Pre-Law. Go for prestige or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just reiterating: if your kids has what it takes to be a successful lawyer (some combination of intelligence, resilience, hustle), they should be able to make their own choices about paying for law school. If they are a high stats person, they will have the option to take merit aid or pay more for a higher ranked school—and also the ability to get a big law job to pay off any loans they do end up with. I would absolutely NOT promise to pay for law school and take this opportunity to make the threshold decision about what to do with your life, and how to prioritize your values in your career, off the table.

I also know many miserable lawyers. Don’t make it too easy for your kid to go to law school. Let them have agency over their life.

I'm curious about your thoughts on paying for DC's undergrad. Not sure I understand the strong opinion against paying for DC's grad school. Personally, I wouldn't mind covering law school costs if they choose a full-ride option for undergrad. It's a given that they'd try to get as much merit aid as possible and they are free to decide what they want to do with their life. I've lived debt-free, and I'd help DC as much as I can without compromising my lifestyle.

Well the current cost of attendance at Harvard Law School (which does not give any merit aid, still heavily factors parental income when giving out need based aid even for students in their 30s, and has a reputation as being the stingiest among the top law schools in giving out aid) is $120,000 per year: https://hls.harvard.edu/sfs/financial-aid/financial-aid-policy/cost-of-attendance/ Cost of attendance will likely increase heavily over the next few years given all the budget cuts and law schools traditionally being seen as the cash cows for universities. Grad Plus loans are also going to be phased out by the federal government over the next few years, so the only way to pay will be through private loans (which have much less protections for borrowers) or being independently wealthy. If you can support your child’s dreams of being a lawyer, that’s great but if my kid wants to be a lawyer, I can’t fathom even paying a fraction of their likely $150k per year cost of attendance if they make that decision.

DP here. Good for you, but that’s clearly a very personal decision. For example, I would never dream of paying for my kid to go to a private undergraduate school when there are plenty of good state options available. But this website is full of parents who think they’re doing that is the equivalent of child abuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think parents should pay for law school. If the kid has the chops they should be able to get a good scholarship and also make their own decisions about which school to go to, balancing the cost against their career ambitions.

With what's happening with AI, now way in hell I would tell my kid today that we would pay for law school...nor that they should even be thinking about it as an option until things sort out.

AI is a tool for lawyers, it's not going to replace us.

I assume you are an experienced attorney. It may be a boon to you...it's the pipeline for entry-level white collar folks in many professions including law, that everyone fears could be a huge problem.

I am, and I am just getting going with AI. So others may have more experience. But I view AI as similar to other tech advances. Westlaw/Lexis made research more efficient but it did not make lawyers obsolete, even entry level lawyers. I think AI is going to help with things like document review. It's a helpful editor, but it can't do my drafting for me. At least in its current iteration, it's not reliable for research - have to watch out for those hallucinations! I can use it for a first sweep when looking for a resource, but you need judgment to sift through the results to evaluate them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just reiterating: if your kids has what it takes to be a successful lawyer (some combination of intelligence, resilience, hustle), they should be able to make their own choices about paying for law school. If they are a high stats person, they will have the option to take merit aid or pay more for a higher ranked school—and also the ability to get a big law job to pay off any loans they do end up with. I would absolutely NOT promise to pay for law school and take this opportunity to make the threshold decision about what to do with your life, and how to prioritize your values in your career, off the table.

I also know many miserable lawyers. Don’t make it too easy for your kid to go to law school. Let them have agency over their life.

I went this route - HYPSM for undergrad paid for by my parents. Then top law school financed by me with mostly loans. Had to go to biglaw for several years to pay off said loans, which probably wouldn't have been my chosen path, but also wasn't the worst thing in the world as it gave me great experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Georgetown and there were students from all sorts of schools.

But I know from talking to admissions that the you need a higher GPA if you are coming from a less prestigious undergrad.

I think it also helps a bit to have a prestigious undergrad when applying for jobs, though that's mostly about GPA, journal, etc.

But overall, yes, she can still go to a strong law school but she will need to have a higher undergrad and LSAT if coming from a lower ranked undergrad.

I am not sure why you think she can get a full ride to a top fifty undergrad. Those are hard to come by. It's more typical to get 10-30k in merit aid.

(Yale Law, the student body has tons of top 5 SLACS and ivies. But chances are, your kid is not getting into Yale Law regardless.)

Wrong. You do not need a higher LSAT score from some undergrad schools than others. You need a competitive score regardless but it doesn’t vary by undergrad school. Sure, you may need a higher GPA from a lower ranked undergrad, but LSAT? Nope. That’s why they call it a “standardized” test.

Two clearly inaccurate posts in a row. This website can be very frustrating.

How can you possibly know this? Do you work in law school admissions for at T14 law school?

I think what the PP said makes sense. Law school admissions needs to evaluate whether an applicant can handle the rigor. If an applicant did well at a known top undergrad program (say an Ivy) that has a track record of sending successful students to the law school, I could see admissions giving them a pass on a lower LSAT score. Whereas an applicant from No-name U with lower standards would need at high LSAT score to show they are qualified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Georgetown and there were students from all sorts of schools.

But I know from talking to admissions that the you need a higher GPA if you are coming from a less prestigious undergrad.

I think it also helps a bit to have a prestigious undergrad when applying for jobs, though that's mostly about GPA, journal, etc.

But overall, yes, she can still go to a strong law school but she will need to have a higher undergrad and LSAT if coming from a lower ranked undergrad.

I am not sure why you think she can get a full ride to a top fifty undergrad. Those are hard to come by. It's more typical to get 10-30k in merit aid.

(Yale Law, the student body has tons of top 5 SLACS and ivies. But chances are, your kid is not getting into Yale Law regardless.)

Wrong. You do not need a higher LSAT score from some undergrad schools than others. You need a competitive score regardless but it doesn’t vary by undergrad school. Sure, you may need a higher GPA from a lower ranked undergrad, but LSAT? Nope. That’s why they call it a “standardized” test.

Two clearly inaccurate posts in a row. This website can be very frustrating.

How can you possibly know this? Do you work in law school admissions for at T14 law school?

I think what the PP said makes sense. Law school admissions needs to evaluate whether an applicant can handle the rigor. If an applicant did well at a known top undergrad program (say an Ivy) that has a track record of sending successful students to the law school, I could see admissions giving them a pass on a lower LSAT score. Whereas an applicant from No-name U with lower standards would need at high LSAT score to show they are qualified.

Well you can “see” that all you want but it’s wrong. Are you really this obtuse? The whole purpose of the LSAT is to standardize the process. Top law schools don’t give “a pass” to applicants from elite undergraduate schools with lower LSATs than applicants from lower ranked schools because the process isn’t nearly as holistic as applying to college from high school. LSAT scores carry much more weight for law school admissions than SAT scores count for college admissions. You’re treating the two processes as similar if not equal when in fact they’re not.

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just reiterating: if your kids has what it takes to be a successful lawyer (some combination of intelligence, resilience, hustle), they should be able to make their own choices about paying for law school. If they are a high stats person, they will have the option to take merit aid or pay more for a higher ranked school—and also the ability to get a big law job to pay off any loans they do end up with. I would absolutely NOT promise to pay for law school and take this opportunity to make the threshold decision about what to do with your life, and how to prioritize your values in your career, off the table.

I also know many miserable lawyers. Don’t make it too easy for your kid to go to law school. Let them have agency over their life.

I'm curious about your thoughts on paying for DC's undergrad. Not sure I understand the strong opinion against paying for DC's grad school. Personally, I wouldn't mind covering law school costs if they choose a full-ride option for undergrad. It's a given that they'd try to get as much merit aid as possible and they are free to decide what they want to do with their life. I've lived debt-free, and I'd help DC as much as I can without compromising my lifestyle.

Well the current cost of attendance at Harvard Law School (which does not give any merit aid, still heavily factors parental income when giving out need based aid even for students in their 30s, and has a reputation as being the stingiest among the top law schools in giving out aid) is $120,000 per year: https://hls.harvard.edu/sfs/financial-aid/financial-aid-policy/cost-of-attendance/ Cost of attendance will likely increase heavily over the next few years given all the budget cuts and law schools traditionally being seen as the cash cows for universities. Grad Plus loans are also going to be phased out by the federal government over the next few years, so the only way to pay will be through private loans (which have much less protections for borrowers) or being independently wealthy. If you can support your child’s dreams of being a lawyer, that’s great but if my kid wants to be a lawyer, I can’t fathom even paying a fraction of their likely $150k per year cost of attendance if they make that decision.

DP here. Good for you, but that’s clearly a very personal decision. For example, I would never dream of paying for my kid to go to a private undergraduate school when there are plenty of good state options available. But this website is full of parents who think they’re doing that is the equivalent of child abuse.

Not at all. I attended all public schools, in-state university. I was a STeM major.

I’m paying for my kid at an Ivy because he is non-STEM and the Ivy for his major has top placement in his field (not law). He already had an internship this year at a very prestigious co. A Fall abroad internship start of sophomore year and research opportunity.

I don’t care where anyone else goes to school. If he were an engineer I likely would have highly suggested my alma mater that has a top engineering program.

I can’t stand when ppl sh@t on other ppl’s choices. We can pay for it. But for those who can’t, the Ivies have some of the best FA out there. And, I will readily agree that truly sucks for donut hole kids- that’s why I went in-state myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Georgetown and there were students from all sorts of schools.

But I know from talking to admissions that the you need a higher GPA if you are coming from a less prestigious undergrad.

I think it also helps a bit to have a prestigious undergrad when applying for jobs, though that's mostly about GPA, journal, etc.

But overall, yes, she can still go to a strong law school but she will need to have a higher undergrad and LSAT if coming from a lower ranked undergrad.

I am not sure why you think she can get a full ride to a top fifty undergrad. Those are hard to come by. It's more typical to get 10-30k in merit aid.

(Yale Law, the student body has tons of top 5 SLACS and ivies. But chances are, your kid is not getting into Yale Law regardless.)

Wrong. You do not need a higher LSAT score from some undergrad schools than others. You need a competitive score regardless but it doesn’t vary by undergrad school. Sure, you may need a higher GPA from a lower ranked undergrad, but LSAT? Nope. That’s why they call it a “standardized” test.

Two clearly inaccurate posts in a row. This website can be very frustrating.

How can you possibly know this? Do you work in law school admissions for at T14 law school?

I think what the PP said makes sense. Law school admissions needs to evaluate whether an applicant can handle the rigor. If an applicant did well at a known top undergrad program (say an Ivy) that has a track record of sending successful students to the law school, I could see admissions giving them a pass on a lower LSAT score. Whereas an applicant from No-name U with lower standards would need at high LSAT score to show they are qualified.

Well you can “see” that all you want but it’s wrong. Are you really this obtuse? The whole purpose of the LSAT is to standardize the process. Top law schools don’t give “a pass” to applicants from elite undergraduate schools with lower LSATs than applicants from lower ranked schools because the process isn’t nearly as holistic as applying to college from high school. LSAT scores carry much more weight for law school admissions than SAT scores count for college admissions. You’re treating the two processes as similar if not equal when in fact they’re not.

This explanation from the web strikes me as about as good as any:

“Stop thinking about the LSAT as a piece of your application. While it is a piece, it’s a gargantuan piece that almost eclipses every other consideration. To illustrate it’s singular importance, let’s say you have a GPA that is acceptable to any law school, a 3.75. From there, your LSAT score is going to predict where you get in something close to 100% of the time, and a lot of the time, moving it up or down by just a couple points will make the difference.

Yes, law schools do use a holistic process of reviewing applications. However, that only affects people on the margins. What I mean to say is, chances are close to 100% that you’ll be judged entirely on your numbers, mostly the LSAT. If you have truly outstanding soft factors, it is possible they’ll come into play. Likewise, if you have very detrimental soft factors, they might hurt you (think an extensive criminal record). Other than that, you are going into either the accept or reject pile based on your numbers alone.

Again, of the two numbers, LSAT is by far the more important. Most law schools use an admissions index to make an initial determination regarding acceptance. From just that index score, you are going in one of two piles: presumptive reject or presumptive admit. The typical index puts something close to 70% weight on LSAT vs. 30% weight on GPA.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Georgetown and there were students from all sorts of schools.

But I know from talking to admissions that the you need a higher GPA if you are coming from a less prestigious undergrad.

I think it also helps a bit to have a prestigious undergrad when applying for jobs, though that's mostly about GPA, journal, etc.

But overall, yes, she can still go to a strong law school but she will need to have a higher undergrad and LSAT if coming from a lower ranked undergrad.

I am not sure why you think she can get a full ride to a top fifty undergrad. Those are hard to come by. It's more typical to get 10-30k in merit aid.

(Yale Law, the student body has tons of top 5 SLACS and ivies. But chances are, your kid is not getting into Yale Law regardless.)

Wrong. You do not need a higher LSAT score from some undergrad schools than others. You need a competitive score regardless but it doesn’t vary by undergrad school. Sure, you may need a higher GPA from a lower ranked undergrad, but LSAT? Nope. That’s why they call it a “standardized” test.

Two clearly inaccurate posts in a row. This website can be very frustrating.

How can you possibly know this? Do you work in law school admissions for at T14 law school?

I think what the PP said makes sense. Law school admissions needs to evaluate whether an applicant can handle the rigor. If an applicant did well at a known top undergrad program (say an Ivy) that has a track record of sending successful students to the law school, I could see admissions giving them a pass on a lower LSAT score. Whereas an applicant from No-name U with lower standards would need at high LSAT score to show they are qualified.

Well you can “see” that all you want but it’s wrong. Are you really this obtuse? The whole purpose of the LSAT is to standardize the process. Top law schools don’t give “a pass” to applicants from elite undergraduate schools with lower LSATs than applicants from lower ranked schools because the process isn’t nearly as holistic as applying to college from high school. LSAT scores carry much more weight for law school admissions than SAT scores count for college admissions. You’re treating the two processes as similar if not equal when in fact they’re not.

This explanation from the web strikes me as about as good as any:

“Stop thinking about the LSAT as a piece of your application. While it is a piece, it’s a gargantuan piece that almost eclipses every other consideration. To illustrate it’s singular importance, let’s say you have a GPA that is acceptable to any law school, a 3.75. From there, your LSAT score is going to predict where you get in something close to 100% of the time, and a lot of the time, moving it up or down by just a couple points will make the difference.

Yes, law schools do use a holistic process of reviewing applications. However, that only affects people on the margins. What I mean to say is, chances are close to 100% that you’ll be judged entirely on your numbers, mostly the LSAT. If you have truly outstanding soft factors, it is possible they’ll come into play. Likewise, if you have very detrimental soft factors, they might hurt you (think an extensive criminal record). Other than that, you are going into either the accept or reject pile based on your numbers alone.

Again, of the two numbers, LSAT is by far the more important. Most law schools use an admissions index to make an initial determination regarding acceptance. From just that index score, you are going in one of two piles: presumptive reject or presumptive admit. The typical index puts something close to 70% weight on LSAT vs. 30% weight on GPA.”

And to think people were advocating for TO and doing away with the LSAT so everybody gets a trophy. lol