They can do both, actually. Cal and Mich favor female applicants, for example, for the same numbers. So in a sense, they are holistic within GPA range. Ditto for other diversity that the LS seeks.
Concede the point. If bottom feeders didn’t stretch the truth beyond anything comprehensible), most would cease to exist. 
I was an engineer. What I found was that some law schools wanted a high GPA no matter what; other schools weigh the LSAT more and were more willing to overlook a low GPA.
At least at my alma mater, in my major, the question wasn’t a 3.6 in engineering versus a 3.8 somewhere else; it was more like a 3.2 or a 3.0 versus a 3.8. I think our median GPA was somewhere in the mid/high 2 range.
Law school admissions officers aren’t former engineers who understand that a 2.9 is actually a very solid GPA.
No one is saying that every single law school considers major in admissions decisions. NO ONE has said that. But some of you seem to insist that zero law schools consider major. Perhaps SOME law schools DO consider major and SOME law schools do NOT. Yes! I think that’s it!
Great. Now that we’ve resolved this conflict, let’s move on to the cynical insistence that all law school deans lie. Could it be that some do and some don’t? Hmmm.
OK. Got the snarky out of my system. Now I can go back to being my reasonable self.
I would submit that ALL law schools consider undergrad major, making them ‘holistic’. But, with the exception of a couple of smaller schools – Yale, Stanford and Chicago – the weight that they put on undergrad major is near zero. (It still counts for something, but it is near negligible in the big scheme of things.)
I agree with Barfly.
For the people (such as Demosthenes) who have stated-literally- that a basketweaving major will result in admission to law school as long as the applicant’s GPA is higher than another major, and who have stated that only GPA/LSAT matter:
By that argument, Applicant 1 below would be admitted to law school instead of Applicant 2. I would really doubt that a competent admissions staff at anything other than a bottom-of-the-barrel school would do such a thing:
Applicant 1:
3.805 GPA from Podunk State U.
LSAT: 166
Major: Line dancing
Work experience: Non-academic service jobs in the summer during college; no work experience before law school
Age: 21, senior in college
Applicant 2:
3.80 GPA from MIT
LSAT: 166
Major: Double major in electrical engineering and biology
Work experience: 3 years after college at Merck; 1 year at Bechtel, and desires to become an IP lawyer
Age: 25
Applicant 2 would make a far more appealing candidate for big-name law firms. Since US News weights placement double what it weights GPA, Applicant 2 would be getting into many more law schools than Applicant 1.
Yay! Someone agrees with me!
@bluebayou, “Yale, Stanford and Chicago” (post #23)? “Cal and Mich” (post #20? Where are you getting this stuff? Too funny!
@bluebayou: What basis do we have for the claim that Berkeley and Michigan favor female applicants, all else being equal?
@HappyAlumnus: Applicant 2 would be a much better applicant for firms because of the EE. Take that away, and in line dancer v. biologist, it will depend on law school grades.
@Demosthenes, the work experience and major both play a role in both law school admissions and law firm hiring. It’s not just GPA/LSAT.
@HappyAlumnus: Law firm hiring, no question. The data is clear that some majors are favored (especially IP) and that work experience (if relevant) is a definite plus. Law school admissions, almost certainly not. Only Northwestern cares about work experience so far as I know (it’s possible schools like UDC care, but I don’t have data). Yale might care about major to some extent, but only after GPA/LSAT. The same is true for Stanford. No data supports the view that schools generally care or that, if they do care, major is anywhere near as significant as GPA/LSAT (or even that there is any room left over after taking account of GPA/LSAT). And this data was gathered during the glut of applications. Now, with applications down 40%, the idea that schools will parse by major is absurd.
Again, why are you comparing slight differences in GPA? The reason why I discourage using engineering as “good preparation” for law school is that you’re going to take about a half-point hit on your GPA, minimum. Those engineering classes are scaled to a 2.5.
The question isn’t about what a law school would do with hypothetical applicants; it’s about whether you would be better off applying with a 3.6 in history or a 2.8 in EE. And that question answers itself.
Boalt has been providing a + factor to female apps for decades. Heck, the current 1L class is 58% female; contrast that % to other top law schools. (fwiw: total law school apps from women were higher than men in 2001/02, but are about 10% less than men today.)
Michigan is my hunch, based on watching anecdotes over the past couple of years. But, of course, women have higher average GPA’s than men, so that is a automatic admissions boost, balanced out by the fact that men have slightly higher LSAT scores.
Berkeley favors GPA more than any other T14. If women tend to have higher GPAs, wouldn’t that explain the difference?
@Demosthenes, there’s more to my post than just major.
You’ve claimed repeatedly that law schools care about GPA/LSAT to the (near-)exclusion of everything else, on the grounds that they care about US News rankings. They do, and GPA/LSAT are weighted 0.1 by US News.
Placement is weighted double that- 0.2- by US News. You’re now claiming that even though certain factors may make a candidate more appealing for placement, law schools will disregard those factors…even though placement counts for double what GPA/LSAT counts for in determining US News rankings?
It’s odd to me that a law school would focus on a criterion that counts for 0.1 part of a ranking but disregard a criterion that counts for double, especially in a tough job market.
Unfortunately HLS Dean Minow’s frequent speeches about what law schools look for completely contradict your assertions.
Happy:
The Dean of HLS is probably not the best one to base your position on. HLS has such a large class, that it HAS to accept nearly every applicant with scores over its medians (to protect its medians). There are just not enough 17x’s to go around today.
Chicken or egg, first? 
btw: look at UVa’s numbers: higher median on both GPA and LSAT; UVa is only 36% female. Do those 2 LSAT points really account for a 20 point differential in class gender?
Science says the egg. Boalt cares more about GPA on all its applicants, not just women. If women, as you suggest, get higher GPAs, then this would explain at least some of the differential. I wouldn’t be surprised if Boalt were one of the schools that practices gender AA, but I would like to be sure the position is evidence-based before I tell it to prospective law students.
As for a 2 point difference in LSAT causing a gender difference at UVa, the answer may actually be [url=<a href=“http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/research/all/tr/tr-12-03%5Dyes%5B/url”>http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/research/all/tr/tr-12-03]yes[/url]. Just as women tend to do better in terms of GPA, men tend to do better on the LSAT, by about 2 points. 2 points at the top end is worth quite a lot, and probably is enough to skew the gender numbers.
@HappyAlumnus:
“It’s odd to me that a law school would focus on a criterion that counts for 0.1 part of a ranking but disregard a criterion that counts for double, especially in a tough job market.”
It’s not that odd when you recognize a couple factors. First, employment happens 4 years from today but intake happens now. Especially in a tight economy with decreased applicants, schools cannot afford to sacrifice the certainties of today for the uncertainty of four years from now. Definitely not for the relatively low stakes of 0.1 vs. 0.2.
Second, employment is largely based on school name and 1L grades, with special recruiting for IP eligible students and no real attention to undergrad otherwise. You’re always going to get the same grade distribution (because that’s how a curve works), so there’s no reason to worry about placement. Placement is simply a function of the economy. Lots of demand means that firms will dip lower into the applicant pools, less demand means they won’t.
As for the IP people, there simply aren’t [url=<a href=“http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2015/02/the-curious-case-of-patent-jobs.html%5Denough%5B/url”>http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2015/02/the-curious-case-of-patent-jobs.html]enough[/url] to go around. Only 600 patent bar eligible students took the LSAT. Of those, some won’t go to law school, and many won’t score well enough to get into a decent school. IP firms will dip lower than most due to student rarity, but even they only dip so far.
Your opinion is good as mine, demo, but if you go back to the 70’s, you’ll find some the history on Boalt’s drive for diversity. (But in reality, it should not be a surprise. UC has publicly stated its public policy of discounting test scores…moreover, if you read the minutes of the meetings in which they are discussed, it quickly becomes clear that tests are discounted relative to GPA to improve diversity. They are upfront about it.)
Of course, its no big deal. B-schools and engineering schools do the same, all the while claiming that they don’t.
Better yet, assuming that they are competitive, they should just pay the $75 and find out themselves.
@Demosthenes, where did you go to law school?
In mine, people got plenty of job offers with Biglaw each year, even after the first semester of 1L year (which I did) and even as 3Ls (which I did). Plenty of people don’t wish to return to the law firm where they spend their 2L summer, and so they re-interview. So at least in my law school, hiring isn’t based largely on school name and 1L grades. Grades at all times up to the time of hiring, and undergraduate school name, were the two largest factors in placement success in my law school, as supported by studies that were published in the law school newspaper. How about yours?
So to recap your position:
Law schools focus on GPA/LSAT when admitting applicants, to the near-exclusion of other factors, because law schools value\ the US News rankings very much. Even though placement counts for double what GPA/LSAT numbers count for, for purposes of determining US News rankings, placement-related factors are not really considered by law schools for various reasons.
If I’m not understanding your position correctly, please advise.
Where can I see see evidence of the studies?
“In mine over 20 years ago, people got plenty of job offers with Biglaw each year, even after the first semester of 1L year (which I did) and even as 3Ls (which I did)”
Fixed that for you. Have a fun fact about 3L hiring: in 2014, there were [url=<a href=“http://www.nalp.org/uploads/PerspectivesonFall2014.pdf%5D315%5B/url”>http://www.nalp.org/uploads/PerspectivesonFall2014.pdf]315[/url] offers made to 3Ls (with a 70% acceptance rate, showing just how many of those were people trying to trade up). By comparison, there were approximately 12,600 offers made to 2Ls.
That seems a fairly snarky but not terribly inaccurate statement of my position.