Why are law school admissions done how they are?

Graduate School Law School
21

<p>stargazerlilies:</p>

<p>I have no problem with law schools' predilection for numbers. I'd be completely fine with an admissions based 100% on a one-time LSAT score.</p>

<p>What I'm curious about is why their message is so inconsistent with the message of undergrad universities. Supposedly, various intangibles amount to a big deal in how the rest of your life develops. Selecting for the right intangibles is tantamount to picking life's winners, no matter what the actual course of study, because it's the whole person that matters. Choosing successful people would obviously have benefits for the institution. So why are colleges holistic and law schools not?</p>

<p>I have no idea how much being basketball captain aids you later on in life. Undergrad implies such people have leadership and teamwork skills that carry over to other areas of life, thus justifying their admission over more academically qualified students. I can see the same in law; wouldn't the bolder, social law student perform better?</p>

<p>You say that law schools don't have to fill their sports teams because everyone there is there to study law. Well concerning the former, college sports teams are not an ends to themselves (at least for Ivy-level schools). Instead, they are another means of developing the qualities that will lead to success down the road. It's not about filling rosters.</p>

<p>On another topic, all of the problems you posed are present in undergrad as well. Yet they handle it. Colleges have to differentiate between WAY more than 4000 high schools. And those high schools have grading systems that are WAY more undocumented and arbitrary than the occasional bio curve.</p>

<p>Personal differences in difficulty are encountered in undergrad as well. But perhaps they're mitigated by having everyone touch upon every subject.</p>

<p>Just because people are aware of the rules do not make the rules desirable.</p>

22

<p>Star -- yes I am idealizing =] I know what you're saying. It's unfortunate, but yeah I can imagine it's not so easy to take factors into account beyond a point...</p>

<p>BUt seriously, I think they could make it a lot different from how it seems to be now!! I mean, come on, Chem-E at Berkeley! If an objective measure is needed, use standardized tests. I mean, you saw my little theory that GPA is necessary in the picture only because the LSAT is a single test.</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>

<p>If GPA is to be used as a numerical check, I would say that most logically, we should measure "difficulty" by how tough it is to achieve good <em>grades</em> -- i.e. unconditionally, Chem-E at Berkeley beats history at Berkeley. To some extent, this is reflected by grade averages in the major. I.e., one can utilize two factors: a normalized GPA (normalized according to mean grade averages) and standard GPA. Look at both numbers. Do a little adjusting based on the normalization. This seems feasible to me. I think looking up UCB EE grade charts or O-Chem grade charts and normalizing scores is pretty feasible at least objectively...even if it takes much extra effort. </p>

<p>Look even WITH normalization, I think the Chem-E major is disadvantaged...because he competed against some of the strongest students at Berkeley to get his grade. I.e., say two normalized GPA's are the same. Well, the normalized GPA of the Chem-E fellow only takes into account that average grades in the major are low. It doesn't take into account that getting THE AVERAGE grade in the major may itself be harder than getting ABOVE average in another major, given how good the students are. </p>

<p>But at least there is SOME standardization. This would just mean that a CHem-E major shouldn't plan on law school unless he/she is finding himself/herself doing better than most in the same major.</p>

23

<p>"On another topic, all of the problems you posed are present in undergrad as well. Yet they handle it. Colleges have to differentiate between WAY more than 4000 high schools. And those high schools have grading systems that are WAY more undocumented and arbitrary than the occasional bio curve."</p>

<p>Not sure what this implies...I do think undergrad admissions has a really icky, sticky time figuring out how capable of handling tough college majors undergrads are, based on shallow stats like SAT's and high school GPA. That's pretty darn clear. </p>

<p>"I have no idea how much being basketball captain aids you later on in life. Undergrad implies such people have leadership and teamwork skills that carry over to other areas of life, thus justifying their admission over more academically qualified students. I can see the same in law; wouldn't the bolder, social law student perform better?"</p>

<p>This is a valid question. I mean, I don't favor overuse of such intangibles in undergrad either, even if a little is forgiven. But it does beg the question as to why only undergrad schools do it. I wouldn't say the question is why law school does NOT do it. Because honestly, undergrad admissions is the only highly "intangible based" one I know.</p>

24

<p>Since my D1 (a freshman) is interested in law school and is taking the toughest course load at one of the top schools/ not MIT, I have being intensely read the law school admissions for last a few days. Here's my observasions:</p>

<p>Someone from MIT with 3.5 GPA in engineering should have no problem on LSAT (should be able to get 175-180 on LSAT without problem at all). With LSAT 175+, his chance of getting into one of the T3 law (YHS) is definitely better than the 10% admission rate of an average YHS applicant, assuming he applied to all three. His chance of getting into the next three (Columbia/ Chicago/ NYU) is much better. For next 10, he is almost guaranteed to gain admission into one of them (provided if he applied for more than 3 schools in that group).</p>

<p>In most of the cases, LSAT scores do carry more weight than GPAs. A very high LSAT (177-180) can make some ground for not very high GPAs (3.3). But a 4.0 GPA with an LSAT less than 160 in 99% of the situation will not be able to make ground for an applicant to get into T6 law schools (YHSCCN). There will always be some rare exceptions.</p>

25

<p>Susan, thanks for your input. </p>

<p>I actually think with your input, I am convinced that if we just normalized GPA's to reflect the low averages obtained, even with the one obvious lingering disadvantage to those who do tough majors, their averages should be high enough. </p>

<p>Say a 3.5 in MIT engineering translates to a bit of a higher number than 3.5 in the scope of things. Say at least a 3.7. A 3.7 + wonderful LSAT's seems to be very good for top schools.</p>

26

<p>But I do believe that a normalized GPA is a good idea. Given the fact that it at least SOMEWHAT takes into account how hard it is to do well in the major.</p>

<p>Obviously though, the normalized GPA has to take into account school caliber- heh, say the average GPA in a "high school dropout" college is 1.4. I'm sure we shouldn't be considering these guys above MIT students :)</p>

27

<p>In response to post #24:</p>

<p>While a 3.5 in engineering at MIT would be no small feat, I think it's a mistake to assume that being able to get those sorts of grades translates into one easily being able to score a 175-180 on the LSAT. While I think this sort of person could easily crush the logical games section, it's less clear on the logical reasoning and reading comprehension sections. I know not a few people who are math/science whizzes who fall apart when it comes to reading comprehension and similar reasoning.</p>

28

<p>"While a 3.5 in engineering at MIT would be no small feat, I think it's a mistake to assume that being able to get those sorts of grades translates into one easily being able to score a 175-180 on the LSAT. While I think this sort of person could easily crush the logical games section, it's less clear on the logical reasoning and reading comprehension sections. I know not a few people who are math/science whizzes who fall apart when it comes to reading comprehension and similar reasoning."</p>

<p>I guess this is a good point, though in the specific case of MIT, I think GENERALLY the MIT student would have pretty strong skills in all these areas too. I think perhaps more likely in a school like Berkeley would one have, say these Asians who can ace anything engineering related with nothing short of straight A's, but would be less equipped to handle the other reasoning you're talking of. Who knows though.</p>

29

<p>"I think perhaps more likely in a school like Berkeley would one have, say these Asians who can ace anything engineering related with nothing short of straight A's, but would be less equipped to handle the other reasoning you're talking of. Who knows though."</p>

<p>Thanks for perpetuating the stereotype. Seriously. Here, have a cookie.</p>

<p>Less equipped? When are we living, the 1940s? I did just fine on the LR and RC.</p>

<p>I would also note that the mean LSAT score of MIT students sits around a 163.</p>

30

<p>The LSAT tests different things: LR, LG, and RC. Engineers may lack RC skills and perhaps the LR skills.</p>

<p>A typical MIT student should be able to ace the LG without much work (and in fact it is supposedly the most learnable section). The RC is a totally different story for most people though, and I assume engineers would have the hardest time with the RC.</p>

<p>I was the most screwed by the RC when I took the exam, aced the LR, and somehow *****ed up parts of an easy linear game on the LG. I only took the exam once though and studied a couple of weeks, but it was good enough to get me into top 10 schools. </p>

<p>They do admissions this way because there is no "pre-law" major, meaning it is practically impossible to evaluate students without resorting to quantitative measures. For other grad programs there are required pre-reqs. For med there are certain pre-med classes; for PhD programs you need to major in the field most of the time, etc. </p>

<p>tbh, i think they should take into account undergrad for admissions purposes because tbh, I'm sure some **<strong><em>tards who go to bad colleges end up with 4.0 gpas in bs majors, and end up going to good law schools while MIT students get *</em></strong>*ed by their major/school and can't get into the top 14.</p>

<p>Also, I wouldn't say the LSAT is completely learnable, but it really depends on the individual. I knew someone who studied for 6 months and couldn't even pull past a 163 on the exam. Some idiot I knew took it 3 times (and studied insane amounts) and went from a 160 the first time to 175 the third time. It really depends on the individual. some people study insane amounts and do well (I call these people the hard working not so smart people). Some don't study that much and do well (naturally smart). And others study a lot and still do poorly.</p>

31

<p>The reality is that top law schools have their pick of applicants with both excellent LSAT scores and high GPAs. Debating whether the LSAT is a good predictor of grades in law school (and the results of studies have been mixed, though more do show that the LSAT is a good predictor of grades), or whether one's GPA should be used at all (it is used to prove that a student is consistent, dedicated, hardworking and capable over a period of time) is not going to change the system. However, since there are so many applicants with high LSAT scores and GPAs, an "accepted" or "rejected" decision often comes down to the "softer" factors, which are used to differentiate among otherwise qualified applicants. </p>

<p>Admissions folks may look at a wide variety of factors to make these distinctions among very numbers-qualified applicants. These factors may include, in no particular order, work experience, leadership ability (as evidenced by activities in and out of college), dedication (again, as evidenced by activities in and out of college), diffculty of undergraduate university, major and general coursework, life experiences and background, among a multitude of other potential factors. In my experience over the years, top law schools generally do love work experience, NCAA athletes, military experience, evidence of writing ability (no, don't just send some heavily edited essay from History 331 - I mean writing for a school paper, writing an honors thesis or winning a writing award) and unusual talents. Not surprisingly, future employers like the very same abilities and backgrounds. </p>

<p>Please remember that lpart of the admissions process at law school consists of putting together a student body that will get hired at the appropriate time.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
Someone from MIT with 3.5 GPA in engineering should have no problem on LSAT (should be able to get 175-180 on LSAT without problem at all).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree with ccrunchyceral on this on.</p>

<p>FYI, the avg LSAT score @ MIT is 164 and the avg GPA is 3.3</p>

<p>
[quote]

Number of MIT Applicants 73 </p>

<p>Total Accepted to 1 or more schools (UG, Grads, and Alums) 54/73, 74% </p>

<p>Senior applicants 11/73, 15% </p>

<p>Non-Senior applicants
(grad students & alums) 62/73, 85%</p>

<p>Seniors Accepted to 1 or more schools 9/11, 82% </p>

<p>Total average number of applications per applicant 7.45 </p>

<p>Senior average number of applications per applicant 9.18 </p>

<p>Total average number of admissions per applicant 3.32 </p>

<p>Senior average number of admissions per applicant 4.0 </p>

<p>Average LSAT (all applicants) 164 </p>

<p>Average GPA (all applicants) 3.33/4.0* </p>

<p>Preprofessional</a> Stats - MIT Careers Office

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So it might be a little harder for a MIT student to get a 175-180 lsatwith 3.5 gpa are a little harder than people think.</p>

<p>Even then out of 73 MIT students in the applicant pool: </p>

<p>34 MIT students applied to Harvard, 6 were admitted
24 MIT students applied to Stanford, 3 were admitted
32 MIT students applied to Columbia, 6 were admitted
29 MIT students applied to NYU, 14 were admitted</p>

<p><a href="http://web.mit.edu/career/www/preprof/2007top15law.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.mit.edu/career/www/preprof/2007top15law.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

33

<p>Sabbie719, I saw applicants’ stats from MIT before and tried to make sense out of that(since D1 was accepted into MIT but decided not to go there). Many of them are not from EE or hard-core engineering major. MIT has biology, economics and all kinds of other non-hard-core engineering majors. Personally, I never consider BME as true engineering (please do not get offended if you are BME major). My question to you is how many of the 77 applicants from MIT had degrees from more traditional engineering majors. My understanding is very few EE major or similar hard majors from MIT applied to law schools, which might explain average LSAT of 164 from MIT applicants.</p>

<p>Our assumption that “geeks” cannot read is really a myth. It might be true that some “geeks” at state college level have non-parallel abilities in their quants/logic and reading. But “geeks” at top schools are very different. D2 (in middle school) recently did a survey for her science project on middle school students doing Mathcounts. While her sample is small, some of the kids in her survey took SAT in their 7th grade (through Hopkins CTY, Duke TIP….), the scores she collected reveal an average math around 710-720, an average reading around 610 and writing around 600. Their reading/ writing scores are 200 points higher than an average top 7th grade student (students in the top 5% in 7th grade). Generally, the top 5% students in 7th grade are qualified to enroll in CTY (7th and 8th graders) and TIP (7th graders). The average scores among those top 5% 7th graders who took SAT is around 420-430 for reading and 410-420 for writing in Duke TIP covered states.</p>

34

<p>"Thanks for perpetuating the stereotype. Seriously. Here, have a cookie."</p>

<p>OK I really meant what I said in an objective way. There are Asians at Berkeley who're very likely foreign, not your most amazing English communicators, etc, etc, but are amazing at engineering, which is what they do. IMO, they can remain just how they are, and be very well regarded.</p>

<p>Not saying all Asians are like this, and I know plenty of counter-examples.</p>

35

<p>"But “geeks” at top schools are very different."</p>

<p>YEah I would think so. I mean, and add to this that MIT doesn't seem to favor people who do nothing but study, can't write an interesting essay, etc, etc, and one really can't see the average MIT student being terrible at anything less problem-solving based. MAybe not all are great, but at the very least, to say that just because they're engineers, they are very unlikely to be able to do well at non-problem-solving type exams is stretching the truth.</p>

36

<p>"However, since there are so many applicants with high LSAT scores and GPAs, an "accepted" or "rejected" decision often comes down to the "softer" factors, which are used to differentiate among otherwise qualified applicants."</p>

<p>ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!!!! Undergraduate admissions all over?!!!</p>

37

<p>^ That statement doesn't shock me, cause I'm sure lots of Top 5 Law school applicants are well qualified, but Yale Law just doesn't have enough spots for all of the qualified applicants who apply. When you have lots of 3.8+ and 170+ applicants, I guess factors like rigor of UG, rigor of major, essay, all come into play. Or at least I hope they do! </p>

<p>I guess if you come from a top UG school with a high GPA and high LSAT, you're golden?</p>

38

<p>susan4, even if we accept the premise the logic games section would be a breeze for MIT engineering students with 3.5+ GPAs, to say that a 175-180 LSAT score would be easy for them is to also assume that these students would easily make no more than approximately 5 mistakes on the modern LSAT. As you likely know, the scale at the top has compressed dramatically over the last few years. Why should we assume that these MIT engineers could put in nearly flawless performances on sections of the LSAT that do not relate directly to their math and science backgrounds, even if we assume they are relatively competent in the skills required for the LR/RC sections?</p>

39

<p>corchycereal, when I think back, I agree that my assumption is flawed. I basically looked at someone I know as a model for that assumption. But this someone in reality with natural ability belongs to top students at MIT or at any top schools. So that generalization is flawed.</p>

<p>A few things I found lately:</p>

<p>One applicant just got rejected by U of Chicago Law School with 179/3.55. I don’t know where he got his UG education.</p>

<p>Another applicant was accepted by Harvard Law with 180/3.2. But her 3.2 was from Harvard UG. And Harvard obviously liked that 180.</p>

<p>During a-three year period, 257 of 439 applicants with 3.75+/175+ were rejected by Yale Law School, meaning students with that stats have 42% chance to be accepted by YLS. Since YLS is the most difficult one for admission, a student with that stats probably has 50% chance at HLS and 50% chance at SLS. So his overall chance of getting into one of the YHS is around 85% by mathematical calculation (in reality probably better than 85%).</p>

40

<p>"I guess factors like rigor of UG, rigor of major, essay, all come into play. Or at least I hope they do!"</p>

<p>These seem like more legitimate factors to me, actually...I was more commenting on looking at "soft" factors like if you're an athlete, etc, etc. </p>

<p>I mean, it seems to me like the best "soft" factors to look at for a more professional type school would include essays and [if applicable] letters of recommendation speaking to the student's caliber, say from respected faculty. Earning good letters from respected faculty is not at all something to be taken lightly -- it's pretty hard to really impress 'em. I feel like universities have so many more resources, more credibility, etc, than high schools do...and such factors seem pretty legitimate as such.</p>