Every blind squirrel finds a nut, or is there more to it than that?

           As admission decisions are finally being received, a dichotomy of students has been created: those that were accepted to the law schools of their choice and those that were not. Fortunately, many of my friends have found themselves on the brighter of these two sides. However, their relative successes revealed more about the admissions process as a whole than I had anticipated it would.

            Many ambitious undergraduates consider to have conquered the admissions process if they are accepted to any of the top 20 law schools. To heighten the possibility of this dream coming to fruition, many students apply to all of these schools. Statistically, one would think that if your scores reflect previous admissions medians, you would receive an acceptance. Additionally, you would be accepted to more of the schools closer to 20 than to 1, merely because the closer to the top you get the more competitive the admissions process is. But this was not the case with almost all of my friends, making me wonder if the statistics provided to me by Princeton Review and other reputable sources were an accurate depiction of law school admissions process.

            One of my friends: female, great student, good LSAT, and an amplitude of work experience applied to nearly every top 20 law school. Being deferred at nearly every one, she was accepted to Berkeley, NYU, and USC. While each of these are amazing law schools and I would be thrilled to attend any of them, the first two are ranked fourth and sixth respectably. Now I would have thought that if you are to be accepted to those schools, you would surely be accepted to most other schools in the top 20, especially those closer to 20. The scattered and seemingly inconsistent admission results were not unique to this one person. In fact, four of my friends found themselves receiving similar decisions. This startling paradox seemed only to reinforce the common metaphor that the law school admissions process is nothing more than a complete crapshoot or the luck of draw.

            Although these results may depict a highly impersonal and robotic process, I believe it portrays the complete opposite. In addition to the quantitative or hard portions of the law school application (LSAT and UGPA), there are several qualitative or soft portions too. These portions: such as teacher recommendations, personal statements, and supplemental essays are often considered to be of secondary importance, if any importance at all as so much of the law school rankings are determined by the quantitative or hard numbers. These qualitative portions are included to provide the admissions departments with further insight into an applicant’s character and drive. They have often been said to be in lieu of a physical interview. From the examples sited above, I have derived my own theory as to what that data really says. I believe that it shows that considerable amounts of time and attention are given to each application by the admission departments in an earnest effort to match the best suited students to each school. And when I say best suited, I am referring every aspect of a student and not solely his LSAT score and undergraduate grades. Each of my friends said that they were accepted to schools that really fit them well. This optimistic explanation for the admission paradox has reinstilled some faith within me that this whole process is reasonably personal and that it is really aimed benefiting the students and not just the law schools themselves.

            To all those that have not received favorable decisions, don’t forget that you can always reapply next year. In the mean time, be as active as you can with those schools that waitlisted you. Being waitlisted does NOT mean no, but simply we are unsure about your commitment. It is merely an open invitation to display your desire to attend that school. Keep your interest known and good things shall happen.