Why do law schools prefer low rigor 4.0 over high rigor 3.5 GPA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t understand what law school is about.

- biglaw partner

What a well thought out, helpful response. Thanks so much for taking the time to articulate that and help out. You must be an incredible attorney and asset to your clients.

+ thank you for saying that. This was exactly my response and I, too, was a Biglaw partner.

[Anonymous]

Law schools definitely give an edge to stem majors in admissions because they don’t see very many of them apply. They don’t want an entire class of poly sci and philosophy majors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it hard to believe that a top law school doesn’t recognize the difficulty of getting a higher than 3.5 GPA at Cal.

It’s more like why does an engineering major from Cal want to go to law school. Sounds like an identity crisis.

And while I agree some leeway is given for known tough schools/majors, the school still has to report that 3.5 to USNWR. They can only take so many of those before it drags the percentile down.

I guess who don’t know that almost all patent lawyers are engineers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a sad state of affairs that it's recommended to major in something "easy" just to go to law school. The prize is not the prize that some think it is.

It’s a balance. Don’t pick communications but it doesn’t need to be astrophysics either. Pick something you are great at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t understand what law school is about.

- biglaw partner

+1 It's all about the creds. Give me the summa cum laude poli sci major rather than the cum laude physics major, because who wants to have a super pricey lawyer who wasn't at the top of their class.

I get it's all about creds but why wouldn't a law school want a chemistry major from MIT who got a 3.5 vs. a Dickinson (nothing against Dickinson! I happen to think it's a good school. Just not as prestigious as MIT) grad who majored in majored in Amercian Studies and got a 4.0?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t understand what law school is about.

- biglaw partner

+1 It's all about the creds. Give me the summa cum laude poli sci major rather than the cum laude physics major, because who wants to have a super pricey lawyer who wasn't at the top of their class.

I get it's all about creds but why wouldn't a law school want a chemistry major from MIT who got a 3.5 vs. a Dickinson (nothing against Dickinson! I happen to think it's a good school. Just not as prestigious as MIT) grad who majored in majored in Amercian Studies and got a 4.0?

The law school would chose the MIT applicant if the LSAT is sufficiently high. Ignore the person who says undergrad pedigree doesn’t matter, it’s a factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t understand what law school is about.

- biglaw partner

+1 It's all about the creds. Give me the summa cum laude poli sci major rather than the cum laude physics major, because who wants to have a super pricey lawyer who wasn't at the top of their class.

I get it's all about creds but why wouldn't a law school want a chemistry major from MIT who got a 3.5 vs. a Dickinson (nothing against Dickinson! I happen to think it's a good school. Just not as prestigious as MIT) grad who majored in majored in Amercian Studies and got a 4.0?

The law school would chose the MIT applicant if the LSAT is sufficiently high. Ignore the person who says undergrad pedigree doesn’t matter, it’s a factor.

It’s A factor but it can’t overcome a mediocre GPA.

[Anonymous]

This is 100% a USNews problem. All that is reported is GPA. One of the many reasons we need to get rid of USNews rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is 100% a USNews problem. All that is reported is GPA. One of the many reasons we need to get rid of USNews rankings.

I think several of the top schools no longer report data to US news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it hard to believe that a top law school doesn’t recognize the difficulty of getting a higher than 3.5 GPA at Cal.

It’s more like why does an engineering major from Cal want to go to law school. Sounds like an identity crisis.

And while I agree some leeway is given for known tough schools/majors, the school still has to report that 3.5 to USNWR. They can only take so many of those before it drags the percentile down.

IP lawyer who will take the patent bar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t understand what law school is about.

- biglaw partner

+1 It's all about the creds. Give me the summa cum laude poli sci major rather than the cum laude physics major, because who wants to have a super pricey lawyer who wasn't at the top of their class.

I get it's all about creds but why wouldn't a law school want a chemistry major from MIT who got a 3.5 vs. a Dickinson (nothing against Dickinson! I happen to think it's a good school. Just not as prestigious as MIT) grad who majored in majored in Amercian Studies and got a 4.0?

They’ll take both provided both have high LSAT 172+. My top 5 law school class had a huge range of schools. It would be better if the MIT applicants GPA was higher, doesn’t need to be 4.0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You don’t understand what law school is about.

- biglaw partner

Is it not about doing relatively well in extremely hard classes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t understand what law school is about.

- biglaw partner

+1 It's all about the creds. Give me the summa cum laude poli sci major rather than the cum laude physics major, because who wants to have a super pricey lawyer who wasn't at the top of their class.

What is the physics major has the higher law school GPA? Isn't that the more important metric?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:how can a university objectively verify to a law school that it offers a "high rigor 3.5?"

This. What an odd comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t understand what law school is about.

- biglaw partner

+1 It's all about the creds. Give me the summa cum laude poli sci major rather than the cum laude physics major, because who wants to have a super pricey lawyer who wasn't at the top of their class.

I get it's all about creds but why wouldn't a law school want a chemistry major from MIT who got a 3.5 vs. a Dickinson (nothing against Dickinson! I happen to think it's a good school. Just not as prestigious as MIT) grad who majored in majored in Amercian Studies and got a 4.0?

The law school would chose the MIT applicant if the LSAT is sufficiently high. Ignore the person who says undergrad pedigree doesn’t matter, it’s a factor.

Why does the MIT student need a higher LSAT than the Dickinson student?