<p>Hi everybody. I'm a freshman at university, and I decided not to get involved in extracurriculars my first year, in order to focus on grades. I remember reading this forum a couple years ago, and members such as sakky were adamant that EC's played a minimal impact in the admissions process--how true is that statement?</p>
<p>Second, right now I'm a Research Assistant for an English prof (not that much work; but it's a position only seniors are supposed to receive), and do my work-study in the Eng. Dept, which is my major's dept.--those are my only two official activities, and I get the feeling they're not nearly enough. What level of EC involvement is respectable in the eyes of a law-school admissions officer?</p>
<p>First, there are about 185-190 ABA-accredited law schools. They do NOT all pick students exactly the same way. Given your current ECs, unless you get some genuinely interesting work experience, I'd forget Stanford and Yale. I'd say that even if you have a gpa above 4.0--as 12.5% of a recent class at Harvard Law did--and a 180 LSAT. And, if you don't have work experience, you should probably avoid Northwestern. </p>
<p>Otherwise, well, LSAT plus GPA make up about 80% of law school admissions decisions. So, if you have a gpa above the 75th percentile for a law school and a LSAT above the 75th percentile and you didn't major in marketing or recreation or sports management, you'll probably be admitted--especially if you apply early in the cycle. </p>
<p>But, among those who have gpa's and LSATs in say the 25-50% range, I'd argue that ECs matter. Letters of rec matter too--and your current employment may help in that regard. </p>
<p>So, if you don't want to do more ECs--well, I think you'll get into most law schools at which BOTH your gpa and LSAT are above the 75th percentile. But you're less likely to get into a "reach" law school than your classmate with similar--or even slightly worse #s--and solid ECs.</p>
<p>Moreover, on a personal note...ECs in college are worth doing even if law schools don't weigh them heavily. Among other things, it's how you make friends. And, being able to bring in business matters a LOT in partnership decisisons. ECs are a good way to meet your future clients. +++++++++++</p>
<p>When I applied to law schools about 10 years ago, the conventional wisdom was that EC's weren't that important. Which was good for me, because I didn't do a single EC while in college. Anyway, I went to a Division I undergrad school, so it wasn't as though I could walk onto the swim team on a lark.</p>
<p>Perhaps things are more competitive now, so EC's count for more?</p>
<p>Anyway, my advice would be to do internships and get work experience. It's very easy while you're in college to build up an impressive resume in this way. You make contacts and learn about the workplace. </p>
<p>Imagine if you can write in your application essay exactly why you want to be an attorney and exactly what you are interested in doing after law school? It seems to me that's worth a lot more than being president of the chess club.</p>
<p>I think that there are many reasons why participating in ECs in undergrad is a great idea. Among those reasons, participating in ECs enables you to better take advantage of the full breadth of opportunities available to you while you are an undergrad. In other words, find things that interest you and get involved in those things. For all of the tuition money that you or your parents (or grandparents or strangers on the street) are paying, I think that there is a lot to be gained from clubs and sports (competitive or intramural) and volunteer work, etc. In addition, anyone who is looking for a well rounded individual, either as someone to round out a law school class or to hire, they will be looking for someone who has a lot more going for them than good grades. </p>
<p>For example, I know, from my experience recruiting for my law firm, that we always looked for someone who did a lot more than graduate summa cum laude. We were looking for people with great grades, who also had something else going on that gave them some depth and personality. Certainly at my law firm, and I've been told that at most of the other big law firms (at least in NYC and Boston), you do have to prove that you are someone who the firm would want to put front and center when dealing with clients. Since it often takes a very different (and social) set of skills to be successful in ECs (whether in college or law school or both), including the ability to be persuasive without ramming a point down someone's throat, those ECs can be the "proving factor" that makes a law firm believe that a certain individual can be successful there. If law firms are thinking this way, then I have to believe that law schools (who are very concerned about their reputations, and whose reputations are very dependent upon the willingness of law firms to hire students from that law school) to some extent think this way too during the admissions process.</p>
<p>It doesn't always have to be one or the other. In theory (and as is probably the norm), you can focus on ECs during the school year and jobs/internships during the summer.</p>
<p>"unless you get some genuinely interesting work experience, I'd forget Stanford and Yale"</p>
<p>And what exactly would constitute "genuinely interesting work experience"? I-Banking? Consulting? Start up? Private Investigator working in the third world? Running for local office? I am really curious.</p>