3 More Questions For A Law School Admissions Expert (Part I)

Back in November, I had the opportunity to introduce this audience to Ethan Madore, the coordinator of 7Sage’s admissions consulting program. In the first part of that interview, Ethan shared his frank assessment of the roots of the never-before-seen surge in demand for a spot in a law school class, whereby law school attendance can now be viewed as seeking the “graduate-school version of a liberal arts degree.” At the time of that interview, we were still midcycle for the crop of law students now starting their first week of classes as 1L’s. Then, Ethan pointed out how a fine law school like the University of Alabama, ranked 35th in the US News rankings, had reported a median GPA for entering students of 3.95 in 2025. This year, another fine Southern law school, 34th ranked Florida State, reported a median GPA of 3.93, and a median LSAT of 169 (in their words “making history”) amidst a surge in applications of 20% and a corresponding admission rate of under 14%. That level of competitiveness is almost beyond comprehension, especially for someone like myself who remembers the days when a 170 LSAT-score was a meaningful achievement and unlocked the potential for admission at a T-14 school, rather than just table-stakes for an application to a top-50 school.

For those who didn’t read my first interview with Ethan or who need a refresher on who he is and what 7Sage does, here goes. Ethan is the coordinator of 7Sage’s law school admissions consulting program, where he’s helped advance their data-driven approach to understanding law schools’ decisions about the make-up of their incoming class. 7Sage tracks and analyzes the results of each application cycle. They have an in-house simulation of an admissions office at a top law school staffed with former admissions officers from Yale, Stanford, and Columbia. Students are given transcript recordings of how their files would actually be discussed behind closed doors, then work with professional storytellers and former admissions officers to improve their outcomes and shape winning narratives.

In short, Ethan and his team are coming off a very busy, but challenging law school admissions cycle, with little hope for a reprieve on the horizon. In case anyone needed further proof of what today’s applicants have to deal with, earlier this summer 7Sage updated its “admissions predictor” tool for those considering applying to law school. Guess what, it got harsher, such that an applicant wanting a 50-50 shot of getting into Columbia would need to apply with a 177 LSAT score and a perfect GPA. In short, craziness. But let’s see what Ethan has to say, because today’s applicants need as much help as they can get. More importantly, practicing lawyers, whether in Biglaw or in boutiques, would do well to understand how law school admissions works today, because that process reflects on the new talent that will be entering the market for entry-level jobs in our profession.

As usual, I have added some brief commentary to Ethan’s answer to my first question below, but have otherwise presented his answer as he provided it.

Gaston Kroub: There is a prevailing sentiment that prestigious law schools are looking more favorably at candidates with work experience, perhaps because such candidates will be more attractive to law firms right away. Do you agree with that?

Ethan Madore: This is certainly the case! And we see it strongly in our internal data. Law schools rankings have strongly rebalanced in favor of outcomes (bar passage rates, post-grad employment rates) over inputs (LSAT medians), which means that schools have a much stronger incentive to consider those factors. And yet, law school administrators — people who, by and large, don’t have JDs themselves and have never sought truly competitive employment outcomes — are addicted to the median game, especially below the T10. It’s easy to see if someone has a 3.95 GPA in political theory. It’s hard to know what those grades really mean in a post-Covid, post-Claude world where GPAs really aren’t a reliable indicator of rigor. And it might be impossible to know if that will translate to workplace competence and the ability to succeed in an accelerated Biglaw recruitment process.

So to approximate employment outcomes, they put a lot of pressure on the resume, yes, but they also seem to have this kind of magical faith that if a candidate seems to have an articulated post-grad plan, that makes them a more sure bet. 7Sage runs a full simulation of an elite law school admissions office, staffed by people who used to read files at Stanford, Yale, Columbia, etc. The most common thing I see when I review their blind-reads of applicants is “I don’t understand the Why Law. What’s their plan?” So it’s beneficial for an applicant to have some kind of plan. But what convinces a law school admissions officer might not be what convinces a practicing attorney, who knows that plans shift as soon as you hit 1L and there might be other, more reliable evidence for who has the temperament to succeed in the field.

We spoke candidly to a Harvard admissions officer recently, who complained that the office had become just a vetting operation for accelerated Biglaw recruitment. But how well are they actually performing the role of figuring out who will do the job well and actually stay in the field? My friends involved in hiring are certainly frustrated with the newest crop of associates. But is anyone making the connection that maybe being a T14 1L is as much a signal that you’ve successfully avoided rigorous coursework as anything else? 

GK: Ethan’s candor is welcome, particularly considering the disconnect he references, whereby law firms are disappointed by the entry-level talent pool, at the same time that top law schools are more focused than ever on creating an entry-level talent pool that law firms will like. From the perspective of a former Biglaw partner and current law firm owner, it would seem in the current environment that more potential Biglaw talent than ever may be concentrated in law schools outside of the T-14, at least with respect to law students that combine the intellectual ability needed to practice at the highest level with the fortitude and resilience to succeed in such a brutal (again, I use that in the best sense of the word) working environment. At the same time, if firms and law schools are experiencing a disconnect, perhaps it is time for more dialogue between the two constituencies, as well as honest looks at how the current recruiting system is doing in terms of matching talent and opportunity. Getting this right is so important to the future health of our profession that I am glad Ethan is spotlighting this challenge so starkly.

I’ll continue with Ethan’s answers to my remaining questions next time. If you are working in admissions at a law school and are willing to share your perspective with this audience, kindly reach out. And if you are considering applying to law school, I urge you to consider 7Sage’s offerings, as part of a pragmatic approach to maximizing your chances of admission at the school of your choice — or more likely nowadays, the school that decides to choose you.

Please feel free to send comments or questions to me at [email protected] or via Twitter: @gkroub. Any topic suggestions or thoughts are most welcome.

---

Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of K2K IP Law, an intellectual property litigation boutique that also serves as a leading consultancy on patent issues for the investment community. Gaston’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.