Anonymous wrote:Are LSAT scores optional like SAT for undergrads?

At this time, a score is required for admission. Every law school takes the LSAT; a good number take the GRE as well. There is a new test called JD Next, and some law schools are allowed to use this as an option as well.

Anonymous wrote:It’s always amusing when dcumers, like op, are surprised kids can both be social and smart.

It’s not that. It’s that they didn’t seem to be working for a year. Now a handful of them are at elite law schools.

It’s always amusing when dcumers, like op, are surprised kids can both be social and smart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best lawyer I have ever know used to say to me “there is no such thing as a good 24 year old lawyer.” No one should ever go straight to law school.

Well, some kids need to use the GI bill. They are just as determined but have less flexibility than rich people. Law schools are pretty bad at identifying privilege.

I know someone who is using the GI bill for law school. She also took off two years. What are you trying say?

If she’s a dependent, she won’t get to use it for all three years. Benefits expire at 26.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best lawyer I have ever know used to say to me “there is no such thing as a good 24 year old lawyer.” No one should ever go straight to law school.

Well, some kids need to use the GI bill. They are just as determined but have less flexibility than rich people. Law schools are pretty bad at identifying privilege.

I know someone who is using the GI bill for law school. She also took off two years. What are you trying say?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Law schools like the students to be older. My kid had a 3.9 and a 174 and didn’t break the top 10. Related ECs, honors. great recs, and a job. But those stats at age 26 with some work experience would probably be a different story.

Unless you have some kind of hook, applying as an undergrad is a disadvantage.

They’re not that old, they’re only a year out of undergrad. 23 maybe 24 years old.

They don’t need to be “old”, just older than new graduate.

I begged my kid to wait but they wanted to go. Given their waitlists as a k-jd, I’m sure they’d be at a top 5 school if willing to delay. It’s very much an advantage to wait.

Anonymous wrote:Best lawyer I have ever know used to say to me “there is no such thing as a good 24 year old lawyer.” No one should ever go straight to law school.

Well, some kids need to use the GI bill. They are just as determined but have less flexibility than rich people. Law schools are pretty bad at identifying privilege.

Anonymous wrote:DD applied to and got accepted to law school, and then just deferred a year. She wanted to take a break from school and travel. She spent a year in three cities in Europe, bartending and nannying. Then came back and started at law school.

How did she find nanny jobs in Europe? That sounds fun.

Best lawyer I have ever know used to say to me “there is no such thing as a good 24 year old lawyer.” No one should ever go straight to law school.

Anonymous wrote:I used to work at a law school in admissions and lots of very inaccurate info on this thread.

Law schools do value work experience, most applicants are not going to be straight from undergrad. Full pay can definitely help, just like it does with undergrad. There are tons of scholarships available overall; not necessarily at the very top schools as they value need and not merit but schools that are not Yale/Harvard/Stanford do have full tuition available for a select few who fit their criteria for top scores/grades/special kind of law. Outside the top 14, plenty of merit aid available.

This. The law schools know that the more mature the student is, the better the law school outcome. Even when I attended a T1,2 or 3, most of the students had taken at least a year off. Harvard says that 80% of the incoming class have taken off 1 or more years before applying. This is true also of business schools

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume there are hooks to get into law school...

Is being a rich pretty sorority girl a hook?

Yes, especially the rich full pay part.

This is true. Law schools are cash cows for these universities. They are ridiculously expensive for what they are. And for the most part, just high GPA/LSAT works so the schools can keep their prestige up.

Yeah, except that if you don't have one of those (high GPA or high LSAT), then you end up at a bottom of the barrel, barely credited law school, and are doomed to hell, posting on DCUM about other people's kids. So, that sucks.

Meh, took a year off doing a minor job post college (just enough to support myself) while taking the LSAT and applying to law schools. Got into #1 law school. Law schools don't love K-JD's--often too immature to handle the pressure of law school. Taking a year or two off helps with maturity.

I did that. I wasn’t rich and took out loans. I wanted to focus on academics my senior year of college and wasn’t ready to apply. Was accepted at several top schools. Most but mot all of my classmates had taken a year or two off. One year was common. Some had taken 3-4 years off.

I used to work at a law school in admissions and lots of very inaccurate info on this thread.

Law schools do value work experience, most applicants are not going to be straight from undergrad. Full pay can definitely help, just like it does with undergrad. There are tons of scholarships available overall; not necessarily at the very top schools as they value need and not merit but schools that are not Yale/Harvard/Stanford do have full tuition available for a select few who fit their criteria for top scores/grades/special kind of law. Outside the top 14, plenty of merit aid available.

Are LSAT scores optional like SAT for undergrads?