Law School

[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.

What "marker" for bar pass potential are you referring to? As a PP implied, top 10 law schools are not admitting students unlikely to pass the bar. (Just an anecdote obviously, but while I don't know all my classmates' LSAT scores, both my spouse and myself had scores in the mid 170s to go along with our prior work experience)

It was in the dean’s post.

The reading comprehension on this thread is pretty dismal for a group talking about law school. It’s a surprisingly reactive group too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes but top 10 schools are rejecting and waitlisting people with 3.9/175 now. I think there are some old lawyers here who don’t understand the current state of admissions.

Didnt COVID mess up a lot of the LSAT scores? And grade inflation/COVID grading inflate GPAs?

For the LSAT, I know getting rid of the experimental section and letting people test at home raised scores. But on top of that, people also delayed going until classes were in person again. So you had a backlog of high scores waiting to apply on top of more higher scorers than usual after each test adminstratiob. I would expect post-COVID for the scores to drop again and applicants to even out.

The only other thing I would note is that - when I was looking at law schools it wasn't quite as T14 or bust. As schools have been getting more expensive and outcomes from lower ranked schools are better understood, I think you will get more people that retake until that get 170+ and/or people that wont apply outside the T14 (would rather not go to law school than go to a non-T14).

[Anonymous]

For those students aiming for Yale, Stanford, or Harvard: Yale and Stanford are small law schools, Harvard is big. So for Harvard, if you have the right GPS/LSAT, your chance of being accepted is far higher. For Yale, and to a slightly lesser degree Stanford, you have to have more than just the grades/LSAT score to get in. Something that makes you really stand out, whether it's being a Rhode Scholar, impactful post-collegiate work, unique background, etc. etc.

[Exlawdean]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To your knowledge are admissions standards more difficult for women than men? A friends son at a top 10 worked in Law Schools admissions and suggested that this seems to be the case (3.9 GPA is a given for many women applicants so their LSATs need to be even higher generally....

I wonder if more women want to go right after undergrad? And it’s harder for that reason, not for gender.

Remember two facts. There are more women than men graduating from elite colleges. The differences are not small. See the report from Women in Academia: https://www.wiareport.com/2023/04/gender-differences-in-acceptance-rates-at-ivy-league-institutions/. Second, admissions officers at law schools are trying to achieve a roughly equal balance in their classes. These two factors will combine to make it a bit harder for women to gain acceptance to a top law school than for men to do so.

[Anonymous]

The LSAT is MUCH easier than it used to be. That’s why all the inflated scores.

[Anonymous]

This string makes me think there needs to be a separate law school category!

[Exlawdean]

Anonymous wrote:I have a couple of questions:

This is more than a couple of questions. I will answer a few of them. Others can also chime in.

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 I do see this trend continuing. It has been going on for decades. Big accounting firms have been pushing into tax practice for more than a couple of decades. The high cost of elite lawyers gives clients an incentive to find cheaper ways to get service. 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? Law schools are not in charge of defining the practice of law. If we were in charge we would definitely define it broadly and have large punishments for violating the rules. This issue is, in general, up to state legislatures, often executed through authority delegated to state bar associations.

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? I guarantee you that the biggest topic in front the faculty and administration at every top 50 law school (and probably the rest, as well) is how to best respond to AI. Every law dean and professor understands that law schools will have to change. But, exactly how to change, and how to effectively manage that change, is completely up for grabs. 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? Law schools have been graduate schools in the US for much more than a century. I see no move to make the law degree an undergraduate major in this country. FWIW, about 20 years ago Japan transitioned to graduate legal education. See https://jle.aals.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=home. As to whether some law schools offer programs or initiatives that have little direct effect on most students, I have no doubt that a number of schools do this. Where their funds come from I don't know.

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?

As to whether law schools' grades reflect a true ranking of students' performances according to a Platonic ideal of excellence, I don't really know. I do know that there is a very significant, positive correlation between the grades that any given student gets in one class and the grades they get in other classes. Thus, however professors are grading, they all tend to be doing more or less the same thing. This does not mean that every professor will grade every student in exactly the same way that every other professor will grade the students, but the general tendency is undeniable.

[Exlawdean]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have already responded to the original post, so I will confine myself to commenting on the comment. Re Legal Education: There is a many decades-old debate over 2 v. 3 years for legal education. When returning GIs wanted to go to law school after WWII, many law schools (including Harvard) went to a two-year, year round system that churned out veterans with law degrees. After a few years they went back to the current system. Re Cost: The funding of law schools and the degree to which they "give" money to central administration varies dramatically from school to school. I did a study (never published!) of the net tax rate [(money from law school to central minus money from central to law school)/all tuition and fee money] for more than half of the top 20 law schools. The results ranged from 29% all the way down to 8.5%. When I spoke about my results to the CFO at a top 5 law school, they told me that they had already done the exact same study, and got the exact same results.

[Exlawdean]

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

The American Association of Law Schools has studied this question in some depth. Feel free to dive in. The answers are a bit surprising. Accounting performs quite well. So does physics.

[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.

Utter nonsense.

You couldnt be more wrong. This kind of thing has been happening at law schools for some time. I interned at one of the then Big 3 in NY, and one of my peers there - and I mention this because the issue occurred with other than minority students - was an electrical engineer and he could not fathom how important issue spotting was in the analytic side of law. He was unprepared - not academically but culturally - the only one in our class not to receive an offer. You say it is nonsense but my views were enhanced over the years by the late dean (a great professor) and our corporations professor. These things were not spoken openly but I think educators need to be really upfront about the nature of law school, and they often are not. One of the proponents of what I talk about above was our placement director. Again, it is difficult to digest your comment unless you explicate your views in a sensible way. I do have a bit of a different perspective as a poor person who went to a well regarded undergraduate school on athletic scholarship and observed how the elite operated. Oddly, like many a DCUM poster, some of my classmates disliked my athletic background as somehow being physically tough and demanding made one less intellectual. But again knowing how to navigate culture matters. For what it is worth, I so hated being poor I graduated with zero debt - made me very aware of what I was paying for.

Your comments appear sincere. You just aren't making any sense. The culture stuff you're spouting is rather bizarre, especially in the context of being a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent, my 1st question is how hard or is it possible to get scholarships/FA from a top 14 law school? DC is attending college in the fall at a top SLAC and is aspiring to study environmental science, law and public policies. Any advice will be appreciated!

Not OP, but I got one at Georgetown. My sense of what were the contributing factors: (1) high LSAT (174); (2) hard-core major (math); (3) good undergrad grades; and (4) documented interest in a particular specialty (law & econ/antitrust).

Other people had better LSAT scores and better grades than I did, so it was not just about those two numbers.

Georgetown law school is well known for awarding lots of merit scholarships to both incoming first year law students as well as to transfer law students.

The top 3 law schools (Yale, Stanford, & Harvard) do not award merit scholarships, but these law schools do award need based financial aid.

I don't disagree, but the poster asked about T-14, which includes Georgetown.

No, Georgetown is T15. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/georgetown-university-03032

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes but top 10 schools are rejecting and waitlisting people with 3.9/175 now. I think there are some old lawyers here who don’t understand the current state of admissions.

Not sure how your comment relates to the post that you quoted. My thought is that you misunderstood the post to which you responded.

[Exlawdean]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent, my 1st question is how hard or is it possible to get scholarships/FA from a top 14 law school? DC is attending college in the fall at a top SLAC and is aspiring to study environmental science, law and public policies. Any advice will be appreciated!

Not OP, but I got one at Georgetown. My sense of what were the contributing factors: (1) high LSAT (174); (2) hard-core major (math); (3) good undergrad grades; and (4) documented interest in a particular specialty (law & econ/antitrust).

Other people had better LSAT scores and better grades than I did, so it was not just about those two numbers.

Georgetown law school is well known for awarding lots of merit scholarships to both incoming first year law students as well as to transfer law students.

The top 3 law schools (Yale, Stanford, & Harvard) do not award merit scholarships, but these law schools do award need based financial aid.

I thought I would add some context to the discussion of scholarship availability. First, I had intended this thread to be about much more than the T14. Most lawyers do not go to T14 schools. So, from time to time, I will try to widen, a bit, the discussion.

Second, the practice of awarding scholarships varies dramatically from school to school. As one of the commenters, above, noted, Yale, Stanford, & Harvard claim not to award merit scholarships, and have stuck to this claim for years. On the other hand, the University of Chicago -- a very fine school which has occupied the #3 spot on US News for the past couple of years -- clearly gives merit scholarships. And many of the other 25 law schools that claim to be in the top 20 also give merit scholarships. There is no hard and fast rule. Instead, you have to go school by school in whatever year you are accepted and find out what a particular school's policies are at that time. This goes further than just need v. merit. Many schools have scholarship endowments from alumni who want to give to law students who are "like" the donor. Thus, there are law schools with endowments for scholarship funds for veterans of the armed forces, for immigrants, for the first to go to law school in their family, and so forth. NYU has scholarships for those who plan to practice public interest law. Some law school may even have a scholarship fund for those who were mathematics majors. I don't know which school that might be, but I can't rule it out. You must work with an admissions and financial aid officer at each school to find out if that school has narrowly drawn scholarship assistance that might work with your situation.

Third, the regularity that we have observed for the past decade or two -- some schools say no merit scholarships -- may turn out to be quite contingent. Why do I say this? There are two phenomena that may destabilize our equilibrium. (1) The reformation of US News rankings in response to continued attacks by law school deans and others has shaken up the methodology and the rankings. The schools that have fallen may well feel pressure to do something about the situation. Consider Harvard Law, ranked number 5 this year. Do you believe that the Harvard Board of Trustees, the alumni of Harvard Law, or the Dean of Law at Harvard will be satisfied with that ranking? I don't. I believe that pressure will build to "do something." And part of "doing something" may well include putting some money on the table for merit scholarships. (2) We are approaching a small demographic cliff. As all academic administrators know, people stopped making babies after the advent of the great recession at the same pace that we did before the great recession. Most of the articles that I have read indicate that undergraduate admissions should expect approximately a 20% reduction in applications in 2028, give or take. And this reduction will persist for a while. By 2032 or 2033, this reduction will hit law school admissions. The effects of this very large reduction in the applicant pool will pressure admissions offices, even those at T14 law schools, to work much harder to enroll the classes they want and to keep their rankings. The obvious outcome will be that if you have a child in the seventh grade at this time who decides that they want to go to law school, they likely will be able to get into a higher ranked law school ten years from now than they can with the same LSAT and UGPA, etc., right now. And, as a corollary, that same child may find it possible to get some merit scholarship ten years from now at a law school that claims never to give merit scholarships today.

I hope this helps.

[Exlawdean]

Anonymous wrote:This string makes me think there needs to be a separate law school category!

I agree.

[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.

When I was in law school, the prestigious schools took a perverse pride in their relatively low first time bar passage rates. When a less well-regarded law school would tout its higher passage rate, the school would be dismissed as a “three year bar review course.”