<p>To those of you who are making this case for the 3 year student, I feel like you are simply looking at this discussion in the wrong way.</p>
<p>sallyawp and bdm are NOT saying that a student that graduates in 3 years is less mature than one who graduated in 4. They are NOT saying that a student who stays in school for 6 years is at an advantage. Finally they are NOT saying that it is impossible to get in with 3 years of undergraduate. </p>
<p>What they are saying is that in general, it does HURT you to graduate in 3 years, and that it IS looked down upon. </p>
<p>Why? To reiterate what has already been said, a student graduating in 3 years did one (or many) of the following:
- used a massive amount of AP credits
- took more than the average amount of classes in a semester
- took a multitude of classes during the summer </p>
<p>NONE of these are looked upon favorably by law schools. AP credits mean nothing, and in actuality just mean that the student has less college coursework experience. Taking more than the average amount of classes in a semester meant the student had less time for extracurriculars and socializing, and instead opted to spend more time on studies. Doing an amalgam of credits during the summer means they consequently had less time for internships/work experience which is very valuable during the summer months.</p>
<p>Now, does this mean that they didn’t have enough college experience? No, but they could have had more. </p>
<p>Does it mean they had less extra leadership/volunteer/work experience than someone who finished work experience in 4 years? No, but it means the 3 year student had the option to do more, and instead opted against it to finish something early they didn’t have to. </p>
<p>Does it mean they didn’t have jobs/internships during the summer? No, but it means that (similar to the last statement) they didn’t devote enough time to it as possible, showing again their priorities laid elsewhere; in finishing their undergraduate studies before they had to. </p>
<p>I think this is where the heart of the matter is: a student that finished school in 3 years will consequently have a difference college experience than if that SAME student had completed school in 4 years, and this decision is often based on the priorities of the student. The thing is, undergraduate studies are much more than just maintaining a solid GPA; they are an experience in themselves. Law schools want to see that students thrive in that environment while still maintaining an exceptional GPA, not just one or the other. </p>
<p>In the end, think of it this way: you cannot possible argue that the student could not have done more with an additional year in school. If they already did 120 credits in 3 years, that means they could have graduated with 150. If they had 2 summer internships, they could have had 3. If they had 200 hours of volunteer of experience, they could have had 300. Will law schools give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you could have done this things if you spent an extra year in college? Not likely, at least in my opinion (sallyawp feel free to chime in here). </p>
<p>Is this to say 3 year students are less qualified? Not at all. Is it to say they could have been more qualified? Absolutely. Therefore, they are placed at a disadvantage. </p>
<p>To sum it up in one sentence: It’s not what they didn’t do, it’s what they could have done.</p>