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.
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.
But a 3.5 from MIT is more difficult to attain than a 3.9 from Dickinson, and probably also a 4.0 from Dickinson. Especially if you include the difficulty of getting in in the first place.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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?
To balance lower GPA
Anonymous wrote: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?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Isn’t LSAT more important? Thank goodness no TO for med and law school
It’s not that it’s “more” important. It’s that fewer applicants have top LSAT scores than top GPAs.
Anonymous wrote: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.
Nope.
Anonymous wrote:Isn’t LSAT more important? Thank goodness no TO for med and law school
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?
Anonymous wrote:You don’t understand what law school is about.
- biglaw partner
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.