I went to a "top" law school and there were way more people with job experience that people who went straight through. I was someone who went straight through and in retrospect I think it was a negative for me. I think a year or two (or more) of working is really good preparation for the career choices you will need to make pretty quickly in law school, and will also give you some of the professional soft skills you need not only for post-law school, but to succeed in the internships and clerkships you do during school.

The most successful people from my law school program all worked for at least a year before entering the program. The ones who did best worked in fields like consulting, banking, or policy positions.

Anonymous wrote:Handful of my daughters’ party girl wealthy friends are randomly at fairly prestigious law schools. They were seemingly idle for a year after college and now they’re at law schools including Duke, Georgetown, UVA, Michigan, NYU, and Penn. It doesn’t take an entire to just retake the LSAT, so I’m just guessing there’s more to it than just a new LSAT score.

I did this. I worked for those 2 years, getting legal experience both in a private firm and in government. I was able to clearly articulate why I wanted to go to law school, and was accepted to every law school you listed above.

Because college is a racket and everyone knows real world experience teaches you 100x more

The only students I know who took an extra year to begin law or medical school did not get into good programs their senior year of college (or any US medical school). They did better the second time around. There was no profound maturation. It’s an insignificant sum of time. There is no point in wasting away a year of your life if you don’t have to.

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are ignorant. Most law schools (and also MBA programs) want the students to have had some sort of maturation process or paralegal-type jobs before entering into law school. why? because the students are expected to engage in debate in the classroom. A rube who just graduated from a slac and knows nothing about reality offers nothing in the Socratic method in a law school class. Even Harvard wants to see at least 80 percent of its students have had some time off to pursue additional degrees or work-related experience.

Aren’t law school app deadlines in October? So graduate with BA in May or June and apply to law schools in October. What “maturation” happened in those 5 or 6 months?

After reading this thread, now I remember why I hated law school.

Tiffany Trump did this. If you think she had an LSAT to get into GULC I have a bridge to sell you.

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.

This is stupid. There is no such thing as a good 24 year old lawyer because 24 year old lawyers don't have experience yet. If you graduate from law school at 35, you are not a good lawyer at 35. I didn't go straight to law school, but plenty of folks in my class did, and they did just fine.

How is this “stupid”?
Probably not said the best way. But it does make sense. Point being …. Under no circumstance can there be a 24yo lawyer that is good, because there is no chance they could have any experience. As in does not exist.

A 35yo lawyer without experience, I guess wouldn’t be great either. But there could exist a 35yo lawyer with up to 7-8 years experience as well.

OP, you are ignorant. Most law schools (and also MBA programs) want the students to have had some sort of maturation process or paralegal-type jobs before entering into law school. why? because the students are expected to engage in debate in the classroom. A rube who just graduated from a slac and knows nothing about reality offers nothing in the Socratic method in a law school class. Even Harvard wants to see at least 80 percent of its students have had some time off to pursue additional degrees or work-related experience.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why would this matter? Why on earth are you begrudging these young women their legal education? What on earth is wrong with you?

Ask all these people who wrote their letters of Rec. Probably a lot of senators. Being rich helps in more ways than just paying for tuition. Elite law schools are no different than elite undergrads: they take wealthy and connected or hooked/underprivileged/underrepresented. Not much in between.

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.

This is stupid. There is no such thing as a good 24 year old lawyer because 24 year old lawyers don't have experience yet. If you graduate from law school at 35, you are not a good lawyer at 35. I didn't go straight to law school, but plenty of folks in my class did, and they did just fine.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Is being a rich pretty sorority girl a hook?

Pretty? No. Sorority girl? No. Rich? Maybe. (I think I got into my first choice law school easily in part because I was full pay.)

Nepo interns

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.

Yes I agree but there is also no such thing as a good 27 year old lawyer if 27 is when out of law school.

Nothing wrong with going straight through.