am i the only one who doesn't think the gpa system is quite so unfair? i would much rather there be a lot of weight on gpa than a lot of weight on the lsat. you work hard for 4 years for your gpa, but the lsat was only a measure of how you did in one 4-hour span of time, and a lot of variables render it an inaccurate measure for some people.
granted, i think the fact that gpa distributions are far from standard is a big hindrance to their fair evaluation. but i definitely don't agree that this would be fixed by expecting humanities majors to have flawless gpas while science majors can get away with low b averages. even the professors in one department can vary greatly, and if one student chooses to take a more demanding class over an easier one in their major, that would make the generalizations about some "bs" majors less accurate. perhaps reporting the average grade for each class, rather than for the entire department, would be better.
i understand that some majors, and schools, are more demanding than others. but that doesn't mean a 4.0 in english is something any old idiot can get at every school, and it doesn't mean more weight needs to be given to the already extremely weighty lsat.
this attitude about "joke" majors pisses me off, because i took my classes seriously and don't think i should have to have a 3.8 in engineering, too, to prove i'm worthy of acceptance at top schools.
I agree - I spent four years working on my GPA, pulling all nighters fairly regularly, and doing problem sets into the night at least a few days most weeks. I gave up plenty of nights out and weekends to keep my GPA up. OTOH, I spent 2.5 weeks in the summer studying for the LSAT, and never past 7 p.m. at that. I can live with the fact that none of that matters, and it was probably those few hours I spent on the LSAT that got me into top schools rather then the thousands of hours I spent on my GPA, but it doesn't mean that I agree with the fact that 180/3.0 > 170.3.9
I believe you just unknowingly reinforced my point
I agree, that a high GPA in engineering IN ADDITION to a high LSAT score probably is a good indicator of good work ethic and a high level of intelligence. However, your 3.93 in engineering (which you obviously had to work hard for) didn't appear to be weighed any higher than a 3.95 in sociology.
Before anyone says I don't know what I'm talking about, bear in mind that I attended a state school for my freshman year and took a course at a local 4 year college over that winter. A lot of these schools are jokes. Your post seems to imply that a 3.9+ indicates hard work everywhere. It simply isn't true. The classes I took at my first school, ESPECIALLY english, criminal justice, psychology, economics were all easy and didn't require a lot of work. I didn't have to work hard to get an A in them. The computer science courses I took, while somewhat more difficult, didn't require more than a few multi-hour projects and studying for the midterm/final.
Judging all GPA's on the same plane is simply ridiculous.
I wasn't disagreeing with you on the point that not all GPAs are equal, and that some majors and schools are harder than others (although I think a 3.8+ anywhere is pretty impressive). I was disagreeing with you on the idea of making the LSAT even more important, and putting less emphasis on GPA.
P.S. I graduated with a 3.95 NOT a 3.93
I would like for them to put more emphasis on GPA if and ONLY if they are going to try to standardize it (like Southside proposed). If they are going to judge them all equally (as they seem to do), I'd rather them put even more weight on LSAT, as it's the only standardized part of the process.
That's ridiculous. Environments aren't standardized.
They're a hell of a lot more standard than GPA's ever will be.