Construct your own Admissions system

[SouthSide]

I think that colleges should join a consortium in which their average GPAs are tabulated and released to graduate schools, employers, etc. This would be an audited system, so there would not be room for fudging.

Given the ability of computer databases, this could easily be sort-able by year, major, or whatever other factors we decided were relevant.

That way, an adcomm could simply look up the average GPA for applicants from a given school and department when evaluating a file, and this would make the GPA mean a lot more. It would largely eliminate the harms of grade inflation as well.

I really believe this should happen, and I also believe it could happen. If the presidents of the top 25 or so universities in the country got together and committed to this, other schools would be forced to follow.

In terms of law school admissions, I think it actually isn't that bad as it stands, although my GPA database idea would make it a lot better. I like the idea of weighing personal statements more, but I think this is the most easy to forge portion of the application. There are services that offer "consultation" on your PS (ie they write it for you). It's a lot harder to get someone else to take the LSAT for you or take classes for you.

Many of the ideas for refining the process that are on this thread are just too resource-intensive for most, if any, schools to actually do.

[Freak]

One change - allow anybody to sit for the bar exam, like in CA, but anywhere. That allows everybody to make a name for themselves in practice. Sure attending a prestigious LS is an advantage, but if you win cases people will take notice.

[mfost]

Often concentration area GPAs at a single institution vary widely. Normalizing the areas of concentration may not be a solution since major choice may be related to aptitude.

[Pirate Pete]

Building on LK's "law schools are lazy and cheap" idea from a couple of posts ago, I thought of a streamlined system:

-No more personal statements or recommendations.  Applications would consist of nothing more than a name, address, and one personal belonging that has some kind of meaning to the applicant. 

-Adcoms then take each file to a psychic who then holds the applicant's belonging and decides whether or not to admit the applicant. 

-USNEWS bases its new ranking system on the quality and skill of the psychic that each school uses. 

-The schools that use hotlines or internet psychics (no actual contact) to make decisions are the new tier 3 schools, while those that use the magic 8 ball (and only the magic 8 ball) for admissions decisions are now tier 4s. 

-There would be a bonus for using Ms. Cleo, of course. 

-Tarot cards and tea leaves would take the place of "reputation" rankings and the importance of the LSAT. 

-There would be no more debate over the importance of soft factors, URM status, or whether or not to include an addendum.  Instead, boards such as this one would be filled with questions as to what to send for the all-important personal item ("Should I send the heart-shaped ashtray I made in third grade or the blankie that I hugged every night as a child?" - "Do you guys think it is a good idea to send in my cat? Would the Adcoms send her back if I don't get it?" - etc.) as well as queries such as "Can I get into X Law School if my most prized possession is a New Kids on the Block audio cassette or will the psychic think that is shallow?" and "Will sending the psychic a gift card to Starbucks help my chances?" 

[ibroadrunr]

Building on LK's "law schools are lazy and cheap" idea from a couple of posts ago, I thought of a streamlined system:

I like your style.

[Pirate Pete]

Thanks! 

[Noah Calhoun]

I wouldn't changet the admissions system directly, I'd change the ranking system so it didn't include lsat and gpa or spending as factors.  That should put a stop to all the numberwhoring, the AA debates and really make this process a crapshoot.

[Alamo]

I think Northwestern's got the right idea - the school interviews all candidates.  I noticed an undeniable shortage of obnoxious jerks when I visited campus, and I think the school's interview process has a lot to do with this. 

As far as other factors go (LSAT, GPA, race, etc.)- screw them.  I'd hire an admissions committee that I trust, and give them the power to be totally subjective and arbitrary.  If you like a person's total package, let them in; if anything about the total package says no, sayonara.  Quotas for LSAT, GPA, or race wouldn't work for me. 

I think that in the back of my mind, I'd want to make sure my class is diverse, but not by defining a certain percentage that must be composed of any certain group.  This works the same way sentencing guidelines do - taking away a judge's power to make a sensible decision if the sum of the circumstances conflicts with the prescribed sentence.

My main point: objective criteria are overrated.  Admissions committees state this, but I wonder how true it really is . . .

[ibroadrunr]

Alamo79:

Interviewing well is a learned skill. 

Interviews are likely to weed out more than just the obnoxious jerks.

[SCgrad]

Building on LK's "law schools are lazy and cheap" idea from a couple of posts ago, I thought of a streamlined system:

I like your style.

yeah, that was freakin' hilarious.