Anonymous
Post 06/07/2023 08:24     Subject: Law School
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.
Anonymous
Post 06/07/2023 06:02     Subject: Law School
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.


I am no fan of JD Vance these days, but his law school experience is very similar what PP describing (struggling culturally).

Anonymous
Post 06/06/2023 22:45     Subject: Law School
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.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2023 22:07     Subject: Re:Law School
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.


I went to NU when the vast majority took time off and they enrolled plenty of women.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2023 22:06     Subject: Re:Law School
[twitter]
Anonymous wrote:
Exlawdean wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Do the T14 look more favorably on elite undergraduate college applicants, all other things (gpa, lsat, extras) being equal?


I am not an expert on this precise question. I know that most chief admissions officers will claim to be looking for the best applicants, regardless of where they come from. But such a statement has little hard content. My guess is that there will be a tendency, other things being equal, to favor applicants from prestigious, selective undergraduate institutions. But this is true for employers, as well. If your child attends, for example, Princeton as an undergraduate and then decides to get a job, they will have an easier time than if they had attended a much less prestigious undergraduate school.


That’s…not how law school admissions work. I am really surprised you don’t know how they work.


I think it’s true “all else held equal” eg same LSAT and GPA.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2023 22:02     Subject: Re:Law School
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.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2023 21:16     Subject: Re:Law School
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....
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2023 20:50     Subject: Re:Law School
Exlawdean wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Do the T14 look more favorably on elite undergraduate college applicants, all other things (gpa, lsat, extras) being equal?


I am not an expert on this precise question. I know that most chief admissions officers will claim to be looking for the best applicants, regardless of where they come from. But such a statement has little hard content. My guess is that there will be a tendency, other things being equal, to favor applicants from prestigious, selective undergraduate institutions. But this is true for employers, as well. If your child attends, for example, Princeton as an undergraduate and then decides to get a job, they will have an easier time than if they had attended a much less prestigious undergraduate school.


That’s…not how law school admissions work. I am really surprised you don’t know how they work.
Exlawdean
Post 06/06/2023 20:49     Subject: Re:Law School
Anonymous wrote:Thanks for offering your expertise! Any thoughts about the role undergraduate major plays in admissions? Specifically, for STEM majors, many of the "weeder" classes (looking at you, O-chem) can take a toll on the grade point average. For an applicant who is interested in IP law, is any allowance made for a few more B's along the way in the highly challenging courses?


This is a great question. As a general matter, an enormous percent of law school applicants are political science and economics majors. Admissions deans would like to admit applicants with other types of majors. So, as a general matter, the answer is "yes," many admissions officers look at major. As to STEM, you are right. Depending on the university and the particular class, the grading can be brutal. (On a personal note, I took O-chem and I hated the class.) When I taught at Caltech I was the prelaw advisor. Caltech graded on a curve (at least at that point) and had not allowed grade inflation. Part of my job was to write letters explaining this situation and asking admissions officers to take this into account.

Do law school admissions officers take this into account? I am fairly sure the answer is something like "yes, but not as much as they would like." Why? Because neither LSDAS nor US News takes into account such considerations. Thus, in order to take this factor into account admissions officers must row against the tide. And, btw, there are a few non-STEM majors that have the same issues. Music theory and the formal logic branch of philosophy come to mind. Sorry I can't provide better news.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2023 20:39     Subject: Law School
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.

Exlawdean
Post 06/06/2023 20:32     Subject: Law School
Anonymous wrote:Thank you for taking the time to answer questions here. Other than the GPA and LSAT score, what do T14 law schools look for in a student?


T14 schools look for approximately the same thing as other law schools, but have more market power to achieve their goals. Remember that deans of admissions report to the dean of law, who in turn (at almost all law schools other than NYU) reports to the Provost. The dean of law also has to worry about the President of the university, the Board of Trustees of the university, and usually a board of law school advisors. Those who appear to have power over the dean of law will care about the law school's ranking, its ability to raise funds, and a grab bag of other, measurables, such as the quality of the entering student body. The UGPA and LSAT of the entering students will directly affect law school rankings. But the quality of the entering student body will include other elements. Diversity targets have been part of this for the past couple of decades, at least. Deans of admissions will be pressured by the dean of law to hit these targets. In addition, the dean of law will want to have students that allow him to brag a bit to everyone listed above. Does the school have veterans of the armed forces enrolled? Does the school have patent-holders, former professional athletes, accomplished artists, famous (think Kim Kardashian?) people, volunteer aid workers, and so forth enrolled? All of this will be taken into account by the dean of admissions. Does that answer the question?
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2023 20:27     Subject: Law School
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.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2023 20:11     Subject: Law School
Does undergraduate school or major matter? DC is interested in law school. Would going to a lower ranked school with an easier major be okay if they earned high grades? Thank you for the thread.
Exlawdean
Post 06/06/2023 20:08     Subject: Law School
Anonymous wrote:Hi Prof, I am a lawyer and have two seniors that are twins studying for the LSAT. 3.92 and 4.00 GPAs. They really don't want to take time off but it seems all T14 de facto require it

When I went to law school in the mid nineties, about 1/3rd of my class took time off. Now at top schools it seems to be 2/3rds.

Thoughts?


[i] You are correct. Today the typical top 20 law school enrolls around 60% (perhaps a bit more) of its entering student body after at least a two-year break after finishing undergraduate education. Admissions officers have a tendency to admit applicants with experience because they think that such applicants will take law school more seriously. Maybe they are right. But you should note that 1/3 of the class (or perhaps a bit more) gets admitted right out of undergraduate school or with only a one-year break. Why do admissions officers admit such applicants? Because they have, among other things, very high UGPA and LSAT. Such students help raise the law school's medians, which helps with US News rankings. Deans and alumni care about such things. So, if your twins do well on the LSAT, they can apply and see what happens. If they don't like their results they can get a job or an internship, spend a couple of years, and apply, again.
Anonymous
Post 06/06/2023 20:05     Subject: Law School
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.