<p>To what extent do extracurriculars matter for admission into law school? I was under the impression that it played a minor role, as in "just show you're involved in campus life and not a complete hermit." However, given answers from posters in another thread here, I may have the wrong idea. If you're shooting for the best law schools, as in HYS, must you have "amazing" extracurriculars in addition to stellar numbers? I always heard that law school admissions was a numbers game, concerning LSAT and GPA. I never really thought you had to be head editor of the campus newspaper or captain of the debate team if you were good enough numbers-wise.</p>
<p>What do you all think? I've only just finished my freshman year in college, and I was involved somewhat. A few clubs and some volunteering, but I didn't really have huge plans for my future in the extracurriculars department. Is a change of priorities in order? Should running for SGA President be on my to-do list? </p>
<p>This situation reminds me of the undergraduate admissions frenzy we all experienced. I accepted the fact that one needed to be an all-around, all-star student in all areas, including numbers and outside the classroom in order to gain admission to the cream-of-the-crop colleges, but I truly thought this was behind those of us who set our sights on law school.</p>
<p>What does everyone think? Realistically, what does it take to gain admission into the HYS law schools?</p>
<p>You're right. Show your somewhat involved in campus life and you'll get in anywhere if you have the numbers. The two exception are Stanford and especially Yale, where incredible ECs or activities are usually necessary for admissions. Think Rhodes Scholarships, President of your respective college's student government, impressive internships and, increasingly, work experience (such as a paralegal or volunteer in the peace corps)...things like that.</p>
<p>To answer the OP, for Yale especially, you need to have "stellar" extracurriculars. Anecdotally, the one person I know of who went to Yale was also a Fulbright Scholar. You do not have to have that stellar of an EC, yet you need something that showed you could lead and or be instrumental in an organization. For Harvard you need good EC's but you don't need to have a stellar listing of EC's to get in. They are a much more numbers driven school. Admittedly, it helps to have a stellar EC to help enhance your chance of admission at any school; however, you can get into at least a few T14s with decent EC's if you have an excellent LSAT score and a high GPA.</p>
<p>How do law schools view assistantships in the hard sciences, as opposed to work experience, being the president of a club, student government, and interning at law offices?</p>
<p>imho, the very top law schools (I'm talking roughly the top 3 here) aren't going to take anyone who's choosing extracurriculars based on how they'll affect a law school application. They want people who are pursuing things they're passionate about, whether that's science research or music or volunteerism or sports or whatever--people who would do those things even if they had zero or negative impact on the law school application. They're looking for people who can create or revamp whole programs, and who are recognized nationally for their work (think Rhodes, Fulbright, All-American athlete, etc.). Plus, of course, amazing LSAT scores and GPA. </p>
<p>Luckily, there are dozens of good law schools outside the top 3, and there I think the "high LSAT/ high GPA/not a hermit" advice is pretty true.</p>
<p>Can someone distinguish for me amazing EC's and good EC's (those perhaps not good enough for Harvard/Yale but good enough for NYU/Columbia/Chicago)?</p>
<p>An amazing EC would be something likes a Rhodes/Fulbright...would a solid EC be editor-in-chief status of a publication or two?</p>
<p>Just to clarify, you do not need to have an "amazing" EC for Harvard. You need good ECs, it is mostly Yale and Stanford that require "amazing" ECs.
Yes, a soilid EC would be editor-in-chief status of a publication. I would also be inclined to say that that would be a pretty good EC.</p>
<p>While I'm quite certain that there are many very intelligent and motivated students at Yale and Stanford, I highly doubt that every student there has ECs including a Rhodes or Fulbright, or something similar. People do special things in any number of ways. I don't think that someone with otherwise excellent LSAT scores and grades, and who has something to offer in addition to book smarts, should be discouraged from applying to top law schools. Law schools like Yale and Stanford (and others), who have their pick of the very best applicants out there, are looking to form diverse classes with people from varying backgrounds and with differing experiences, who have a variety of goals. Other than having to shell out the application fee, it can certainly never hurt to apply.</p>
<p>How about how many EC's should one have (if aiming for HYS)? Would 2-3 clubs with high leadership positions be sufficient or would it be excessive?</p>
<p>Ladistar, law school is predominately a numbers game. However, at a few schools (Stanford and Yale, mostly) you need very good or even excellent EC's to get in. Luckily, most T14s don't require that for admission.</p>
<p>I'm part of a few honor societies that are good resume fillers, but I don't have anything of particular value that law schools would give a sh1t about. I mean don't you basically need to do TFA/Peace Corps/President of (insert organization here) to be recognized for your EC's? As far as I know, being the social chair of your sorority doesn't mean crap to HYSMCCN.</p>
<p>Now on the other hand, I am going for a master's degree before heading into Law. Wouldn't that, coupled with high GPA and LSAT, constitute a well-rounded application?</p>
<p>Ladistar, for your EC's to stand out it helps that you were a leader in an organization. However, if you can show other ways that you were involved it will help those EC's stand out more. EC's won't matter very much at most of the schools in the T14, just Yale and Stanford. If you had a masters degree and did well you would presumably have professors who know you well. Those same professors would be able to write your letters of recommendation. Moreover, a masters degree would also indicate that you are intellectually curious, and that you enjoy learning. A masters would help round out your application, yet the masters is not worth it if you are only getting one for law school admissions.</p>
<p>The grades you earn in a master's degree program do not count towards your LSDAS calculated GPA. While many law students have master's degrees, that's in part because many students go abroad on fellowships such as the Rhodes, Marshall, Gates, Fullbright,etc. and get advanced degrees. Many of these students were admitted to top law schools as college seniors and deferred. Others are ABDs--all but dissertations. These are students who were in Ph.D. programs and then decided academia wasn't for them. Other top students earned master's simultaneously with bachelor's degrees in 4 years. Doing this is impressive. From waht I've seen, master's degrees in and of themselves help VERY little if any in gaining admissions to top law schools.</p>
<p>Again, though, it's really only Y and S that emphasize ECs. Harvard seems to be moving in that direction, but is still more numbers driven than Y and S. Being social chair of your sorority could help at Harvard if it's really a time-consuming position. H just seems to be looking for proof that you did more than study and sleep for 4 years.</p>
<p>jonri, I'd be on par to earning both a bachelor's and master's in four years. I'll be completing my undergrad in three years and will be going on to grad school for a one-year program following that.</p>
<p>I'm also not in it purely for law school admissions. If I find out halfway through law school that I don't want to be a lawyer, it's a good alternative to fall back on.</p>