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.

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.

I would prefer a 30 year old veteran with “lower readiness” than a 21 y/o.

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.

Anonymous wrote:T14 law school admissions are trending in the same direction as Top 20 undergrad admissions - but with a few years lag.

Meaning that whereas a 3.9 GPA, 175+ LSAT used to confer a high degree of predictability about admissions outcomes, those kinds of stats are now table stakes to merit actual consideration and it's other factors - demonstrated leadership, awards, interesting and meaningful back story, etc - that determine admission or rejection. It's for a lot of the same reasons as undergrad: grade inflation, particularly due to Covid, soaring standardized test scores, increased focus on equity and diversification.

In this new environment, work experience serves as one of those "other factors" that helps set one applicant apart from another.

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.

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

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!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, your thread starting post suggested that prospective law school applicants should shadow lawyers before deciding whether or not to pursue the practice of law. I disagree.

I disagree because most lawyer activity occurs in the head of the attorney and watching a lawyer think, read and write for 9 or 10 hours a day really does not convey what lawyers do in furtherance of their clients' interests.

Shadowing a medical professional--such as a doctor--is quite different as many functions can be appreciated simply by being present & watching.

Continuing:

Arguably there is some career insight to be gained by shadowing a litigator (trial attorney) at a deposition or at a motions hearing or during a trial. But I doubt that many attorneys or law firms want non-lawyer/non-legal related professionals observers at their depositions. With respect to trial matters heard in court, there is no need to shadow as most hearings are open to the public.

Even though I see little value in shadowing an attorney, there is value in speaking to a variety of attorneys during lunch or any other free time to discuss the profession and that attorney's duties within his or her practice.

But watching an attorney think, read, and write for 10 hours a day provides insight that could be communicated in a quick conversation.

I was a litigation paralegal for two years before law school, and it was amazing experience. I saw the good, the bad, and the ugly of being a biglaw lawyer before I went to law school; I was not just shadowing, but also engaging with the attorneys on the work, I made connections with big firm lawyers that I still use to this day, and I got great advice/recommendations from lawyers who had gone to good schools and done well there. Highly recommend.

Working as a paralegal is different than shadowing an attorney.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, your thread starting post suggested that prospective law school applicants should shadow lawyers before deciding whether or not to pursue the practice of law. I disagree.

I disagree because most lawyer activity occurs in the head of the attorney and watching a lawyer think, read and write for 9 or 10 hours a day really does not convey what lawyers do in furtherance of their clients' interests.

Shadowing a medical professional--such as a doctor--is quite different as many functions can be appreciated simply by being present & watching.

Continuing:

Arguably there is some career insight to be gained by shadowing a litigator (trial attorney) at a deposition or at a motions hearing or during a trial. But I doubt that many attorneys or law firms want non-lawyer/non-legal related professionals observers at their depositions. With respect to trial matters heard in court, there is no need to shadow as most hearings are open to the public.

Even though I see little value in shadowing an attorney, there is value in speaking to a variety of attorneys during lunch or any other free time to discuss the profession and that attorney's duties within his or her practice.

But watching an attorney think, read, and write for 10 hours a day provides insight that could be communicated in a quick conversation.

I was a litigation paralegal for two years before law school, and it was amazing experience. I saw the good, the bad, and the ugly of being a biglaw lawyer before I went to law school; I was not just shadowing, but also engaging with the attorneys on the work, I made connections with big firm lawyers that I still use to this day, and I got great advice/recommendations from lawyers who had gone to good schools and done well there. Highly recommend.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, your thread starting post suggested that prospective law school applicants should shadow lawyers before deciding whether or not to pursue the practice of law. I disagree.

I disagree because most lawyer activity occurs in the head of the attorney and watching a lawyer think, read and write for 9 or 10 hours a day really does not convey what lawyers do in furtherance of their clients' interests.

Shadowing a medical professional--such as a doctor--is quite different as many functions can be appreciated simply by being present & watching.

Continuing:

Arguably there is some career insight to be gained by shadowing a litigator (trial attorney) at a deposition or at a motions hearing or during a trial. But I doubt that many attorneys or law firms want non-lawyer/non-legal related professionals observers at their depositions. With respect to trial matters heard in court, there is no need to shadow as most hearings are open to the public.

Even though I see little value in shadowing an attorney, there is value in speaking to a variety of attorneys during lunch or any other free time to discuss the profession and that attorney's duties within his or her practice.

But watching an attorney think, read, and write for 10 hours a day provides insight that could be communicated in a quick conversation.

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.

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!