Ed1 prelaw

[Anonymous]

Just try to get into Oxbridge for law. Then you can take the bar in the United States after 3 years. Then you can practice law, hate it, and then get another graduate degree or get an MBA. Lots of time and money saved…

If not Oxbridge, there’s LSE, King’s, and UCL — kid can get into one of those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is pre-law and wants to do biglaw like everyone else. She needs to go to a top law school, so this choice really matters for her.

Currently her Ed choices are:

Claremont McKenna (I know don’t laugh, but she’s hell bent that this is the right place “for her”)

Amherst (many questions marks on this one)

And Dartmouth (to me, this is the right answer).

If the goal is Yale/Columbia Law, which is the right choice?

This has to be a joke. Aren't you embarrassed to have a kid aspiring to Biglaw? No, not everyone does. columbia law grad here.

Why would I be embarrassed that she has ambition?

[Anonymous]

None of that matters. What matters is that she have a 4.0 gpa, a 180 LSAT and take a few years off in between to do some kind of work that makes her a little different than the other thousands of perfect scores they’ll get. Having that unique job in South Dakota or in the military or peace corps would help too. And there’s still no guarantee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of that matters. What matters is that she have a 4.0 gpa, a 180 LSAT and take a few years off in between to do some kind of work that makes her a little different than the other thousands of perfect scores they’ll get. Having that unique job in South Dakota or in the military or peace corps would help too. And there’s still no guarantee.

DEI destroying our law schools. No longer the smartest law applicant, but what odd jobs you worked to compensate for being too stupid to get in from undergrad. Just sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of that matters. What matters is that she have a 4.0 gpa, a 180 LSAT and take a few years off in between to do some kind of work that makes her a little different than the other thousands of perfect scores they’ll get. Having that unique job in South Dakota or in the military or peace corps would help too. And there’s still no guarantee.

DEI destroying our law schools. No longer the smartest law applicant, but what odd jobs you worked to compensate for being too stupid to get in from undergrad. Just sad.

Did you miss where I said have a 4.0 and a 180 LSAT too? If she wants Columbia or Yale, she needs to be perfect AND somehow different. Even if that just means being a South Dakota resident.

[Anonymous]

Most of these people don’t know what they are talking about. I’m an Amherst grad that got into HLS, YLS and Columbia Law. I see resumes all the time for hiring and the Amherst grads do very well at law school admits particularly for HLS and YLS — it’s as close as you come to a feeder for those two schools.

Of course Dartmouth is fine too but a small school like Amherst its easier to get to know the r professors and develop real leadership skills.

But I also think it’s ridiculous for a teen to be aiming for Big Law. It’s a step short of saying that your career goal is to be the Hunger Games tribute. I mean, lots of us end up there but the idea of it being a goal when you are just 16 is so sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of that matters. What matters is that she have a 4.0 gpa, a 180 LSAT and take a few years off in between to do some kind of work that makes her a little different than the other thousands of perfect scores they’ll get. Having that unique job in South Dakota or in the military or peace corps would help too. And there’s still no guarantee.

DEI destroying our law schools. No longer the smartest law applicant, but what odd jobs you worked to compensate for being too stupid to get in from undergrad. Just sad.

Did you miss where I said have a 4.0 and a 180 LSAT too? If she wants Columbia or Yale, she needs to be perfect AND somehow different. Even if that just means being a South Dakota resident.

These are only the requirements for "overrepresented" students who are succeeding, while others get to skip the line. A system only created, so we can population "balance" the law schools. Just sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of that matters. What matters is that she have a 4.0 gpa, a 180 LSAT and take a few years off in between to do some kind of work that makes her a little different than the other thousands of perfect scores they’ll get. Having that unique job in South Dakota or in the military or peace corps would help too. And there’s still no guarantee.

DEI destroying our law schools. No longer the smartest law applicant, but what odd jobs you worked to compensate for being too stupid to get in from undergrad. Just sad.

Did you miss where I said have a 4.0 and a 180 LSAT too? If she wants Columbia or Yale, she needs to be perfect AND somehow different. Even if that just means being a South Dakota resident.

These are only the requirements for "overrepresented" students who are succeeding, while others get to skip the line. A system only created, so we can population "balance" the law schools. Just sad.

Might want to get another hobby besides nursing your grievances about YLS slots 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of these people don’t know what they are talking about. I’m an Amherst grad that got into HLS, YLS and Columbia Law. I see resumes all the time for hiring and the Amherst grads do very well at law school admits particularly for HLS and YLS — it’s as close as you come to a feeder for those two schools.

Of course Dartmouth is fine too but a small school like Amherst its easier to get to know the r professors and develop real leadership skills.

But I also think it’s ridiculous for a teen to be aiming for Big Law. It’s a step short of saying that your career goal is to be the Hunger Games tribute. I mean, lots of us end up there but the idea of it being a goal when you are just 16 is so sad.

Don't see much actual analysis but just bias from this comment. Sure, Dartmouth is a university, but it is really small and has more resources, so you can achieve all that you can do at Amherst and more. More students means more invested in clubs and activities and more leadership experiences. This would make more sense for UC Berkeley where things are bursting at the seams, but Dartmouth is honestly not that far off from being a liberal arts college. Dartmouth is an undergraduate college by all intents and purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of that matters. What matters is that she have a 4.0 gpa, a 180 LSAT and take a few years off in between to do some kind of work that makes her a little different than the other thousands of perfect scores they’ll get. Having that unique job in South Dakota or in the military or peace corps would help too. And there’s still no guarantee.

DEI destroying our law schools. No longer the smartest law applicant, but what odd jobs you worked to compensate for being too stupid to get in from undergrad. Just sad.

Yale has always loved military experience or people that worked in interesting non profit or government jobs prior to law school, even teach for America. Basically anything that shows you are forging your own path and care about something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of these people don’t know what they are talking about. I’m an Amherst grad that got into HLS, YLS and Columbia Law. I see resumes all the time for hiring and the Amherst grads do very well at law school admits particularly for HLS and YLS — it’s as close as you come to a feeder for those two schools.

Of course Dartmouth is fine too but a small school like Amherst its easier to get to know the r professors and develop real leadership skills.

But I also think it’s ridiculous for a teen to be aiming for Big Law. It’s a step short of saying that your career goal is to be the Hunger Games tribute. I mean, lots of us end up there but the idea of it being a goal when you are just 16 is so sad.

Don't see much actual analysis but just bias from this comment. Sure, Dartmouth is a university, but it is really small and has more resources, so you can achieve all that you can do at Amherst and more. More students means more invested in clubs and activities and more leadership experiences. This would make more sense for UC Berkeley where things are bursting at the seams, but Dartmouth is honestly not that far off from being a liberal arts college. Dartmouth is an undergraduate college by all intents and purposes.

Sorry did not mean to criticize Dartmouth. I actually think it’s a better school than Amherst for many purposes. Based on my experience and the resumes I’ve seen, it doesn’t have quite the same historical pipeline to YLS as Amherst. It may be because you have Dartmouth grads going into engineering and stuff like that, so just not as much focus on law school. But I reiterate that aiming to get into YLS is not a good goal for a 26/17 year old. Not the right way to think about your college choice and I would do my utmost to avoid any of my kids having this as their goal. (You can tell they don’t use my for alumni recruiting!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC is pre-law and wants to do biglaw like everyone else. She needs to go to a top law school, so this choice really matters for her.

Currently her Ed choices are:

Claremont McKenna (I know don’t laugh, but she’s hell bent that this is the right place “for her”)

Amherst (many questions marks on this one)

And Dartmouth (to me, this is the right answer).

If the goal is Yale/Columbia Law, which is the right choice?

For your 16 or 17 year old rising senior? Have you lost your mind? Please let her find her own way. It will be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is pre-law and wants to do biglaw like everyone else. She needs to go to a top law school, so this choice really matters for her.

Currently her Ed choices are:

Claremont McKenna (I know don’t laugh, but she’s hell bent that this is the right place “for her”)

Amherst (many questions marks on this one)

And Dartmouth (to me, this is the right answer).

If the goal is Yale/Columbia Law, which is the right choice?

For your 16 or 17 year old rising senior? Have you lost your mind? Please let her find her own way. It will be fine.

This. Especially with ED. Let her apply to her genuine first choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of that matters. What matters is that she have a 4.0 gpa, a 180 LSAT and take a few years off in between to do some kind of work that makes her a little different than the other thousands of perfect scores they’ll get. Having that unique job in South Dakota or in the military or peace corps would help too. And there’s still no guarantee.

Fewer than a hundred 180 scores each year. The LSAT isn’t the SAT.

[Anonymous]

1) pre law isn’t a major
2) when applying to law school GPA and LSAT matter a lot. A 4.0 out of BC is better than a 3.7 out of Dartmouth as long as it’s accompanied by a high LSAT score.

Have her major in something where she will have a 4.0 GPA.