Which student would an Admissions Committee pick?

[jack24]

That question is a trap. 

What if a few big firms in a region started doing a ton of business in China?  Should the schools that place students in those firms give credit to people who speak mandarin?  I think so.  But I don't think that means the school thinks that people who don't speak a foreign language are poor candidates, it just means the school knows that the foreign language speaker has a greater chance of getting a job.

It's noble to not allow market forces to influence your decision, but it's a little too idealistic. 

[devilishlyblue]

That question is a trap.

Yes, because one answer is wrong and the other answer is inconsistent with your previous statements.

[JeNeSaisLaw]

Owned. :p

[jack24]

I just got owned.  Touche`
Supply and demand is still important though.

(Response was changed from previous immature response, I'm cranky and need to take a nap) 

[jack24]

I'll stay away from Gender, but I'm sorry, personality and previous work experience are important.

[UnbiasedObserver]

In my judgment, I think it's very naive to suggest that an interview process wouldn't be biased against (to name just one) short people.  You can't just convince people not to be (in an analogy) racist.  Again, at least in pro sports, these biases are very well documented and cause severe market inefficiencies -- much worse than the inefficiencies which (admittedly) exist with standardized metrics.  Certainly the metrics are unfair -- the question is not one of fairness but of improvement.  I'm just not convinced that stocking our ranks with Gregory-Peck-lookalikes is the way to do it.  (Obviously, this is an exaggeration to make a point.)

I respect your viewpoint, but I don't necessarily agree.

It would be very interesting to study an MBA student body, for example, in comparison to a JD student body.  Do they have a higher proportion of native English speakers?  A higher average height?  Slimmer hips, bigger shoulders?  Louder voices?  Nicer suits?  I think these are likely inherent biases of any school which places great emphasis on subjective evaluation, both in LORs and in interviews.

I was thinking the same thing.  I would like to see a study comparing the two. 

Absent any evidence, I am going to assert my personal belief: these biases are so overwhelming that a law school will look back and find that introducing an interview results in the loss, not gain, of information.  Apparently, Michigan's adcom agrees with me, and Northwestern's does not.

I'm glad to see that you concede that it's a personal belief.  I will also concede readily that my belief is also precisely that:  a belief, without any evidence necessarily. 

However, honestly, I think that many schools do not interview NOT because of the reason cited by Michigan.  I think many do it because they do not want to spend the time nor energy to do it. 

Of course, that's just my personal belief also. 

[JeNeSaisLaw]

You got me.  Oh man, I just got OWNED.. Total Ownage!
I'm silly to think that supply and demand should have anything to do with it!
Let's educate everyone regardless of whether or not there are available jobs. 

Oh come now. My post was in jest, don't take such offense. Devilishlyblue's argument was in good form. Provided the horned dilemma isn't a false dilemma, it's one of the best tactics I know. They're hard to find, but they're deadly when you do.

[jack24]

I changed my silly response.  I know you were joking.  I just think it's stupid to bring race and gender into an argument about experience and the ability to do well in an interview.  We can't be so concerned about fairness that we forget about creativity and personality. 

[devilishlyblue]

I just think it's stupid to bring race and gender into an argument about experience and the ability to do well in an interview.

Actually, it was a pretty straightforward progression.  I specifically commented that interviews expose people to subjective biases, including things like height and weight discrimination.  Your response was essentially, "Good! They should!"  So, using a rhetorical question, I extended your logic to gender to try to illustrate the incorrectness of your response.  That's when you protested that it was a trap (as, indeed, it was) and refused to answer.

previous work experience [is] important.

Which is probably why law schools consider it in our status quo system.

[jack24]

You're right.  I'm sorry.

I think I'm better than my numbers suggest, and I just wish I had a chance to prove it.  I'm punished because everyone says they are better than their numbers. A lot of people would just instantly assume I'm wrong about my situation before they know anything about me. 

If schools aren't interviewing because they don't have enough time, then oh well.
If schools aren't interviewing because they are afraid their committee will value looks over test scores and GPA, then I feel like I'm being robbed of a chance to prove my case in person because there's too big of a risk that someone will accept me based my broad shoulders.