Getting into Law School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law school admissions is getting more unpredictable like college admissions.

There was a time it was mainly your GPA and LSAT. This year was extremely competitive. I advise students and having a score in the 170s and a high GPA does not guarantee T14 anymore.

The ones who did the best in the process have close to a 4.0, scores in the 170s, at least a year of work experience after college and preferably more, academic prizes or significant leadership or awards in college, recommendations that are outstanding. Strength of undergraduate institution matters more than you think. I have to counsel students that just because they have a high GPA does not mean as much if your degree was online or at a school most people have never heard of.

They are more likely to go deep in the class for an Ivy or top 20 than take from a lower tier university outside of top 50 unless you are at the top of your class. Going to a huge undergrad can disadvantage you by not getting to know your professors well and being so big that there are so many applying from your school.

can confirm, based on law school data from my kid's T10. Students with around 3.7-3.8, which is below average there, can go to the bottom of T14 otherwise go to next tier excellent law such as WashU. The 3.9+ kids get into multiple T14s and over a dozen every year go to T3. However the former usually has 165+ and the latter has 172+. It may not be the university itself as much as the fact that even a below average student at one of those schools is quite likely to be on par with the very top of a below-T50.

If you went from a top 10 to a law school below the top 14 that would say volumes about your undergrad accomplishments - and not in a good way. Better to go to a state school and land a top 14 (or even better a top 8) which is very doable and looks so much better on a resume.

I'm not sure that is true. I think a prestigious undergrad still matters, although obviously much less than the law school. I've seen situations where, for example, Harvard undergrad helped quite a bit. And, of course, going from a state school to a top 14 is "very doable," but the vast majority of people are unable to do it. Most people from state undergrads go to non-elite law schools (which is perfectly fine, btw).

Correlation is not causation. Going from a state school to a T14 is doable when one has the GPA and LSAT.

What are you talking about? Who is making a correlation as causation mistake? Everyone knows that going from a state school to a T14 is doable. Most can't do it. The top law schools are disproportionately filled with students from top schools. Undergrad institution still carries some weight in the most highly competitive areas of law (look at the resumes of Supreme Court clerks, for example or law school professors).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law school admissions is getting more unpredictable like college admissions.

There was a time it was mainly your GPA and LSAT. This year was extremely competitive. I advise students and having a score in the 170s and a high GPA does not guarantee T14 anymore.

The ones who did the best in the process have close to a 4.0, scores in the 170s, at least a year of work experience after college and preferably more, academic prizes or significant leadership or awards in college, recommendations that are outstanding. Strength of undergraduate institution matters more than you think. I have to counsel students that just because they have a high GPA does not mean as much if your degree was online or at a school most people have never heard of.

They are more likely to go deep in the class for an Ivy or top 20 than take from a lower tier university outside of top 50 unless you are at the top of your class. Going to a huge undergrad can disadvantage you by not getting to know your professors well and being so big that there are so many applying from your school.

can confirm, based on law school data from my kid's T10. Students with around 3.7-3.8, which is below average there, can go to the bottom of T14 otherwise go to next tier excellent law such as WashU. The 3.9+ kids get into multiple T14s and over a dozen every year go to T3. However the former usually has 165+ and the latter has 172+. It may not be the university itself as much as the fact that even a below average student at one of those schools is quite likely to be on par with the very top of a below-T50.

If you went from a top 10 to a law school below the top 14 that would say volumes about your undergrad accomplishments - and not in a good way. Better to go to a state school and land a top 14 (or even better a top 8) which is very doable and looks so much better on a resume.

I'm not sure that is true. I think a prestigious undergrad still matters, although obviously much less than the law school. I've seen situations where, for example, Harvard undergrad helped quite a bit. And, of course, going from a state school to a top 14 is "very doable," but the vast majority of people are unable to do it. Most people from state undergrads go to non-elite law schools (which is perfectly fine, btw).

Correlation is not causation. Going from a state school to a T14 is doable when one has the GPA and LSAT.

What are you talking about? Who is making a correlation as causation mistake? Everyone knows that going from a state school to a T14 is doable. Most can't do it. The top law schools are disproportionately filled with students from top schools. Undergrad institution still carries some weight in the most highly competitive areas of law (look at the resumes of Supreme Court clerks, for example or law school professors).

Correlation - students at T14s tending to be from top undergrads - does not mean that the undergrad institution itself played any causative role in T14 admission. Students at top undergrads tend to get good grades and score well on standardized tests due to their personal, inherent qualities, the same qualities that got them admitted to top undergrads.

"Most" at state schools can do it if they have the GPA and LSAT. "Most" can't do it if they don't have those metrics.

--attended a T14 with many state school grads

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law school admissions is getting more unpredictable like college admissions.

There was a time it was mainly your GPA and LSAT. This year was extremely competitive. I advise students and having a score in the 170s and a high GPA does not guarantee T14 anymore.

The ones who did the best in the process have close to a 4.0, scores in the 170s, at least a year of work experience after college and preferably more, academic prizes or significant leadership or awards in college, recommendations that are outstanding. Strength of undergraduate institution matters more than you think. I have to counsel students that just because they have a high GPA does not mean as much if your degree was online or at a school most people have never heard of.

They are more likely to go deep in the class for an Ivy or top 20 than take from a lower tier university outside of top 50 unless you are at the top of your class. Going to a huge undergrad can disadvantage you by not getting to know your professors well and being so big that there are so many applying from your school.

can confirm, based on law school data from my kid's T10. Students with around 3.7-3.8, which is below average there, can go to the bottom of T14 otherwise go to next tier excellent law such as WashU. The 3.9+ kids get into multiple T14s and over a dozen every year go to T3. However the former usually has 165+ and the latter has 172+. It may not be the university itself as much as the fact that even a below average student at one of those schools is quite likely to be on par with the very top of a below-T50.

If you went from a top 10 to a law school below the top 14 that would say volumes about your undergrad accomplishments - and not in a good way. Better to go to a state school and land a top 14 (or even better a top 8) which is very doable and looks so much better on a resume.

I'm not sure that is true. I think a prestigious undergrad still matters, although obviously much less than the law school. I've seen situations where, for example, Harvard undergrad helped quite a bit. And, of course, going from a state school to a top 14 is "very doable," but the vast majority of people are unable to do it. Most people from state undergrads go to non-elite law schools (which is perfectly fine, btw).

Correlation is not causation. Going from a state school to a T14 is doable when one has the GPA and LSAT.

What are you talking about? Who is making a correlation as causation mistake? Everyone knows that going from a state school to a T14 is doable. Most can't do it. The top law schools are disproportionately filled with students from top schools. Undergrad institution still carries some weight in the most highly competitive areas of law (look at the resumes of Supreme Court clerks, for example or law school professors).

Correlation - students at T14s tending to be from top undergrads - does not mean that the undergrad institution itself played any causative role in T14 admission. Students at top undergrads tend to get good grades and score well on standardized tests due to their personal, inherent qualities, the same qualities that got them admitted to top undergrads.

"Most" at state schools can do it if they have the GPA and LSAT. "Most" can't do it if they don't have those metrics.

--attended a T14 with many state school grads

It does if law schools select students from top schools over students from other schools, all stats (GPA, LSAT, perhaps even undergrad major) being equal.

[Anonymous]

BTW if you haven’t had first hand experience with the law school admissions process since Covid, you have zero idea what you’re talking about and comments like “I got into Harvard Law with a 3.8 GPA and 175 LSAT so that’s all you need” are as relevant as your parents talking about how they got into Princeton undergrad with a 1400 SAT score and don’t understand why your kid can’t get in too

Law School admissions is getting crazy like undergrad admissions. A 3.9 and 175 are like a 4.0 unweighted GPA and 1500+ SAT are for undergrad - the table stakes that get you in the game, which now need to be augmented with a compelling story, or coherent narrative, plus additional signifiers of excellence

More and more, work experience plays a key role in providing that additional factor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW if you haven’t had first hand experience with the law school admissions process since Covid, you have zero idea what you’re talking about and comments like “I got into Harvard Law with a 3.8 GPA and 175 LSAT so that’s all you need” are as relevant as your parents talking about how they got into Princeton undergrad with a 1400 SAT score and don’t understand why your kid can’t get in too

Law School admissions is getting crazy like undergrad admissions. A 3.9 and 175 are like a 4.0 unweighted GPA and 1500+ SAT are for undergrad - the table stakes that get you in the game, which now need to be augmented with a compelling story, or coherent narrative, plus additional signifiers of excellence

More and more, work experience plays a key role in providing that additional factor

This was 100% my kid’s (and their classmate’s) recent experience. A 3.9/174 gets rejected or waitlisted in the T13 unless you are unique in some way or have been in a real job for a few years. The “extra” that helped two of them was coming from a one red light town from an underrepresented state, and another who had both a humanities and a science degree from an under represented state.

[Anonymous]

Is it better for law school admittance to have lower grades at Harvard undergrad or top grades at a top 5 state school like a UVA, UT, UNC etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it better for law school admittance to have lower grades at Harvard undergrad or top grades at a top 5 state school like a UVA, UT, UNC etc?

Top grades. It's not even close.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law school admissions is getting more unpredictable like college admissions.

There was a time it was mainly your GPA and LSAT. This year was extremely competitive. I advise students and having a score in the 170s and a high GPA does not guarantee T14 anymore.

The ones who did the best in the process have close to a 4.0, scores in the 170s, at least a year of work experience after college and preferably more, academic prizes or significant leadership or awards in college, recommendations that are outstanding. Strength of undergraduate institution matters more than you think. I have to counsel students that just because they have a high GPA does not mean as much if your degree was online or at a school most people have never heard of.

They are more likely to go deep in the class for an Ivy or top 20 than take from a lower tier university outside of top 50 unless you are at the top of your class. Going to a huge undergrad can disadvantage you by not getting to know your professors well and being so big that there are so many applying from your school.

can confirm, based on law school data from my kid's T10. Students with around 3.7-3.8, which is below average there, can go to the bottom of T14 otherwise go to next tier excellent law such as WashU. The 3.9+ kids get into multiple T14s and over a dozen every year go to T3. However the former usually has 165+ and the latter has 172+. It may not be the university itself as much as the fact that even a below average student at one of those schools is quite likely to be on par with the very top of a below-T50.

If you went from a top 10 to a law school below the top 14 that would say volumes about your undergrad accomplishments - and not in a good way. Better to go to a state school and land a top 14 (or even better a top 8) which is very doable and looks so much better on a resume.

I'm not sure that is true. I think a prestigious undergrad still matters, although obviously much less than the law school. I've seen situations where, for example, Harvard undergrad helped quite a bit. And, of course, going from a state school to a top 14 is "very doable," but the vast majority of people are unable to do it. Most people from state undergrads go to non-elite law schools (which is perfectly fine, btw).

Correlation is not causation. Going from a state school to a T14 is doable when one has the GPA and LSAT.

What are you talking about? Who is making a correlation as causation mistake? Everyone knows that going from a state school to a T14 is doable. Most can't do it. The top law schools are disproportionately filled with students from top schools. Undergrad institution still carries some weight in the most highly competitive areas of law (look at the resumes of Supreme Court clerks, for example or law school professors).

Correlation - students at T14s tending to be from top undergrads - does not mean that the undergrad institution itself played any causative role in T14 admission. Students at top undergrads tend to get good grades and score well on standardized tests due to their personal, inherent qualities, the same qualities that got them admitted to top undergrads.

"Most" at state schools can do it if they have the GPA and LSAT. "Most" can't do it if they don't have those metrics.

--attended a T14 with many state school grads

Agreed. Law schools have a lot of respect for those at state schools who get top GPAs in tough majors. They know not everyone has parental support or resources to attend an elite undergrad and are thrilled to take the top from state schools. It adds to their diversity stats and such students usually do very well.

[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.

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.

[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.

She should major in whatever she wants to major in. There's not going to be any difference between finance/econ double major (or major/minor), on the one hand, and finance/math double major on the other, for the purpose of law school admission.

Working for a couple of years after college graduation would be a plus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it better for law school admittance to have lower grades at Harvard undergrad or top grades at a top 5 state school like a UVA, UT, UNC etc?

Top grades. It's not even close.

+1

[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.

She can go ahead and apply now because you never know what might happen and it’s a good learning process but I’d make a job search the primary focus. She can always re-apply after working for a year or two and re-applying isn’t held against you. But she should take the LSAT when she has the most time to prep and thinks she will get her maximum score - if that means the summer after graduation before she starts working then it might be better to wait to apply

[Anonymous]

Reapplying is harder as they do compare your old application with the new one and expect updated letters, more work experience, new grades or test scores if feasible, updated essays. I generally advise waiting until you have work experience after college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it better for law school admittance to have lower grades at Harvard undergrad or top grades at a top 5 state school like a UVA, UT, UNC etc?

Harvard has higher average undergraduate grades than UVA, UT, and UNC. If you get in, you too will likely have higher grades. But to answer your question, it is mostly grades. The institution is more or less a tie breaker.