Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 641 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Related Discussions
Do law schools read every application equally? [POLL]
Lsat taker22
Alum Member
Title says it all. I'm very curious to know!
Equal?
- Do you think law schools read every application with an equal amount of judgement?97 votes
- Of course. Every. Single. Application...5.15%
- No. How could they?63.92%
- I'm only here to see the poll results.30.93%
Comments
Those with higher scores probably get in without a deep read. They usually get a quick turn around for the results.
Very interesting. I could see that happening for most law schools.
At that point its all about submitting a satisfactory app that explains any red flags
I have no idea what this really means...
That said, "I went with no, how could they?"
If people with high scores get in with a less deep read is that them getting an equal amount of judgement. The office started with an equal amount of judgement, read the file starting with the scores, and suddenly his/her judgements were mostly positive heading into the letters of rec, resume, and essays.
Of course even if we accept different numbers as part of the exercise of equal judgement, I don't think we can ever claim all files are read equally.
Files are evaluated differently if submitted at different times in the process. But, maybe we mantain that is just part of the assertion of equal judgement. The people who submit early demonstrate interest within the scope of the process.
What do we do about things like racism and bigotry though. Law admissions officers are not perfect people so I'm sure those thinng affect them. Say that somehow we squirm out of that stopping them from exerting this equal judgement though...
What do we do about chance? Isn't it possible that the admissions officer is in a bad mood during the period when he/she happens to read my app or has just been told a funny joke before reading yours? What if my allegory or story happens to please someone a little bit because it is a good essay which would please many, but mostly because that specific person has an experience I couldn't possibly have known about which makes it really connect? What if they skim the one dtail which would have made the whole thing connect for them?
I'm not sure if it is interesting, boring, horrifying, or a source of hope, but the role of chance seems both inescapable to me and an insurmountable obstacle to this reading every application equally.
thanks all!
I agree with @"Seeking Perfection", I think its reasonable to expect admissions officers to have a certain degree of bias regarding applications especially factoring in early and late admissions.
I can see the point that admissions truly does try their best at putting an equal amount of effort into judging applications. I guess the question would be "What do you consider an equal amount of judgement when looking at an application?"
That being said, I answered your question "No, how could they?" purely based on the quantity of applicants; if Joe admissions officer has to read 50 admissions a day I would say some applications don't get as much attention as others especially if they are not hitting the criteria for that particular school.
This is a summary of what Ann Levine says in "The Law School Admission Game", 3rd Ed.
Applications are received and checked for "completeness" (I think I just made that word up). Then they are likely put into three "virtual" stacks: (1) presumptive Admit, (2) presumptive Not Admit, (3) Committee, based on LSAT / GPA indexing. Those in the presumptive Admit get checked for any red flags and then green lit. Committee files get a thorough review and a up/down vote. The presumptive Not Admit files will get a review for anything "special" and either final no or placed into the committee file.
The above is my summary, not a direct quote. Ms. Levine had been director of admissions at 2 different schools at the time of the book's publication.
And US News is of course a big factor, maybe especially for schools that jump around on there.
Wow this is great insight into the application process!
I barfed a bit thinking about my apps going through this process. Idk.
My pre-law advisor said the same thing––based on the initial view-over (I'm guessing much of this has to do with scores), you get put in one of three baskets––definitely yes, definitely no, and on the bubble. From there, some are reviewed more or less.
By checking Asian in the box, its already a different league. No doubt. And it's not at all for the better.
That really was insightful @LSAT_Wrecker !
There really isn't a noticeable impact on admissions decision for Asians. Asians are not as overrepresented in law school as in undergrad. Additionally, the process is so intensely numbers driven that schools cannot afford to require higher numbers of Asians. Chances are basically the same as for whites or any other non-URM(under-represented minority).
Or at least as someone who checks the box, I'm pretty sure admissions chances are nearly the same and don't see the difference in my own results yet.
Although you're Asian (I think that's what your last paragraph implies?), you also have a 180, so I'm not sure how representative your cycle would be.
If Asians do score higher than the LSAT than other ethnicities, coupled with a comparably higher GPA, (not sure if that's true, but I wouldn't be surprised seeing how it is clearly true in undergrad admissions and in medical school admissions), then shouldn't we be seeing higher numbers of Asians at some schools than we currently do?
You are right that my cycle doesn't mean much as a data point. No individual cycle does, but mine might mean less than most.
One of my parents is from India, but doesn't identify as Indian. On most forms including law school forms I end up identifying as both European(my other parent) and the Indian subset of Asian if it is an option, but I hate the form and part of me always wants to choose other or give them a paragraph response or something.
We don't see higher numbers of Asians in law schools mostly because they self-select towards other fields. This probably happens for a variety of reasons. One is that STEM fields are seen as a better route to financial success. Another is that second generation Asian Americans are unlikely to have parents who were American lawyers. Finally, promotion of Asians is less likely once they become lawyers.
Someone on 7sage posted a couple months ago about the non-promotion phenomenon called the bamboo ceiling. This is a good resource that describes it.
https://www.apaportraitproject.org
Anyways, I don't mean to totally dismiss the idea that Asians might be at a slight disadvantage in admissions, but it is not a different league. It's nothing like undergraduate admissions where we can see that Asians need an SAT score over a hundred points higher than whites on average or an ACT score about 3 points higher on average to get admitted into some schools. If you try and run a similar regression with law schools you get something more like 0 to half a point better.
I don't think this difference is because law schools are more noble places which discriminate against Asians less. I think it is much less noble. Law school admissions are much more predictable based on GPAs and LSAT scores(because of how important US News ranking is) rather than holistic decision making. Therefore, for the most part, for good or bad, there is little chance for law schools to make a decision to accept someone who participated in more or better extra curriculars instead of studying. They still manage to help out groups they specifically try to help like under-represented minorities, but cannot create a system which passively helps certain groups like whites the way undergraduate institutions can. That is also probably part of the reason why law schools tend to get sued a little more frequently for their affirmative action programs. They have to be a little more explicit and can't hide behid the holistic review as well.
Anyways I hope that clears some things up a little without starting an affirmative action debate.
If someone has to be afraid to check 'Asian' especially as an Asian American... then there is obviously a problem. There really is.
For me I just don't find it a very good descriptor. My Asian parent doesn't think of themself as Asian, but it fits better than anything else.
But my only point was that as far as admissions Asian Americans need not fear checking the Asian box or clicking it anywhere near as much as in undergrad.
Okay, but so far in the previous comments you contradict yourself. You initially disagreed with Asians having a higher expectation for getting admissions to Law schools, compared to undergrad.
However, in your following comment you seemed to state that neither SAT nor LSAT scores impact admissions & race identification. After this you go back to your previously held beliefs about SAT scores and race being much more common than LSAT scores.
I mention this because after analyzing what you've said, I'm now confused with where you stand. If you could clarify whether you feel they do or do not scrutinize over lsats as they do other exams, and being Asian would be great.
@OverRatedUnderAchiever
I did not. I initially diasagreed with the idea of Asians being discriminated against at all in law school admissions.
I said "There really isn't a noticeable impact on admissions decision for Asians. Asians are not as overrepresented in law school as in undergrad. Additionally, the process is so intensely numbers driven that schools cannot afford to require higher numbers of Asians. Chances are basically the same as for whites or any other non-URM(under-represented minority)." This was a little unclear because I ambiguously use the word numbers, but I think it is pretty clear in context that I mean higher GPAs and LSAT scores by higher numbers. Maybe this is the source of your confusion?
That just isn't true. I'm clear the whole time that the higher SAT scores required for Asians to get into the same undergraduate schools as whites is pretty dramatic. I'm also clear that there is not a noticeable and meaningful statistical difference in LSAT score require by Asians to get into the same Law Schools as whites. These are facts not my opinions. If you don't trust me, look them up. I avoided a contentious discussion of affirmative action so as not to get smeared like this.
I'm trying not to comment on what I think of the merits of affirmative action are and are not. However, as I have mantained throughout I will reiterate that Asians do not need substantially higher LSAT scores to get into Law Schools than whites. It's not really a matter of opinion. There are statistics to be found on this. Asians do need higher SAT and ACT scores on average to get into undergrad on average. This is also statistically confirmable. I believe that the difference between undergrad admissions and law school admissions which causes this different treatment of Asian apllicants is that Law School application decisions are driven nearly entirely by US News rankings which Law Schools can most easilly influence by admitting higher LSAT and GPA combinations. Undergaduate school's admissions processes are not as heavilly driven by the rankings of a single magazine so they are more free to ignore maximizing SAT or ACT and GPA combos and embrace so called "holistic" decisions processes which often result in Asian Americans needing higher scores to be admitted. Law schools need to get the highest LSAT GPA combos they can so they don't have the freedom to do that. It would hurt their ranking since another school would snap up the high scoring Asians.
Online affirmative action debates nearly inevitably deteriorate and I don't want this to become one so I probably won't respond further to any comments in this thread. If by some chance you actually remain unclear about my statements feel free to PM me. I'll read a response in this thread, but likely won't respond to it.
I am glad you know all of the stock issues for your academic debates. Mazel Tov!