It's popular on this subreddit to talk about 'soft tiers.' While almost every admissions officer I know has open contempt for this idea, I do actually think speculative rankings can be a worthwhile exercise for understanding where you might stand.
The problem is that the popular breakdown repeated here comes from a somewhat random post from nine years ago. u/whistleridge, who I understand is a practicing lawyer, did good work in compiling an understanding of soft tiers at that time, but it was never meant to be the standard it’s become. As a standard, I find it has a few larger problems:
- T4 is too large of a category and groups people who are perfectly solid applicants with those who have significant liabilities.
- On the other hand, there's too much differentiation at the top. T1 and T2 are both excellent and the difference between them only matters in rare cases.
- It's flat. If you crunch experiences to just one dimension, you ignore very important nuances. Well, not even nuances! You ignore the fundamental way AOs are thinking.
As an exercise, I'm going to propose an updated softs tier system based on dozens of interviews I've had with admissions staff from Yale, Stanford, Columbia, Michigan, UVA, UCLA, Notre Dame, UT, Fordham, BC, Howard, Berkeley, etc. etc. Note, this is not actually a system they use. It's an attempt to reductively model an aggregation of the way admissions officers typically think.
At minimum, you need a three-dimensional system, based on three questions admissions officers are there to ask.
- How much has this person proven that they're actually interested in the law? Call these your 'Pre-law' softs (e.g. legal internships, mock trial, etc). Law schools care about these in order to suss out if you're likely to finish the program—figuring out if you'll finish the program is essentially an AO's primary job.
- How much has this person proven that they can obtain and keep a demanding office job? Call these your Professional softs (e.g. if you’ve had full time work, how prestigious that work has been, where your gaps are). Law schools care about these as an approximation of your ability to do well in a Big Law recruitment interview or just generally how well they think you can lock things down post-grad. Employment outcomes are a far bigger rating metric than the LSAT.
- How good of an addition is this person to a happy, interesting law school community? Call these your Personal softs (e.g. interests, hobbies, random impressive accomplishments & aspects of your personal history). The more 'elite' a law school is, the more likely they are to care about these as signs that you are broadly engaged, broadly intellectual, and broadly the kind of student they want on campus.
Let's break down four tiers of each to keep the same neat system. But with an important difference: T3 should be ‘par’ for each category — the threshold at which the question is basically satisfied for a T50 law school. With that in mind, let’s define each tier level:
T4 - Your experiences challenge your application. They introduce serious doubts that must be addressed or overcome if you're going to be admitted. In a typical year, you'll underperform your numbers.
T3 - Your experiences support your application. They don't hurt, but they don't help significantly either. In a typical year, you'll perform about as expected given your numbers. Your experiences will likely be secondary to your raw numerical impact.
T2 - Your experiences enhance your application. This is where you begin to stand out. Your resume provides strong, incontrovertible reassurance to the particular question. These are the softs where in a typical year you start to do well even as a more significant splitter. Your resume begins to be able to make up for other possible weaknesses.
T1 - Your experiences distinguish your application. My metric for T1 softs is anything a law school would put in their marketing material—the kinds of accomplishments and backgrounds that a law school wants to brag about its incoming class possessing.
Okay, now let me break it down into an activity for you that will give you some actual productive steps to take on your application.
Step one - Determine your Pre-Law Softs
Pick the one that most closely describes you:
T4 - I have no direct exposure to the legal field beyond maybe routine membership in a pre-law society. An AO looking at my resume won't find any obvious, significant evidence that I've gone out of my way to seriously learn about the legal profession in a real-world context.
T3 - I have a bit of solid exposure to the legal profession, most likely through things set up for students. I did one or two summer internships related to the law or have demonstrably serious legal volunteer work. If I've had a real job in the legal field, it's at a small family firm or organization that an AO probably isn't that familiar with.
T2 - I've had a real job in the legal field, like being a paralegal at a large firm, for at least a year. I've had sustained, serious professional interactions with lawyers, and that's obvious on my resume.
T1 - I've had impressive experiences in a real job in the legal field. E.g. I was a demonstrably excellent paralegal at an important firm and clearly already have a robust legal network. I've obviously taken every opportunity I've had to understand that the life of a lawyer is right for me and excelled in those contexts.
Step two - Determine your Professional softs
Pick the one that most closely describes you.
T4 - I have never had a full time professional job and/or there are obvious post-college gaps in my resume.
T3 - I've had full time professional jobs, but not really ones in large offices where my primary interaction was with other professionals. Looking at my resume, an AO would think that I could probably get and keep a legal job, but that I've yet to truly learn the level of white-collar decorum you need as a lawyer.
T2 - I've had full-time professional jobs where my primary interactions have been with other professionals. I've clearly had to learn the decorum required by people working in law, finance, consulting, etc.
T1 - I've had significant professional experience in a household name kind of company, like FAANG or a Big Four or MBB. Looking at my resume, an AO would be immediately assured that I have already thrived in a truly top-level professional environment.
Step 3 - Determine your Personal softs
Pick the one that most describes you.
T4 - There is nothing particularly noteworthy about my hobbies or random other accomplishments. I do what I like and don’t make a fuss about it.
T3 - My resume demonstrates that I'm someone who is committed to their interests. I'm involved in organized athletics. I do community theater. I was a leader of an interesting college group. Basically, my interests have brought me out into the world to connect with people, and that can be represented in a recognizable way.
T2 - I'm so committed to my interests that they've basically become my second job. Often, they've literally been my job. At college, I organized new, impactful activities. I've gotten to professional-level skill in an art, and my resume proves it. These aren't just things from my past, I have a record of continuing this level of engagement wherever I go. Looking at my experiences, an AO would assume I'd be a pillar of the campus community.
T1 - My interests have brought me to the level of national accomplishment. I've achieved demonstrable excellence in the kind of highly competitive environment an AO would recognize as prestigious and impressive. I had a serious role in an off-Broadway play. I won the world-championship in collegiate debate. I qualified for the Olympics in fencing. I’ve done fascinating and impactful research. Basically there is a huge feather in my cap that has nothing to do with the law, but proves that I both have exceptional talent and can fully commit to something.
Step 4 - What do you do with these results?
If your only goal is to compare yourself to other applicants and have something to put into your flair, figure out your three sub-rankings and then take the median one. This is as-good-as-any estimate of how good of a candidate you are. Examples:
Amy was a team lead at McKinsey (T1) and a regionally accomplished cellist (T1). AOs would probably overlook that she never even went near a pre-law fair (T4.) She's clearly hot shit (T1).
Billo has spent two years working in the front end of a regional bank (T3), doesn't seem to do anything else with his time (T4), but very seriously participated in mock trial in college (T3.) He's not a great applicant, but not terrible either (T3)
Rex worked in finance after graduation (T2), did a couple of legal internships back in college (T3), and plays the blues guitar Wednesday nights at that little place downtown with the brick walls (T2/T3). Seems interesting! (T2/T3)
Now, there are obvious flaws with this too (wouldn't Amy still be a good candidate even if she never touched the cello? I certainly think so.) But we're dealing with approximations. These days, professional softs are clearly the most important. If you don't have pre-law softs, you can make up for it with the right narrative, but you'll have some convincing to do. Places like Yale and Michigan care much more about prestigious personal softs than regional schools like Ole Miss (a phenomenon I refer to as ‘genteel wackiness.’) But don’t be tricked into thinking they care about those things to the exclusion of the more fundamental questions.
What you should really do is use this to spot-check your weaknesses and plan your application narratives. Which of those three fundamental questions are you currently failing? That's what you need to focus on. To go back to my examples, Amy doesn't need to convince law schools that she can do difficult things excellently, she needs to convince them that applying to law school isn't a random quarter-life crisis. Rex stands out less, but his case is in some ways easier to make.
Now admissions officers vary and any one of them might disagree with a lot of what I just outlined. In fact, I expect the average admissions officer would object to the basic premise of this exercise! But, hey, heuristics are helpful and this can help you spot-check your weaknesses.
I'll be around for much of today and I'm happy to chat about any of this, so AMA -- I'm the coordinator of 7Sage's admissions program. There was a lot I didn’t touch on, like military service, the Peace Corps, TFA, or other things. I’m happy to hash out ‘Where does this fit?’ questions down in the comments.