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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law schools actually do take into account rigor of a particular college, as well as major, when considering an applicants GPA. My uncle worked in admissions at a top law school, and he said that engineering majors and students from colleges like Cal Tech would be accepted with lower GPAs. (Although they tended to do well on the LSATs, so there's that.) Also, students applying from Swarthmore received an automatic bump in GPA because, apparently, "anywhere else it would have been an A" has a kernel of truth to it.

This. T14 admit from below average from our ivy. 3.6-3.7 is plenty because they know how competitive ivies are

Lol. Sure Uncle Bob. I'm sure that Swarthmore bump was embedded in writing into admissions policy at the "top law school."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I knew a lot of engineers at Hopkins that went on to study law to specialize in patent law.

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.

[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?

MIT chem major with a B average, PhD from an almost equally prestigious university, and a perfect LSAT score. Didn’t get into Harvard. I’m actually very glad I didn’t, as things wouldn’t have worked out the way they did if I had gone there. I don’t think I’d be a better lawyer or a happier person had I gone to Harvard. Instead I went to a very strong school, with a scholarship, did well in Big Law and then chose to prioritize life over work.

Granted, it was a 3.1 or so GPA, not 3.5, but that GPA got me into the top chemistry PhD programs which are ranked by reputation, rather than admittance stats.

[Anonymous]

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

Assume same LSAT and whatever else.

Is it because gaming USNWR metrics is more important than academic rigor?

Because it is about form over substance. 4.0 looks good and they have proven that they can max out in a low rigor environment.

While competition in law school can be cutthroat and the material to be covered voluminous it does not require math or science or other technical knowledge to understand. Rather you just need to read a lot of material quickly and retain what you read.

So the 4.0 history or political science major as demonstrated the reading and retention skills needed and a high LSAT score demonstrates the ability to make the necessary logical connections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Assume same LSAT and whatever else.

Is it because gaming USNWR metrics is more important than academic rigor?

Because it is about form over substance. 4.0 looks good and they have proven that they can max out in a low rigor environment.

While competition in law school can be cutthroat and the material to be covered voluminous it does not require math or science or other technical knowledge to understand. Rather you just need to read a lot of material quickly and retain what you read.

So the 4.0 history or political science major as demonstrated the reading and retention skills needed and a high LSAT score demonstrates the ability to make the necessary logical connections.

Maxing out in a low rigor environment without hard STEM is not so tough and does not establish that you can max out in law school. Law school is not like a history or political science degree, at least not a good law school. It's not simply a test of what you retained from the reading, at least it didn't use to be. Retaining info is step 1 but wouldn't be enough to ace an exam.

[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.

And also a troll

[Anonymous]

My daughter is currently a 1L and had an “easier” STEM undergraduate degree but was still required to take classes like OCHEM/Anatomy/Genetics etc. She’s not an URM either.

She punched above her weight in terms of where she was accepted and ultimately decided to attend. Law Schools love STEM majors. Her GPA was slightly below median and her LSAT was slightly below as well (only took LSAT 1 time), but well above the 25th percentile. According to LSD, she’s a unicorn given that everyone else around her stat wise was WL. There is something in the law school admissions process called the right angle of death. If you are slightly below medians for both LSAT and GPA you are generally not accepted.

At her law school, there are very few STEM undergrad majors. Almost all her friends graduated Cum Laude + with majors like policy related majors, English, Business, or other language (Chinese/Spanish).

While I do agree that law schools look at GPA and LSAT first they also want a diverse class so thru will take people from different schools and majors. It’s a soft plus.

From a selling perspective, law schools love to boast about their high LSAT/ GPA. So as long as few people choose STEM undergrad majors plus law school path, there will definitely be an advantage for STEM majors as law schools know they are more marketable.

[Anonymous]

Being a lawyer in private sector involves dealing with practical, real-world problems. It is helpful to have subject matter knowledge.

[Anonymous]

They are businesses. All about stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My daughter is currently a 1L and had an “easier” STEM undergraduate degree but was still required to take classes like OCHEM/Anatomy/Genetics etc. She’s not an URM either.

She punched above her weight in terms of where she was accepted and ultimately decided to attend. Law Schools love STEM majors. Her GPA was slightly below median and her LSAT was slightly below as well (only took LSAT 1 time), but well above the 25th percentile. According to LSD, she’s a unicorn given that everyone else around her stat wise was WL. There is something in the law school admissions process called the right angle of death. If you are slightly below medians for both LSAT and GPA you are generally not accepted.

At her law school, there are very few STEM undergrad majors. Almost all her friends graduated Cum Laude + with majors like policy related majors, English, Business, or other language (Chinese/Spanish).

While I do agree that law schools look at GPA and LSAT first they also want a diverse class so thru will take people from different schools and majors. It’s a soft plus.

From a selling perspective, law schools love to boast about their high LSAT/ GPA. So as long as few people choose STEM undergrad majors plus law school path, there will definitely be an advantage for STEM majors as law schools know they are more marketable.

PP with the B average MIT degree here.

What tier law school is she at?

Based on my experience (personal and knowing a lot of STEM major JDs) - the STEM major gives you a boost for schools below T14 (probably even at the bottom of the T14).

I also imagine there is some yield protecting going on - if a STEM major is going to go into patent work, they are better off going to a Tier 1 school with a scholarship and highlighting their technical background to get a job.

[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.

Who do you think is hired for intellectual property/patent law? firms explicitly prefer candidates with undergrad degrees in engineering and STEM. It’s one of the highest paying areas in law.

[Anonymous]

I disagree with the premise.

[Anonymous]

Thought that hustling and getting 2 undergraduate and 1 masters in my 4 years at college would be considered with the 'lower' GPA. Joke was on me. Still ended up top 25 law school but yeah, could have enjoyed college more and got into a better law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter is currently a 1L and had an “easier” STEM undergraduate degree but was still required to take classes like OCHEM/Anatomy/Genetics etc. She’s not an URM either.

She punched above her weight in terms of where she was accepted and ultimately decided to attend. Law Schools love STEM majors. Her GPA was slightly below median and her LSAT was slightly below as well (only took LSAT 1 time), but well above the 25th percentile. According to LSD, she’s a unicorn given that everyone else around her stat wise was WL. There is something in the law school admissions process called the right angle of death. If you are slightly below medians for both LSAT and GPA you are generally not accepted.

At her law school, there are very few STEM undergrad majors. Almost all her friends graduated Cum Laude + with majors like policy related majors, English, Business, or other language (Chinese/Spanish).

While I do agree that law schools look at GPA and LSAT first they also want a diverse class so thru will take people from different schools and majors. It’s a soft plus.

From a selling perspective, law schools love to boast about their high LSAT/ GPA. So as long as few people choose STEM undergrad majors plus law school path, there will definitely be an advantage for STEM majors as law schools know they are more marketable.

PP with the B average MIT degree here.

What tier law school is she at?

Based on my experience (personal and knowing a lot of STEM major JDs) - the STEM major gives you a boost for schools below T14 (probably even at the bottom of the T14).

I also imagine there is some yield protecting going on - if a STEM major is going to go into patent work, they are better off going to a Tier 1 school with a scholarship and highlighting their technical background to get a job.

PP. She’s at a T50.

[Anonymous]

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

- biglaw partner

then enlighten everyone, oh wise one.