Hi everyone,Applied to four schools with 16 years experience, MS,5 scientific publications, and 3.6 graduate gpa. I am at a loss as to what law schools want. Waitlisted for one school. I think USNWR has changed things were the emphasis is on LSAT scores to improve rankings. Honestly, I get the impression that the only post-bac accomplishment which demonstrates intellectual potential for law school is the LSAT. This process seems a bit myopic. I have a friend who has a PhD and is the same boat as I am. The sheer volume of applicants, some from grade inflated schools/degrees, and rankings make it more difficult for a non-tradtional science applicant to get accepted. A fact that I found out recently was that graduate transcripts are not sent to the law school as part of your LSDAS report. Thus, the law school don't see those grades. Personally, I am going to place all my efforts in getting a better LSAT score. For my application fee, I wished they examined these applications with greater scrunity. Anybody have any thoughts on how to leverage significant work experience and post-graduate academic accomplishments to gain admissions to law school? It is difficult to explain to a law school admissions committee why the critical thinking and technical writing gained through post-bac experience are important for law school. Do you think having a diverse profession experience helps or hinders an applicant? Why do you feel this way?Thanks,NW
I'm in a lynch mob? I had no idea. This is really worrying; I really don't have time for another extra-curricular activity.
Hi Frybread,PM? Stats: 2.6 Undergraduate GPA, 3.6 Graduate GPA, and 157 LSAT. My point is with this post is that there are other indicators of intellectual potential. The question is how do I convince an admissions committee they are important?I am seriously considering writing to law professor in patent law or contributing to his blog to get advice and support for my application.Any thoughts?
Hi Lessig,Do you really think the cost of an admissions consultant is worth it? Would a better investment of money be in a prep LSAT class?I need to get into a solid but not great school (eg University of Houston, SMU, Texas Tech, or University of Oklahoma). My goal is to become a patent attorney. I have an excellent technical background for this work but just need the legal education. Does the soft factors play an role at all especially if you know how you want to use your legal education and have an excellent non-legal background to accomplish that goal?If you score >165, does writing a weak essay make any difference? Admissions recruiters don't have the expertise to assess whether someone's background is a significant intellectual accomplishment. If what you say makes a difference, how can I couch my experience in a language that might resonate with them? Is it ok in an addendum to justify why you deserve a slot over the typical candidate undergraduate candidate with a liberal arts degree (with 160 LSAT) and no experience?Thanks,NW