Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

T-14 - what does it take?

2»

Replies to: T-14 - what does it take?

  • LazyKidLazyKid - Posts: 758 Member
    Its all about the lsat.

    I think that there are too many people out there who are so clueless about law school admissions. I saw way too many people on this board and real life asking "what undergrad college should I go in order to get into Harvard Law School?", and the like.

    I remember one poster who gave me much disrespect and launched ad hominem attacks against me for disagreeing with her opinion that sending her daughter to Cornell University for undergraduate would boast her daughter's chances at Harvard Law School. She just pulled out Harvard Law's undergraduate class composition and remarked that 45 people from Cornell constituted Harvard Law's student body, which she thought was impressive. In fact, that was the dominant reason for her daughter applying to Cornell. I hope her daughter wouldn't listen to her mommy's ill advice and enroll at Cornell for undergraduate just because of her misled guidance that she is on a safer track to making it to Harvard/Yale Law.
  • graduated31graduated31 Registered User Posts: 53 Junior Member
    Most people just refuse to believe that a test can count so much more than 3.5 years worth of work. And I feel for some of them. I know people that busted their butt to get a great gpa, but they just couldn't do well on the lsat. Some people just can't do well on that test, no matter how hard they try. Maybe its nerves, or whatever, but it sucks for them. Then you get clowns like me :) who screwed around and got mediocre grades and make up for 3.5 years of flakiness in 3.5 hours of test taking! How's that fair?!
  • klugekluge Registered User Posts: 6,559 Senior Member
    "Fair" has nothing to do with it. The LSAT is a tool designed to help law schools decide which applicants will become the kind of graduates that school wants to produce. Evidently they've concluded it's a good one.
  • LazyKidLazyKid - Posts: 758 Member
    Then you get clowns like me who screwed around and got mediocre grades and make up for 3.5 years of flakiness in 3.5 hours of test taking! How's that fair?!

    Actually, I think the process is very fair. LSAT score is proven to be much more relevant to one's potential to succeed at a law school compared to GPA. To correlation ratio of LSAT to one's 1L grades at law school, I read somewhere, was somewhere close to .6, with GPA, being much lower. Also, I think LSAT is a better and more objective measure of one's intellectual horsepower. LSAT measures one's reading comprehension skills, logical thinking abilities, reasoning abilities, and being able to think quickly under time pressure, all of which are the qualities that law school exams seek to test the students. Meanwhile, getting A's in Spanish or intro Astronomy from college may not have much relevance to one's potential to succeed at top law schools.

    Case in point, a 3.8 in electrical engineering from MIT and 3.8 in sociology from Arizona State University are not the same. The former is much more difficult to attain, and the requisite intellectual horsepower and the work ethic needed to accomplish the former is on a whole different level compared to the latter. Actually, I would argue that getting a 3.0 in engineering from MIT is much harder than getting a 4.0 in English literature from Arizona State University. Due to the fact that each undergraduate institution and each major differ from other institutions and majors in terms of difficulty in both grading and content, it wouldn't be objective to base one's admissions decision based primarily on GPA at law schools.

    This problem is mitigated by the fact that top law schools value LSAT score much more than GPA. Even if you have a 4.0 in sociology from Southern Florida State University, if you can't score 170+ on LSAT, it just means that you are a hard worker but lack the requisite intelligence compared to other candidates competing for those few slots at top 6 law schools.
  • klugekluge Registered User Posts: 6,559 Senior Member
    I would argue that getting a 3.0 in engineering from MIT is much harder than getting a 4.0 in English literature from Arizona State University.
    "Harder" - almost certainly, in general, although I'm sure there are individuals who would find the former easier to achieve than the latter.

    More to the point, a person who attains a 3.0 in engineering from MIT, while demonstrating admirable mental skills and work habits, may or may not be well equipped to take on the specific tasks and skills required for the practice of law. There are many competent engineers who would make lousy lawyers (and the converse is quite certainly even more true!)
  • LazyKidLazyKid - Posts: 758 Member
    More to the point, a person who attains a 3.0 in engineering from MIT, while demonstrating admirable mental skills and work habits, may or may not be well equipped to take on the specific tasks and skills required for the practice of law. There are many competent engineers who would make lousy lawyers

    Well, law is a service profession. To be a good lawyer especially at the upper levels within law firms, one needs good sales skills. Obviously, being smart has nothing to do with being a good salesman. However, top law schools don't admit candidates based on one's people/sales skills anyways. Top law schools only look for academic merit within applicants. As a result, top law schools might as well admit the most qualified candidates according to LSAT spectrum.
2»
This discussion has been closed.