Why are law school admissions done how they are?

Graduate School Law School
1

<p>I'm sure this question has been asked, but I don't see a clear place to find the answer, and I think it's open enough that a variety of opinions would be great. My question is: why is it that law school admissions ends up being a GPA + LSAT game? OK, I don't know how good a test the LSAT is, and that's up to those who're more knowledgeable to comment on. But what is the deal with valuing GPA as an absolute number, not caring what major you do, etc?</p>

<p>Numerous posts have been made by Sakky, telling how a "creampuff" major could easily beat out an engineering major who puts in comparable work into classes. What's the deal with making GPA an absolute measure, i.e. if a 3.9 in an easy major is truly regarded better than a 3.5 in, say MIT engineering...what's the reason?</p>

<p>Also, how do people feel about the process? By the way, I'm not headed for law school; heading in the direction of grad school, and I rather like the way they do admissions...but a lot of law school prospectives have expressed frustration about the system. </p>

<p>Comment!</p>

2

<p>because American universities are Th3 SuCkz</p>

3

<p>What? I thought they were the best.
That's why this tragedy is painfully regrettable.</p>

4

<p>I know it sucks...it just being about numbers but that means you have a lot of control over your application. Stop complaining, I am a Black male and I have been able to get into schools with impressive numbers. So if I can do it so can you.</p>

5

<p>Law schools do pay attention to the major. Philosophy majors, for example, are very well regarded by law school admissions committees. The LSAT is the most reliable indicator for success in the first year of law school & is somewhat of an an equalizer for GPAs.</p>

6

<p>Think about it logically for 30 seconds - obviously grades have to play an important role, what else do you suggest they judge you on? Of course your undergrad grades are extremely important - why should they take someone who did poorly, regardless of how difficult his major was? And they do take major into account, it's just not too important. </p>

<p>LSAT is more important than GPA, which makes sense, like ColdWind said, it serves as an equalizer - everyone takes the same test. If an Engineering major is truly smarter than a Sports Managment major, then his LSAT score would be higher. And a 3.5 Engineer at MIT would be regarded very highly. "Creampuff" majors like Leisure Studies or Sports Management, don't look good by the way.</p>

<p>Pick a major you genuinally enjoy and will succeed in. Don't major in Chem Engineering for the fun of it if that's not your thing.</p>

7

<p>The LSAT is not an equalizer.</p>

<p>True, most MIT engineering majors are going to be smarter than, and thus have a higher LSAT than, a Random business major.</p>

<p>But, given the competition at the T14, wouldn't it be fair to say that a lot of the time it will be the MIT engineering major versus people equally smart, and who will have a similar LSAT score, but who decided to take an easier major? If LSATs don't vary much at the upper echelons (and they don't, right?), then we are dealing with people of similar intelligences but with vastly different GPA barriers. Then the LSAT won't equalize unless there is causation between a hard major and a high score, but that seems doubtful.</p>

<p>And this isn't even to ask why we want to isolate intelligence anyways. Undergrad doesn't do it. If colleges can place high school GPA's into context, why can't law schools do the same, especially since they work with a much more filtered pool?</p>

<p>Besides GPA, what about extracurriculars and essays and interests? These intangibles are considered, just heavily minimized when compared to undergrad. Wouldn't your personality, life experiences, and all that filler have just as much weight on your future success in life for undergrads as for lawyers (unless, by going to graduate school, you are nullifying their effects by placing yourself in the more rigid structure of law)? It seems like colleges give you one take on life, and law schools counter with exactly the opposite.</p>

8

<p>^^^What?^^^ Which brings up another aspect of law school admissions considerations & law school educational goals: Clear, concise writing.</p>

9

<p>i dont see why u need EC's
ur not gonna have any when u become a lawyer!</p>

10

<p>
[quote]
Besides GPA, what about extracurriculars and essays and interests?

[/quote]
All applicants want to study Law, it's not like Undergrad where they're trying to get a diverse group of majors. EC's are considered, but they're not an important factor - who cares if you're President of the Gardening Club, it's irrelevant. American Undergrad colleges don't focus entirely on SAT/GPA, they allow wiggle room for things like sports, essays, and clubs, whereas most colleges internationally really don't give a crap how much Community Service you did - my Canadian/European friends at NYU say EC's/essays/Sports aren't important admissions factors in their home countries, it's all about your grades. In the end, intelligence, diligence, and grades matter the most, being on the Tennis Team for 4 years is completely irrelevant.</p>

<p>You're no longer a High School senior trying to get into college. Yes, essay, EC's, and those factors come into play a little bit, they help set you apart from the pack, assuming you already have a decent GPA/LSAT. But when it comes down to it, you need good grades, a strong sense of logic (reflected in your LSAT score), and that's what matters. Getting into a top university should be about ACADEMICS primarily, not sports, not how "interesting" you are, not being secretary of the Biology Society, but Grades and LSAT, and that's simply what makes sense. </p>

<p>If you still disagree, that's fine, believe what you like, but if you want to get into Law school, the system is not going to change for you, so get used to it. What's wrong with asking someone to succeed academically? People with the best grades are rewarded, sounds fair to me, much better than letting some dumb jock in because he can bounce a ball around.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
Of course your undergrad grades are extremely important - why should they take someone who did poorly, regardless of how difficult his major was?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It all depends on what you mean by "poorly". Performance is a relative metric. </p>

<p>Let me give you an analogy. My uncle holds the title of Master in chess, which means that he has been officially recognized as a highly skilled chess player according to the international scoring system in use. However, last year, he had a losing chess tournament record because he was playing mostly against people who were ranked far higher than he was (and he would lose most of those matches). </p>

<p>So I guess one could say that he performed "poorly" in 2008 because of his losing record. But what does that actually mean? The fact is, he's still an excellent chess player (who can surely wipe the floor with practically anybody here on CC, including myself). The fact that he was even able to win a few matches at all against the very best competition in the world is itself an impressive feat, even though he ultimately lost more matches than he won. If I had to play the competition that he had, I probably wouldn't have even won a single game in the whole year, much less an entire match. On the other hand, if I were to simply play against people who were complete novices, then I would probably have an undefeated record. But would that actually mean that I would be better than my uncle, just because my playing record would be better?</p>

<p>That illustrates the problem with using grading as a selection criteria. It is harder to "win" (i.e. get a top grade) in some courses than it is in others, just like it is practically impossible to win against Viswanathan Anand, but is quite easy to win against some novice. Heck, even winning a single game against Anand would be a major accomplishment, even if you were to lose every remaining games of the match. But all the law school adcoms would "see" is that you lost most of your games, and wouldn't care that you were actually playing against the world championh. </p>

<p>Now, I agree that the LSAT can act as a partial equalizer. But then that begs the question of if the LSAT is to be used to equalize, then why even use grades at all? Why not just use the LSAT? If the problem is that the LSAT doesn't sufficiently measure a candidate's capabilities, then the real answer is to design a better LSAT. Make it a multi-day affair if necessary. Why not? Many state bar exams are run over multiple days and nobody seems to have a problem with that. </p>

<p>The great advantage of such a system is that it would be fair. Everybody would be taking the same exam. Hence, you wouldn't have to worry about problems introduced by different grading standards, either between different schools, or even within the same school (but between different majors). Let's face it. Some schools and some majors are more easily graded than are others. </p>

<p>
[quote]
What's wrong with asking someone to succeed academically? People with the best grades are rewarded, sounds fair to me

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The problem is that that leads to people gaming the system by deliberately choosing the easiest possible classes and/or classes on subjects that the students already know. For example, I've known people who were already fluent in a foreign language but who decided to take the intro courses of that language anyway, just to get a string of easy A's. They didn't learn a darn thing and barely lifted a finger in those classes, but they got their top grades and that's all they cared about.</p>

12

<p>uh dude
as somebody who's actually AT a law school
i'm seeing a lot of not-that-bright people here
who went to <strong><em>ty UGs and gunned to get 3.8s and studied their ass off for the LSATs (a very studiable test) and scored like a 167.
not the brightest bulbs that i've come across. not to sound like a *</em></strong>*bag (although i've become one), but i've come to really value the fact that you can tell a lot about someone by their undergraduate college (though of course, not always the case, but the ones that surprise me are the exception, rather than the norm)</p>

<p>yes, it doesn't seem to really matter whether you did math at MIT (engineers are held to a different standard it seems) or communications at Tri-Valley State University.</p>

<p>instead of asking why law schools do it like this, consider why colleges do their complicated stuff with essays and ECs.
they're not in it to educate machines to do jobs. top colleges, arguably the ones that pay most attention to the soft factors, are colleges that will not have a "job" major--finance, business, communications, etc, with a certain exceptions (there's a reason why a lot of people diss Penn for being a glorified vocational school).
colleges seek to educate the "whole person" who will become "leaders" and "innovators" and all that stuff.
not so much for law school. they want to produce lawyers. lawyers who go to top firms. higher employment % => higher ranking => more students that want to come => higher ranking => higher employment % and so on. it's a numbers game because legal employment is largely a numbers game. Penn was not highly regarded as a law school until only a few years ago. Look where it is now. Numbers matter a lot, they realize that. Unfortunately ECs are not quantifiable (nor does it make you a good dilligent associate which law firms like).</p>

13

<p>OK to anyone who states EC's are not going to be the major factor...sure. I'm familiar with how grad schools similarly don't care <em>at all</em> what you do with your time, except for if it relates to the given field you want to study. Law schools seem to be similar, perhaps...and instead play a numbers game. </p>

<p>Honestly though, I think if law school wants people who're smart, communicate well, etc, I can't see why a pure numbers game could possibly be advantageous. Who started this system! I mean, an engineer from MIT with a 3.5 is quite smart....and see, even if a major isn't creampuff, hey not all "non-creampuff" majors are the same. Some are just unconditionally graded worse. </p>

<p>I dunno, is it a myth that such matters aren't taken into consideration enough? Sakky certainly doesn't think so. Most of my friends who're prelaw complain and agree with Sakky. I'm wondering how things got to be the way they are -- is it just too hard to conduct a more subtle process which takes things in perspective more?</p>

14

<p>Well OK just above me someone AT LAW SCHOOL seems to agree that the "myth" I refer to is not a myth: "yes, it doesn't seem to really matter whether you did math at MIT (engineers are held to a different standard it seems) or communications at Tri-Valley State University."</p>

<p>To the poster who wrote this, I gather you wrote something about a "numbers game" -- but still believe a lot of "not so bright" people made it to your law school, less bright than you'd like. Would you not consider part of the reason this is to be that there's a little flaw in the game?</p>

<p>A good sort of similar admissions in the undergraduate realm is UC Berkeley's engineering department. I know of cases where guys apply to EECS, to be rejected, who're really <em>genuinely good at math and physics</em> and am certain they could be A students in Berkeley. Berkeley, however, will take a high school valedictorian with inflated stats over these! And many such valedictorians will not be <em>that bright</em> when it comes down to engineering. Berkeley's game is a pretty "pure numbers" one, and it certainly has a flaw to it. I think this may be similar to the one the poster above me mentions, i.e. why he's surprised at who got into his law school?</p>

<p>But why mass scale do law schools do it this way? I didn't quite understand the point that the law profession is just intrinsically number-based.</p>

15

<p>Wrote above post in a hurry...have to go somewhere, kind of poorly worded.</p>

16

<p>"Why not just use the LSAT? If the problem is that the LSAT doesn't sufficiently measure a candidate's capabilities, then the real answer is to design a better LSAT. Make it a multi-day affair if necessary. Why not? Many state bar exams are run over multiple days and nobody seems to have a problem with that."</p>

<p>I actually designed an entire forum based on the fact that scores like SAT II's, etc, are poor indicators in many cases of true college success. The SAT, however tough to score perfectly on, has its limitations. As does the LSAT, I imagine [note - I don't know how good of a test it is]. However, I guess I just don't know how possible it is to design a <em>single test</em> to produce law school compatible machines =]</p>

<p>I know, for instance, that India institutes the IIT JEE, a pretty long, intensive, tough test which is designed to help admit competitive engineers to the engineering institute. The exam, however tough and unflaky, does have flaws. </p>

<p>I am not sure what can be done, though. It definitely would be a step to begin taking into account a student's major background more seriously. An MIT math major is probably not something to sneeze hard at.</p>

17

<p>"Getting into a top university should be about ACADEMICS primarily, not sports, not how "interesting" you are, not being secretary of the Biology Society, but Grades and LSAT, and that's simply what makes sense.</p>

<p>If you still disagree, that's fine, believe what you like, but if you want to get into Law school, the system is not going to change for you, so get used to it. What's wrong with asking someone to succeed academically? People with the best grades are rewarded, sounds fair to me, much better than letting some dumb jock in because he can bounce a ball around."</p>

<p>Note -- I hope this tirade is addressed to someone other than me =] I certainly believe any schooling beyond the undergraduate stage should take <em>very specific</em> factors into consideration. We want smart guys in law school. That begs the question - why is it that we're admitting guys with the best numbers, rather than the smarter guys.</p>

18

<p>Nah not to you, it was to the person before me who was asking why EC's don't play a bigger role.
[quote]
That begs the question - why is it that we're admitting guys with the best numbers, rather than the smarter guys.

[/quote]
Just think about it logically. Law Schools receive thousands of applications a year, they can't do an in-depth analysis to determine exactly who is the most intelligent. Being smart isn't everything. There are smart students who are lazy and get C's and wouldn't make it through Law school. It makes sense to look at a person's grades to evaluate them - what else are they supposed to look at? How exactly are they supposed to determine how intelligent thousands and thousands of applicants are? Naturally, they look to see what kinds of grades you received during your Undergrad years, and how you performed on a standardized test like the LSAT. And "smart" people generally manage a decent GPA. A 3.5 MIT Engineer would easily get into a Law school (assuming his LSAT is high).</p>

<p>I know it's not completely fair. But no one forces a person to go to MIT and major in Chemical Engineering - you choose to do that by yourself, you do it because you want to, and you know the consequences. You know your GPA isn't going to be as high as someone at an easier college, in an easier major.</p>

<p>I go to NYU, and I'm trying to transfer to Cornell, which is not easy to get a high GPA in. My major is Econ, which some people consider a Creampuff major, others I've met struggle with it and can't handle basic calc. Now, I could take the easy way out - apply to an easy college, major in Sports Management, get a 3.9, but I'm deliberately choosing not to do that, knowing the consequences, and I will not complain later on, because I know the game works, and I'm playing anyway.</p>

19

<p>I see, so stargazerlilies, you mean that it's a question of reasonably having the resources to differentiate among students? j</p>

<p>"I'm deliberately choosing not to do that, knowing the consequences, and I will not complain later on, because I know the game works, and I'm playing anyway."</p>

<p>Sure, I very much rather people do what you do. I guess my one sadness with this state of affairs is that it really discourages people from majoring in what they'll gain most from or enjoy. Hey, someone may major in Sports Management and actually love it. I have no clue. Someone may NOT want to major in engineering legitimately. But the people who really are faced with an awkward choice are those who want to major in something which is traditionally hard. Another problem, which is brought up by you -- some schools are just a lot, lot harder to do well in. Cornell, Berkeley, MIT, Caltech [yikes!]. OK fine, not too many law schoolers from Caltech maybe, but all the same! I feel people are encouraged to take fewer risks, both in what school they go to and what major they pick. </p>

<p>"Being smart isn't everything. There are smart students who are lazy and get C's and wouldn't make it through Law school."</p>

<p>I'm sure you understand that I'm mainly vouching for someone going with his passion, majoring Chem-E at Berkeley, and getting thrashed left and right but coming on top with a pretty good GPA after lots of hard work...</p>

<hr>

<p>Anyway, I mean, how about this? We want smart, hardworking, capable law schoolers. So, first, there should be some demonstrated aptitude for law. Let's say we have a very good LSAT type exam which vouches for this.</p>

<p>And, to account for different difficulties, we can have a sort of indexing which will account for one major being harder than another, one school being tougher than another, etc. For easier majors, make the LSAT count more! For a hard major, let GPA carry some significant weight. </p>

<p>Why should GPA be even close to a standardized numerical measure if the LSAT itself is meant to be a standardized measure? The reason GPA even exists, if I can assess correctly, is that an LSAT is just <em>one test</em> and may not produced as nuanced and complete a reflection of what a student is like. But if GPA IS to do so, why would it become an absolute number, nothing more? Should it not be indexed in some way to account for (Not even very) subtle differences, e.g. that between an easier and harder major? Else GPA seems to serve as an obscuring, rather than clarifying, factor, which seems to lead me to favor the LSAT a lot....even when I personally am heavily against a single exam determining any kind of future.</p>

20

<p>First let me say I'm just an undergrad, I know very little about Law school, I just know LSAT/GPA counts big time, and I kind of get why.
[quote]
And, to account for different difficulties, we can have a sort of indexing which will account for one major being harder than another, one school being tougher than another, etc. For easier majors, make the LSAT count more! For a hard major, let GPA carry some significant weight.

[/quote]
Now, you're living in a very idealized world here...this is a nice thought, but hardly realistic. </p>

<p>First, there's the question of how tough a school is, which is hard to determine. I know Econ majors at NYU who are struggling, I know Econ majors who say it's easy-peasy and barely study. These people are in my classes, so they're all learning the same material, with the same professors - yet if they were to rate the difficulty, you would get all kinds of responses! Some people struggle with basic Calculus, others breeze by. An NYU student can take all easy classes with easy professors and get A's, or he can take difficult courses with difficult professors and get poor grades - thus it becomes difficult to assess how difficult a school is. But NYU is just 1 school - there are over 4,000 colleges (CC's, state schools, private colleges, LAC's, universities) in the U.S.A, not to mention International applicants! Plus, some applicants can't afford anything better than 2 years of CC followed by 2 years at State school - should we penalize them?</p>

<p>Then let's talk about difficulty of major. Biology is difficult, you say. But Bio classes are curved big time - in my freshman Bio class, a 70% and up was an A! Not true in a Creative Writing class. Some majors we can easily say are hard, like Engineering and Physics. Others we can say are easy, like Leisure Studies. But there are many majors out there, at least 100, and most are inbetween - to rate them in terms of difficulty is hard. Tell someone their major is easy, they'll tell you 10 reasons why it isn't. Some people say Econ is a Creampuff major, you only need 10-12 core classes, the concepts are easy. Others say it's very difficult, they have trouble understanding the theories and applications. An Econ major can take easy classes with easy profs, or lots of difficult, advanced classes with the toughest profs, so the major can be easy or hard. </p>

<p>Also, are we talking about difficulty in terms of workload, or how hard it is to understand? History is relatively easy to grasp, in terms of concept, but it is a lot of work, a lot of writing papers and long nights spent in study - so who's to say whether it's hard or easy?</p>

<p>Just some things to think about.</p>