Law School

[Anonymous]

Do the T14 look more favorably on elite undergraduate college applicants, all other things (gpa, lsat, extras) being equal?

[Anonymous]

Is there a cut off age when you believe an adult should not go to law school? If so, what is that age?

Example - is a 40 year old paralegal, (BS) too old?

[Anonymous]

Hi Prof, I am a lawyer and have two seniors that are twins studying for the LSAT. 3.92 and 4.00 GPAs. They really don't want to take time off but it seems all T14 de facto require it

When I went to law school in the mid nineties, about 1/3rd of my class took time off. Now at top schools it seems to be 2/3rds.

Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Similar q as above: is it a disadvantage to apply right out of undergrad?

[Anonymous]

OP, your thread starting post suggested that prospective law school applicants should shadow lawyers before deciding whether or not to pursue the practice of law. I disagree.

I disagree because most lawyer activity occurs in the head of the attorney and watching a lawyer think, read and write for 9 or 10 hours a day really does not convey what lawyers do in furtherance of their clients' interests.

Shadowing a medical professional--such as a doctor--is quite different as many functions can be appreciated simply by being present & watching.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, your thread starting post suggested that prospective law school applicants should shadow lawyers before deciding whether or not to pursue the practice of law. I disagree.

I disagree because most lawyer activity occurs in the head of the attorney and watching a lawyer think, read and write for 9 or 10 hours a day really does not convey what lawyers do in furtherance of their clients' interests.

Shadowing a medical professional--such as a doctor--is quite different as many functions can be appreciated simply by being present & watching.

Continuing:

Arguably there is some career insight to be gained by shadowing a litigator (trial attorney) at a deposition or at a motions hearing or during a trial. But I doubt that many attorneys or law firms want non-lawyer/non-legal related professionals observers at their depositions. With respect to trial matters heard in court, there is no need to shadow as most hearings are open to the public.

Even though I see little value in shadowing an attorney, there is value in speaking to a variety of attorneys during lunch or any other free time to discuss the profession and that attorney's duties within his or her practice.

But watching an attorney think, read, and write for 10 hours a day provides insight that could be communicated in a quick conversation.

[Anonymous]

Exlawdean wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think a LSAT score tells you anything about a prospective lawyer?

First, as I emphasized above, these are my opinions. The LSAT score is, in part, an indicator of cleverness. The questions are difficult, and the ability to answer them is indicative of the ability of the prospective student to solve hard questions. LSAT score correlates well with GRE scores, with SAT scores, and, perhaps more importantly, with the ability to pass the bar exam in states with very hard bar examinations (e.g. California and New York). To be clear, I should point out that the correlation data is not just my opinion, but is a set of statistical relationships.

Second, there is no doubt that there is also a cultural component to the LSAT. There is also a cultural component to legal practice. Does this disadvantage those without the "right" cultural background? In my opinion, yes.

"right cultural background"

What?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exlawdean wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you really think a LSAT score tells you anything about a prospective lawyer?

First, as I emphasized above, these are my opinions. The LSAT score is, in part, an indicator of cleverness. The questions are difficult, and the ability to answer them is indicative of the ability of the prospective student to solve hard questions. LSAT score correlates well with GRE scores, with SAT scores, and, perhaps more importantly, with the ability to pass the bar exam in states with very hard bar examinations (e.g. California and New York). To be clear, I should point out that the correlation data is not just my opinion, but is a set of statistical relationships.

Second, there is no doubt that there is also a cultural component to the LSAT. There is also a cultural component to legal practice. Does this disadvantage those without the "right" cultural background? In my opinion, yes.

"right cultural background"

What?!?

Maybe he is referring to how one's culture typically resolves disputes ?

[Anonymous]

I assumed that we all knew there is a white bias in standardized testing.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for offering your expertise! Any thoughts about the role undergraduate major plays in admissions? Specifically, for STEM majors, many of the "weeder" classes (looking at you, O-chem) can take a toll on the grade point average. For an applicant who is interested in IP law, is any allowance made for a few more B's along the way in the highly challenging courses?

[Exlawdean]

Anonymous wrote:Hi Professor Spitzer!

Hi back atcha!

[Exlawdean]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, your thread starting post suggested that prospective law school applicants should shadow lawyers before deciding whether or not to pursue the practice of law. I disagree.

I disagree because most lawyer activity occurs in the head of the attorney and watching a lawyer think, read and write for 9 or 10 hours a day really does not convey what lawyers do in furtherance of their clients' interests.

Shadowing a medical professional--such as a doctor--is quite different as many functions can be appreciated simply by being present & watching.

Continuing:

Arguably there is some career insight to be gained by shadowing a litigator (trial attorney) at a deposition or at a motions hearing or during a trial. But I doubt that many attorneys or law firms want non-lawyer/non-legal related professionals observers at their depositions. With respect to trial matters heard in court, there is no need to shadow as most hearings are open to the public.

Even though I see little value in shadowing an attorney, there is value in speaking to a variety of attorneys during lunch or any other free time to discuss the profession and that attorney's duties within his or her practice.

But watching an attorney think, read, and write for 10 hours a day provides insight that could be communicated in a quick conversation.

We clearly agree on some issues, and disagree on the bottom line. Does a typical lawyer spend a lot of time, perhaps a majority of time, doing research and writing? Yes. Is it very boring to watch? Yes. Is spending a day "watching" this activity valuable? Yes. Nothing will drive home to a prospective law student how sedentary and quiet much of lawyer's life is as spending a day watching it. The prospective law student should be encouraged to bring a good book with him. No internet videos to pass the time. The quiet time spent reading will be exactly that. If the student can get permission to attend some meetings, as well, so much the better. Of course, some material in some meetings will be privileged, and thus lawyers will refuse to have anyone present who is not working for the law firm. If the prospective student has to settle for a description of what is going on, that's OK. I agree that hearings are a great idea. But if that's all a prospective student sees, they will get an unrealistic idea about the practice of law.

[Anonymous]

I would suggest that working as a paralegal could get you good insight into the world of law. I worked as a legal secretary for a year before applying to law school. That was over 30 years ago and I know things have changed, but I killed it in civil procedure after that experience.

Some parts of DOJ have two year paralegal programs for recent grads that likely look good on law school resumes and expose the applicant to the reality of being a litigator.

[Exlawdean]

Anonymous wrote:Do the T14 look more favorably on elite undergraduate college applicants, all other things (gpa, lsat, extras) being equal?

I am not an expert on this precise question. I know that most chief admissions officers will claim to be looking for the best applicants, regardless of where they come from. But such a statement has little hard content. My guess is that there will be a tendency, other things being equal, to favor applicants from prestigious, selective undergraduate institutions. But this is true for employers, as well. If your child attends, for example, Princeton as an undergraduate and then decides to get a job, they will have an easier time than if they had attended a much less prestigious undergraduate school.

[Exlawdean]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a cut off age when you believe an adult should not go to law school? If so, what is that age?

Example - is a 40 year old paralegal, (BS) too old?

I think this is a very personal decision. Law school, attended full time, takes almost three years and a lot of money. The older one gets, the less time there may be to earn a reward on those investments. I once had an interview with a 55 year old applicant who had been quite successful and wanted to go to law school. I told him the same thing that I am telling you -- its a personal decision.