<p>Does anyone have any specific examples of what a competitive resume might include from someone out of undergrad? I’m in my first year at a good school, and everyone seems pretty involved, so I can’t really tell the difference between a “stellar” extracurricular and a regular one. It’s not like high school where there are organized national contests and clear cut “power positions”… now I’m here and I have no idea what I should be aiming for. Yet I’d like to go to Harvard Law. Help?</p>
<p>A “stellar” soft is being a Rhodes Scholar or something of the sort.</p>
<p>Softs that a tip-top law school like Harvard expect to see are leadership positions, community involvement, etc. Your run-of-the-mill activities.</p>
<p>LSAT and GPA will make or break you. Generic softs won’t. Unless you lack any softs. Then, you’d have to have very, very good numbers.</p>
<p>I really don’t think Harvard needs anything spectacular… or even good. If you have the numbers, you’re in. It’s that “easy.” I say “easy” because of how nearly automatic an acceptance is for certain numbers. Of course, earning those numbers is difficult.</p>
<p>Being a Rhodes Scholar (or Marshall, Gates and so forth) is not an EC and is not a “soft” factor, although the real impact of such awards is often misunderstood.</p>
<p>The best way to view such national honors is that they are a validation of the package. That is to say, they give an admissions committee (or a prospective employer) a quick way to judge someone’s credentials without having to do much work. They don’t need to study the transcript or spend much time on references because the scholarship committees have already done so. </p>
<p>It is also interesting to note, although the data is often not too obvious, how many of these folks have already been accepted to (or are attending) top med and law school programs when they win. </p>
<p>And this is why the value of such things declines pretty rapidly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A soft factor is, by definition, a factor that does not encompass one’s GPA or LSAT (“soft” implies qualitative, rather than quantitative). The status of being a Rhodes scholar is thus, a soft factor.</p>
<p>The rest of your statements seem pretty circular.</p>
<p>They aren’t as good a soft factor as you might think. There was one year in the not too distant past when 12 Marshall scholars applied to Yale Law and six were rejected. Apparently, mediocre LSATs still hurt. </p>
<p>And a surprising number of scholars don’t do all that well in law school. Don’t misunderstand…I’m not saying that they flunked out or anything…just that there are some who don’t graduate magna (top 10% of class) or even cum laude (top 30% or so) from Harvard Law. And I know that some of the folks who truly have been <em>stars</em> in law school didn’t even get the nominations for the Rhodes from their colleges. </p>
<p>Of course, there are others who not only won the fellowship but were stars at Oxbridge and went on to be stars in law school. </p>
<p>While many such scholars do end up at top law schools, I’d say a conservative estimate would be that half of them were accepted before they became scholars. They applied to law school during their senior year in college and applied for fellowships at the same time. They got into top schools and then heard they’d won a Rhodes, etc., and deferred law school to do the fellowship. In one Yale Law School app cycle, 70 places in the class were already “reserved” for folks who had deferred. </p>
<p>That fact underscores what newmassdad means—the things these young people did which lead to winning a Rhodes are the things that got them into top law schools. It’s not the credential iteself that matters–it’s what it represents. However, newmassdad seems to think that top law schools see the label and think the app has been “vetted” so to speak. I don’t think that is at all true–not when YLS rejects 6 Marshalls in one year. </p>
<p>Personally, I’ve been appalled by some “technical truths” in the bios released of some scholars. You know the “nationally ranked chess player…” when that implies that the person is an outstanding chess player–and they aren’t. </p>
<p>Harvard Law doesn’t require outstanding ECs. The last few cycles seem to suggest that it is weighing ECs more heavily than it did about 6-8 years ago, but you still don’t have to do anything earth -shattering to get in. Having done something stellar definitely helps,though, especially if you are in the 25-40% range stats wise.</p>
<p>What are stellar ECs? Well, they still like sports. If you manage to be a star athlete, even in the Ivies (which aren’t as competitive) that helps. I know the first American woman to win an Olympic medal in wrestling went to Yale Law. Of course, she had a 3.9 in econ at Stanford undergrad too. (I know that because she was named a PAC-10 scholar-athelete.) So did a guy who played two varsity sports at Columbia. (It’s hard to compile a really high gpa when you play varsity sports during two seasons. ) If you manage to wrack up great grades and a high LSAT while being editor of a major campus daily, that too is really impressive. Being prez of the student body at a college where that means something is also impressive. </p>
<p>Lots of people have “softs” compiled after law school. Teach for America and Peace Corps both help. Elizabeth Wurtzel got into Yale, presumably mostly for writing “Prozac Nation.” I know there are at least three Oscar and Emmy winners who went to Yale–one, I think was for best documentary; one was as a writer for a top TV show. It ended–he went to law school. The third was, I think for special effects. Miss America went to Harvard Law–and word is that she was less beautiful than expected–and much smarter than expected. </p>
<p>But again, Harvard really doesn’t stress ECs all that much. Do enough to show that you did more than study and sleep for 4 years and you’ll be fine for HLS.</p>
<p>Actually Jonri, we agree. I don’t think most admissions committees would just see Rhodes Scholar - admit. They’d read the package anyway and make their own decision. There are several Med and Law schools where being a Marshall or Rhodes is far from auto admit. Yale is not the only one. </p>
<p>Their performance in law school is also no surprise because their selection is not based on the same factors that lead to excellence in law school or med school for that matter. There’s a lot of overlap of course, but also differences. </p>
<p>It also bears mentioning that what a Rhodes (or Marshall etc. ) Scholar does as a scholar is as important (probably more1) than being a scholar itself. Someone that travels a lot and never completes a degree will be evaluated differently from one that is awarded a degree with distinction for example.</p>
<p>Final thought: What we’re saying is that no EC or soft factor is strong or weak in itself. The content is what matters. You can do a heck of a lot (or not) with most anything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a pretty incorrect statement.</p>
<p>Thank you so much for the responses.</p>
<p>I think the general consensus that LSAT matters is true, but I know personally one rhodie who was told by a YHS admissions dean that anything above a 160 would get him/her into their law school. So…I think the awards do matter a lot. And anecdotally, most rhodes/marshalls I know get in everywhere. Maybe they all ace the LSAT too, but I think it’s a much bigger boost than y’all want to admit…</p>
<p>I have asked a number of admission’s officers about this. Basically everything other than the LSAT and undergraduate GPA is considered a soft factor. This includes:</p>
<ol>
<li>Graduate GPA, supprisingly, this isn’t counted in the initial ranking for applicants,but will be consdered by the admissions committee.</li>
<li>Letters of recommendation</li>
<li>Work experience</li>
<li>Designations such as CPA, CFP, CFA etc.</li>
<li>Personal Statement ( although I think this could be classified as semi-soft since many law schools take a hard look at this)</li>
<li>Community service</li>
<li>Articles and books written</li>
</ol>