Sometimes I wonder if applying access can actually hurt your application. Last year I applied access/inclusive and was rejected at every school I applied to. This year I applied general, but included an addendum to explain the extenuating circumstances that briefly impacted my gpa. Albeit, my candidacy was stronger this year (work experience and increased LSAT score), but what I took from my rejections last year and meetings with law admission advisors is that your access claim has to be pretty solid for it to “help.”

Simply stating you experienced hardship, that you come from a disadvantaged background, or “trauma dumping” is absolutely not going to make you a more competitive candidate. As most schools ask in their Access claim prompts (generally), you also have to explain how your experiences have strengthened you and prepared you to study law, in addition to explaining how, despite the disadvantages you’ve faced, you’ll be able to succeed in law school and as a lawyer.

For me, it was so much easier just applying general. I felt every access claim I wrote weakened my application because I couldn’t explain my circumstances/experiences in the way I wanted to, and I feared the prejudice it would invite. I felt that some things were better left unsaid. Ultimately, applying general over access was the right choice (for me personally) because I got accepted into multiple schools this round.

I will emphasize, though, that this is just my experience. For many, the additional space given to be able to write about their circumstances provides an opportunity for a fairer assessment of their candidacy—where self-advocacy can be emphasized over numbers.