Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jack24

Pages: 1 ... 98 99 100 101 102 [103] 104 105 106 107
Law School Admissions / Re: REJECTED, ETC. TODAY
« on: March 17, 2008, 11:02:16 AM »
Can someone tell me what the difference is between Deferred and Waitlisted?

I'm sorry if it seems like I think a Bachelors in Business is hard.  I don't think it is.  I studied business (finance) for my current career.  If I wasn't already in a career type job, I would have studied something else.  The reason I got a 3.4, is because I already had a job, and they didn't care about GPA.  I graduated two years ago, and now I want to go to law school.  Business is an EASY degree, but my background in Finance and Sales WILL SURELY help me in the future as an attorney that specializes in banking and corporate law.
I may be whiny, and I'm definetely obnoxious :), but I'll be a really good lawyer. 
I started this post to get opinions on the relationship between Undergrad GPA and sucess as a future lawyer, and apparently most people on this site think that the correlation is very strong.  I aggree with that only because high GPA gets students into better schools, better schools place students in better jobs, better jobs pay more.

Personally I don't think that work experience is really at all valuable to a lawyer's future success. In many cases I think it just shows adcomms that you're responsible. As soon as you graduate you start getting work experience so I don't think it really matters for future success since you're going to get it anyway.

So you don't think it's valuable to learn to manage employees, network with contacts and sell your services?  Most lawyers that I've talked to say that Law School doesn't do very much to prepare them for the actual job, so do you think law school is unnecessary too?  I mean, you're going to learn it on the job anyway?

I feel like you two have good points.
I guess there really isn't any way to know for sure if GPA or work experience is more valuable to a lawyer's future success.  Try not to assume that my GPA was low because I didn't have enough time to study due to my job.  My GPA was low because I felt like I had found my career and there was really no reason to worry about getting anything better than a B average.  You have to remember that there is a difference between a lack of motivation and a lack of ability.  I was lucky enough to find my true motivation and now I'm a completely different person.  I don't expect anyone to take my word for it, and now it's time for me to go to my T2 school and prove that I'm better than a 3.4.   

They'll think the 3.7 will be a better student and they think he'll help their ranking more, so no, it won't cloud their judgment.

I think this is part of the problem.  Admissions committees are probably made up of a bunch of people that had high GPAs in school.
I agree with you that a good track record in undergrad can often lead to a great track record in grad school, but I will be a better student in law school because of my job experience.  I am more valuable as a 3.4 student with 4 years of full time employment than I would have been with a 3.7 and one summer internship.

Ad-coms are not made up of psychics, but I'm just very surprised that there aren't quite a few members of the selection committee that think GPA is over-rated.

I don't really care which degree is harder to get As in.  A business degree is better at teaching you how to be successful in business and sales.  It is extremely important to understand how to network, sell your product, and manage your finances if you want to be a lawyer.  You can learn a lot in law school about ethics, arguments, and the constitution, but learning how to be financially savvy isn't usually in the curriculum.
I'm also not saying that I need a 3.7 for the schools I want to go to.  I really just need a 3.4, which is my transcript GPA.  My whole question is based on the assumption that the ad-com likes one candidate better, but chooses another candidate because it's better for their ranking. 
So rather than tell me how a 3.7 is better than a 3.0  (Do you really think I"m that stupid?) why don't you tell me whether or not the desire to improve ranking might cloud an ad-com's judgement.

I was accepted into the T2 school I was hoping for, and that's all I really care about.
Grades are important, but I worked at a career-type job for 40 hours a week through all 3 years of college.  Everyone calls that a "soft factor" but I still got a B+ average and finished in 3 years. Do you honestly think I'd be a better lawyer if I'd never worked and lived in the library while I aced a bunch of poli-sci classes?

I understand why they want the best students to apply.   I should have just got a 176/ 3.97  and then I'd be asking whether to go to Stanford or Columbia with $$$?!!

I'm still waiting to be rejected to a few schools that are dragging their feet.  My LSAT was okay and my grades were horribily affected by retakes. (I had a few Fs that I replaced with As)
How important is it for an admissions committee to improve the ranking of their school? 

Consider this hypothetical decision: (neither candidate is me, btw)

(The following has been edited due to many people thinking the original scenario was ridiculous)
(All responses up to 3/17/08 were based on a 3.0 vs 3.7)

Candidate 1: 3.5 GPA 159 LSAT, Public University, Business, no work experience, no awards or extra-curricular, average personal statement.

Candidate 2: 3.3 UGPA 159 LSAt, Public University, Business, 4 Years of full-time relevant professional experience, many awards, leadership experience, fantastic personal statement.

Lets assume the Law School has a 25 Percentile GPA of 3.4, and that 159 is the median. Lets also assume the admissions committe thinks that  #2 would make a better student and lawyer.  Would they still be extremely hesitant to admit a student like that and Likely give candidate 1 the spot to improve their numbers?

Incoming 1Ls / Re: Increasing Typing Skills
« on: March 14, 2008, 10:30:18 AM »
I just took one of the typing tests this thread suggested and got 89 wpm, so that should be okay.  I don't think I read very fast for very long.  I can go really fast in spurts, but I'm pretty average if I read for a long time.  Any ideas on how to improve long-time speed and comprehension.

Pages: 1 ... 98 99 100 101 102 [103] 104 105 106 107