Call from Harvard

[Googler]

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  

My mistake

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.

[John Galt]

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  

My mistake

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.

That's not the point. You advocated placing more emphasis on the LSAT. I disagreed with that proposition. The LSAT is already over relied upon in Law school admissions.

[Googler]

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  

My mistake

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.

That's not the point. You advocated placing more emphasis on the LSAT. I disagreed with that proposition. The LSAT is already over relied upon in Law school admissions.

I don't necessarily see a problem with weighing standardized tests a lot.  I think the colleges should put more emphasis on SAT.  I've seen too many crappy high schools out there.  Also, I just don't think there's an alternative unless the law schools are willing to standardize GPA's. 

[gwenkern]

Since someone brought it up, I suspect that what was wrong with my applications to Chicago, Columbia and Harvard is that I didn't want to attend any of those schools.  I believe that I probably would have gotten into at least one of them if I'd shown any inclination to do so, even just staying on the waitlists.  But U.Va. and Michigan were my first and second choices, and once I'd gotten offered money at both, I had no interest in any other schools.

I think there are very valid reasons for emphasizing both GPA (shows a record of hard work and achievement over an extended period of time) and LSAT (far more standardized, and is almost always a more recent assessment of the applicant's abilities than his or her GPA).  I worked my tail off in college, and also preparing for the LSAT, but I also had a full-time job in college, and of course that affected my grades.  Other people have other circumstances that affected their numbers.  In the end, law school admissions have to happen by mutual consent: the student wants the school and the school wants the student.  It doesn't matter whether or not it's fair.  They can't make you apply, and you can't make them accept you.

[Googler]

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  

My mistake

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. 

why do you have such disdain for all disciplines that aren't math or science? to treat all gpa's earned in english, sociology, etc. as if they were meaningless compared with those earned in other majors would certainly not be a fair alternative to expecting students to select classes they could perform very well in.

law schools do receive your rank in the class, and your school's average lsat score -- so while that's not factored into your lsac gpa, it is a way of standardizing or contextualizing your grades.

I don't have such a disdain at all.  I was not a math/science major.  However, I do realize that the grading curves tend to be much lower in those classes, and thus, it is not fair to not adjust them. 

And yes, law schools do receive your rank in the class, and the school's average LSAT, but they don't do anything with them.  As I said, these things only serve to break a tie.  They'd take a 4.0 from a school where the average LSAT is a 146 over a 3.5 where the school's average LSAT is a 166.  That's just the way it is. 

[Lily Jaye]

I don't have such a disdain at all.  I was not a math/science major.  However, I do realize that the grading curves tend to be much lower in those classes, and thus, it is not fair to not adjust them. 

And yes, law schools do receive your rank in the class, and the school's average LSAT, but they don't do anything with them.  As I said, these things only serve to break a tie.  They'd take a 4.0 from a school where the average LSAT is a 146 over a 3.5 where the school's average LSAT is a 166.  That's just the way it is. 

Yes, the curves are lower in science classes, but I think it's important to remember that the curves' primary purpose is to inflate grades.  If science classes didn't use curves, virtually everyone would fail -- especially at the higher levels.  (A lot of business schools also fall into this category, especially for their math-intensive courses.)

As far as I know, the only curves that are deflationary are law school curves and Wharton's. 

[faultytowers]

well I want to say congrats to all u who have been accepted and see ya in the fall... and I am still here pulling for all of you esp. the ones who hung in there with me antoniel, love love, and of course WBBEC... hang in there it will come.... I know I will see you guys in the fall too

Hey Wendy...thanks so much!  I know you're going to have a great time at Harvard!  For everyone else...I was told by some people at Harvard (very reliable sources coming directly from Toby-I worked for the law school during my undergrad) that as of Monday they were looking to accept 20-30 more people off the wailtist.  There still is a small chance of hope everyone.

Best of luck!

What ever happened to this 20-30 spots? My theory: Stanford and Harvard are playing a little game of chicken and slowly poaching each other's admits.

[lau]

it took 1 year for harvard to reject this guy  :
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=L84aD8

No s over this one. He got rejected from some schools that should have been safe bets, I'm thinking something was amiss in his apps. (Though a year-long process is quite awful, yes indeed.)

[CosmoRondo]

What ever happened to this 20-30 spots? My theory: Stanford and Harvard are playing a little game of chicken and slowly poaching each other's admits.
[/quote]

Hey, I'm on the waitlist and just got a Toby Stock phone call interview email this afternoon. As someone not wanting to get his hopes up, I'll wait and see if it turns out to be the same good news that others have had... At the very least, I just wanted to give everyone a heads up that it looks like the office is back to reviewing the waitlist, so there's still hope!

[fainana]

Congrats CosmoRondo- I just withdrew today (I'm going to Columbia), so maybe you're getting my spot. In any case, good luck to those still waiting!