<p>I know some schools look for "amazing" EC but can being overinvovled ever hurt you in law school admission...like you are just joining a bunch of things to look good. I was talking to one of my friends and she, made a comment I just join a bunch of club/leadership position b/c I want to look good to the admissions office...and that it will end up hurting me. Is this true...if so thats a shame because I really love everything I am involed in (I just really like to volunteer)... should I leave some stuff out of my law school application?</p>
<p>Here are my ECs:
Freshman Yr:
- Tutored at an Alternative School (A School for "At Risk Kids" with behavioral problems)</p>
<p>Sophmore Yr:
- Tutored at Same School
- Member of Alternative Spring Break </p>
<p>Junior Yr:
- Tutored at Same School
- Lead Alternative Spring Break
- Nonprofit Leadership Program</p>
<p>Senior
- Tutor at Same School
- International Service Trip Student Director
- Bone Marrow Drive Steering Committee
- Student Serivce Corp
- Leadership Program
- Research Grant Recipent: about NGOs</p>
<p>That list doesn't make it seem like you are overinvolved. Certainly that's a lot of activities and it definitely seems like you've been very busy, but it doesn't look like a ridiculous amount to me. I also like the fact that you've been adding more and more responsibilities as you progressed through college, sorta like you wanted to give a few things a try and then as you got more comfortable and discovered what you liked you added more activities that you were interested in. Finally, if volunteering in and of itself is a passion of yours and this is why you've done all of these activities that you list, then a good way to justify it to the adcoms would be to write your personal statement about your interest in volunteering. That way, you could bridge two different issues - telling the law schools something interesting about yourself and at the same time explaining why you were involved in as many activities as you were in a way that doesn't make it seem like you were just resume padding. There are a lot of different and very productive ways for law school students to volunteer, and so I think that adcoms will definitely be intrigued by your application.</p>
<p>It won't hurt you at all . It's not at all over involved. To be perhaps more blunt than I should be...I know plenty of students at top law schools who did a HECK of a lot more.</p>
<p>^ I agree with jonri. Most students at top law schools probably did a lot more. Try and pad your resume some more and just ignore any one who tell you to stop doing so. Competition is deep</p>
<p>Also, I don't think that most top law students necessarily did a lot more (except maybe at Yale) because keep in mind that law school is mainly a numbers game.</p>
<p>Honestly, I've known people to get into Boalt by doing nothing more than teaching tennis during his free time. His numbers were decent and he probably wrote a good personal statement, but that's honestly his only EC.</p>
<p>definitely, ( probably shoo-in at Columbia/NYU) as long as you have some EC (as long as your resume isn't completely blank) and good personal statements.</p>
<p>I'd say if they got a 3.85+/3.9+ and 172+ they'd have a decent shot at H and S with good LORs, at least some ECs, and well-written personal statements. Sometimes it is a crapshoot though. I know someone with a 176 LSAT who got rejected to HYS (he's going to Columbia this fall). However, Harvard and Stanford are both more purely numbers oriented than Yale. I know that Harvard interviews.I"m not sure about Stanford.</p>
<p>Stanford is slightly less competitive to get into than Harvard, according to the interquartile LSAT ranges. I'm just saying 172+ because it's about the median for Harvard.</p>
<p>Even though undergrad doesn't usually factor in that much, there is some "Ivy Incest/elite incest" going on. It may be easier for a student at a top 5 uni to cross over to a top 5 law school than a student at a non-top 5 school with similar stats.</p>
<p>Perfect numbers are a shoo-in for every school besides Stanford and Yale, and a very good chance at Stanford anyway.</p>
<p>Undergrad usually only matters in VERY select instances (maybe six schools in the country) AND if you have a low GPA (but not too low) and an extremely high LSAT.</p>
<p>And, in the future, just for reference, you should say what you mean. If you ask about top 5 schools, then you are, appropriately, going to get answers regarding Columbia and NYU.</p>
<p>Post #5 is giving you bad advice in my opinion. Do not pad your resume. Substance, not bs. Quality is more important than quantity. Try not to focus only on the top schools as your numbers will determine your range.</p>
<h1>13 is correct. While there's nothing wrong with breadth, it's depth that's really going to give you any edge that might come from EC's. It's better to speak one language fluently than to be able to say "hello" in twenty-seven.</h1>
<p>Oh, also -- HLS's phone interviews last five minutes, are extremely formulatic, and ultimately result in 80% admissions, almost all of which are in the high numbers part of the pool. So it's important not to be an overt sociopath, but otherwise it shouldn't make too big a difference.</p>
<p>haha sociopath...that's hilarious. I know someone who blanked out when Harvard's admissions director asked him about his thesis. Needless to say, he got rejected.</p>
<p>What about Stanford? Does it interview/how are its interviews?</p>
<p>I haven't heard about Stanford having one either, although to be honest I don't have the GPA for Harvard nor Stanford so it doesn't matter either way. (I'm targeting lower T-10.)</p>
<p>And for some reason I thought you were older.</p>