<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know if the schools really "have their pick" of high-scoring applicants. There are only probably a couple thousand people who break 170 on the LSAT every year, and Harvard alone enrolls close to 500 of them. Since some of these applicants don't have great GPAs, there's only so picky top schools can be if they want to maintain their numbers.</p>
<p>I don't want anyone to think that "soft" factors are going to make up for a low LSAT score or GPA. In the vast majority of cases, they will not. However, it is the "soft" factors that allow law schools to differentiate among otherwise similarly situated applicants. No, I'm not talking about only the 180/4.0 applicants, as a previous poster implied. I am talking about everyone who at least a 168/170 on their LSAT and a 3.6/3.7 GPA. Once you get over those hurdles, then your soft factors will matter more or less depending upon how well you did on those measures versus the hurdles. </p>
<p>Can you get into a T14 law school with scores below those? Yes, but the road you must climb will be steeper and longer. Can you get rejected from a T14 law school with scores well above those? Absolutely.</p>
<p>"I don't want anyone to think that "soft" factors are going to make up for a low LSAT score or GPA. In the vast majority of cases, they will not. However, it is the "soft" factors that allow law schools to differentiate among otherwise similarly situated applicants. No, I'm not talking about only the 180/4.0 applicants, as a previous poster implied. I am talking about everyone who at least a 168/170 on their LSAT and a 3.6/3.7 GPA. Once you get over those hurdles, then your soft factors will matter more or less depending upon how well you did on those measures versus the hurdles.</p>
<p>Can you get into a T14 law school with scores below those? Yes, but the road you must climb will be steeper and longer. Can you get rejected from a T14 law school with scores well above those? Absolutely."</p>
<p>I.e., undergrad admissions but less lenient on scores + GPA, it seems.</p>
<p>The soft factors that typically matter the most for law school admissions are quite different than the ones that matter for undergrad admissions. For example, it may not be impressive if you are president of three clubs in college if you are competing against a candidate for admission with three years of full-time work experience on Wall Street. It may not be impressive that you worked in a research lab on campus your junior year of college if you are competing against a candidate who is a M.D. who has been practicing medicine for years before applying to law school.</p>
<p>I respectfully disagree with your post to the extent that it implies full time work experience for 2-3 years is the ticket. Except for Northwestern, most top law schools don't emphasize WE that much--especially if it's not altruistic like TFA or Peace Corps. To really matter, from what I've seen, "regular" work experience has to be at least 5 years in duration. (I'm talking out LS admission, not getting hired by a law firm, where I admit WE helps.) So, yes a doctor for many years would be an unusual applicant and of interest. Someone with 3 years of experience on Wall Street, not really. </p>
<p>I make this point because I've seen too many young people graduate from college who have less than perfect stats and who go to work for 1-3 years, thinking that a record that would have made their most selective option Fordham Law, can be changed into admission at Columbia with 2 years of WE. It just doesn't work. </p>
<p>People look at the stats for the number of years out of college those entering law school have--they are on many LS websites--and think that all those people got admitted in the prior cycle. They don't. In one recent Yale Law class, more than a third had deferred at least one year. </p>
<p>In MANY other cases, the applicant would probably have been admitted to LS without the WE. He just wanted to get some, which I agree is an excellent idea. I just don't want people to think that working 3 years on Wall Street--right now a lot of folks with that credential are probably considering LS!--is going to help in the same way as it does for MBA programs. </p>
<p>While my knowledge is anecdotal, I think that personal statements and profs' recs are a LOT more important than most people realize.</p>
<p>jonri, I actually agree with you, and hope that my post was not misleading. I am not at all suggesting that work experience or any other "soft" factors make up for a lower GPA or LSAT score. Instead, I am merely suggesting that an applicant must have appropriately high GPAs and LSAT scores to be in contention for admission. Soft factors will rarely make up for a lower GPA or LSAT score. However, if an applicant has the appropriately high GPA and LSAT score, then it is often the soft factors that allow law schools to make distinctions among those similarly situated candidates. </p>
<p>In my experience, significant work experience has been a valued soft factor, but, of course, there are others. I emphasized work experience only because the percentage of law students at T14 law schools with work experience prior to law school has grown across the board in the last ten years.</p>