Top Law Schools

.

It's better than just doing debate, but not significantly so. Don't count on it changing any decisions.

I suspect that it will mean more if you end up (due to your LSAT) looking in the TTT/TTTT range than if you're looking at tier 1 schools. A lot of TTTs have really great moot court / trial ad programs, and they're often the pride of the school.

.

Sadly I think this will matter very little. It's an impressive accomplishment, but without the numbers it's going to be really tough to sway any of the top law schools. I'm sure it will be a helpful factor for whatever schools are in your numerical range, but it's probably not going to help you punch above your weight. If you don't mind me asking, was it the LSAT or the GPA that is holding you back? It seems like a lot of debate skills would translate well to law school and it must take a lot of dedication to get to that level, so it's sort of surprising that you don't have the whole package together here.

I have one from high school and college (ie though, not debate). I don't think it will help my cycle at all. So far it hasn't. We'll see.

.

I played up my second place finish a bit on the app, no idea whether it helped much, though. Presumably we know each other IRL. PM me if you want.

That would be something very interesting to discuss with legal employers, and may be a significant boost if you want to do litigation.

However, schools just don't care about anything but the numbers.

It's a good soft...but like others sad..sadly, it won't help THAT much. Law school really is a numbers game

emkay625 wrote:I have one from high school and college (ie though, not debate). I don't think it will help my cycle at all. So far it hasn't. We'll see.

You put stuff from HS on your resume?

In my experience applying to law school circa 2009 -- it is not at all helpful. I had this factor going for me and I did not get in at any school I considered a reach for my GPA/LSAT. Also, I remember being told it was not a good choice for personal statement because it would be super predictable.

As an aside, some success at debate is a pretty good indicator of success in law school. To be fair, I think this is mostly because top level debaters tend to be very competitive and this makes them natural gunners. In my experience with law firm interviews, debate is (relatively) interesting to discuss and I think lead to a couple of callbacks I might not have gotten without it. Very successful former debaters and IEers are usually standouts at moot court. And I can say with confidence, my involvement in debate/IEs likely got me the job I'll start in the fall.

In sum, debate is helpful at nearly everything except actually getting you into school.

emkay625 wrote:I have one from high school and college (ie though, not debate). I don't think it will help my cycle at all. So far it hasn't. We'll see.

nope just college. to be fair though, it is like only one line as i have a lot of work experience. it's in an lor though.

I think people misunderstand soft factors most of the time. What I've been lead to believe is that they generally won't help you get into a school that your numbers won't, but that many of the elite schools have options when putting their classes together. In order words, students with good enough numbers get rejected all of the time (and this becomes truer the higher in the rankings you go) and softs are simply those factors which help them choose from within that pool.

If it were policy, then it'd be a significant soft. But parli? Does anyone still even debate that way anymore?

.

FinallyGoing wrote:

patrickd139 wrote:If it were policy, then it'd be a significant soft. But parli? Does anyone still even debate that way anymore?

I would argue that parli debate is a much more intellectually rigorous form of debate than policy insofar as the keys to success in parli call upon a much for dynamic set of intellectual abilities than do policy.

LOL - no.

FinallyGoing wrote:

patrickd139 wrote:If it were policy, then it'd be a significant soft. But parli? Does anyone still even debate that way anymore?

I would argue that parli debate is a much more intellectually rigorous form of debate than policy insofar as the keys to success in parli call upon a much for dynamic set of intellectual abilities than do policy.

I was just trolling you. Winning nationals at anything is a pretty big deal.

That said, it's not an exceptional soft. Two of the three 'national debate champions' at my school didn't even break to the out rounds of my 1L moot court competition.

FinallyGoing wrote:

patrickd139 wrote:If it were policy, then it'd be a significant soft. But parli? Does anyone still even debate that way anymore?

I would argue that parli debate is a much more intellectually rigorous form of debate than policy insofar as the keys to success in parli call upon a much for dynamic set of intellectual abilities than do policy.

As someone that did policy in High School and was Parli natl champ runner up, no. Just no.

On topic - it will not help much. I was also advised not to do my PS on it, and I think it was sound advice. It's one (short) line on my resume and that's it.

.

FinallyGoing wrote:brb arguing the same topic for months.

Politics DAs must have been stupid(er) as fuck for the last 2 years. What a silly activity.

FinallyGoing wrote:brb arguing the same topic for months.

Probably don't want to derail your own thread. But if you care, I think depth >breadth. I also think doing actual, substantive research is important. Only one of us has done both. And both are good activities. Good luck with your applications.

Smumps wrote:

FinallyGoing wrote:brb arguing the same topic for months.

Probably don't want to derail your own thread. But if you care, I think depth >breadth. I also think doing actual, substantive research is important. Only one of us has done both. And both are good activities. Good luck with your applications.

Don't strawman Parli. The best (ahem) Parli debaters do quite a bit of research.

+1 LSAT point

FinallyGoing wrote:

Smumps wrote:

FinallyGoing wrote:brb arguing the same topic for months.

Probably don't want to derail your own thread. But if you care, I think depth >breadth. I also think doing actual, substantive research is important. Only one of us has done both. And both are good activities. Good luck with your applications.

Don't strawman Parli. The best (ahem) Parli debaters do quite a bit of research.

No, they don't. The "research" you speak of is either a good amount of reading, or cannibalizing policy files into Parli format. The average high school policy debater will put in more time on one file than the best Parli debater will do in a month, maybe more. I will repeat that it's a great activity, but why those that do it feel the need to justify how intellectually rigorous it is is beyond me.

And agree with poster above, +1 LSAT!