Getting into Law School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
...

No, the point is that law school admission is driven not by undergrad prestige, but by LSAT and gpa. LSAT and gpa are driven by the individual. Individuals at highly selective private undergrads proportionately have higher LSAT and gpa than is typical of large state schools, which have a much wider range of academic stats overall among their students.

Yale is arguably the only law school that gives the appearance of caring about undergrad prestige and has a small law school class. The people I know who went to top law schools, including Harvard (which has a large law school class), attended schools ranked T60 to T80 privates and beyond, as well as to numerous state flagships. UIUC, U Kentucky, University of Kansas, and on and on. And yes, they do go on to clerk for S. Ct. and are employed in BigLaw.

Who is arguing that law school admissions are "driven" by undergrad prestige? Obviously LSAT and GPA are "driven by the individual." You're attacking a paper tiger. The point is that undergrad institution is a factor, especially at the very top law schools. Look at Stanford's students (in addition to Yale). Not many non-elite colleges represented. Now there are undoubtedly various reasons why elite college applicants have an advantage. For example, they may have access to more prestigious jobs, research opportunities, awards, fellowships, etc., that make the difference in law school admissions. It's crazy to suggest that Yale/Stanford (land likely other schools) are indifferent between a 3.95/175 applicant from HUG and one from the University of the Pacific (for example). And, of course, "BigLaw" employs plenty of people from low ranked undergrads, but undergrad prestige definitely plays a role in hiring for uber-prestigious legal jobs.

I went to a meh undergrad and had 7 friends in my circle accepted at Yale Law School. Only 2 ended up going though, as there was a lot of cash thrown at folks by other places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My daughter currently at stern aspires to be a corporate lawyer when she graduates. Majoring in finance and economics, but wonder if she should instead focus on finance and math? Also, should she work high finance for a year before applying to law school vs directly upon graduation.

Tell her to stay on the deal side. The lawyers are no more than tradesmen who handle the boring details. The era of Marty Lipton making things come together is over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter currently at stern aspires to be a corporate lawyer when she graduates. Majoring in finance and economics, but wonder if she should instead focus on finance and math? Also, should she work high finance for a year before applying to law school vs directly upon graduation.

Attorneys only need basic math skills, but if your daughter prefers to major in math due to interest in the subject area, then she should do so. However, for a practicing lawyer, econ & finance would be a better background than finance & math.

I ended up in tax. You need real math skills for much of it.

DS is a PE, Civil Engineer from a low ranked State School. 5 yrs after working as a Civil Engineer he went back to Law School at a t3 law school.
He is now a partner at arguably the largest construction law practice in the US. His Civil undergraduate degree with a PE has catapulted him to the top of the construction law arena….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I went to law school many decades ago. What does it take to get into a decent (top 30) law school these days besides GPA and LSAT score?

Do they care about work history, other ECs, etc? Is it the same game we see with undergrad? Better or worse?

Thanks

Do some internships or a year or two of paralegal work to improve odds of getting acceptances and scholarships. Debate club, student union and mock trial etc help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to law school many decades ago. What does it take to get into a decent (top 30) law school these days besides GPA and LSAT score?

Do they care about work history, other ECs, etc? Is it the same game we see with undergrad? Better or worse?

Thanks

Do some internships or a year or two of paralegal work to improve odds of getting acceptances and scholarships. Debate club, student union and mock trial etc help.

Doesn't need to be paralegal work. An entry level office job in the business world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Who is arguing that law school admissions are "driven" by undergrad prestige? Obviously LSAT and GPA are "driven by the individual." You're attacking a paper tiger. The point is that undergrad institution is a factor, especially at the very top law schools. Look at Stanford's students (in addition to Yale). Not many non-elite colleges represented. Now there are undoubtedly various reasons why elite college applicants have an advantage. For example, they may have access to more prestigious jobs, research opportunities, awards, fellowships, etc., that make the difference in law school admissions. It's crazy to suggest that Yale/Stanford (land likely other schools) are indifferent between a 3.95/175 applicant from HUG and one from the University of the Pacific (for example). And, of course, "BigLaw" employs plenty of people from low ranked undergrads, but undergrad prestige definitely plays a role in hiring for uber-prestigious legal jobs.

I'm a NP and also think you are far overselling the benefit of undergrad prestige. Everyone knows that going to an elite undergrad has as much to do with privilege and parental support as intelligence. Really. There are very smart and driven students who can get into an elite school but don't attend or even apply because of finances (see Donut Hole applicants). There are also lots of very smart and driven students who have life circumstances that knock them out of contention for elite undergrad admissions, but who demonstrate their ability during undergrad (e.g., immigrants, foster kids, those whose parents were divorcing while the were in HS, late bloomers, etc).

Law schools love to recruit a class with a diversity of life experiences and have no interest in packing their class with only students from elite institutions. A silver spoon in your mouth doesn't make for a compelling life story.

-someone who got into a T10 for undergrad, attended a no-name Tier 4 because of finances, but who had their pick of top law schools, BigLaw jobs and prestigious clerkships

Going to a top school is correlated with academic achievement primarily, not connections or wealth. The schools below the top schools are not comprised with students with stronger indicators of academic achievement. It is true that academic achievement is more readily attained by those with wealth. It is also true that those that have strong indicators of academic achievement along with donations to the school that stem from great wealth, and/or significant connections (children of faculty, children of heads of state/royalty etc) have a better chance of getting in. But it is not true that attending the top schools had more to do with connections than intelligence (academic achievement).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter currently at stern aspires to be a corporate lawyer when she graduates. Majoring in finance and economics, but wonder if she should instead focus on finance and math? Also, should she work high finance for a year before applying to law school vs directly upon graduation.

Attorneys only need basic math skills, but if your daughter prefers to major in math due to interest in the subject area, then she should do so. However, for a practicing lawyer, econ & finance would be a better background than finance & math.

I ended up in tax. You need real math skills for much of it.

DS is a PE, Civil Engineer from a low ranked State School. 5 yrs after working as a Civil Engineer he went back to Law School at a t3 law school.
He is now a partner at arguably the largest construction law practice in the US. His Civil undergraduate degree with a PE has catapulted him to the top of the construction law arena….

That is great! I’m glad he found a good niche.

[Anonymous]

There are big schools that don't produce any students that score the median LSAT for Yale for some years based on LSAC data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Who is arguing that law school admissions are "driven" by undergrad prestige? Obviously LSAT and GPA are "driven by the individual." You're attacking a paper tiger. The point is that undergrad institution is a factor, especially at the very top law schools. Look at Stanford's students (in addition to Yale). Not many non-elite colleges represented. Now there are undoubtedly various reasons why elite college applicants have an advantage. For example, they may have access to more prestigious jobs, research opportunities, awards, fellowships, etc., that make the difference in law school admissions. It's crazy to suggest that Yale/Stanford (land likely other schools) are indifferent between a 3.95/175 applicant from HUG and one from the University of the Pacific (for example). And, of course, "BigLaw" employs plenty of people from low ranked undergrads, but undergrad prestige definitely plays a role in hiring for uber-prestigious legal jobs.

I'm a NP and also think you are far overselling the benefit of undergrad prestige. Everyone knows that going to an elite undergrad has as much to do with privilege and parental support as intelligence. Really. There are very smart and driven students who can get into an elite school but don't attend or even apply because of finances (see Donut Hole applicants). There are also lots of very smart and driven students who have life circumstances that knock them out of contention for elite undergrad admissions, but who demonstrate their ability during undergrad (e.g., immigrants, foster kids, those whose parents were divorcing while the were in HS, late bloomers, etc).

Law schools love to recruit a class with a diversity of life experiences and have no interest in packing their class with only students from elite institutions. A silver spoon in your mouth doesn't make for a compelling life story.

-someone who got into a T10 for undergrad, attended a no-name Tier 4 because of finances, but who had their pick of top law schools, BigLaw jobs and prestigious clerkships

Going to a top school is correlated with academic achievement primarily, not connections or wealth. The schools below the top schools are not comprised with students with stronger indicators of academic achievement. It is true that academic achievement is more readily attained by those with wealth. It is also true that those that have strong indicators of academic achievement along with donations to the school that stem from great wealth, and/or significant connections (children of faculty, children of heads of state/royalty etc) have a better chance of getting in. But it is not true that attending the top schools had more to do with connections than intelligence (academic achievement).

👏 thank you!