<p>Hey guys,
I'm a prospective law student and had a few questions:</p>
<p>1) Why is it that law schools seem (at least, this is the impression I got from posters here) not to care about quality of undergrad? Obviously Harvard > community college on paper, but the emphasis really seems to be on gpa/lsat. After taking into account grade inflation, shouldn't a 3.5 from a top school be more impressive than a 3.5 from a less well-known school? It's simply harder to get a 3.5 when you're competing with smarter students, so I'm not sure why law school adcoms wouldn't make use of this to get the best applicants possible...thoughts?</p>
<p>2) Does it make sense to spend the summer before my senior year on the LSAT? It seems like it's hugely important but I wouldn't be pumped about slaving away on it for an entire summer.</p>
<p>3) Does it matter who your recommendations come from? I.e. I'm a math major and I would think (at least, intuitively) that law schools would like recs from professors in fields that demand critical analysis, logical argumentation, etc (i.e. phil, history, polisci) instead of something technical like econ or math. Thoughts on this?</p>
<p>Thanks for any help you can offer,
Claymangs</p>
<p>Many law schools do consider college as reflected by the fact that a fairly high percentage of those who attend the highest ranked law schools come from the highest ranked colleges. At the same time LSAT is more important than GPA at almost all law schools and in many cases it is 60% to 70%(and even more) of the weight for admission. Thus, if you have a 3.5 from a good though maybe not very high ranked college and a 175 LSAT your chances are going to be significantly better than someone from Harvard with a 3.5 and only a 168 LSAT. Thus, spending time preparing for the LSAT is recommended.</p>
<p>Recommendations can come from any professor at college and econ and math are fine.</p>
<p>In response to drusba’s post, I wanted to point out that correlation does not imply causation. Applicants from top schools tend to have higher stats and higher admissions rates. But just as their undergrad background may have given them a boost, the data are just as consistent with these particular students already being quite gifted (implied by their very attendance at top undergrads). In other words, they are a self-selecting population. </p>
<p>Still, I’m not saying that there is no connection between quality of undergrad and admissions. There is anecdotal evidence out there that applicants from the very best universities and liberal arts colleges may get something of a boost. But it’s impossible to prove. The best way to see where you stand is to ask your school for its law school admissions grids and then compare yourself to past applicants.</p>
<p>To answer your other questions, while spending an entire summer studying for the LSAT certainly is a drag, just keep reminding yourself how important the test is. It is not only the key to admission, but may also lead the way to substantial scholarship money. Not a huge sacrifice considering the potential gains.</p>
<p>3) I know plenty of folks in law school with me now who had recs written by bio profs or cs profs… and certainly plenty with recs written by econ profs. My impression is that field doesn’t matter much if at all.</p>
<p>Also, legal reasoning, done correctly, involves a lot of the same rigor that you would need to demonstrate in an econ paper or a math paper. If you’ve managed to get through your math major without writing a substantial mathematical paper (which is possible at far too many schools), I would suggest seeking out an opportunity to write one with guidance from a math prof. Done right, that type of experience could make for good rec fodder.</p>