<p>In applying for law schools, is it mandatory to include letters of recs.?
If so, should you must send them through LSAC letter of recommendation service?</p>
<p>Here's another one: How much are these letters weighed in admission compared to GPA and LSAT scores?</p>
<p>I believe that you must send letters of recommendation (usually 2-3) and I'm almost positive that you also MUST send them through LSAC.</p>
<p>They are not nearly as important as your GPA and LSAT and probably will have a minimal impact on your chances unless your recs are extrordinarily personal and full of praise, or, unbelieveably bad.</p>
<p>Lsac.org (search for LSDAS on the left-hand toolbar) will answer those questions in detail. The brief answers are:</p>
<ul>
<li>Most law schools will require recommendations. I did not apply to any, nor fill out applications for any, nor see applications for any (so we're talking at least 20 schools here), which did not require any recommendations.
*Up to three letters can be sent to LSDAS. Most law schools will require that your recommendations are sent through there - at least that is my understanding. Personally, when I applied, my recommenders sent their letters directly to LSDAS (there is a form to fill out that goes with the letters) and every law school received those letters.
*Ideally, those three recommendations would be from academic professors. If you have work experience, a boss would be a good substitute. General rule is that the recommender should be familiar with your writing and analytical abilities as well as your work habits.</li>
</ul>
<p>*EVERYTHING is weighed less than GPA and LSAT.</p>
<p>LORs (letters of rec) are much less important than GPA and LSAT. That said, I think it is false that they have minimal impact on your chances. I think they do matter--far more than many people realize.</p>
<p>Who writes your LOR is important. It need not be a famous big-name prof. However, if you can't come up with two genuine faculty members-- not necessarily tenured faculty--who know you well enough to write meaningful LORs, you are unlikely to get into reach law schools. LSs tend to favor applicants who opened their mouths and talked in class as undergraduates. If you went through four years without getting to know a single faculty member well and have to rely on LORs from TAs, it's unlikely you did. You'll still get into law schools based on your #s, but you are unlikely to get into your reaches, especially if those include very selective law schools. </p>
<p>LORs which say that you were always prepared for class and actively participated in the discussion are a definite plus. LORs that say you write well are too.</p>
<p>Janice Austen, Penn Law Dean of Admissions:</p>
<p>"The way way higher education is shaping up in this country, with large classes, fewer tenured faculty, more graduate students teaching classes - many students tell me that they just don't know the big-name professors that well. That's okay. It's okay to get a recommendation from a TA who knows your work well instead of the sterling professor of international law whom you've never spoken to."</p>
<p>Excerpted from "Law School Confidential," by Robert Miller, 2000 ed.</p>
<p>For certain (perhaps many) schools, Jonri's advice is right on. Same thing for certain majors. If your classes are reasonably sized (i.e. 40 students or lower) and a significant number are taught by faculty, then you should be able to get a good recommendation from a faculty member. However, in certain schools, most classes are taught by TAs. Some courses are just absolutely huge - 300 students, homework that is graded via computer. Some majors/classes are much more conducive to getting LORs than others - honestly, engineering courses were basically all lecture, with little opportunity for discussion and even less for debate. OTOH, the liberal arts courses are much more amenable to that class discussion thing. Not to say that it's impossible to talk, volunteer, and otherwise know your prof in a huge science course - I was known as "the girl who knows what's going on" in orgo - but it's much more difficult. TAs are frequently more aware of writing and class discussion abilities, as they lead the recitations every week.</p>
<p>Just my perspective. Jonri's son (I'm guessing) went to a school that is a similar size to mine, but probably took very different courses - ones in which sitting there, taking notes, would be the epitome of a passive student. I never had a TA teach a course, but know people who have had only TAs or professors with limited English skills - and there are a few hundred other people in the course. </p>
<p>That point aside, reality is that the top group of law schools have between 20 and 30 candidates for every seat. There's probably a bunch of students who have your same profile (stats, major, quality of school, etc), and LORs could distinguish between them.</p>
<p>Of course, this is all very different for those people who are applying as MUCH older applicants.</p>
<p>Aries,</p>
<p>I agree that it's better to get a LOR from a TA who knows you well than from a famous professor whom you've never spoken to. I think that's obvious. I said in my previous post that it wasn't necessary to get a LOR from a big-name prof. So, the quotation from the Penn Law dean doesn't refute what I said. </p>
<p>Again, all I'm saying is that it DOES hurt an applicant who is applying to reach schools if the only LORs he can get are from graduate student TAs. I'm not saying that you have no chance of getting into Harvard Law if both your LORs are from TAs. You definitely do...I know people who have. But, when you are applying to REACH LSs, the person who gets two LORs from faculty members--who need NOT be big names or even tenured--has a MUCH better chance of getting in if those LORs are good than someone with an identical record who can only come up with LORs from TAs. </p>
<p>My comment was NOT based on my own kid's experience. It was based on having observing the results of law school applications and having read comments from law school admissions officers. </p>
<p>I think you may a good point by suggesting that students who go to large public Us and take scantron exams may not be expected to come up with the same sort of LORs as applicants who attend Swarthmore or other LACs. I'm sure that's true. Nevertheless, I think if you take a look at the TOP law schools--the top 6 or 14--I think you will find that the number of students attending who are graduates of the large public Us is relatively small--especially when you compare the percentage of all college students who attend such schools with the percentage of students at top LSs from them. (Even some of those who attended large publics were students in "honors" programs, which offered smaller classes.) While I can't prove it, I suspect one reason is that it's harder for the students on the "cusp," so to speak, in terms of LSAT/GPA who attend large public Us to get strong LORs. </p>
<p>Moreover, based on prior posts, I think the OP is going to start college this fall. I think (s)he should make the effort to get to know profs. LORs CAN and do make a difference.</p>
<p>Jonri,</p>
<p>I agree. I thought about my earlier post and realized that I should have added to it a bit - just my own experience/biases.</p>
<p>As an engineer (I'll remove my second major from this, because most engineers don't have that) I did have a lot of straight-up lecture classes, with problem sets and exams. That's the standard engineering formula. Even though my school was small, there just isn't much natural opportunity for interaction. There are opportunities - indeed requirements - for the types of things that law schools want, such as writing and presentations. Not to belabour a point, but more to make one - here is the list of writing etc courses & teachers:</p>
<p>*physical chemistry lab - very intense written work (10-20 page lab reports which underwent revision, editing, etc) - TAs
*quantum mechanics - grad level - taught by a tenured prof, but it was straight lecture. I was the big "talker" in that course - probably spoke up about four or five times that semester. Six-person course - all the others were grad students. Our grade was based on a paper at the end.
*Design labs - lab work, written papers at the end - taught by an adjunct.
*ChemE course (with required presentation & paper at the end) - adjunct & TA</p>
<p>Do we see a theme here? As I said, it's my own experience. Then again, at a small school, there were tremendous opportunities to work one-on-one with profs in the lab. </p>
<p>As a practical matter to anyone who finds himself in such a situation, I would advise some sort of addendum, explaining why the recs are from TAs or untenured faculty. </p>
<p>I agree that LORs are important - while I don't think that they will really bring up a almost-certain-reject into the admit pile, I do think they would help a student who is in that vast, amorphous glob of numerically qualified students - not the sure admits, not the sure rejects. </p>
<hr>
<p>Re: state schools/large unis (often the same when we are discussing the class size issue). Just my opinion, but I really do think that there is a lot going on there as to why they are not well-represented in law schools, esp. the top ones. There is the issue that your standard Williams kid is probably a heck of a lot smarter than your typical UMass or UConn kid, even those in the honours schools (which requires about the top 20% or so class rank in high school). There's the money issue - the kids who can't afford small private schools are probably much less likely to go onto grad school; to want to take on debt and to see that much tuition money as an investment; and to go to (to use an example from these boards) Harvard Law when UMich is free. There is also somewhat of a socio-economic thing... kids who grew up with wealthy parents might have more desire for wealth (and therefore the top-notch education to get there) than those who grew up with less. In short, the same factors that drive them to a large state university would probably drive them away from the top law schools. LORs, advising, and good class interaction would, IMO, make that worse but is not the underlying problem.</p>