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.