Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to skip college just so they can start working sooner?

The money. 2-3 years if lost income plus $$$ tuition fees.

He has the rest of his life to make money. I'm in biglaw and like my job, but under no circumstances would I encourage anyone to skip college just to save a couple hundred grand and become a lawyer faster. College is great. I also agree with others that biglaw firms in general aren't going to be enthused about hiring someone who's barely legal to drink. Even financially, it's probably worth it to go to college, get into a T14 law school, go to biglaw, pay off your loans, and then do whatever you want vs skipping college and getting a less remunerative job out of law school.

+1. There is no shortcut, nor does there need to be.

OP, understand that there is a wide variety in types of practice and levels of earnings.

Anonymous wrote:I know a girl who had a JD by age 22. She graduated high school at 16, finished her BA in 3 years from a state university, then did her 3 years of law school.

One of my smartest law school classmates was like this. Because most of us were even older since we weren't "straight-throughs," she was like a BABY to us! I remember the party we had when she turned 21 and could legally drink with all of us! Smart as a whip, obviously, and very mature for her age. Has a great practice now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to skip college just so they can start working sooner?

The money. 2-3 years if lost income plus $$$ tuition fees.

He has the rest of his life to make money. I'm in biglaw and like my job, but under no circumstances would I encourage anyone to skip college just to save a couple hundred grand and become a lawyer faster. College is great. I also agree with others that biglaw firms in general aren't going to be enthused about hiring someone who's barely legal to drink. Even financially, it's probably worth it to go to college, get into a T14 law school, go to biglaw, pay off your loans, and then do whatever you want vs skipping college and getting a less remunerative job out of law school.

I know a girl who had a JD by age 22. She graduated high school at 16, finished her BA in 3 years from a state university, then did her 3 years of law school.

you used to be able to do this for med school and law school in quebec. Maybe you still can. They do three years of high school (through 11th grade), then two years of something called CEGEP, and then can go straight into law school or med school. Not sure how many do that though.

Speeding up is not a good idea. Maturity and emotional intelligence matter a lot in law. The fast track option was more popular in the 1950s and 1960s. It fell out of favor for a reason.

Columbia has an accelerated program, but it is nearly impossible to get into (I think there was ONE person in my class at CLS who did this). You can't apply until you're a junior in college. Agree that graduating from college in 3 years might be the better option (a lot of people in my class at CLS did this, including me. But I worked for a year before going to law school, because I didn't want to be the youngest person in my class).


https://bulletin.columbia.edu/general-studies/academic-policies/study-within-graduate-professional-schools/lead-program/lead-program.pdf

What you should do to minimize costs is attend the cheapest undergrad possible (state schools, schools that give you a scholarship, whatever), choose a major and classes that will maximize GPA, and ace the LSAT (170+). It’s a really learnable test and can be done with enough studying. If you can graduate from undergrad in 3 years without compromising GPA, that’s an additional option to save money. Law school admissions are unlike undergrad admissions - they’re based on GPA and LSAT, not much else. Pretty much every top 30 law school (except Harvard, Yale, and Stanford) offers significant merit aid packages, up to and including full rides, to people with high numbers, and these can be negotiated if you have better offers. It’s a numbers game and there’s no bump based on the name of your undergrad. If you attend a T14 school, you will very likely get a biglaw summer associate position after your second year, which pays $40k - this can be used to cover tuition and living expenses in the third year of school.

That said, as someone who went to law school, I don’t recommend going straight through. Getting some work experience after college is good for you as a person, and gives you perspective that you wouldn’t have otherwise.

Also, I wouldn’t recommend committing to a 3+3 program - keep your options for law school open. Law is a snobby profession and your law school matters. The name can open doors throughout your career as a lawyer, not just to get your first job.

Over the last 30 years the trend in law school admissions has been in favor of older students with some work experience between college and law school. When I graduated from law school in the early '90s, most of my classmates were straight out of undergrad. My son is about to graduate from the same law school, and the "straight-throughs" are now a minority.

How difficult is it to get into a very good law school here? In my home country, where entry is straight after high school, you need an academic score in the top 0.3-4% of high school leavers for a very good law course.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to skip college just so they can start working sooner?

The money. 2-3 years if lost income plus $$$ tuition fees.

If money is a goal, the path to the big money is the standard path. There is a massive difference between BigLaw salaries following T14 law school and normal undergrad, vs some oddball path that leads to practice at 22, if such an oddball path is even possible. Account for the extra time it would take for the oddball fledgling work experience to get off the ground and likely small salary that would command.

I meant the cost of the studies rather than getting a big law degree. Doesn’t the cost put off a lot of people who might be interested in working in government or a publicly funded area or something else that just isn’t particularly lucrative?

Yes, though very competitive stats (college gpa and LSAT) can also lead to merit scholarships at lower tier law schools, which is a common route for those wanting to practice locally, at a and/or at lower pay. Some T14s have funds to help those headed to public interest jobs.

The standard path is much lower risk. Choose an inexpensive undergrad. Then if the student has the stats, evaluate law school options when the acceptances come in and their exact associated costs to decide whether it's worthwhile.

I do not think that it would be wise to put all his eggs in one basket at 18. Many people change their minds on law school and/or don't have the stats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to skip college just so they can start working sooner?

The money. 2-3 years if lost income plus $$$ tuition fees.

If money is a goal, the path to the big money is the standard path. There is a massive difference between BigLaw salaries following T14 law school and normal undergrad, vs some oddball path that leads to practice at 22, if such an oddball path is even possible. Account for the extra time it would take for the oddball fledgling work experience to get off the ground and likely small salary that would command.

I meant the cost of the studies rather than getting a big law degree. Doesn’t the cost put off a lot of people who might be interested in working in government or a publicly funded area or something else that just isn’t particularly lucrative?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to skip college just so they can start working sooner?

The money. 2-3 years if lost income plus $$$ tuition fees.

If money is a goal, the path to the big money is the standard path. There is a massive difference between BigLaw salaries following T14 law school and normal undergrad, vs some oddball path that leads to practice at 22, if such an oddball path is even possible. Account for the extra time it would take for the oddball fledgling work experience to get off the ground and likely small salary that would command.

Ask Kim Kardashian. She hasn’t gone up to undergrad or law school and in California, she is eligible to take the bar exam. I recently saw a picture of her (probably on Page Six) with her poolside in a skimpy bathing suit STUDYING.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if it were possible, it would be short sighted re employment prospects. No big law and no one should be hiring a 22 y.o. sole practitioner to represent them.

What do you mean by ‘sole practitioner’? Does a person who completes the 7 years just jump in the deep end? I assumed they went into junior positions where they would be closely supervised.

PP. Getting someone to hire them would be challenging, whether as an employee or as a sole practicioner. As another PP notes, young age and lack of practical world experience would be disadvantages. The standard path is the way to go. Even better if he gets a year or two of post-college work experience (of almost any kind) before applying to law school.