I would modify number 5. I don't think it's vital to take a test prep course, per se; however, it is vital to take the LSAT seriously, prepare, and do the best you possibly can. That may require a test prep course, but it may not. If a bright applicant is unphased by standardized tests, it's likely that he or she would be best served by simply ordering the big packet of past tests from LSAC and practicing the test questions, especially under simulated test conditions. Many of those same people really do waste their money on test prep courses, especially the part of the course (in some instances the major component of the course) that give clues on how to game the test (e.g., how to choose which questions to skip; which types of answers are the "best" guesses if you just don't know; pick C if you have no idea; etc.). That's just not helpful and is a waste of money, if you actually have the potential to answer every question knowledgeably and correctly. I don't mean to suggest that all test prep courses are worthless by any means; they're just not necessary or sufficient for many people.

Transferring from a City collge into a private university will not neccesarily hurt your chances (IMO). First, transfering once from a city school to a private institution can hardly constitute as "a lot of moving around." If your decision is well grounded i.e. you explain in your personal statement the financial restraints you faced in your undergrad career, this path will probably not be looked down upon. Indeed, I took this route, and got into a great law school, and excelled. When I interviewed at law firms, no one asked, nor really cared whether my resume included a complete list of institutions I had attended.

Second, when law schools report who their feeder schools are, they will report your graduating undergraduate instintution, and do not have to report the one city college or array of schools the student attended. Also, if you have a high GPA, this GPA is not qualified when the law school reports their median means etc to USNEWS. Boosting their GPA for USNEWS/ranking purposes makes a big difference to law schools--regardless of what they otherwise may say. So, if you go to a non-ivy, get a 4.0 and get high 160's on your LSAT, the fact that your undergrad institution produces students who score in the bottom 10% in the lsat will only paint you more as a standout student.

I would say that going to a IVY undergrad, and doing well there, will of course give you an advantage. Particularly when applying to top 10 schools. However, I felt compelled to post my view of the otherside of this coin.

Jay, everything you say is true, to a point. A few points, though. First, a city college is not the same as a community college or a junior college. Second, when I wrote of moving around, I was actually thinking of the applicants that I saw that went to 4 or 5 schools, not two. I have not heard anyone disparage someone who transferred once. Third, none of this matters if you have a really good LSAT, but all of this matters if you are one of a zillion applicants in the 50th percentile of the LSA with a 3.4. Then, everything matters.

And yes, gpas are reported to the USNWR with no discount, which would tend to make you believe that admissions committees would not care where the gpa came from. But again, this advice comes into play when a committee is judging applicants with fungible gpas and LSATs. If your LSAT pulls you out of that fungible pile, then you could have majored in interpretive dance at Christy Hurt Community College of 83rd Street and gotten into this law school. However, you may then be in a different fungible pile for a Top 10 school.

I guess my main point is that your undergraduate school does matter on the margin.

Jamie, I agree with you. That was exactly the approach I took to the LSAT. I was a very poor undergrad, and I didn't have the money for a prep course.

Just wanted to add my agreement to Gordon and Jamie that you do not have to take a prep course. When I was preparing for the LSAT (not so long ago), I was post-college and making only $18K, and thus could not afford the big course. Instead, I purchased a couple of LSAT prep books with sample tests and practiced every single night for the two months leading up to the test, and did very well. It does take some discipline, but poorer students should not feel obligated to fork over cash to Princeton Review or Stanley Kaplan.

Christine, What sort of information can we reasonably expect from GPAs? Not only is there great variation from major to major and school to school, but grade inflation has become so rampant in undergraduate programs that I find GPAs almost meaningless.

First to answer Gordon's question, I view a high gpa as a "sine qua non." If you can't figure out how to get a good gpa these days, then I'm not sure what problem-solving skills you have. So, I basically discount poor gpas rather heavily unless there is a reason. The worst thing for me is if someone's major gpa is lower than their overall gpa. Change your major. I don't think that hitting one's head against a wall is a good quality in an attorney. (Obviously, engineering is a different story if the grades in that department are severely depressed.)

Second, I would still encourage my kids to take an LSAT review. We lucked out. However, we probably did well on the SAT, too. But, I think when Gordon and I took the LSAT, a lower percentage of test-takers took the prep. Now, I think there is an arms race mentality.

GPA as disqualifier makes some sense. I can see that.

But I am not sure about major GPA v. other GPA. I assume that most people take more advanced classes in their major than outside. It might be quite easy to ace general ed classes, but more difficult to ace advanced classes in your major. Depending on the major, of course.

You seem to be under the impression that partying and “good schools” are exclusive. Without fail, all of my colleagues from “Ivies” have admitted to being drunk for at least one semester. In fact, the Ivies are notorious for grade inflation, because, perhaps, the professors (or rather, their research assistants) are keenly aware of the importance of getting a high GPA regardless of how intellectually curious or “caring” one is. Unless and until people start seriously trying to *double blind* grade undergraduate work, UGPAs will be nothing more than a reflection of who you can schmooze or sleep with.

Your point about the number of schools someone attends is too vague. In fact, most students at law school have at least two transcripts (even if one is from summer classes.) The reason that people who start at community colleges never make it to become professors, is that they probably are just from a different social class then people who will become law professors. Let’s face it: if your parents make over $200,000/year, you don’t NEED to save money by going to an Community College, and your parents think that a “good” school has more “value” than transferring. I know a lot of professors, and NONE of them came from families on public assistance.

I don’t know what “lawyers are linear people” means. I worked at “BIGLAW” for 5 years. Very few of the people in my firm went straight from highschool to college to law school to BIGLAW. In between there was time teaching, clerking, working for the government, or surfing. We just like to tell people that we are linear. This must be one of those vague platitudes that people like to tell freshmen. Likewise, the Freshman year at a large research university has nothing in common with 1L.

I have worked in admissions for over a decade now. Most of what you say is modestly true, but you portray it as too black and white.

First of all, never - yes, absolutely never - is a GPA 'discredited' simply because of the average LSAT performance of other students at a particular school. Ever. A GPA is only 'discredited' when it is very high (e.g. 3.75+) and the LSAT score is very low (i.e. 145-). Otherwise, each applicant should get a fair spin of the wheel. No exceptions.

The reason for this is obvious - not all undergrads attend the 'top' schools, even if they are accepted to those schools. That is, idiots get into Ivies (legacies, anyone?), and stunningly gifted students often attend no-name state schools (poor people who can't afford to leave their jobs/families to go chasing a fancy name). Believe me, I've seen thousands of each in my time.

Secondly, if you like art, study art as an undergrad. If you like science, study science. There is nothing more boring than seeing a student who gets a great GPA in a hard major, but the reason they chose that major is to impress me. I'm impressed by those applicants who had the guts to study what they loved, instead of becoming standard political science major robots. I've also found that with the average four year degree these days, most students study about two years of general education requirements common to most majors. Give or take, obviously, but not by much. Anyone with a four year degree is adequately prepared for law school. Please, whatever you do, don't study something because you think it will help you get into law school. The only thing that will help you get into law school is showing me that you're passionate about your education. Nobody's passionate about political science. Stay off the sports degrees though.

David: "I'm impressed by those applicants who had the guts to study what they loved, instead of becoming standard political science major robots.... Stay off the sports degrees though."

Huh?

Prejudice against students who went to a community college first should be seen as prejudice against low income students, just as favoring students who were rich enough to afford the luxury to attend ivy league schools or to be in the Peace Corps, Teach for America (which generally only wants ivy league graduates), curing AIDS in Africa, etc. rather than those who had to work paid jobs in order to support ourselves. Some of us are not subsidized by our parents but are just as capable. Luckily the admissions director of the Top-10 school I was admitted to does not seem to have your prejudices. Personally, I think you are perpetuating myths here, not debunking them. Your own LSAT score matters more than nitpicky things like your major or what other students at your institution scored on the LSAT.

Um, I guess I'll say this again. These things matter on the margin when comparing people with the same LSAT and the same gpa. If your LSAT pulls you out of the pool, then these things don't matter. I did not say that students from community college never get into a good law school. I did not say that theater majors never get into a good law school.

Also, I'm not saying that things should be this way. I went to the state school in my hometown because I got a full ride. My parents did not go to college and did not see the value in paying for me to go anywhere else. I graduated in three years and then spent the next 15 years of my life explaining it to people.

And yes, many things about the admissions process favor applicants from higher socioeconomic strata. Is this a surprise?

Administrative Note: I just deleted a comment that contained an ad hominem attack on Christine and no substantive argument. We enjoy exchanging ideas with our readers, but such comments do not contribute to the discussion.

Interesting thoughts.

Let's see, my reaction --

1. These kinds of essays always bring out angry commenters. People are mad that they didn't get into Harvard, and they're blaming you for it. Boo hoo.

(See also some of the comments we've gotten at Prawfs on the bar exam threads).

Basically, any post about "how the system works" brings out the angry people.

You seem to be doing a good job ignoring them, but if you're wondering whether that's the right idea, I think it is. These are topics that bear discussion. Your posts are useful, and so I recommend that you continue to ignore the ranters.

2. I can't believe how many of your steps I violated in my own course. Let's see --

-I went to a community college for a year. Sophomore year, actually, after spending two years in Guatemala. I was broke, and it worked for me. As for freshman and junior/senior year, I went to the local state school. It's not a bad school, but it's no Ivy. I was married and supporting a family; I had a scholarship and a full-time job and a mortgage; and it was the best option for me.

-I knew many (all?) of my classmates who were taking the LSAT, and let's just say that they didn't typically go to Ivies, either. My graduating year, a total of two people that I knew of at my school -- me and a classmate -- went to top-5 law programs. A feeder school, it's not.

-I didn't take an LSAT prep course. Didn't have time or money for it. I bought the old LSAT pack ($10) and administered three old tests to myself. That was my study program.

-I'm sure that I put my work experience down on my application. It was a big deal for me. I worked full-time for three years while also going to school full-time and supporting a family, getting damn near straight A's, and earning all sorts of honors at work. I was pretty proud of that track record.

-On the bright side, I did a few things that you mention. I didn't major in dance, and I didn't take the LSAT twice. Also, I think I scored well enough on the LSAT that many of the other yellow flags probably didn't matter. Though I'll never know -- maybe it was the community college line on my application that led to a rejection letter from Harvard.

*shrug*

I majored in an artsy major (film). I took the LSAT twice. I will be attending an Ivy League law school this fall.

Assuming their GPA to be similar, 169 from the artsy major trumps the 164 from the student hard science background. I find it difficult to believe otherwise.

Of course, YMMV.

Well, I am happy to say that I did get into HLS (went to NYU for better or worse), but I am not going to sit around and proclaim that my former classmates were the smartest people in the world. They were not. With a few exceptions, most of them would admit to not being the hardest workers in the world, and many would brag about how their social skills carried them.

Unlike others, my family has a strict policy: kiss-up to a teachers, and you are out of the will. In my family asking for “incompletes,” “extensions” or making other excuses will get you disowned. We disowned a sister for doing this. But, somehow most law students have asked for extensions or taken incompletes. This is lazy, acceptable, and quite frankly, unAmerican. But, I know, and you know that most law students have committed this unpardonable sin.

My point is this: most people who get into law school will play the system, and admissions people who think otherwise are being played.

So, folks. Ask yourself this. Did you ever ask for an incomplete? An extension? Or ask to have a grade changed. If you did, you should not be in law school, and you probably should be in a homeless shelter for the rest of your life! You make me sick.

From CoHE

As for grades, it's no secret that students at pricey colleges mostly get A's. If Trevor doesn't get his A in economics, his parents may call up and rail at the professor, the department head, and the dean: "I'm paying $35,000 a year for my kid to go to your school. He deserves an A."

http://chronicle.com/jobs/2005/06/2005060101c.htm

I sincerely hope that these standards you appear to have arbitrarily set for your decisionmaking process are used as tie-breakers only. For it to be otherwise would be a disgrace. For example, if you sort through your applications according to the rules you've set for yourself above, then:

- you would willingly accept a student with a GPA of 2.8 from Princeton over a student with a GPA of 3.5 from Local State University, simply because Local State University grads do, as a group, less well on the LSAT that Princeton grads;

- you would willingly accept a student with a GPA of 2.8 in Physics over a student with a GPA of 3.5 in Art;

- you would willingly accept a student with wealthy parents who could afford to send their average child to a 4-year institution over a student with poor parents who could not afford to send their genius child to a 4-year institution;

- you would willingly accept a student who followed a linear progression to law school over a student who had to take a break after undergrad and work for a couple of years to pay the bills;

- you would willingly accept a wealthy applicant scored only two points higher on the LSAT (after taking $10,000 in prep courses) instead of a smarter but poorer student who couldn't afford the expensive test prep.

The list goes on and on. This is my personal opinion only, but your rules favor the wealthy, the white, and the unadventurous. Actually, they appear to positively discriminate against the poor, minorities, and those who (through no fault of their own) had harder lives than the rich white kids you strongly favor.

Think about it. You dislike community colleges (even though there's no proof that only stupid people go there). You dislike obscure schools (even though there's plenty of evidence that many smart students stay away from such places for good reasons - price, distance from home etc.) You disfavor non-traditional students (e.g. single parents who had other obligations before law school.)

I would urge you to reexamine these truths about admissions. Just because they exist, it doesn't mean that you have to blindly follow them as if it's the way it should be. Why not be bold and buck the trend? Why not admit some interesting students? Why not admit someone who is poor?

Oh, I remember. You're playing to US News...

Well, Qwerty, maybe the author has determined, based on some study, that yes, indeed, single mothers are not as smart. Perhaps it is illegal. But it is likely rational. For example, single parents 1) were dumb enough to have sex at a point in time when having kids will seriously reduce your ability to be a lawyer that works the long hours required be a good lawyer (yes, we work long hours); 2) come from a background that puts sex above study; and 3) will probably be distracted in school by their kids. (I went to a “good” school, and the one or two mothers in school were definitely distracted by their kids. RBG might have been an exception to the rule.) So, as politically-incorrect, as it may seem, there may be some merit to discriminating against single parents. Remember, law school is not about personal development, it is about wiping the slate clean and making the student into a lawyer.

Likewise, wealthy people usually have different values than poor people. They tend to understand the importance of not speaking their mind, and they already know how to network. This is important for law schools, and it is an important skill for a lawyer to have. Even criminal defendants need lawyers who can relate to other lawyers, not make excuses.

There are just not that many people with GPA from Ivies, because they grade higher. Also, people who go to Ivies are better at selecting classes, and know how to limit their GPA-risk. Added to that, their parents know how to protest.

The relative worth of a GPA in Physics v. Art is debatable. Some Physics programs have grade inflation, some Art programs have deflation. Some of both programs are just a bunch of kids kissing up to the teachers for grades.

But, Qwerty, I agree. The original post is dripping with hypocrisy or naivety. I can’t tell which.

It seems to me the major problem with these generalizations is that they are generalizations.

My own experience is relevant (particularly to me):

State school grad (Utah State);
High GPA, college and university honors;
No LSAT-pre course, though lots of self-study prep;
No work experience;
No rejections, with a few ivy league (or similar) acceptances and a Harvard wait-list.

I can't say my experience was negative at all, but I can't say it would be the same for anyone else either.

As for the prep-course issue, I'm not certain about many things, but I am pretty confident that I made some wise choices in this regard. Here's what I did: I started by checking out some coursebooks from the library (Princeton Review, Kaplan) and scanned them for helpful hints. Next, I ordered as many actual LSATs as I could get my hands on, and started practicing with these, always timed. I arranged with my college's testing center to have about a half dozen of these proctored exactly like they would be on test day and I scheduled two tests a week. My test scores improved, and my final LSAT score was in the range where I would be considered an acceptable candidate at any law school.

I think this approach is better than taking a test prep course. But if a candidate has money to burn, I guess I wouldn't blame them.

One final data point: I was a Philosophy and Liberal Arts major with minors in PoliSci and Japanese.

Gordon: "David: 'I'm impressed by those applicants who had the guts to study what they loved, instead of becoming standard political science major robots.... Stay off the sports degrees though.'

Huh?"

I didn't think it was hard to understand. In my position (Assistant Dean of Admissions at a law school), I'm frankly sick of applicants with political science degrees. They are very common, and my feeling is that not *that* many people are that passionate about political science. Many (most?) of them chose political science because they wanted to get into law school, not because they were passionate about political science. In other words, they were using their undergrad education solely as a means of getting into law school. (In addition, it's no secret that you have to be borderline retarded to get a low GPA in political science, so it's a popular major for law school hopefuls simply because it will give them a high GPA, not because they like it.)

To me, that's not what undergrad is about. Undergraduate education is about exploring yourself, what you like, what you dislike, developing knowledge and skills in and outside you major field of study, and taking risks for the sake of improving yourself. That's why I'm delighted to see theater majors applying to law school. Same for chemistry majors. Same for French majors. Same for anyone who clearly went through undergrad improving themselves for the sake of improving themselves, and not just for the sake of getting an artificially high GPA so they could get into my law school.

Most of the admissions committee I work with agree. Yes, it's nice to see a poli sci major with a 3.8. But there's many a situation where we take the dance major with a 3.4 over yet another tediously boring political science major.

That's what I meant by my post (which, incidentally, was not difficult to understand the first time when read in light of the 5 points Christine made.)

In addition, if the sports degree comment confused you, then I'd suggest you re-read Christine's post (in which she refers to "Kinesiology, Corporate Fitness" majors). I have also seen many applicants with degrees in Recreation Studies, Sports Management, etc. These are almost universally 'lightweight' degrees in terms of academic rigor, and I and my committee frown upon such degrees. But to anyone experienced in law school admissions (which I'm sure you and Christine will be one day - but not yet), it's a delight to see an unusual major amidst a sea of political science robots.

Just a quick question for anyone who might know: Do law schools still report averaged LSAT scores to USNWR if the score is older than five or six years and has thus expired with the LSAC? I suppose this sounds dumb to ask because if an LSAT score has expired then LSAC won't have a record of it to report to law schools, but I wasn't quite sure if that's how it worked (e.g., perhaps LSAC keeps a record of a past LSAT score, even if it's expired, and reports it to law schools with a note indicating it is an expired score, or something along those lines?), so I figured I'd ask whether someone might know? Warm thanks in advance. :-)

I majored in political science and history because I am passionate about government and politics and have been since I was 11. I am also passionate about sports,especially fencing, and am anything but a robot or boring. I am intense, excitable and interested in learning for its own sake. In high school I went to Center for Talented Youth programs not because it looked good for college but because I loved the learning there and it had nothing to do with grades. In all of your generalizations you fail to take into account that someone might actually love to study government and that that is the reason they are going to law school not vice versa. Also, at the state school that I attended there were very few easy A's in any major -especially not history. I will be applying to law school in a year or two following a year of working ,I hope, in a political office. My only hope is that you, David, are not an admissions officer at a school to which I apply.