<p>“So, I guess a lot of this debate hinges on what “qualified” means - is it the hardest working person? Highest GPA? Most able to contribute something different to the class? Most experience with hard, intense workloads? IMO, each law school will answer that question differently, leading to very odd admissions results when non-standard types apply (older students, engineers, high GPA/low LSAT or the reverse).”</p>
<p>Clearly a relevant Q. I would add that being “qualified” probably also means being able to thrive and fully benefit from the education, meaning being best able to fully comprehend and apply the concepts involved. (Which some of your factors would relate to.) </p>
<p>It obviously can’t be just how hard someone has worked – ditch diggers work very hard, but won’t always benefit from a legal education. </p>
<p>And it also shouldn’t just be how bright you are – if your record indicates an unwillingness or inablity to exert oneself, you still won’t get much from the education, or do much with it. </p>
<p>Probably a combination of the two is most important, which is what LSAT and GPA are really supposed to measure. </p>
<p>In my opinion, GPA should in fact be measured more carefully, though. If there is a good way to determine what a GPA really means in different majors (by using class rank, etc., instead), then schools should obviously do so.</p>