<p>Hello folks. I'm a 25 year old army vet. I've completed two years at my local community college and, recently, I've had the good fortune of being accepted to Amherst College as a transfer student. I realize that law school admissions, primarily, look at GPA and LSAT scores with ECs and job experience being marginal considerations, however, I'm wondering if military experience is an exception. I will be 27 by the time I apply to some of these top schools and I'm wondering if my experience as a young soldier will make me a more appealing candidate to Harvard/Yale/Georgetown/ect.</p>
<p>It will be a plus, but not a deciding factor.</p>
<p>It will be a soft and that is it, really, they do not care. It is all about your GPA and LSAT. There are lots of veterans applying every year.</p>
<p>It can be a factor if competing with people with identical numbers, and the other person has not done much.</p>
<p>Hrm. I’m not so sure of this one. I know my school only has a couple combat vets; I’d have to assume this would be a relatively big deal.</p>
<p>kfc555,</p>
<p>Veterans make up a pretty small segment of society. I feel pretty connected to this group and I highly doubt that there are “lots of veterans” applying every year to top law schools, because I’ve never even met or heard of one. Granted, I don’t know all veterans and I could be totally wrong about this, so feel free to strike me down with some hard cold facts.</p>
<p>Actually there are lots of veterans applying, me included. </p>
<p>But beleive what you like, just make sure to concentrate on keeping your GPA as high as possible and get a great LSAT because it will be those things that get you tino a top law school.</p>
<p>Being a veteran will not overcome low a LSAT/GPA, but will assit on being a tie breaker or if you are in a split situation.</p>
<p>^
Fair enough. </p>
<p>However, I hope it never seemed like I was asking whether or not being a veteran will overcome a low LSAT and GPA. I assume most people who apply to the Top 14 have high stats. If being a veteran is a “tie breaker” then it would be a significant advantage because I’m sure, even with competitive scores, I will be “tied” with many applicants.</p>
<p>Assuming that your grades and LSAT scores are in the range for the law schools to which you choose to apply, your experience in the military will be a significant factor in you admissions profile. (In fact, it will help you tremendously again when you are interviewing for summer and permanent jobs). The responsibility you have had, your experience and your (presumed) maturity will likely impress the admissions professionals reviewing your application. Again, this is all assuming that your numbers are “in the range” for a given law school.</p>
<p>I just checked–as of the academic year just completed, Yale Law School had nine veterans enrolled:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.law.yale.edu/YLR/pdfs/v54-2/War_to_YLS.pdf[/url]”>http://www.law.yale.edu/YLR/pdfs/v54-2/War_to_YLS.pdf</a></p>
<p>I thpught some of the vets might enjoy reading this article about their experiences, particularly the shift to law school. </p>
<p>My hunch is that it’s a great soft factor. My guess–which is just that, a guess–is that Stanford and Yale Law would be particularly interested. They stress “soft” factors more than most law schools. Of course, your numbers have to be good, but both schools take a few “stories” every year.</p>
<p>jonri: I’ve been told that only two of them are “combat veterans”–not sure what this distinction means. I see that a couple of these folks were '08, which might explain the mild difference?</p>
<p>The distinction is simple–they served in combat, i.e., action. It’s quite possible to serve in the military without ever being in combat.</p>
<p>^
It’s not exactly that simple jonri. In order to be a combat veteran, you must serve in a “Combat Operation”. That doesn’t mean you have to see “action”. On the contrary, there are numerous soldiers working in Iraq in a non-combat capacity: people who sit at desks, mechanics, ect. They are all part of “Operaton Iraqi Freedom” and, therefore, are “combat veterans” even though they’ve never actually seen combat.</p>
<p>That’s what I was going to ask: what exactly does combat mean? Does it simply mean deployed in a combat zone? (This seems to be what JL is explaining.) Or does one have to have been shot at, shot at enemies, actually inflicted casualties, etc.</p>
<p>I stand corrected…thanks!</p>
<p>bluedevil,</p>
<p>The military awards other honors to distinguish between “combat veterans” who have actually seen combat and people in a support role who have never seen “danger” in the same sense. For infantry, there is a Combat Infantry Badge, awarded after making contact with the enemy, while other’s receive the Combat Action Badge. Army commendation medals, and even bronze stars are basically handed out arbitrarily “just for playing”, and are fairly meaningless in today’s military, to be perfectly honest. However, any of those awarded “in valor” means the recipient must have done something pretty brave or awesome under direct contact with the enemy. Those who receive commendation medals and bronze stars under those circumstances, receive a special designation in the form of a “V device” which is worn on the Class A and Dress Blue uniforms. And in order to receive a Silver Star or above, one must do something pretty darn badass, usually resulting in personal injury. Silver Stars and above are often awarded posthumously.</p>
<p>Interesting. I’ve been wondering about that for a while. Thanks, JL.</p>
<p>“and even bronze stars are basically handed out arbitrarily “just for playing”, and are fairly meaningless in today’s military, to be perfectly honest.”</p>
<p>I thought it was just me thinking that. If I don’t see a “V”, then I don’t think much of it.</p>