Clarification/Follow-up by paulcporter on 10/29/03 2:56 pm:
What do you think about the binding early decision contract? I read Montauk's book, "How to Get Into the Top Law School's", and he seemed to think they do not give a candidate any edge over others, which is unlike the situation at the undergrad level. Have you heard anyone say otherwise?
Clarification/Follow-up by paulcporter on 10/29/03 2:59 pm:
I did not really give you enough data to evaluate my case in my original question.
My UGPA was 3.6, major was electrical engineering. Also have a MS degree. I've been in the telecom industry for 7 years, worked abroad in Germany for 3 years. I did a stint as a manager, and I wrote a 100k word travelogue (haven't tried to publish it yet).
That is the good news, the bad news is I never managed to forge a relationship with any undergrad professors, never published any research. My references are all professional ones.
To answer your question, I want to be a lawyer and want my law career as great as it can be. I want to get into the best school possible, regardless of cost and location.
I mean, it's great that they would love to have an Indian on board, but I guess there are thousands of candidates out there with industry experience, worked abroad, etc.
Getting into Columbia would be like winning the lottery for me. I'm just trying to decide if the diversity factor would really set me apart from all the other prospective students with work experience and decent UGPA.
Anyway, I will apply.
Clarification/Follow-up by voiceguy2000 on 10/29/03 3:07 pm:
Early decision programs did not exist back in the late 70s when I was playing the law school admissions game.
If you are thinking about going this route, you are almost out of time for the fall 2004 admissions season -- the deadlines I have seen are in early to mid-November.
If you were going to follow that route, I would do it only at a school you were confident was your first-choice school. I think that the commentary posted by the University of Michigan Law School is sound:
The Early Decision program is not for everyone. Students admitted under this program restrict their law school choice in return for the certainty of learning an admission decision much earlier than is typical. Students for whom financial aid considerations are paramount are not well-suited for this program, since financial aid decisions cannot be made until later in the season. Likewise, students who have not had an opportunity to research law schools thoroughly prior to applying may end up being dissatisfied at having restricted their choices.
In my opinion, the more flexible you can be, the more likely it is that you may find a spot at a more selective school. I remember one of my classmates at Stanford who had been waitlisted there, and was planning to attend U.C. Berkeley right up until the very end of August (before the commencement of first year), when Stanford offered him a spot due to a last-minute opening. He had the freedom to switch plans when the opportunity arose.
I find it ironic, frankly, because for many years the game on the student side was to get the law schools to keep offers open as long as possible. Now, it seems as though a form of paranoia has set in such that people want a certain decision right away, even at the expense of limiting their options.
This may sound like a radical idea, but I would be tempted to call any law school offering such an Early Decision program that you are considering, and ask them point blank whether selecting that option improves your likelihood of admission. Listen carefully to the answer. You might also see if you can gather some numbers as to how many people are pursuing this option -- that information would also help inform your decision.
I cannot speak for the actual admissions officers at any law schools, but no matter how I analyze the issue based on my knowledge of the overall admissions process, I cannot see how checking that option would have more than a tiny impact, at best, on your likelihood of admission.
Clarification/Follow-up by voiceguy2000 on 10/29/03 3:31 pm:
I would recommend that you browse some of the FAQs that I have posted in this area for other thoughts on law school applications and related topics.
I attended Carnegie-Mellon University, and my sense is that (at least as of the mid-70s) a 3.6 average in EE would be considered quite strong. Grade inflation had definitely not set in at C-MU at that time. One thing you might want to research, and touch on in your admissions essay, is the context by which your GPA should be viewed.
In my opinion, which is just an opinion, reference letters from professional associates are usually pretty weak because they do not normally touch on the core qualities that go into success in law school. That is why faculty recommendations are valued. It might be worth some effort to try to track down some people at your old school to see if any of them are willing to go to bat for you. The advantage of faculty recommendations is that such people can really evaluate your ability to handle schoolwork.
Failing in that, I would advise trying to find ways to get professional references who can actually comment on your ability to analyze complex situations, gather facts, make decisions, and reduce complex and chaotic circumstances into manageable pieces. Strong written and oral communication skills would also be a plus, as would evidence of diligence and effective production of top-quality work.
Good luck.
Clarification/Follow-up by paulcporter on 11/10/03 2:21 am:
You know, over the weekend I just got a letter from Yale inviting me to apply, which is really blowing my mind.
I also went to a law school forum that was organized by LSAC last Saturday, and I attended a "minority perspectives" workshop. Based on the video that they showed, I begin to worry that, in seeking diversity, law schools have stereotypical expectations. For example, the native american girl in the video said that to be a lawyer was like a modern way to "be a warrior" for her people. Groan. The Latino featured in the video started a cultural center or whatever for latinos in his community and wanted to do public interest law to fight for latinos, the african-american was a single mom trying to get a leg up in a society of severe disadvantage for blacks.
This is not me at all, and I am worried that law schools will be disappointed when they figure out that I don't have a long ponytail and wear turquoise jewelry and eagle feathers, or otherwise conform to some stereotype.
Clarification/Follow-up by paulcporter on 11/10/03 2:21 am:
You know, over the weekend I just got a letter from Yale inviting me to apply, which is really blowing my mind.
I also went to a law school forum that was organized by LSAC last Saturday, and I attended a "minority perspectives" workshop. Based on the video that they showed, I begin to worry that, in seeking diversity, law schools have stereotypical expectations. For example, the native american girl in the video said that to be a lawyer was like a modern way to "be a warrior" for her people. Groan. The Latino featured in the video started a cultural center or whatever for latinos in his community and wanted to do public interest law to fight for latinos, the african-american was a single mom trying to get a leg up in a society of severe disadvantage for blacks.
This is not me at all, and I am worried that law schools will be disappointed when they figure out that I don't have a long ponytail and wear turquoise jewelry and eagle feathers, or otherwise conform to some stereotype.
Clarification/Follow-up by voiceguy2000 on 11/10/03 2:40 am:
I am venturing into very shaky ground when I say this, but my belief is that the law schools do not want someone to show up with warrior beads and headdress. What they want is to be able to check a box somewhere that shows that they have done their duty towards "diversity." Having done that duty, however, they want the student to fit right into the mainstream of the student body, do well in class, interview well, get a great job with a major law firm, make lots of money, and donate a big chunk of it to the law school.
I guess I should not really be surprised at how tonedeaf the LSAC people are with that video you saw. How patronizing, and stereotyping. As someone who spends a lot of time working with marketing issues, it is obvious to me that the people who made that video did not study their market at all.
While I was at Stanford Law, I got to know a lawyer named Rick West who had graduated from the law school a few years earlier and was a partner at a very very high-powered, politically connected law firm in Washington, D.C. His heritage was Cheyenne. I have no idea what role that background may have played in his admission; my guess is that it made him an intriguing candidate (something out of the mainstream) but that he also had strong credentials.
There is a recent article about him in the Stanford alumni magazine. He is really one of the nicest people I have ever met, and although he is undoubtedly quite busy (he is now running a project to establish the Museum of the American Indian for the Smithsonian), I suspect his perspective may be one worth getting. I would encourage you to get in touch with him and see whether you can schedule 10 minutes or so on the telephone, or (if convenient) a brief visit in person.
I am sorry you are having to wrestle with all the stereotypes and nonsense. It is too bad that anyone who questions that kind of thing is called a bigot.
The thing to remember in all of this is that while the schools are reaching out to you to get you to apply, you will still have to persuade them that you can cut the mustard as a law student, and that you will make them glad to have admitted you.
Good luck.
