<p>Hey im_blue,</p>
<p>Wow, after listening to 20+ opinions, only your advice really tipped the dynamic in favor of NU...still I'm a history/politics/IR person, and U of C really does seem to have better programs. So what do you think?</p>
<p>Thx!</p>
<p>Someone on the first page mentioned that a lesser known school's student would have to score higher on the LSAT to show they are capable. That seems a bit dubious to me, since it kind of defeats the purpose of a standardized test, no? </p>
<p>A 175 on the LSAT is a 175 on the LSAT no matter what school you attend. This is going to shock some of you, but law school admissions are incredibly weighted toward the LSAT score because of the simple fact that grade inflation has destroyed the meaning of grades at the elite universities. Believe me, law schools know this.</p>
<p>What UCLAri has said is true. Standardized tests are weighted quite heavily, as well they should be.</p>
<p>However, I think we can all agree that grades play a factor as well. And I would also point out that it is often times EASIER to get higher grades at a more prestigious school, because of the grade inflation. The upshot is that it is often times better to go to a more prestigious school, if for no other reason, than to take advantage of the grade inflation. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com</a></p>
<p>First, anyone making a choice between U of Chicago and Northwestern based SOLELY on Yale and Harvard law school admissions--which would be pretty stupid---would choose U of Chicago in a heart beat. Here's the link for where current students at HLS went as undergrads:
<a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php</a>
Given the size of the classes, advantage Chicago, thought the absolute #s are just about the same. The link for Yale Law I had no longer works, but there are definitely more U of C than Northwestern alums. </p>
<p>At the top law schools, including Harvard, and ESPECIALLY at Yale, the difficulty of your course work and your undergrad is considered. I THINK the Yale Law prof who wrote an article about this a while ago was named Solomon. He made NO apologies for the fact that he weighed gpa's from some schools much differently than those from others. Remember, at Yale, the FACULTY makes the admissions decisions. If you don't think the faculty readers look at what courses you took...well, all I can tell you is, that hasn't been true from the results I've seen. Of the "hookless" applicants I know--not URMs, not legacies, no over coming hardships sob story, no incredible achievement that made the newspapers, coming straight from college--the one who had the lowest gpa also had the toughest course load. I doubt that's an accident.</p>
<p>Also the data listed for gpa's and LSATs higher in this thread is I think a little out of date. As far as I know, the most recent published data is that shown at :
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/law/brief/lawrank_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/law/brief/lawrank_brief.php</a>
Not much difference, it's true, but some.</p>
<p>again, I'm not claiming that other law schools work the same way, but this article, which was republished in my local lawyers' newspaper, may be of interest:</p>
<p>Please note the mention of U Chicago.</p>
<p>Oh, and in the anecdote above, I meant the SUCCESSFUL applicant to Yale Law I know with the lowest gpa also had the toughest course load.</p>
<p>I would point out that jonri's links actually serve to illustrate the point that I have been making here on CC about law schools. It is clearly true that strong numbers by themselves will not guarantee admission to a top law school, especially if those strong numbers are obtained at a weak undergrad school. On the other hand, weak numbers will tend to almost-guarantee rejection at the top law schools, even if those weak numbers are due to the fact that you underwent an extremely difficult undergraduate program.</p>
<p>Consider this quote from jonri's posts:
"The [Yale Law School] admissions office gets thousands of applications for a class of 180. Less than 1,000 of these get read by faculty members."</p>
<p>So consider what that means. Out of the thousands of applications that come into Yale, the vast majority of them are thrown away before they are ever read by a human being. Only a fraction of them (1000 of them out of thousands that come in) are actually passed to the next round where they are actual read by humans. And how do they determine which 1000 to pass to the second round? It has to do with numbers and with other mechanical criteria (URM, legacy [Yes, there is also legacy for some law schools], etc.) </p>
<p>Hence, consider the guy who took extremely difficult coursework at an extremely difficult school. He ended up with mediocre grades, although anybody who glanced through his transcript would be able to see that had he taken a 'normal' courseload, he would have gotten stellar grades. The question is, if he applies to law school, will his application even survive to the second round such that his transcript will actually be glanced at? Well, according to the screening process that law schools set up, the answer seems to be 'no'. What will probably happen is that his application will be thrown away without it ever been read by a human being, because his numbers are not good enough to survive the first round. That guy would have been better off just taking easy coursework at an easy school. Yeah, maybe he would have been rejected in the second round, once the faculty members read his transcript and determine that he just went around cherry-picking easy classes. But, hey, at least he survived to get to the second round, and so he still has a chance to demonstrate some hook or wow them with a great essay or whatever. At least you still have a chance. Nobody ever got into law school by getting their app thrown away by the numerical cutoffs.</p>
<p>Hey Sakky (or anybody else),</p>
<p>what's your take at a school like The Evergreen State College where they give no grades, but instead give written evaluations?</p>
<p>UCSC used to have written evaluations as well, but they switched to the normal grading system a few years ago, precisely because their students were having a hard time applying for grad school and jobs.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>You say:</p>
<p>" Out of the thousands of applications that come into Yale, the vast majority of them are thrown away before they are ever read by a human being. Only a fraction of them (1000 of them out of thousands that come in) are actually passed to the next round where they are actual read by humans. "</p>
<p>EVERY application to Yale Law is read by a human being. There are two very smart people in admissions who read every application. They just aren't faculty members. There aren't any automatic numerical cut-offs. Repeat after me: There are no automatic numerical cut-offs. Some amazing applications are then sent to a designated faculty member who rereads them to confirm they are auto admits. If they are, they are in. If not, they go for faculty reads. About 1,000 more are not marked by the admissions office for auto admit and are sent directly to faculty members for review.</p>
<p>Again, Yale's process is unique to Yale. Maybe other schools have automatic numerical cut-offs. I don't claim to know how things work at each of the other 184 ABA accredited law schools.</p>
<p>Oh come on, jonri, you don't see the flaw in what you just said?</p>
<p>You say that every application to Yale Law is read by a human being, and those who are truly outstanding enough to merit 'almost-automatic admit' are sent to a designated faculty member who then rereads them for a confirmation. Yet you also say that 1000 more who do not merit automatic admit are read carefully by faculty members.</p>
<p>Yet since we're talking about Yale Law, I think we can all agree that the 'almost-automatic-admits' are very very few and far between, in fact, is probably an infinitesimal number. According to USNews, the total number of applicants to Yale Law last year was about 3800. So let's do a quick breakdown. A very small number of that 3800 is going to be in the 'almost-automatic-admit' category. That number is going to be so small that we can safely ignore it. Another 1000 will have their apps handed to a faculty member for careful reading. Question is, what happens to the other 2750 or so, which comprise the vast majority of applicants? They're not in the 'almost-automatic-admit' category, and they didn't merit a careful reading of their app by a faculty member. Honestly, now, what do you think really happens to them? I think we can all agree that they are basically placed in the 'probably reject' category. They can call that category whatever they want to call it, but you know and I know that they are probably rejected. Then somebody at YLS might give each one of them a quick scan to see if they missed anything, and if they didn't, then they're tossed.</p>
<p>So, I agree with you that there are no formal automatic numerical cutoffs. But you know and I know that the apps are all screened and sorted into those several piles ('almost-automatic-admission', 'give to the faculty', and 'probable reject', and maybe several other kind of piles), and those who get stuck in the 'probable reject' pile (or whatever you want to call it) are not going to have their app carefully considered. When I said "your apps are thrown away without being read", I was actually talking about a true read and careful examination of your entire application, not just a quick once-over of your app before you get rejected. That, to me, is not "reading your application". </p>
<p>Hence, what it comes down to is that you want your app to be placed in the best 'pile' it can be placed in, which almost always comes down to numbers or other mechanical criteria. The better pile you're in, the better the chance that something good will happen. If you get placed in the 'probable reject' pile, it's hard to make anything good happen. </p>
<p>So, repeat after me, jonri. Every law school, including Yale, uses numerical screens as part of the app process. Some schools use them for automatic decisions. Others use them to sort all their apps into piles, where the higher piles tend to be more carefully considered than the lower piles. But at the end of the day, numerical screens are being used for something.</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>In your prior post, you said no human being will read your application if it didn't meet certain numerical cut-offs. I simply pointed out that's untrue. Megan Barnett, Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid at Yale Law, is one of the two people who does the first read. She is a Yale Law School alumna, not a machine ,and she does read the applications--not just screen them by pre-determined criteria as you indicated.</p>
<p>I CAN tell you because it's been widely reported, that one current Yale 1L has a LSAT score of 158. The person involved is white, BTW. Now, she also has accomplished some very interesting things and is in her mid- to late 30's. </p>
<p>However, if your earlier post were correct and "no human being" even looked at your application if it doesn't meet certain numerical standards, I think it would be impossible for someone with a 158 to get in.</p>
<p>So, if your mythical applicant had a somewhat lower gpa due to an unusually difficult course load, I have full faith in Ms. Barnett's capacity to note that fact. I you don't , Sakky, that's fine. But, don't tell people that "no human being" will even look at their apps if they don't hit certain numbers. That's rather an insult to Ms. Barnett.</p>
<p>In respect to ariesathena's post (#4), are double majors even a factor in admissions? How about BA/MA dual degrees?</p>
<p>any response to my question? thanks.</p>
<p>Is legacy considered at all in law school admissions? Say one of my parents attended Harvard Law School and the other went to grad school at Harvard (but not law). Would that help my chances at HLS at all?</p>
<p>Fine, jonri, when I said 'look' or 'read' previously, I meant 'look carefully', and I meant 'read carefully'. The fact is, every single application at every law school is 'looked at' or 'read' by a human being, if for nothing else, to make sure that every single item of the application exists and that the app fee is paid. So we could say that every application is 'looked at' by a human being.</p>
<p>But you know what I meant. Every application in the world may be looked at by a human being, but not every one is looked at carefully by a human being. I think you would agree that even at Yale, most of the apps are 'looked at' by Ms. Barnett in only a perfunctory manner. I think a fair characterization of what happens is she quickly scans all apps to look for a hook or strong numbers or something else that will make her take notice. If she finds one, she will pass the app along. If she does not, then she will put it in a 'probable reject' pile. And you know and I know that there are going to be many things that pass her by. She is not conducting a thorough and exacting analysis of each app. You need to have something strong that will catch her eye. </p>
<p>However, the general point, which even you, jonri, must agree, is still the same. To maximize your chances of getting into law school, you are better off not being in the 'probable reject' pile (or whatever they call it). The better your numbers are, the more likely that your app will be considered and weighed carefully. Conversely, the worse your numbers are, the more likely you will be passed over and the stronger and more visible the hook you will need. You are better off putting yourself in a position where you will be carefully considered. If you get put in the 'probable reject' pile, you are in a hit-or-miss proposition.</p>
<p>Wildflower,</p>
<p>From past postings, I have the impression that your test scores understate your abilities. Given that Evergreen doesn't use a traditional grading system, graduating from there might cause even more weight than usual to be given to the LSAT. </p>
<p>This may be one factor of many to weigh in your decision. I wouldn't recommend chosing a college solely on its influence on the law school admissions process, but I wouldn't overlook it entirely, either.</p>
<p>"I CAN tell you because it's been widely reported, that one current Yale 1L has a LSAT score of 158. The person involved is white, BTW. Now, she also has accomplished some very interesting things and is in her mid- to late 30's."</p>
<p>Do you mean EW?</p>
<br>
<p>Is legacy considered at all in law school admissions? Say one of my parents attended Harvard Law School and the other went to grad school at Harvard (but not law). Would that help my chances at HLS at all?</p>
<br>
<p>It's considered, but it isn't a big factor. You are only a legacy if your parent went to Harvard LAW, not college or other grad school.</p>
<p>jonri,</p>
<p>where did you find this link? <a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php</a> </p>
<p>Do you have the one for yale law school or any other prominent law schools?</p>
<p>thanks</p>
<p>So instead of thinking about H/Y/S, I should set my sights on more reasonable places like Penn, Berkeley, UCLA, Columbia, NYU, Georgetown, etc. for my "dream" law school?</p>