their claims of "holistic" admissions. Also, don't pay to apply to a school unless they have already denied your request for a fee waiver

[bk1]

Why not? If I pay $70 to apply to school X that's $70 more to school X. Sure they need staff to review my application but, honestly, how much time do they spend on each applicant? The look at my numbers: If they are high, they make sure I'm not a jackass by glossing over my personal statement. If they are low, the look for olympic gold medals but if they don't find any I get rejected. Am I wrong?

Schools have departments other than admissions that need funding.

You're also forgetting that there are a ton of applicants that are neither high nor low where schools do have to sort through them.

[Hopefully2012]

They don’t mention that the person who was accepted with a 3.0 GPA and 150 LSAT found the cure for cancer while climbing Mount Everest.

I think that is a deduction most people aiming for t14 should make anyways. Also, when schools show their GPA/LSAT range, it is highly unlikely for one person to possess both numbers in either extreme (i.e. the 3.0 GPA probably had a 99th percentile LSAT).

[MormonChristian]

True of false?
2. The top law schools will always accept one applicant with considerable lower LSAT and GPA in order to attract more applicants and create an illusion that they don’t only focus on the numbers.

That is true of all law schools.

I have heard that some times that one person is a sentimental favorite.

[JamMasterJ]

I honestly do think that schools are looking for high yield and high selectivity. If that means advertising and sending fee waivers to a select group of applications to accomplish this, I would not be shocked if they were doing this. That being said, I don't think numbers are everything (though they are close).

WRT your other question, I really don't think schools accept students with bad stats in order to get students to apply and increase selectivity. I really believe that schools are looking for people that will help the medians and help the overall makeup of the class. They will not, in my opinion, take people that they don't except to have a strong chance of success, and especially not with the motive you mention.

[bdubs]

Running an admissions office is not a costless enterprise. Schools are making the bulk of their money on tuition, not admissions fees.

The other reason that admissions fees are as high as they are, is that the school doesn't want to spend a ton of time processing applications from people with no prospects of admission whatsoever. If they lowered the fee to something where everyone who was, or thought they were, a reach candidate appplied, then the school would be inundated with a bunch of applications which would have to be combed through to find the few true reaches who deserved admission. The current system lets people self select if they feel like the application fee is worthwhile, and lets the school select who it wants to offer a reduced application fee to.

[sundance95]

True of false?


1. GPA/LSAT addendums exist only so that law schools can attract people with low numbers to apply to theirs schools although, in practice, the addendum doesn’t really boost your chances of being accepted. What matters is your numbers and, to a much lesser extend, your PS and softs.

2. The top law schools will always accept one applicant with considerable lower LSAT and GPA in order to attract more applicants and create an illusion that they don’t only focus on the numbers. They don’t mention that the person who was accepted with a 3.0 GPA and 150 LSAT found the cure for cancer while climbing Mount Everest.

Based on anecdotal personal-experience evidence from doing admissions consulting for a couple of cycles, I believe this is false.

My experience is that if one makes their application a compelling narrative (i.e., they use the various statements TOGETHER to tell a cohesive story adcomms actually want to read), and avoid the little mistakes that make you an auto-reject, that person will end up in the top quintile of results given their LSAT/GPA (which is what most refer to as 'outperforming your numbers'). Most applicants' malfunction is that they tell a story they think adcomms want to hear, and try to jam their facts into those stories. They invariably end up submitting an application that looks exactly like the vast majority of the applications that adcomms read, thereby totally failing to distinguish themselves from the crowd. The ones that do this but also have typos, or thought that they were such a good writer that they shouldn't trust other to edit, later blame YP when their safeties don't admit them. The straight from undergrad crowd is especially prone to this.

The amazing thing is that many of the best applications tell a story that the applicant initially thought was so pedestrian that they never thought that they should write about it. There's a massive race to conformity in law school admissions that is totally antithetical to the primary principle of application writing, which is make yourself different from the herd in some [likable & non-crazy/gimmicky] way, while giving the adcomm an arguably compelling reason that they will look good picking you when you end up in the top half of the class. Ask yourself this: when picking the winner of a game, does it feel better to pick the favorite or the dog? If the dog gives you a plausible reason to root for them, you pick them, right?

Caveat: early application is key to outperforming numbers. The second adcomms feel median pressure, they stop falling in love with applicants and become automatons. So in that respect, OP is correct. Procrastination kills in the law school app game-you'll always underperform your maximum potential after (IMO, but this is debatable) Halloween, but certainly after Thanksgiving.

[sundance95]

TL;DR - Adcomms work within a set of rules that they don't like. Don't hate the player, hate the game. And give the player a chance to help you w/o killing their chance at winning the game.

[john1990]

True of false?


1. GPA/LSAT addendums exist only so that law schools can attract people with low numbers to apply to theirs schools although, in practice, the addendum doesn’t really boost your chances of being accepted. What matters is your numbers and, to a much lesser extend, your PS and softs.

2. The top law schools will always accept one applicant with considerable lower LSAT and GPA in order to attract more applicants and create an illusion that they don’t only focus on the numbers. They don’t mention that the person who was accepted with a 3.0 GPA and 150 LSAT found the cure for cancer while climbing Mount Everest.

1. False, a gpa addendum with an upward trend may be a soft factor which distinguishes applicants with identical #s.

2. False, they may accept these people because they have proven that they are capable of success, or because they know some one at the school.