<p>"Well, I would argue that I think it is not just at ariesathena's school. Berkeley (which I don't think ariesathena went to) is highly explicit about the fact that the average engineering student enters with a higher GPA and SAT score (including the SAT-verbal)than do Berkeley liberal arts students do. The same is true for UCLA, and in fact, it is true for most schools that run separate admissions tracks for engineering students and non-engineering students. The evidence seems to be fairly clear. All you have to do is examine the admissions data at, at least, the UC schools." </p>
<p>As noted, if a school has clear evidence of a differential in admissions for different programs, that should certainly be taken into account, along with the program mean, when assessing the value of grades from that program. Similarly, the differentials in admissions at different schools should be taken into account, along with the school mean, when assessing the value of grades.</p>
<p>But you can't simply assume this is always the case in the absence of clear evidence. And, of course, liberal arts majors at many schools will have higher admissions criteria than engineers at many other schools. </p>
<p>"And to the point that law schools have a vested interest in producing successful lawyers, well, I think that while that is true in theory, the reality is that that incentive is weak at best. AFter all, if you are an admissions officer, then the fact that you admit a class of students that is unusually strong or unusually weak won't come to light until years, possibly decades after the fact, and by then, you're probably not working there anymore anyway, so what do you care? On the other hand, if you admit a class that has an unusually low GPA or LSAT score thus causing the ranking of the law school to drop, then the Dean of the law school (who is your boss) is going to want an explanation immediately. In other words, the feedback mechanism for insuring that the adcom really is bringing in what is truly the best future group of lawyers that they can get is weak at best. It is something akin to those CEO's who manipulate short-run earnings to make themselves look good, at the detriment to the long-run health of the company, figuring that, hey, in the long run, he's not going to be running the company anymore anyway, so who cares what happens then? That's the next CEO's problem. All that matters is goosing short-run results."</p>
<p>Clearly, schools are concerned with their rankings. This is one reason they focus on LSAT/GPA. But let's keep in mind that the reason LSAT/GPA is important in the rankings is because they generally denote a strong student body. So the focus on numbers is about producing a strong class as much as pure ranking concerns. (If you really don't think the admissions people at most schools care about the long-term health of their school, which will be strongly affected by the quality of their alumni, both in terms of reputation and contributions, then I think you're mistaken. These are long-term positions for most adcoms.) </p>
<p>Of course, of the two factors (LSAT/GPA), LSAT is weighed far more heavily than GPA (in both rankings and admissions), which makes sense given that LSAT is a better (and more objective) predictor of LS aptitude and success. And there's no reason to believe the LSAT unfairly discriminates against engineers. If anything, this concern is a reason to weigh the LSAT even more heavily. </p>
<p>And there's also no question that it makes more sense to choose people with higher GPA's, once other factors are controlled for. The only question here is how best to control for those other factors. </p>
<p>"And besides, Cardozo, we aren't talking about anecdotal anomalies there. You say that some engineers out there would be screwed in an arts class. Of course. On the other hand, I could point to some guys who are wizards in liberal-arts classes who can't handle law classes to save their lives. The point is not to look at a few isolated data points, but rather to look at where the trends lie. The fact is, the trend indicates that engineering students tend to be extremely hard working."</p>
<p>Based on what? All I've seen so far is ancedotal evidence. I don't necessarily disagree, but you've got to support that with facts. </p>
<p>"Not all of them, true. But the trend is clear."</p>
<p>To who?</p>
<p>"And hard work is a key asset, arguably the most key asset, to doing well in law school. Let's face it. On average, liberal arts students are not as hard-working as engineering students are. We can all come up with isolated exceptions, but the trend is clear."</p>
<p>Sorry, not to me. I mean, we all like to think that our major is the most challenging one out there, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. </p>
<p>"This is particularly so for those students who do well enough to get into top law schools - the engineering students with top grades in general worked significantly harder than did the liberal arts students with top grades, on average."</p>
<p>Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on what schools they came from, what the means were there, etc. </p>
<p>"We can also talk about some dumb engineers, but the fact is, we all know that there are far far more dumb (and extremely lazy) liberal arts students."</p>
<p>Well, you obviously believe that, but in the absence of clear evidence, we can't make assumptions just to make people feel better about their respective majors. I know from my own experience, having attended a university with a top engineering program, that the engineers I knew were no more intelligent or hardworking than most of the liberal arts students I knew. (And I lived with several.) And yes, that's anecdotal, but your impressions appear to be as well. </p>
<p>"It's all about where the data points congregate, not where a few isolated data points lie."</p>
<p>I agree, and I think the adcomms should actually look at the actual evidence, as opposed to relying on questionable stereotypes. </p>
<p>Ultimately, as I noted, where there is actual evidence that a certain program (whatever it may be) has higher admissions requirements, and a lower mean, then schools should definitely take that into account, just as they should similarly take these factors into account for different schools. This should compensate for any actual differentials in demands between different programs and majors. </p>
<p>Howver, in the absence of such evidence, we can't make blanket assumptions about any candidate simply based on major, because there is an even larger differential in admissions requirements at different universities. This is especially true in light of the fact that students who take technical majors, like engineering, may also actually be handicapped in terms of law school performance in various respects. While they may be hardworking, for example, they generally have less opportunity to develop the reading and writing skills that are required in law school. In addition, they are probably less likely to have developed the ability to think creatively and conceptually manipulate ideas, which is also important for lawyers. (I'd be interested to see how engineers actually perform in law school in relation to their classmates, if any studies have been done.) So a per se rule wouldn't make much sense to me. </p>
<p>I'm sure most engineers are bright and hardworking, and as noted, to the extent there is any evidence of differentials in demands and competition, within majors as well as between schools, that evidence should (certainly) correspondingly be factored in when determining the actual value of the GPA. (There are, of course, other majors that are even more demanding than engineering.) Write up a petition, and I'll be the first signatory. I'm just saying that, due to the many other factors involved, any differential in weighing should be based on all the actual available evidence, and calculated in a rational, meaningful manner. I doubt any fair-minded person would disagree with either of these basic points. </p>
<p>Finally, the good news for engineers, or anyone else from a more challenging major, is that the LSAT is again far more important than GPA for LS admissions. To the extent a major is more intellectually demanding or more rigorous than another, people in that major should have an advantage on the exam, presuming they have actually developed the relevant abilities in the process. </p>
<p>For one thing, their brains should presumably be more developed by the more challenging material, which will enable them to score higher. </p>
<p>However, just as importantly, if they really are harder working, and had to develop that ethic even more in the major, this should also give them an advantage on the test. Unlike the SAT, the LSAT requires far more preparation for most students, and the willingness to invest a great deal of time and energy on the exam, in my opinion, is almost as important (if not more so) than innate ability in terms of one's eventual score.</p>