My cat jumped up in my lap at the exact same time Admissions Cat jumped into the background. I nearly jumped out of my chair with surprise, haha! Thanks for another great video, Dean Z!
Thanks again Dean Z for illuminating the often mysterious admission process! Could I suggest to make a video about international application tips? I am sure it would be helpful to many who often wonder whether schools assess them differently than American applicants.
Pretty sure I've watched all of these but am just now noticing the copy of "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" tucked away on the bottom right bookshelf. Must be because the content is always so engaging!
Thank you for this video. Like each other video in the series, it was a uniquely helpful look behind the scenes of the admissions process, with some real insights to mull over. I appreciate your taking the time and effort to put it together, and I appreciate the way admissions cat can sport such a nicely combed middle part. My cat does his hair the same way!
How hilarious-your lawyer friend telling you, of all people, how admissions operate! Quite different than your lecturing of a young relative in ep. 12! On that note, I have a few video ideas: -What are the stereotypes encompassing the profession of law? Are certain traits and qualities engrained from the shared social space of legal education? The complementarity of vapidness as opposed to intellect in the profession? Positives in concepts that marginalize the legal profession? -(Fan Service)-I thoroughly enjoyed reading Anne Lamott’s “Bird by Bird” as per the A2Z blog. A video full of Dean Z's recommendations of literature, podcasts, music, (life advice), et cetera would certainly be useful. -Reapplying part 2, reapplying to a dream school versus, (as the kids say these days), ‘settling’. ‘Trying too Hard’ navigating the line between showing genuine interest-without genuinely being annoying. 😊
Legitimate question: Why aren’t working class applicants given more weight? It’s harder for a student to get top notch grades who had to work full time while getting their undergrad degree and also try to engage in extracurricular activities versus a student who has all types of extracurricular activities on their resume, has top notch grades, and didn’t have to work full time because they had it easier. It just seems like the law school admissions process favors students who had it easy and all they had to do was focus on their studies and they look like world beaters on their applications. I feel working class applicants truly get to showcase what they’re made of once they’re in law school because they’re living on student loans and don’t have to worry about working full time. That should be considered in admissions.
At the outset, let me say-I totally agree with your premise. Socioeconomic disadvantage should absolutely be a factor in admissions, and having to work throughout in college can create an unfair disadvantage that is hard to overcome. That said--one of those dorky things you might start saying once you’re a law student (and which you will find hilarious and your non-law friends will roll their eyes about), is “assuming facts not in evidence.” I know of no law school that *doesn’t* view working through college as a positive factor in admissions, and it is certainly a principle reason why an admissions office will not have concerns about lower grades. That doesn’t, of course, mean that everyone who works throughout college will find perfect success in the law school admissions process. Two possible reasons off the top of my head: (1) The first Q an admissions reviewer asks is, “can this person do the work out at our school?” Sometimes we can be sure that a GPA does not reflect the person’s true academic ability, given the competing demands of work during undergrad, and yet still not be certain what the person’s academic ability is. (2) Sometimes it is not completely clear from a resume how much time a candidate spent working-make sure that your resume adequately and clearly reflects your work commitment. And then third, generally-there’s lots of reasons why an admissions office may not choose to admit someone; if you don’t get admitted and you have lower grades, you don’t know that the grades are what kept you out. Finally, on the flip side, if it’s any comfort: it is usually very clear when a student hasn’t done anything in college apart from getting good grades, and the law schools that have the privilege of lots of applicants with strong scores do not typically choose those kinds of students.
I thought the mistake was going to be "Anne Arbor," but "Ann Harbor" absolutely killed me. 😂
Haha! I thought the mistake would be “Ann Arbour!”
Transparent. Candid. Yet FUNNY! Thank you Dean Z for another incredible video. I think very very highly of you and the work you do.
My cat jumped up in my lap at the exact same time Admissions Cat jumped into the background. I nearly jumped out of my chair with surprise, haha! Thanks for another great video, Dean Z!
Thanks again Dean Z for illuminating the often mysterious admission process! Could I suggest to make a video about international application tips? I am sure it would be helpful to many who often wonder whether schools assess them differently than American applicants.
Pretty sure I've watched all of these but am just now noticing the copy of "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" tucked away on the bottom right bookshelf. Must be because the content is always so engaging!
Thank you for this video. Like each other video in the series, it was a uniquely helpful look behind the scenes of the admissions process, with some real insights to mull over. I appreciate your taking the time and effort to put it together, and I appreciate the way admissions cat can sport such a nicely combed middle part. My cat does his hair the same way!
Your videos are so helpful! They make the process less intimidating, thank you for putting them out on UA-cam:)
ADMISSIONS CAT!!! Is that a street name or legal name?
How hilarious-your lawyer friend telling you, of all people, how admissions operate! Quite different than your lecturing of a young relative in ep. 12! On that note, I have a few video ideas:
-What are the stereotypes encompassing the profession of law? Are certain traits and qualities engrained from the shared social space of legal education? The complementarity of vapidness as opposed to intellect in the profession? Positives in concepts that marginalize the legal profession?
-(Fan Service)-I thoroughly enjoyed reading Anne Lamott’s “Bird by Bird” as per the A2Z blog. A video full of Dean Z's recommendations of literature, podcasts, music, (life advice), et cetera would certainly be useful.
-Reapplying part 2, reapplying to a dream school versus, (as the kids say these days), ‘settling’. ‘Trying too Hard’ navigating the line between showing genuine interest-without genuinely being annoying. 😊
Mr. Kitty!
By the way, Dean Z, I got my LSAT score back today. 168! Very much looking forward to submitting now 😁
Wow congrats! Best of luck to you this cycle
@@juliabrooks8396 Thank you!
"The sassy glasses" she said hahahaha love it
I have always wanted to visit Anne Harbor...wherever that may be.
Cookbook game is on point!
What did she say at tthe 11 minute mark? "All these mistakes I'm talking about they're ....." what?
"They're all forgivable."
Legitimate question: Why aren’t working class applicants given more weight? It’s harder for a student to get top notch grades who had to work full time while getting their undergrad degree and also try to engage in extracurricular activities versus a student who has all types of extracurricular activities on their resume, has top notch grades, and didn’t have to work full time because they had it easier. It just seems like the law school admissions process favors students who had it easy and all they had to do was focus on their studies and they look like world beaters on their applications. I feel working class applicants truly get to showcase what they’re made of once they’re in law school because they’re living on student loans and don’t have to worry about working full time. That should be considered in admissions.
At the outset, let me say-I totally agree with your premise. Socioeconomic disadvantage should absolutely be a factor in admissions, and having to work throughout in college can create an unfair disadvantage that is hard to overcome. That said--one of those dorky things you might start saying once you’re a law student (and which you will find hilarious and your non-law friends will roll their eyes about), is “assuming facts not in evidence.” I know of no law school that *doesn’t* view working through college as a positive factor in admissions, and it is certainly a principle reason why an admissions office will not have concerns about lower grades. That doesn’t, of course, mean that everyone who works throughout college will find perfect success in the law school admissions process. Two possible reasons off the top of my head: (1) The first Q an admissions reviewer asks is, “can this person do the work out at our school?” Sometimes we can be sure that a GPA does not reflect the person’s true academic ability, given the competing demands of work during undergrad, and yet still not be certain what the person’s academic ability is. (2) Sometimes it is not completely clear from a resume how much time a candidate spent working-make sure that your resume adequately and clearly reflects your work commitment. And then third, generally-there’s lots of reasons why an admissions office may not choose to admit someone; if you don’t get admitted and you have lower grades, you don’t know that the grades are what kept you out. Finally, on the flip side, if it’s any comfort: it is usually very clear when a student hasn’t done anything in college apart from getting good grades, and the law schools that have the privilege of lots of applicants with strong scores do not typically choose those kinds of students.