Besides GPA/LSAT...

Graduate School Law School
1

<p>First of all, I definitely understand that LSAT/GPA are the huge majority of what's considered for law school admissions. But here are a few random questions I have about other small factors (or possibly non-factors...)</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Strength of Undergrad University: Things I've read here and there make it seem like where you went for undergrad doesn't matter at all. But I can't really wrap my head around that: law schools can't totally disregard the differences in academic rigor between applicants, right? If someone has a 3.7 at a top 20 ranked university while someone else has a 4.0 from a much less prestigious school, how do schools generally swing?</p></li>
<li><p>Necessity of Extracurricular/Work Experience: Some posts here make it seem like extracurricular activities/work experience are nearly unnecessary and definitely less of a factor for law school admissions than they were for undergrad admissions. Is this kind of an exaggeration?</p></li>
<li><p>"Diversity" Considerations: Does URM status matter at all to law schools?</p></li>
</ol>

2

<p>“But I can’t really wrap my head around that: law schools can’t totally disregard the differences in academic rigor between applicants, right?”</p>

<p>Sure they can. The higher the GPAs and LSAT scores of the students are, the higher the schools US News ranking.</p>

3

<p>2.) a.) You need to do SOMETHING.
b.) Some schools care very much. Yale, Stanford, Berkeley are generally considered the main three.</p>

<p>3.) Yes. A GREAT deal.</p>

4

<p>a. it doesn’t matter (with two exceptions: Yale undergrad applying to Yale and Harvard undergrad applying to Harvard). ever wondered why Brown sends so many kids to HPS while UChicago sends a fraction of that?</p>

<p>b. work experience may matter a little if you are on the edge. the kind of work you may matter a little more if you have been out of school for 2+ years, but your extracurricular doesn’t matter.</p>

<p>c. yes. it can mean 10+ points on the LSAT.</p>

5

<p>“Necessity of Extracurricular/Work Experience: Some posts here make it seem like extracurricular activities/work experience are nearly unnecessary and definitely less of a factor for law school admissions than they were for undergrad admissions. Is this kind of an exaggeration?”</p>

<p>Law school admissions is totally different. It’s all about the numbers. If you have the numbers, admissions is almost guaranteed. For applicants straight from college, work experience only matters when you are on the edge. Extracurricular doesn’t matter; you should have at least one though.</p>

6

<p>OK , please someone answer me this one.
If , throughout my college career, I have been a student representative of some college committee, a senator and then a president of the SG, do these leadership position help when I a apply to law schools ?</p>

7

<p>That’s enough that you wouldn’t get dinged for doing nothing.</p>

8

<p>Overachiever, Maybe you need a new screen name like GreatExpectations. A month into your first year of college is a bit early to announce you’re going to be prez of the student government ;)</p>

9

<p>I already became a senator , as a freshman so…</p>

10

<p>Count, chickens, hatch, etc.</p>

11

<p>He can do it if he puts any effort into it. Nobody cares about student government. Schools with tens of thousands of people often have several hundred voting in those elections.</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>At T14 law schools, in particular, however, applicants straight out of college are competing for only around 50% of the available seats. Most (if not all) of the T14 law schools have classes where 50% or more of the students have been out of college, either studying for advanced degrees or working, for several years before applying. Applying straight out of college has become more of an uphill climb over the years, and I believe that trend will continue.</p>

13

<p>

</p>

<p>So would you say they pretty much have a quota for students coming straight from college? I’ve already been thinking of getting a masters degree after college and then applying to law school.</p>

14

<p>“At T14 law schools, in particular, however, applicants straight out of college are competing for only around 50% of the available seats. Most (if not all) of the T14 law schools have classes where 50% or more of the students have been out of college, either studying for advanced degrees or working, for several years before applying. Applying straight out of college has become more of an uphill climb over the years, and I believe that trend will continue.”</p>

<p>At Yale Law (20%) and Harvard Law (20 some %), less than 30% of the incoming students are straight from college. Getting in straight from undergrad seems to be the goal fit for the most ambitious and capable now.</p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think that there is an explicit quota system at all. I do think that top law schools view work experience and advanced education as significant positive factors in one’s application, with the result that law students at top law schools increasingly have these qualifications.</p>

<p>One additional note – the increasing numbers of law students with work experience (in particular) and advanced degrees means that it will be that much more difficult for those law students who came straight from college to land the most competitive jobs (like Biglaw). Biglaw, in particular, loves to hire students who have already proven themselves capable in the real world at real jobs, particularly those with some relationship to the work they will be doing (e.g. former investment bankers, management consultants, accountants, paralegals, investment advisers).</p>

16

<p>I think looking at the # of people entering H or Y after 1-2 years out is a bit misleading. Many of them are people who were admitted during their senior year in college. They chose to defer. There have been years in which between 70 and 80 places in Yale’s incoming class were “reserved” for those who had deferred. Yale, Harvard, and other top law schools have liberal deferral policies. </p>

<p>Some of those who deferred had fellowships. One heck of a lot of folks who had Rhodes, Marshall, Gates, Fullbright, and other fellowships go to law school. Usually, they applied and were admitted during college and found out they got the fellowship after being admitted. Some folks apply to law school and Teach for America and the Peace Corps simultaneously. They defer if they get into TFA or the Peace Corps. I know of at least one athlete who was admitted and deferred to train for and compete in the Olympics. Some were admitted to joint programs and chose to begin the course work for the other degree first. </p>

<p>From what I’ve seen, a year or two of work does not boost your chances of being admitted one iota UNLESS that year or two was spent doing community service like Peace Corps, TFA, etc. or military service or something unusual. </p>

<p>I admit that having work experience does help you get a job, but it certainly isn’t essential. One of my young neighbors went straight to law school from college and got a job with big law. He’s been deferred for a year, but the firm is paying his (much lower) salary to work for NYC government this year. (All incomng associates were deferred; the deferral has nothing to do with the fact he has no full time work experience.)</p>

<p>In fact, some of the folks who worked for a year or two recently ended up in much worse shape than they would have if they went straight to law school. Their college classmates who did so graduated from law school in 2007 or 2008 and got jobs. Those who worked for a couple of years and then went to law school graduated in 2009 and 2010 and did a lot worse.</p>

<p>Finally, fin aid plays into this. There are some students–a minority, I admit, but some–who will be eligible for fin aid for law school if they go directly to LS, but will lose that eligibility if they work for a few years.</p>

17

<p>I may be beating a dead horse about this, but here’s info from Harvard’s site re its deferral policy:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>My point is that one shouldn’t assume from the fact that many students enter law school a year or two after graduation that it’s the experiences they had during those 1-2 years which tipped the balance in favor of admission. Some of those were admitted as college seniors and then deferred.</p>

18

<p>jonri, clearly there are some students who have deferred their admission to work for a year at a school like HLS where there is a liberal deferral policy. However, the general trend at the top law schools for students to have several years of work experience and/or advanced degrees is not completely explained by deferrals. Many, if not most, of these older law students are applying to law school after they have worked or while/after they are in graduate school programs.</p>

19

<p>Sally–</p>

<p>We just have to agree to disagree. I think that the growing number of entering students who have been out of college for a few years IS explained in part by the fact that deferrals have become much easier to get in recent years and that LSs advertise their availability much more than they used to. It’s also explained in part by the increased popularity of joint programs. </p>

<p>Can I prove that? No, not really…but I imply it from other data I’ve seen. </p>

<p>Some colleges break down the LS admissions data for seniors and alumni. At top colleges that do so, invariably the students applying as seniors have higher GPAs and LSAT scores IN THE AGGREGATE than those who took time off. In other words, those whose records are a little bit weaker are more inclined to try to boost them by doing something else. However, these alums still do worse in LS admissions as a group than the seniors do. That leads me to conclude it’s still mostly about the gpa and LSAT. If work experience really helped that much, you’d expect the alums to do at least as well as the seniors who have slightly higher GPA’s and LSAT scores–and they don’t. </p>

<p>I do know that there was a fairly recent year at Yale in which more than 70 places were taken by students who had deferred at least one year. That’s 70 out of about 200 places or about 35%. The percentage of students who entered Yale Law 1-2 year out is only a couple of points higher. Now, I know the two don’t completely overlap. Some of those who deferred had been out a few years when they applied and still deferred. A few students get permission to defer more than 2 years. But do I think there’s one heck of a lot of overlap between the 38% who were out 1-2 years and those who deferred? Yes, I do. </p>

<p>While it may seem that I’m just being pedantic, I think–and you are free to disagree–that it’s simply unfair to create the impression that working for 1-3 years at a regular job is going to be the difference between, e.g., getting into Georgetown LS straight out of college and getting into NYU with 1-3 years of work experience. I AGREE that if you went to West Point and complete your 5 year commitment to the military, it really MIGHT be the difference between Georgetown and NYU. Two years with the Peace Corps might too. But two years of working at a typical post college job? I don’t think it helps. </p>

<p>Meanwhile, for some “kids” doing this can be a disaster. Some students from less affluent families who get into top LSs and work a year or two destroy their eligibility for need-based financial aid. My kid’s LS offered stipends for those who took summer jobs of a public interest ilk. A classmate learned that the money he had earned while out of college made him ineligible for the subsidy! </p>

<p>I actually AGREE that it’s wise to take a year or two between college and LS–and LSs agree. That’s why they have liberal deferral policies. And, of course, there are many students who decide that apart from taking the LSAT, they’ll just wait until after graduation to apply to LS. Doing so may enable some to focus more on course work and boost their gpa with senior year grades. (An extra .1 or .2 on the gpa probably helps at least as much as work experience.) Some aren’t sure that they want to go to LS and work as a paralegal or do something else to see if this is the right path. Others don’t even THINK about applying to LS until sometime after they’ve finished college. </p>

<p>I also think that as LS has gotten increasingly expensive, fewer college seniors think “I’m not sure what I want to do and a JD is a good credential which is useful in many careers.” So, part of the decline in the percentage of students applying directly from college is probably due to cost too. </p>

<p>The bottom line is that I think that it’s unfair to students to make them think that at any top LS with the exception of Northwestern 1 or 2 years of work experience will have a substantial impact on admissions decisions. 5 years might. But very few people who know they want to be lawyers when they are seniors in college are willing to work five years doing something else first.</p>

<p>I apologize for the “novel”–I just think it’s a disservice to make “kids” think that a year or two of work experience is going to impact decisions substantially.</p>

20

<p>Anecdotally, I plan on applying after my LSAT in October and then requesting a deferral.</p>