[backhoe13]

Is it fair to all applicants if you were admitted to a prestigious law school partly because the dean endorsed you? Would you pursue your studies in this school?

Consider this:
Let's say you came from a good law school and have good grades. But for some reason, you decided to transfer to an even better school. To be admitted, you need high grades and entrance exam scores . Fortunately, your only problem is how to ace the entrance exam.

Since this school has a very low acceptance rate, you asked the dean (who is somehow connected to you) to consider your application should you pass the entrance exam. If you were admitted to that school, is it advisable to study there even when you were just endorsed by the dean? Is this fair to other students? Would you take the opportunity?

BTW: I'm not from the U.S. In my country, every law school prepares and administers its own aptitude exam.

[J_9]

It would, or should, be a conflict of interest.

[talaniman]

Its done all the time here in the US and is called a legacy policy and doesn't matter much about test scores being better than someone else's.

Legacy preferences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see knowing the dean as a similar situation and see no conflict of interest as long as you pass the test. Is it fair? Probably NOT, so let your conscious be your guide for going down such a path.

Plenty of smart kids who CAN pass a test but cannot afford tuition and have to go where they can afford. Is that fair?

Life ain't fair on many levels, and you decide how you navigate the unfairness.

[Fr_Chuck]

That is how many students get into the better schools, It is because the dean or someone in the appointment committee has ties to a family member.


This is how people get most of the better jobs, and how many government appointments are made.

Sorry, this is just life and how real life words. You get into the better school anyway you can.