With August here and their incoming classes nearly here and hopefully arriving in just a few days, law school AdComms are also beginning to publish their app instructions for the coming admissions cycle. As we said in passing reference last week, both Michigan and Columbia had some interesting news for prospective students recently. However, the bigger news came out of Harvard Law last week as they announced that they no longer have a required personal statement and an optional statement but, rather, a Statement of Purpose and a Statement of Perspective—both required. While acknowledging that three schools is a small sample size, we’re starting to get some tea leaves on how schools are going to approach a post-SFFA world. So let’s take a few minutes today to walk through these updates and what it may entail for the coming cycle.

As a reminder—and as we’ve discussed a few times in blogs and webinars over the past few weeks—the Supreme Court’s SFFA rulings necessitated some changes for future college applications. The majority’s opinion made clear that AdComms can no longer consider a student’s race in a blanket manner when determining whether or not to admit them. Put another way, admissions officers can no longer utilize broadly defined Affirmative Action measures. Chief Justice Roberts’s decision did leave the door open for narrow consideration of race when he noted on the eighth page of the decision’s syllabus: “At the same time, nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.” This decision also came down at a unique time in the law school admissions calendar—the Court issued their decision on June 29th and it’s fairly common for law schools to submit their upcoming applications to LSAC by July 1st. Since then, schools have continued to figure out how to balance the Court’s decision, with LSAC’s capabilities for applications and data processing, and the schools’ vested interests in continuing to enroll diverse classes (which is a topic for another time but largely comes down to (a) law firms want law school grads that can work with a broad range of clients across the technical, professional, socio-economic, gender, and—yes—racial spectrum, and (b) given that law school is predominantly taught via the Socratic method, it’s important to have broad representation of viewpoints and backgrounds in the classroom). It’s important to view Michigan, Columbia, and Harvard’s application instructions through that lens.

Michigan Law was the first school to post their instructions and they provide an interesting case study. They are the flagship public school in a state that has banned Affirmative Action in higher ed admissions. As such, they had a bit of a head start on how to process this change. Additionally, they offer far more optional/supplemental statements than most schools. Many of these options have historically been diversity statements, just approaching the topic from different angles. For example, Michigan had the following supplemental options on their 2022–2023 application:

Essay Two
Describe a challenge, failure, or setback you have faced, whether long-term and systemic (e.g., socioeconomic, health, or complex family circumstances) or short-term and discrete (e.g., a workplace scenario or a particularly demanding course). How did you confront or overcome it? What, if anything, might you do differently?

Essay Three
Describe an experience that speaks to the problems and possibilities of diversity in an educational or work setting. As a lawyer, what measures might you take to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion?

Essay Seven
How might your perspectives and experiences enrich the quality and breadth of the intellectual life of our community or enhance the legal profession?

Let’s now compare versus some of the equivalent supplemental prompts for this year:

Essay Two
Describe a challenge, failure, or setback you have faced and overcome, whether long-term and systemic (e.g., socioeconomic, health, or complex family circumstances) or short-term and discrete (e.g., a workplace scenario or a particularly demanding course). How did you confront it? What, if anything, might you do differently?  

Essay Three
How has the world you came from positively shaped who you are today? 

Essay Seven
One of the goals of our admissions process is to enroll students who will enrich the quality and breadth of the intellectual life of our law school community, as well as to expand and diversify the identities of people in the legal profession. How might your experiences and perspectives contribute to our admissions goals? 

Essay Two has stayed exactly the same. Both are very broad prompts that ask the student to provide context for their successes to this point. Notably, neither prompt uses the word “race.” Essay Three has evolved greatly—it used to ask directly about DEI matters and it now asks for context on the student’s background. It echoes Essay Two to some extent (i.e., asking about the student’s background) with the primary difference being that it asks students to focus on overcoming a challenge in Essay Two versus reflecting on a positive experience in Essay Three. Meanwhile, they’ve expanded Essay Seven to directly state that enrolling a broadly diverse class is a goal of their admissions office. In sum, it appears that Michigan Law’s response to SFFA is to further broaden out how they define “diversity.” Overall, these are changes but not radical ones. This stands in contrast to what Columbia Law may have proposed. Our use of italics there is because Columbia claimed in the aftermath of matters that their website had been updated in error. While taking them at their word, let’s walk through a timeline:

  • On July 31, r/LSA users noticed that Columbia Law had a new requirement for the upcoming year. All students would have to submit a short video of no longer than 90 seconds, addressing a question asked at random. 
  • This came to the attention of various powers-that-be including Edward Blum, who is the founder of the Students for Fair Admissions. Those folks interpreted this requirement as a circumvention of the SFFA decisions—the law school wouldn’t ask about race but could be able to infer race from the video clip.
  • Columbia Law claimed it was a mistaken update on their website and took the information down.
  • Afterwards, Columbia updated their website with new video interview instructions. The video is no longer required; it will be by invitation. Students will not provide a video of no more than 90 seconds; rather, it will be a live interview via Skype of no more than 20 minutes.

If this is the end of this long and winding road, we are left with an interview process that seems strikingly like the one utilized for many years by the University of Chicago. The UChicago team has said that this process is meant to add a different dimension to their evaluation. Part of the legal profession is oral communication and presentation—skills less ably demonstrated via written documents than what a quick interview can provide. Further, the interview allows UChicago to learn more about the student’s background—i.e., the subjects that may otherwise be addressed in a diversity statement. It’s likely that Columbia Law is simply going down this same road and either mistakenly loaded incorrect information to their website or they quickly backtracked in the face of pressure and subsequently broadened out their interview.

We should also note that schools were discussing conducting more interviews for this coming cycle prior to the SFFA decisions. Part of this was pre-strategizing based on how oral arguments had gone in the SFFA case in the fall. But a larger part of the discussion was the Higher Ed Hot Topic of the Spring 2023 Semester—the rise of AI-powered writing software. In a world where AdComms may not know if you’ve written your statements, a brief interview and demonstration of a student’s communication skills may be a valuable test.

Last but certainly not least, Harvard Law announced their new written statements on August 4th. Out went the personal statement and optional statement, in came the Statement of Purpose and the Statement of Perspective. But much like Michigan’s optional statements, these appear to be evolutions rather than wholescale changes. To wit, here is Harvard Law’s previous prompt for the personal statement:

The personal statement provides an opportunity for you to present yourself, your background, your ideas, and your qualifications to the Admissions Committee.

The personal statement is intended as an opportunity to give the Admissions Committee a better sense of who you are as a person and as a potential student and graduate of Harvard Law School. In many instances, applicants have used the personal statement to provide more context on how their experiences and strengths could make them valuable contributors to the Harvard and legal communities, to illuminate their intellectual background and interests, or to clarify or elaborate on other information in their application. Because applicants and their experiences differ, you are the best person to determine the content of your statement.

By comparison, here’s the Statement of Purpose:
What motivates you to pursue law? How does attending law school align with your ambitions, goals, and vision for your future?

The personal statement prompt of yesteryear is a fairly standard law school PS prompt. It simultaneously says that students can write about anything, everything, and perhaps nothing (e.g., “you are the best person to determine the content of your statement”). Most students have interpreted these sorts of prompts as an invitation to speak about their motivations to attend law school and be a lawyer. We in the law admissions consulting biz have a shorthand way of putting that—Why Law? Sometimes we’re even more declarative—Why Law. If you were previously a member of this august team, then the Statement of Purpose really isn’t all that different. Rather, Harvard Law is simply being more direct and asking students to clearly put on their Why Law. T-shirts and respond accordingly. But if you were a member of Team “You Are the Best Person to Determine the Content of Your Statement” (“Go Fightin’ YABPDCYSs!”), then this may require a different approach to the narrative core of your application than you were expecting. This is especially true for those students whose primary interest in law school may simply be “It’s a good education that tends to lead to good jobs and I’d like to provide for my family.” Students in that position may have previously focused their personal statement more on their aspects of their background, hobbies, talents, professional skillset, or interests. They now may wish to do more reflection on their answer to Why Law? and consider buying a Why Law. T-shirt—we assure you that they’re 100% pre-shrunk cotton and feel as cozy as a warm kitten.

But moving from jokes about kittens and T-shirts to more serious matters—such as application components that were clearly developed in response to your university losing a landmark Supreme Court case—the Statement of Perspective is clearly an evolution of the optional statement.

For comparison, here is the 2022–2023 optional statement:
The Admissions Committee makes every effort to understand your achievements in the context of your background and to build a diverse student body. If applicable, you may choose to submit an optional additional statement to elaborate on how you could contribute to the Harvard Law School community.

And this year’s Statement of Perspective:
The Admissions Committee makes every effort to understand who you are as an individual and potential Harvard Law School student and graduate. Please share how your experiences, background, and/or interests have shaped you and will shape your engagement in the HLS community and the legal profession.

These statements are effectively the same, but the presentation is just different enough to catch the attention of applicants and litigious lawyers. Harvard Law previously grounded this statement in an effort “to build a diverse student body.” There’s also a seeming presumption that a student’s background is connected to building said diverse student body. Now, they’ve pivoted towards understanding a student’s potential as an HLS student and grad, as well as considering not only the context of a student’s success but directly connecting it to the HLS community. While this effectively asks for the same information, it broadens the scope of potential responses. Further, making this a required statement means that HLS will no doubt read a great many Statements of Perspective that discuss race, but probably also religion, ethnicity, politics, socio-economics, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, physical ability, professional experiences, and any number of other matters.

So as we look ahead to other schools revealing their application instructions for the year, how can you best use this information?

First, it’s likely that other schools’ diversity statements will pivot in the same way that Michigan’s and Harvard’s have. While the prompts will likely ask for the same effective information, expect less prompts that directly ask about DEI measures and more about how your background has shaped you. Although it’s only two schools, both have deep experience with Affirmative Action cases and legislation. Both offices are also directed by seasoned professionals who are recognized as leaders in the field. It’s reasonable to assume that these are good guideposts.

Second, it’s possible that other schools will take Harvard Law’s lead in a more directed personal statement, but we’re less confident about that than the potential for new diversity statement prompts. For example, Michigan Law’s PS prompt still comes in at 250 words and includes such suggestions as discussing your personal philosophy, sharing a meaningful vignette, intellectual interests, and whatnot. “Factors inspiring them to obtain a legal education” is merely one possible topic—it doesn’t appear Michigan Law AdComms will be purchasing Why Law. T-shirts any time soon!

Third, don’t be surprised if more schools offer interviews this year. Given the blowback from Columbia Law’s initial plan (if it was a plan and not simply a mistake…), expect that interviews will be by invitation and will be at least 10-15 minutes in length.

Finally, if this uncertainty is making you less inspired to work on your app materials and more inspired to soak up some sun in the dog days of August, no one is going to blame you! Given all the uncertainty facing both AdComms and students, submitting applications the day that the app opens will not be a big deal. Heck, AdComms may not know when that “app open” date is because they’re still having discussions with internal parties on how to best proceed. So you may wish to consider less time in front of the computer writing, and more time on an Adirondack chair with a notebook to sketch out some broad ideas for your possible Statement of Perspective. Once a few more schools release their instructions, your computer will gladly welcome you back!