Law School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

In my experience - at very top of the class at a T10 law school and the law review editor 35 years ago - believe it or not a reluctant law student of sorts - culture clearly matters. Those at the bottom of the class - yes - often admitted with significant admissions boosts - were not in any experiential sense unintelligent - they just didn't grasp that the law by and large was a system of rules centered around who gets the money - and that rules of law have been developed around that principle. I didn't think negatively about it - in lesser developed countries many can't keep what they earn or build a small business because there are no enforceable rules to protect what is earned. Even my most progressive law review colleagues understood this, so it is not a statement about one's politics. I recall taking a third year bankruptcy class, and the professor, to his credit, trying to get everyone involved. The group of students who didn't do all that well sat together, and they predictably answered in terms of what is fair as opposed to applying legal rules to facts - as if it was a college sociology class. It broke my heart - the oft repeated blather about the best interest of the creditors in the class was a legal rule to kick start analysis, not end it. I competed in a most minority sport in college on scholarship, so my views were perhaps different than the average well heeled law student. I wondered what the schools were doing, inviting these students in while behind in preparation (again, cultural deficiencies too), encouraging them to take on unfathomable debt. only to face less than optimum first time bar pass rates and career challenges. It was made worse by the fact that by and large these students were far more interesting than the average Ivy League or Ivy equivalent grinder at the school.

Utter nonsense.

I am no fan of JD Vance these days, but his law school experience is very similar what PP describing (struggling culturally).

Lawyer here and retired partner from a very prestigious and well known Biglaw firm. Vance destroyed his credibility with me when he wrote in that book that a Yale professor openly told his students that graduates of state schools like OSU (which Vance attended) had no business being admitted to or going to Yale Law. There’s absolutely no way that that actually happened. He’s full of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

In my experience - at very top of the class at a T10 law school and the law review editor 35 years ago - believe it or not a reluctant law student of sorts - culture clearly matters. Those at the bottom of the class - yes - often admitted with significant admissions boosts - were not in any experiential sense unintelligent - they just didn't grasp that the law by and large was a system of rules centered around who gets the money - and that rules of law have been developed around that principle. I didn't think negatively about it - in lesser developed countries many can't keep what they earn or build a small business because there are no enforceable rules to protect what is earned. Even my most progressive law review colleagues understood this, so it is not a statement about one's politics. I recall taking a third year bankruptcy class, and the professor, to his credit, trying to get everyone involved. The group of students who didn't do all that well sat together, and they predictably answered in terms of what is fair as opposed to applying legal rules to facts - as if it was a college sociology class. It broke my heart - the oft repeated blather about the best interest of the creditors in the class was a legal rule to kick start analysis, not end it. I competed in a most minority sport in college on scholarship, so my views were perhaps different than the average well heeled law student. I wondered what the schools were doing, inviting these students in while behind in preparation (again, cultural deficiencies too), encouraging them to take on unfathomable debt. only to face less than optimum first time bar pass rates and career challenges. It was made worse by the fact that by and large these students were far more interesting than the average Ivy League or Ivy equivalent grinder at the school.

Utter nonsense.

I am no fan of JD Vance these days, but his law school experience is very similar what PP describing (struggling culturally).

Lawyer here and retired partner from a very prestigious and well known Biglaw firm. Vance destroyed his credibility with me when he wrote in that book that a Yale professor openly told his students that graduates of state schools like OSU (which Vance attended) had no business being admitted to or going to Yale Law. There’s absolutely no way that that actually happened. He’s full of it.

I totally believe that happened. You wouldn’t understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

In my experience - at very top of the class at a T10 law school and the law review editor 35 years ago - believe it or not a reluctant law student of sorts - culture clearly matters. Those at the bottom of the class - yes - often admitted with significant admissions boosts - were not in any experiential sense unintelligent - they just didn't grasp that the law by and large was a system of rules centered around who gets the money - and that rules of law have been developed around that principle. I didn't think negatively about it - in lesser developed countries many can't keep what they earn or build a small business because there are no enforceable rules to protect what is earned. Even my most progressive law review colleagues understood this, so it is not a statement about one's politics. I recall taking a third year bankruptcy class, and the professor, to his credit, trying to get everyone involved. The group of students who didn't do all that well sat together, and they predictably answered in terms of what is fair as opposed to applying legal rules to facts - as if it was a college sociology class. It broke my heart - the oft repeated blather about the best interest of the creditors in the class was a legal rule to kick start analysis, not end it. I competed in a most minority sport in college on scholarship, so my views were perhaps different than the average well heeled law student. I wondered what the schools were doing, inviting these students in while behind in preparation (again, cultural deficiencies too), encouraging them to take on unfathomable debt. only to face less than optimum first time bar pass rates and career challenges. It was made worse by the fact that by and large these students were far more interesting than the average Ivy League or Ivy equivalent grinder at the school.

This is a hard story to hear so soon after my above the median kid with demonstrated interest was dismissed as too young. But he needs to use a tuition benefit that runs out and can’t postpone.

Huh? If your kid is a well qualified (in terms of LSAT and GPA) recent college graduate and wants to go to law school he can get in a good one without a problem. Don’t blame it on his age or background.

PP is presumably talking about the GI Bill or an employee dependent tuition benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

In my experience - at very top of the class at a T10 law school and the law review editor 35 years ago - believe it or not a reluctant law student of sorts - culture clearly matters. Those at the bottom of the class - yes - often admitted with significant admissions boosts - were not in any experiential sense unintelligent - they just didn't grasp that the law by and large was a system of rules centered around who gets the money - and that rules of law have been developed around that principle. I didn't think negatively about it - in lesser developed countries many can't keep what they earn or build a small business because there are no enforceable rules to protect what is earned. Even my most progressive law review colleagues understood this, so it is not a statement about one's politics. I recall taking a third year bankruptcy class, and the professor, to his credit, trying to get everyone involved. The group of students who didn't do all that well sat together, and they predictably answered in terms of what is fair as opposed to applying legal rules to facts - as if it was a college sociology class. It broke my heart - the oft repeated blather about the best interest of the creditors in the class was a legal rule to kick start analysis, not end it. I competed in a most minority sport in college on scholarship, so my views were perhaps different than the average well heeled law student. I wondered what the schools were doing, inviting these students in while behind in preparation (again, cultural deficiencies too), encouraging them to take on unfathomable debt. only to face less than optimum first time bar pass rates and career challenges. It was made worse by the fact that by and large these students were far more interesting than the average Ivy League or Ivy equivalent grinder at the school.

This is a hard story to hear so soon after my above the median kid with demonstrated interest was dismissed as too young. But he needs to use a tuition benefit that runs out and can’t postpone.

Huh? If your kid is a well qualified (in terms of LSAT and GPA) recent college graduate and wants to go to law school he can get in a good one without a problem. Don’t blame it on his age or background.

He said people who come straight from undergrad are assumed to be less mature and top schools favor older candidates who’ve worked for awhile. “A good one” yes, but hearing that a top 10 (a common goal) will take students who struggle with the difference between philosophy and law over an above the median person out of undergrad is disappointing, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

In my experience - at very top of the class at a T10 law school and the law review editor 35 years ago - believe it or not a reluctant law student of sorts - culture clearly matters. Those at the bottom of the class - yes - often admitted with significant admissions boosts - were not in any experiential sense unintelligent - they just didn't grasp that the law by and large was a system of rules centered around who gets the money - and that rules of law have been developed around that principle. I didn't think negatively about it - in lesser developed countries many can't keep what they earn or build a small business because there are no enforceable rules to protect what is earned. Even my most progressive law review colleagues understood this, so it is not a statement about one's politics. I recall taking a third year bankruptcy class, and the professor, to his credit, trying to get everyone involved. The group of students who didn't do all that well sat together, and they predictably answered in terms of what is fair as opposed to applying legal rules to facts - as if it was a college sociology class. It broke my heart - the oft repeated blather about the best interest of the creditors in the class was a legal rule to kick start analysis, not end it. I competed in a most minority sport in college on scholarship, so my views were perhaps different than the average well heeled law student. I wondered what the schools were doing, inviting these students in while behind in preparation (again, cultural deficiencies too), encouraging them to take on unfathomable debt. only to face less than optimum first time bar pass rates and career challenges. It was made worse by the fact that by and large these students were far more interesting than the average Ivy League or Ivy equivalent grinder at the school.

This is a hard story to hear so soon after my above the median kid with demonstrated interest was dismissed as too young. But he needs to use a tuition benefit that runs out and can’t postpone.

Huh? If your kid is a well qualified (in terms of LSAT and GPA) recent college graduate and wants to go to law school he can get in a good one without a problem. Don’t blame it on his age or background.

He said people who come straight from undergrad are assumed to be less mature and top schools favor older candidates who’ve worked for awhile. “A good one” yes, but hearing that a top 10 (a common goal) will take students who struggle with the difference between philosophy and law over an above the median person out of undergrad is disappointing, yes.

Why is it disappointing? K-JDs have no life experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

In my experience - at very top of the class at a T10 law school and the law review editor 35 years ago - believe it or not a reluctant law student of sorts - culture clearly matters. Those at the bottom of the class - yes - often admitted with significant admissions boosts - were not in any experiential sense unintelligent - they just didn't grasp that the law by and large was a system of rules centered around who gets the money - and that rules of law have been developed around that principle. I didn't think negatively about it - in lesser developed countries many can't keep what they earn or build a small business because there are no enforceable rules to protect what is earned. Even my most progressive law review colleagues understood this, so it is not a statement about one's politics. I recall taking a third year bankruptcy class, and the professor, to his credit, trying to get everyone involved. The group of students who didn't do all that well sat together, and they predictably answered in terms of what is fair as opposed to applying legal rules to facts - as if it was a college sociology class. It broke my heart - the oft repeated blather about the best interest of the creditors in the class was a legal rule to kick start analysis, not end it. I competed in a most minority sport in college on scholarship, so my views were perhaps different than the average well heeled law student. I wondered what the schools were doing, inviting these students in while behind in preparation (again, cultural deficiencies too), encouraging them to take on unfathomable debt. only to face less than optimum first time bar pass rates and career challenges. It was made worse by the fact that by and large these students were far more interesting than the average Ivy League or Ivy equivalent grinder at the school.

This is a hard story to hear so soon after my above the median kid with demonstrated interest was dismissed as too young. But he needs to use a tuition benefit that runs out and can’t postpone.

Huh? If your kid is a well qualified (in terms of LSAT and GPA) recent college graduate and wants to go to law school he can get in a good one without a problem. Don’t blame it on his age or background.

He said people who come straight from undergrad are assumed to be less mature and top schools favor older candidates who’ve worked for awhile. “A good one” yes, but hearing that a top 10 (a common goal) will take students who struggle with the difference between philosophy and law over an above the median person out of undergrad is disappointing, yes.

Why is it disappointing? K-JDs have no life experience.

+1. It isn't just law schools that have a preference for some post-college work experience; employers do, too. K-JD tend to have less of a clue on the practical realities of how their clients' businesses operate. A little post-college experience goes a long way.

-- NU grad from the mid-90s. About half our class had work experience.

[Anonymous]

I have a couple of questions:

1. Unauthorized practice of law (UPL) - My understanding is that there is no clear line where practicing law begins and ends outside of litigating in court and providing a legal opinion. It seems that traditional legal services are under assault by legal tech, the big 4/consultants, and general cost cutting. For example, shifting previous attorney roles to lesser paid compliance roles; having compliance consultants copy in-house counsel to obtain attorney-client privilege on certain matters; or tax accountants editing formation/merger documents. Do you see this trend continuing and how do you think it will affect the already saturated legal market? Should law schools do something either by changing what is taught or better defining the practice of law to protect the value of the JD?

2. Legal education - It seems legal education has stagnated for sometime. What needs to be updates to contend with the current job market and prepare students for the future impacts of things like AI? Do you think schools can evolve to tackle these issues? Or will schools fail to evolve like after the introduction of ediscovery (where the big 4 ended up setting up ediscovery groups and the lawyers ended up in doc review)?

3. Cost - It seems to me that making law school a graduate program has allowed schools to exponentially up the cost due to the way loans are distributed (no caps for grad school loans, while undergraduate loans have caps). Did the institutions you worked at ever siphone money paid by the law students to subsidize other programs or initiatives that would not have a direct or indirect benefit on the law students? Given that law school admissions generally requires no pre-requisite classwork or specific work experience, it seems there would be a benefit to moving it back to a undergraduate degree to lower costs via the cap on student loans and by not requiring students to pay for a bachelors first. Where do you stand on maintaining the JD graduate scheme? If for the status quo, what are the benefits of keeping the JD a graduate degree?

4. Curves/grading - How accurate do you think schools are at ranking students along the curve? After discussions with how some of my professors graded work, I was already concerned that there was some margin of error in ranking, but my law school experience led me to believe that it was higher than I imagined (eg, while drinking scotch on a plane). Some schools also have moved to the honors/pass/fail grading system. Do you think that system better captures students ability/potential?

[Anonymous]

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.

NP - I think the value is that someone can see if they want to be the person sitting at a desk for 10 hours a day, doing what looks like thinking. Do they enjoy the emails, the conversations, the meetings, whatever. Or if they go see a differnt kind of lawyer - do they enjoy going to court, and sitting around for two hours until your case is called, then speaking for 15 minutes. Do they like being in an office - do they like doing the sort of thinking a lawyer is doing. The sort of writing they are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does undergraduate school or major matter? DC is interested in law school. Would going to a lower ranked school with an easier major be okay if they earned high grades? Thank you for the thread.

The top two most important factors are GPA and LSAT. Everything else is less important. Far less important.

I do think law schools will also consider career placement in their recruiting as it does affect their stats, such that an electrical engineer who wants to do patent work may have an edge over a medieval literature major if they have comparable GPAs and LSATs. The engineer is far more likely to get a legal job in a down economy than a literature major, even with a lesser legal GPA.

At this point law schools are also heavily recruiting for diversity and an interesting bootstraps story may also give a small boost over even a top undergrad school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a couple of questions:

1. Unauthorized practice of law (UPL) - My understanding is that there is no clear line where practicing law begins and ends outside of litigating in court and providing a legal opinion. It seems that traditional legal services are under assault by legal tech, the big 4/consultants, and general cost cutting. For example, shifting previous attorney roles to lesser paid compliance roles; having compliance consultants copy in-house counsel to obtain attorney-client privilege on certain matters; or tax accountants editing formation/merger documents. Do you see this trend continuing and how do you think it will affect the already saturated legal market? Should law schools do something either by changing what is taught or better defining the practice of law to protect the value of the JD?

2. Legal education - It seems legal education has stagnated for sometime. What needs to be updates to contend with the current job market and prepare students for the future impacts of things like AI? Do you think schools can evolve to tackle these issues? Or will schools fail to evolve like after the introduction of ediscovery (where the big 4 ended up setting up ediscovery groups and the lawyers ended up in doc review)?

3. Cost - It seems to me that making law school a graduate program has allowed schools to exponentially up the cost due to the way loans are distributed (no caps for grad school loans, while undergraduate loans have caps). Did the institutions you worked at ever siphone money paid by the law students to subsidize other programs or initiatives that would not have a direct or indirect benefit on the law students? Given that law school admissions generally requires no pre-requisite classwork or specific work experience, it seems there would be a benefit to moving it back to a undergraduate degree to lower costs via the cap on student loans and by not requiring students to pay for a bachelors first. Where do you stand on maintaining the JD graduate scheme? If for the status quo, what are the benefits of keeping the JD a graduate degree?

4. Curves/grading - How accurate do you think schools are at ranking students along the curve? After discussions with how some of my professors graded work, I was already concerned that there was some margin of error in ranking, but my law school experience led me to believe that it was higher than I imagined (eg, while drinking scotch on a plane). Some schools also have moved to the honors/pass/fail grading system. Do you think that system better captures students ability/potential?

(Not OP)

UPL is more complex than one might think.

As you know, the US economy is heavily affected by, and intertwined with, laws. We are a nation of laws. It would be much easier to change the definition of UPL than to enforce the unenforeable--which is the current system. The only US jurisdiction with reasonable UPL provisions is Wash DC where UPL restrictions were made to accommodate lobbyists.

Re: Legal Education. My opinion is that it is outdated. Law school should be reduced to 2 years, instead of 3, and a required third year should consist of supervised practical legal work experience.

Re: Cost of a law degree/legal education. For decades, law schools have been viewed as, and used as, cash cows for universities. The cost of adding additional law students is low and the return to the law school & university is high. The only constraint is employment results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

In my experience - at very top of the class at a T10 law school and the law review editor 35 years ago - believe it or not a reluctant law student of sorts - culture clearly matters. Those at the bottom of the class - yes - often admitted with significant admissions boosts - were not in any experiential sense unintelligent - they just didn't grasp that the law by and large was a system of rules centered around who gets the money - and that rules of law have been developed around that principle. I didn't think negatively about it - in lesser developed countries many can't keep what they earn or build a small business because there are no enforceable rules to protect what is earned. Even my most progressive law review colleagues understood this, so it is not a statement about one's politics. I recall taking a third year bankruptcy class, and the professor, to his credit, trying to get everyone involved. The group of students who didn't do all that well sat together, and they predictably answered in terms of what is fair as opposed to applying legal rules to facts - as if it was a college sociology class. It broke my heart - the oft repeated blather about the best interest of the creditors in the class was a legal rule to kick start analysis, not end it. I competed in a most minority sport in college on scholarship, so my views were perhaps different than the average well heeled law student. I wondered what the schools were doing, inviting these students in while behind in preparation (again, cultural deficiencies too), encouraging them to take on unfathomable debt. only to face less than optimum first time bar pass rates and career challenges. It was made worse by the fact that by and large these students were far more interesting than the average Ivy League or Ivy equivalent grinder at the school.

This is a hard story to hear so soon after my above the median kid with demonstrated interest was dismissed as too young. But he needs to use a tuition benefit that runs out and can’t postpone.

Huh? If your kid is a well qualified (in terms of LSAT and GPA) recent college graduate and wants to go to law school he can get in a good one without a problem. Don’t blame it on his age or background.

He said people who come straight from undergrad are assumed to be less mature and top schools favor older candidates who’ve worked for awhile. “A good one” yes, but hearing that a top 10 (a common goal) will take students who struggle with the difference between philosophy and law over an above the median person out of undergrad is disappointing, yes.

Why is it disappointing? K-JDs have no life experience.

+1. It isn't just law schools that have a preference for some post-college work experience; employers do, too. K-JD tend to have less of a clue on the practical realities of how their clients' businesses operate. A little post-college experience goes a long way.

-- NU grad from the mid-90s. About half our class had work experience.

Both of you glossed over that he said - and I was referring to - that top schools do take people who have shown lower readiness. I’m not comparing a 21 year old and a 30 year old with otherwise equal applications. I’m comparing a 21 year old with all markers of higher bar pass rate potential than a 30 with lower markers for a bar pass rate potential. And while I would expect this at a lot of schools, I would not expect it at a top 10 school.

[Anonymous]

What undergraduate majors fare best - not necessarily in admissions, but in actual coursework?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

In my experience - at very top of the class at a T10 law school and the law review editor 35 years ago - believe it or not a reluctant law student of sorts - culture clearly matters. Those at the bottom of the class - yes - often admitted with significant admissions boosts - were not in any experiential sense unintelligent - they just didn't grasp that the law by and large was a system of rules centered around who gets the money - and that rules of law have been developed around that principle. I didn't think negatively about it - in lesser developed countries many can't keep what they earn or build a small business because there are no enforceable rules to protect what is earned. Even my most progressive law review colleagues understood this, so it is not a statement about one's politics. I recall taking a third year bankruptcy class, and the professor, to his credit, trying to get everyone involved. The group of students who didn't do all that well sat together, and they predictably answered in terms of what is fair as opposed to applying legal rules to facts - as if it was a college sociology class. It broke my heart - the oft repeated blather about the best interest of the creditors in the class was a legal rule to kick start analysis, not end it. I competed in a most minority sport in college on scholarship, so my views were perhaps different than the average well heeled law student. I wondered what the schools were doing, inviting these students in while behind in preparation (again, cultural deficiencies too), encouraging them to take on unfathomable debt. only to face less than optimum first time bar pass rates and career challenges. It was made worse by the fact that by and large these students were far more interesting than the average Ivy League or Ivy equivalent grinder at the school.

This is a hard story to hear so soon after my above the median kid with demonstrated interest was dismissed as too young. But he needs to use a tuition benefit that runs out and can’t postpone.

Huh? If your kid is a well qualified (in terms of LSAT and GPA) recent college graduate and wants to go to law school he can get in a good one without a problem. Don’t blame it on his age or background.

He said people who come straight from undergrad are assumed to be less mature and top schools favor older candidates who’ve worked for awhile. “A good one” yes, but hearing that a top 10 (a common goal) will take students who struggle with the difference between philosophy and law over an above the median person out of undergrad is disappointing, yes.

Why is it disappointing? K-JDs have no life experience.

+1. It isn't just law schools that have a preference for some post-college work experience; employers do, too. K-JD tend to have less of a clue on the practical realities of how their clients' businesses operate. A little post-college experience goes a long way.

-- NU grad from the mid-90s. About half our class had work experience.

Both of you glossed over that he said - and I was referring to - that top schools do take people who have shown lower readiness. I’m not comparing a 21 year old and a 30 year old with otherwise equal applications. I’m comparing a 21 year old with all markers of higher bar pass rate potential than a 30 with lower markers for a bar pass rate potential. And while I would expect this at a lot of schools, I would not expect it at a top 10 school.

Interesting that there is so much discussion regarding "bar passage potential". While state bars vary in difficulty, few law students who attend the top 100 law schools have difficulty passing state bar exams. "Bar passage potential" is a low standard among the the top 100 law schools. Anyone achieving above a 151 or 152 LSAT score should be able to pass their state bar exam with a bit of preparation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What undergraduate majors fare best - not necessarily in admissions, but in actual coursework?

It really varies from person to person. It might help to ask which undergraduate majors are most represented in law schools or which undergraduate majors score highest on the LSAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ?

In my experience - at very top of the class at a T10 law school and the law review editor 35 years ago - believe it or not a reluctant law student of sorts - culture clearly matters. Those at the bottom of the class - yes - often admitted with significant admissions boosts - were not in any experiential sense unintelligent - they just didn't grasp that the law by and large was a system of rules centered around who gets the money - and that rules of law have been developed around that principle. I didn't think negatively about it - in lesser developed countries many can't keep what they earn or build a small business because there are no enforceable rules to protect what is earned. Even my most progressive law review colleagues understood this, so it is not a statement about one's politics. I recall taking a third year bankruptcy class, and the professor, to his credit, trying to get everyone involved. The group of students who didn't do all that well sat together, and they predictably answered in terms of what is fair as opposed to applying legal rules to facts - as if it was a college sociology class. It broke my heart - the oft repeated blather about the best interest of the creditors in the class was a legal rule to kick start analysis, not end it. I competed in a most minority sport in college on scholarship, so my views were perhaps different than the average well heeled law student. I wondered what the schools were doing, inviting these students in while behind in preparation (again, cultural deficiencies too), encouraging them to take on unfathomable debt. only to face less than optimum first time bar pass rates and career challenges. It was made worse by the fact that by and large these students were far more interesting than the average Ivy League or Ivy equivalent grinder at the school.

This is a hard story to hear so soon after my above the median kid with demonstrated interest was dismissed as too young. But he needs to use a tuition benefit that runs out and can’t postpone.

Huh? If your kid is a well qualified (in terms of LSAT and GPA) recent college graduate and wants to go to law school he can get in a good one without a problem. Don’t blame it on his age or background.

He said people who come straight from undergrad are assumed to be less mature and top schools favor older candidates who’ve worked for awhile. “A good one” yes, but hearing that a top 10 (a common goal) will take students who struggle with the difference between philosophy and law over an above the median person out of undergrad is disappointing, yes.

Why is it disappointing? K-JDs have no life experience.

+1. It isn't just law schools that have a preference for some post-college work experience; employers do, too. K-JD tend to have less of a clue on the practical realities of how their clients' businesses operate. A little post-college experience goes a long way.

-- NU grad from the mid-90s. About half our class had work experience.

Both of you glossed over that he said - and I was referring to - that top schools do take people who have shown lower readiness. I’m not comparing a 21 year old and a 30 year old with otherwise equal applications. I’m comparing a 21 year old with all markers of higher bar pass rate potential than a 30 with lower markers for a bar pass rate potential. And while I would expect this at a lot of schools, I would not expect it at a top 10 school.

Interesting that there is so much discussion regarding "bar passage potential". While state bars vary in difficulty, few law students who attend the top 100 law schools have difficulty passing state bar exams. "Bar passage potential" is a low standard among the the top 100 law schools. Anyone achieving above a 151 or 152 LSAT score should be able to pass their state bar exam with a bit of preparation.

Continuing: Due to the glut of lawyers infused into the job market each year, some favor a minimum LSAT score of 160 out of a possible 180 be required for eligibility to be admitted to law school.

LSAT scores range from 120 to 180 with 151 or 152 typically (non-Covid testing years) being the median score. Abbreviated Covid LSAT scores produced higher scores.