« Wiener on Lott v. Levitt | Main | State Tort Reform Database »

31 May 2006


William Henderson


The news is not good. As the saying goes, "You cannot serve two masters." Most admissions personnel are judged by their numbers. At the vast majority of law schools, "whole person review" only exists after locking in median LSAT and UGPA (or 25th percentiles figures, because these are the benchmarks for some rankings systems, such as BC's website). This process takes a fair amount of mathematical competence, especially to deal with issues like yields, wait lists, etc. When diversity is added to the mix, there is not much room left for other non-quantifiable attributes.

The data strongly suggests that the increasing emphasis on rankings has reduced the relevance of other admissions criteria. LSAT and UGPA ranges are much more stratified and compressed than they were 10 or 15 years ago. In my opinion, it's a problem because valuable information is getting ignored.

Sara Benesh

On a sort-of-related point, I wonder whether the law professors on the list could provide some insight to the political scientists in terms of general training for law school. In other words, do admission committees prefer an economics degree or an English degree or any particular degree? Are law studies options or concentrations useful? Is experience on a Mock Trial team relevant? I know you're looking for high GPAs and LSATs as well as diversity -- is there anything else an erstwhile undergrad can do to better his/her chances of admission into his/her law school of choice? And anything we can do to get our students admission at strong programs?

The comments to this entry are closed.


September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Site Meter

Creative Commons License

  • Creative Commons License
Blog powered by Typepad