The numbers set the Ceiling

Here is more of that internet chatter. This post, coupled with what I took away from the Aspiring Lawyers with a Science PhD FAQ, leads me to make the preliminary conclusion that the conventional wisdom regarding the benefit of a PhD (or any other significant soft factor) is that undergraduate GPA and LSAT score set the ceiling for where you may have a shot at getting admitted. A PhD will not make somebody competitive at a school where their GPA is well outside the 25-75% range. I've read some comments in other places (I'll discuss them in more detail in a later post) that make me think there might be some chance that, if packaged correctly, there could be a chance to overcome a mediocre GPA with a compelling story and solid LSAT score (that's me).

I plan to explore that area right at the deny/weak consider line. titles was there with a couple of his schools. The result was the wait list. Could he have done something differently to get admitted? A more interesting personal statement topic? A clearer diversity statement? If the admissions process was totally numbers driven, submission of a transcript and an LSAT score would be the only things needed for an application. As it is, we have to submit personal statements and letters of recommendation. We are given a chance to comment on how we will impact the diversity of the student body and address a few bad grades or a lousy LSAT score. Why would admissions committees want to read all of that stuff if they didn't use it to make decisions? How can I maximize the impact of my soft factors in my application?