Answers to law school admissions myths

Graduate School Law School
1

<p>I have been reading the posts on this site for some time now. Having been in the admissions field for over two decades I thought I would respond to some of the issues that have been raised regarding law school admissions. Please, however understand that my comments are based on the experiences I have gained over the past several years. While, I cannot state that every admissions director would agree with me, I do feel strongly that my views are shared by many.</p>

<p>A hot topic seems to be the major of choice. Some state it does not matter while others have posted it is a factor. An applicant's major is very much a part of the process and for majors that are perceived to be more difficult (e.g. economics, math, engineering, biology, chemistry) committee members do take note. A student who has an exemplary gpa, but majored in a "lighter" field like American studies, history, art history, liberal arts etc. will not be penalized, but will be reviewed based on what is perceived as "intent". The admissions committee can easily tell by essays and other information the rationale behind the major choice. A student who majors in history in order to boost a gpa will stick out like a sore thumb. While a student who has a definite interest in the field and can back up that interest will be viewed far more favorably. So, whatever your major, provide information that can back up your choice. To state that you majored in history because you didn't like the sciences or because it did not require calculus will assist in moving our application to the questionable pile regardless of your numbers.</p>

<p>Law school admissions is numbers driven, but admissions committees know first hand how to read these numbers. The LSAT scores are essentially "fixed" - a 160 is a 160, but as you know, a 3.5 at one school is not necessarily a 3.5 at another school. Many schools engage in grade inflation and the admissions committees are well aware of these institutions. It appears that several posters feel that an ivy league degree is a ticket to any law school. The funny thing is that there are a few ivy league schools that are known as the biggest abusers of grade inflation. When we would see a student with a 3.5 from XYZ ivy league school and a student with a 3.25 from abc state school we often would consider the latter applicant stronger assuming everything else is equal. Students from large state institutions tend to provide gpa's truly indicative of their abilities. Now, this is not a hard fast rule, but in my work it often has been the case.</p>

<p>I hope this information assists you. Please let me know if I can provide further insight based on my experiences.</p>

2

<p>Thanks for the no-bull insight.</p>

<p>I want to ask you - has there been any notice made on the law school ad-com side over Princeton's recent severe grade deflation? Is Princeton now seen as a rather difficult school, a la Chicago and Swarthmore?</p>

3

<p>In my opinion I do not view gpa's from any ivy league schools as accurate measurements. It depends, of course on the major, but the typical liberal arts ivy league major gpa is usually inflated. You are correct regarding Chicago and Swarthmore, however. Other schools where one would not take a gpa lightly are state schools like Berkeley, Texas, Michigan, UCLA, North Carolina just to name a few.</p>

4

<p>I am considering transferring to an institution with a stronger philosophy department. Will transferring have negative implications on the law school admissions process? I plan on first, doing a year abroad at Harvard, and then spending my junior and senior years at the aforementioned institution. Would my year abroad be taken negatively?</p>

<p>Edit: By the way, I am greatly appreciative of the fact that you took the time to post here. Thanks!</p>

5

<p>Ricz: Thanks for the reply. But Princeton this past year deflated its grades to only allow for 35% A/A- grades. This news hasn't reached the ad-com world?</p>

6

<p>nspeds...transfering is another myth that seems to have spun out of control on this board. I have never seen any applicant judged one way or the other regarding transfering. The reasons that a student transfers are inconsequential unless of course the applicant transfers because he/she is dismissed and in that case it brings up other issues. Your reasoning for transferring makes sense and is something I would emphasize in your essay. To transfer to another school to take advantage of a different major, to be closer to home, and for most other other reasons is a non-issue in admissions.</p>

<p>ericmeng - This is my opinion - if 35% of the grades are either an A or A- that's still inflation. To know the full story one needs to determine how many students will receive F's and D's - at the large state universities a curve usually consists of a third A's and B's, a third C's and the bottom third D's and F's. If Princeton is is allowing a third A's, what are the bottom two thirds earning?</p>

7

<p>I do not claim to be an admissions officer, but I disagree with much of the information you have posted. I have NEVER heard a LS admissions officer at a top school describe history as a "lighter" major. I know MANY history majors who went on to top 6 LSs. I also know several who made law review at those schools. Indeed, I can't imagine that the sentiment that history is a "lighter" major is one Harvard Law School Dean Kagan, a history majory at Princeton, would agree with. </p>

<p>Nor have I EVER seen a LS application that asked you why you majored in any particular subject. Ricz implies that you must explain your major choice. </p>

<p>The remarks about how law schools view gpa's from specific named colleges are also inconsistent with what I believe to be true.</p>

<p>Obviously, different admissions officers working at different schools have different opinions. So, how about a little information. You claim to be an admissions officer . At a law school? Which? If you aren't willing to identify your school, then at least give us some idea of the level of law school at which you work. Top 6? Top 14? 50-100? Tier 3 or 4?</p>

<p>Frankly, folks, I think this is a prank..If not, then the poster should be willing to identify himself and or his employer.</p>

8

<p>Whoa, let's settle down here. jonri I doubt he can identify his school as then he will probably recieve a flood of messages saying, "Can I get in, can I get in?" Based on the fact that his posts are well written and informative, I'm going to be one to give him benefit of the doubt. Also, I don't believe he is trying to put down history majors, merely pointing out that a major such as mathmatics or engineering is often going to be harder, graded stricter, and involve more work. Therefore, each major will be appropriately weighted. This does not mean, "all history majors won't get into top six law schools" OR "all math majors automatically get in wherever they apply."</p>

<p>ricz, I have two questions for you:</p>

<p>1) Do admissions committees know the general grade inflation trends in different schools or departments at a given college/university? For example, I currently attend NYU Stern School of Business, which is graded on a much stricter curve than the rest of the university.</p>

<p>2) Does graduating a year early hurt an applicant in any way? Mainly because of financial issues, I'm thinking of transferring the rest of my AP credit in, taking some summer courses, and graduating in 3 years with a degree in economics instead of a degree in economics and finance in 4 years.</p>

<p>Thanks for your time and informative posts.</p>

9

<p>jonri - You certainly have every right to disagree with me. However, I must state that it appears you might be a history major based on your defensive comments! Nevertheless, you are correct, many history majors as well as liberal arts majors, even interior design majors have gone on to fine law schools. The point I have made is when you have two applicants that are equal in all respects, it is obvious that the applicant who may have majored in the sciences or math or economics was probably more challenged than the history major. This is no secret, jonri. And of course one is not going to hear an admissions officer describe history as a light major just like you will not hear an admissions officer state that the University of XYZ is the most flagrant when it comes to grade inflation. I never implied that one must explain their major on an application. I believe you are the one who made this implication. Admissions personnel want to know about each applicant. The choice of your major tells us a great deal about you. If you decide to omit your reasoning for studying a particular field, that is fine, but I believe you will be leaving out a lot about who you are and what makes you tick.You are correct that admissions officers have different opinions and as I have stated all along I am only presenting my opinions based on the work that I have done. I feel your anger might be based on the fact that my opinions differ from what you would like to believe is true. Lastly, regarding rankings...what source would you prefer I use?</p>

10

<p>Cardinal - Here are my comments regarding your questions...and remember, these are my opinions - others like jonri have every right to disagree with me!</p>

<p>1) Do admissions committees know the general grade inflation trends in different schools or departments at a given college/university? For example, I currently attend NYU Stern School of Business, which is graded on a much stricter curve than the rest of the university.</p>

<p>ANSWER: Yes and no - there's no "book" that gives such information. This is just information that is known in the biz so to speak. You are correct, Stern is thought of very highly as a competitive "no free lunch" instititution.</p>

<p>2) Does graduating a year early hurt an applicant in any way? Mainly because of financial issues, I'm thinking of transferring the rest of my AP credit in, taking some summer courses, and graduating in 3 years with a degree in economics instead of a degree in economics and finance in 4 years.</p>

<p>ANSWER: Not at all. It shows that you are bright and motivated...how can that be looked at as a negative? I know Stern is an expensive school and as an econ major one would think taking a year less to graduate would be an excellent financial move! Personally I have discouraged students to stay longer to earn a minor or double major. If one can earn such at the same time it would take to earn the bachelor's degree, that's fine...but to stay longer makes no sense to me.</p>

11

<p>I agree with Jonri. The author of A Is For Admissions did post on this site some time back, but did it in a much different manner. </p>

<p>I have never heard that an applicant even should consider explaining his choice of major. As for strength of major, I have heard that engineers are sometimes looked down upon, as the admissions committee might not think that they are serious about the law as a profession. Some law schools might want to know why the student is pursuing law, but even that is not required.</p>

12

<p>I'm not an expert and could be completely wrong, but I have heard that law schools (and firms) love engineering majors who are passionate about law because they have the technical knowledge needed for specialized fields such as patent law.</p>

13

<p>You are correct - Engineering students are looked at very favorably for many reasons. They have exceptional analytical skills; completed probably the most difficult curriculum; possess the skills to go into areas of law that are "off the beaten track" (e.g. patent law as you state); are in a very small minority of applicants thus bringing a diversity to an 1L class. I had to laugh at ariesathena's comment that admissions committees might think engineering students are not serious about law as a profession.</p>

14

<p>"I had to laugh at ariesathena's comment that admissions committees might think engineering students are not serious about law as a profession."</p>

<p>That's odd. I had an admissions officer, during an interview, all but mock me for going from engineering into law. I spent a lot of time attempting to explain my interests in both fields. He made comments like, "So you're an engineer and you write poetry... and you want to go to law school?" Or, "What started your interest in law?" When I explained that (having what most people tell me is a darned good answer), he just looked perplexed and continued with inane questions. Waste of my time (and money and energy in flying out to said interview). Been there, done that, and am quite sure that your view is NOT universal. He was not the only one, by the way, to voice such concerns to me.</p>

15

<p>ariesathena - any admissions officer that would mock you is frankly, unprofessional. I have had students come to see me with gpa's that wouldn't merit admission to a tier 5 (lol) school. Nevertheless I was never negative and always encouraged them to apply because one never knows how a complete file may look compared to other applicants. An engineer who writes poetry and wants to go to law school is obviously (in my view) a very bright, intellectually stimulated individual that would be welcome in any law school I was affiliated with. Were you asked to interview with this law school?</p>

16

<p>Answer to your last question is yes, I was asked to interview. I interviewed with or was asked to interview with 4 out of about a dozen schools which I applied to.</p>

<p>While the interviewer's tone might have been unprofessional (rest assured, I was a bit taken aback by what occurred), I cannot imagine that the sentiment is unique to him, especially considering I had heard similar concerns. As with many things about l.s. admissions, however, the attitude of admissions officers is all over the map. Some of them, upon meeting me at the LSAC forum, were very enthusiastic ("We see so few engineers, and even fewer female engineers, so we always look closely at them.") and some were, well, not enthusiastic ("Regardless of your major or medical history, we want to see a high GPA.") That is why I question your assertion that law school admissions officers are uniform, or nearly uniform, in their attitude towards engineers.</p>

17

<p>
[quote]
Law school admissions is numbers driven, but admissions committees know first hand how to read these numbers. The LSAT scores are essentially "fixed" - a 160 is a 160, but as you know, a 3.5 at one school is not necessarily a 3.5 at another school. Many schools engage in grade inflation and the admissions committees are well aware of these institutions. It appears that several posters feel that an ivy league degree is a ticket to any law school. The funny thing is that there are a few ivy league schools that are known as the biggest abusers of grade inflation. When we would see a student with a 3.5 from XYZ ivy league school and a student with a 3.25 from abc state school we often would consider the latter applicant stronger assuming everything else is equal. Students from large state institutions tend to provide gpa's truly indicative of their abilities. Now, this is not a hard fast rule, but in my work it often has been the case. </p>

<p>...schools where one would not take a gpa lightly are state schools like Berkeley, Texas, Michigan, UCLA, North Carolina just to name a few

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I really wish this were true, unfortunately, the data indicates that it is false. </p>

<p>Let's look at the data. Let's look at data for the prelaws coming out of a big state school known for grade inflation and compare it to the prelaws coming out of a prominent Ivy. In particular, I will choose Berkeley vs. Yale. I print various elite law schools, and the average GPA and LSAT of the Berkeley prelaws who got admitted into that law school, followed by the average GPA and LSAT of Yale prelaws who got admitted into that school. Note I deliberately choose to exclude Berkeley Boalt Law and Yale Law in order to eliminate any problems with 'homefield advantage'.</p>

<p>Stanford Law - 3.99/170, 3.82/170
Harvard Law - 3.93/171, 3.82/172
UChicago Law - 3.85/171, 3.66/169
Columbia Law - 3.89/172, 3.74/171
NYU Law - 3.83/171, 3.72/171
UPenn Law - 3.80/172, 3.66/168
Cornell Law - 3.71/170, 3.59/164.4
UCLA Law - 3.8/168, 3.61/168
UVA Law - 3.81/172, 3.65/168
UMichigan Law - 3.84/170, 3.64/168 </p>

<p>I think I can stop here, because the data is consistent. In each case, the law school required HIGHER grades from the Berkeley prelaw than a Yale prelaw to merit admission. Yep, that's right, HIGHER. This completely flies in the face of the assertion that law schools know that a state school like Berkeley suffers from grade deflation and then adjusts accordingly. If this was true, then you'd expect that the Berkeley prelaws who were getting admitted would have lower average grades than the admitted Yale prelaws. However, the data indicates that Berkeley prelaws required HIGHER grades.</p>

<p>Nor can this be explained by LSAT scores, which is why I included them in the analysis. Notice that with one exception (Harvard Law), Berkeley prelaws not only needed both higher grades than do Yale prelaws, but also required higher LSAT scores. Yep, that's right, in the vast majority of cases, the Berkeley prelaws required both a higher GPA and a higher LSAT score. Yep, higher. Don't believe it? Look at the data yourself.</p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Law/lawStats.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/Law/lawStats.stm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.yale.edu/career/students/gradprof/lawschool/media/statistics2003.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yale.edu/career/students/gradprof/lawschool/media/statistics2003.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The point is, the data seems to provide no indication that law schools compensate in any way for the grade deflation of state schools like Berkeley. So either there is no grade deflation (a laughably absurd assertion), or law schools don't know that there is grade deflation, or law schools know but don't care. Whatever the reason, the data speaks loud and clear. Forget about what the law school adcoms say they are going to admit, and look at who they ACTUALLY admit, and you can draw your own conclusions about what is really going on.</p>

18

<p>Someone help me out if I'm wrong... but does Berkeley do A+ grading, so that an A+ is a 4.2 or 4.33 or whatever? If so, Sakky, are those GPAs on a 4.0 scale (with A+ = 4.0) or are they on a "4.33" scale?</p>

19

<p>Are you saying that Berkeley is known for grade inflation?</p>

20

<p>Berkeley is not the one doing the A+ = 4.33 grading, it is the LSAC that does that. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.lsac.org/LSAC.asp?url=/lsac/faqs-and-support-lsdas.asp#9%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.lsac.org/LSAC.asp?url=/lsac/faqs-and-support-lsdas.asp#9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The data from Berkeley and Yale indicate that they are both getting their figures from LSAC. Hence, the numbers should be consistently calculated.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.yale.edu/career/students/gradprof/lawschool/media/statistics2002.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yale.edu/career/students/gradprof/lawschool/media/statistics2002.pdf&lt;/a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Law/lawStats.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/Law/lawStats.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>