A2Z 25: Holistic Application Review 

Haha! I thought the mistake would be “Ann Arbour!”

"They're all forgivable."

Wow congrats! Best of luck to you this cycle

@@juliabrooks8396 Thank you!

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.