Downside to JD/MBA?

Graduate School Law School
1

<p>
[quote]

Worthwhile, or Wasted Effort?</p>

<p>The jury's still out on whether two degrees make any sense, particularly for those who are set on practicing law. For starters, recruiters from big law firms often look down on applicants with joint degrees. Anne Brandt, associate director of the Law School Admission Council, explains that these firms not only shell out big bucks for their young associate hires, but also spend a lot of time training them. As a result, she says, some firms are wary of any hint—such as a second degree—that might indicate a lack of commitment to practicing law.</p>

<p>Geoffrey Lee, president of Counsel Source, an attorney recruiting company in Dallas, adds that most law students—intent on solely practicing law after graduation—should focus on improving their class rank rather than chasing down a second degree. From the perspective of a big firm, he argues, having knockout law grades always beats having two degrees, especially if the grades in both disciplines are mediocre. He goes as far as to say that, in this traditional milieu, "the JD-MBA ... is almost a waste of time." If your goal is to one day manage such a firm, however, a JD-MBA could be just the ticket. But from the purely legal side, an MBA doesn't add much value.</p>

<p>In addition, Brandt points out that you don't always need a second degree to specialize in a particular area of the law. She says that most top law schools offer a wide array of courses for students who want to concentrate on subjects off the beaten path. "It is not necessary to have a degree in computer science to represent a dot-com."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>From:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.infirmation.com/articles/one-article.tcl?article_id=2294%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.infirmation.com/articles/one-article.tcl?article_id=2294&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

2

<p>Sally got a mba/jd from UPenn instead of going to Yale and it seems to be working out for her.</p>

3

<p>She couldve gone to Yale Law?</p>

<p>Sally, if you don't mind pming me your numbers if you still remember, I'd like to get a general sense of them.</p>

4

<p>Her numbers will likely be outdated by now. There has been a dramatic increase in LSAT takers and Law School applicants leading to LSAT/GPA inflation at top schools. It's a cut-throat economy.</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
As a result, she says, some firms are wary of any hint—such as a second degree—that might indicate a lack of commitment to practicing law.

[/quote]

So true. Even a practical, lucrative undergrad degree can stigmatise a law student.</p>

6

<p>So my numbers are outdated by now? It's not like it wasn't incredibly competitive to get into law school and business school when I applied. There have always been students out there with good grades and high LSAT scores ... it's not a new phenomenon. Applicants with high LSAT scores, good GPAs from top colleges and substantive and challenging work experience will always have a shot at getting into top law schools. </p>

<p>You mentioned how cut throat the economy is today -- so much more so than when I might have gone to school, you imply. If you think the economy is cut throat now, you should have seen what college, law school and business school graduates were going through to get jobs in the late 80's (before I was in the job market), the early 90's (lawyers and investment bankers were getting laid off everywhere in huge numbers) and in 1999 and 2000 (the streets were littered with the discarded Brooks Brothers suits of out-of-work lawyers and investment bankers (Polo khakis for those who had worked for "business casual" employers)). During those times, applications to law school and business school went through the roof. In comparison, finding a job in this economy is like finding beer in Munich the first weekend in October. </p>

<p>In any event, I agree that if you intend to be a lawyer, during the hiring process, you will be asked some very pointed and difficult questions about your intentions as a dual degree candidate. There are some law firms who do hire many JD/MBAs (I'm thinking of S&C and Cravath in NYC, for example), and some big NYC firms even give you advanced class standing and pay for having the MBA. In my opinion, if you can get past the difficult interview questions regarding your intention to practice law, and if you practice corporate law, the MBA, while not necessary, does give you incredible amounts of credibility with your investment banker, private equity and corporate clients (among others). Let's be realistic, too -- attrition rates at big law firms across the country are disgustingly huge, so it's not as if big law firms are necessarily hiring you only because you are going to stick around forever. The big firms count on that attrition -- and many maintain significant alumni relations programs to facilitate networking and business generation with attorneys who have left their firms for years down the road. </p>

<p>You definitely do not need a second advanced degree if you plan to be a lawyer in any particular area for the rest of your career. For me, first and foremost, I enjoyed the MBA program. Second, the networking from your MBA program also helps tremendously in building a "book of business" at your firm, which is a great way to make partner and to make the big bucks once you are a partner. Third, I have options open to me becasue of the MBA that would be much less likely paths if I had only the JD in hand.</p>

7

<p>37% increase in number of LSAT takers in the last 5 years or so. Modest .5-1 LSAT point inflation (interquartile range by USNews) at top schools every year since then.</p>

<p>It's made a difference.</p>

8

<p>It is somewhat difficult to compare LSAT between years, as it's always based on your percentile rank of those who took the same exam. </p>

<p>I think that the # of people who take the LSAT and the # who apply to law schools are the best indicators of difficulty. Those fluctuate year-to-year; in strong economies, it's easier to get into law school.</p>

9

<p>First, just because more people take a test does not mean that their scores are any higher or lower than the historical numbers.</p>

<p>Second, you're assuming that US News is absolutely accurate about their so called "modest" LSAT score inflation of up to 5 points over the past five years. I think everyone who follows these boards is aware of the strong and continued allegations that schools, including law schools, game the ranking systems by which they are measured. Assuming that these allegations are even partially true, any "modest" increase could be attributable to the gaming phenomenon rather than to any newly found brilliance in more recent test takers. </p>

<p>Third, the LSAT scoring methodology is such that scores remain constant over significant periods of time. Therefore, even if raw scores are higher or lower from one administration of the exam to the next, the converted scaled scores would remain relatively constant so that different administrations of the LSAT would be equitable and scores would be comparable across testing dates. In other words, if all of the students on one particular administration of the test got higher than normal raw scores, the conversion of their raw scores would be tougher, and their scaled scores would be comparable with scores from previous and future administrations of the test. So, while it is possible for the raw scores to increase over time (and they may have -- I don't know), the actual LSAT scores should remain constant. </p>

<p>Finally, a five point difference over a five year period would be absolutely tremendous. I assume that you're suggesting that a top law school that in 2001 had a median LSAT score of admitted students of 167 would now have a median score of 172? If you have them available, I would really like to see the empirical evidence that supports this. </p>

<p>Ever since the LSAT moved to the 120-180 scoring scale sometime in the late 80's or early 90's, to the best of my knowledge (after some unscientific research and inquiries with a couple of people working at law schools who should know), the scoring has remained relatively constant.</p>

10

<p>I disagree. Think through this, mathematically. </p>

<p>The number of law students who take the LSAT fluctuates from 100,000 students per year to 150,000 students per year. Increased competition aside, this will change the LSATs of admitted students. Here's why.</p>

<p>Let's calculate LSAT scores. As stated in a previous post, the LSAT is ENTIRELY dependent upon your percentile rank in that test. If you score in the 50th percentile of that administration, you get a 150 or a 151, every time. It doesn't matter if there are 50,000 students who did better than you or 75,000 students who did better than you. </p>

<p>170 = 99th percentile.</p>

<p>100,000 students, 170+ -> 1,000 students
150,000 students, 170+ -> 1,500 students.</p>

<p>Therefore, in a low volume year, the top 1,000 students scored from 180 to 174ish. In a high volume year, the top 1,000 students scored from 180 to 170. Ergo, inflation of average LSAT. Law schools do NOT increase their class sizes 50% in response to the influx of applicants. </p>

<p>Simple math. Just think about it - there are more 170+ (or whatever cut-off point you use) scorers in some years than in others, simply because the 170 is a proxy for percentile and there are more students taking the exam.</p>

<p>What truly remains constant is the number & range of top students that any given school takes. We can safely assume that, whether 150,000 students take the LSAT in a given year or 10,000 students do, most of the top 200 of those kids are going to Yale. In some years, there is less competition to be in that top 200; in some years, the top 200 students have higher LSATs.</p>

11

<p>ariesathena, you are definitely correct and I agree with you. Maybe I miscommunicated in some way, but I was addressing shiboung's statement that there has been LSAT inflation at law schools. The average LSAT score of admitted or enrolling students may have changed because more people have taken the LSAT and, therefore, more people have scored in the 99th percentile, for example, but there has been no inflation in LSAT scores (at least not in the way that people discuss grade inflation). One's performance on the LSAT today is theoretically comparable to a test-taker's performance five or ten years ago (since the change from the 48-point scale).</p>

12

<p>The original article talks about the unnecessary aspects of a joint degree but then states:</p>

<p>"If your goal is to one day manage such a firm, however, a JD-MBA could be just the ticket."</p>

<p>Can anyone expound on this statement?</p>

13

<p>Law firms are businesses.</p>

<p>Associates are basically apprentices when they join a firm since they are fresh out of law school (which only prove that you're smart and capable of learning the law). As you are taught more skills by the firm, your pay increases and you graduate in terms of ranking within the firm, with the ultimate goal of being partner.</p>

<p>Partners are co-owners in the firm and share the profits of the business. Associates in comparison are workers in the business who are paid their marginal product of labor or the dollar value of the services they produce. </p>

<p>An MBA would be useful once you're a partner because then you could better manage the business and make bigger profits for your firm.</p>

14

<p>I wouldn't assume that the number of 170+ scorers necessarily increases in proportion to the number of test takers. I don't believe that the score is a proxy for percentile. The test designers try to norm the scores in such a way 170 in one year is supposed to mean the same thing as a 170 in another year. </p>

<p>Something like a third of the questions that appear on an individual test are not counted in scoring that test; they're used solely for norming purposes, i.e. to make scores comparable from one administration of the test to another.</p>

15

<p>Well if 172 is 99th percentile year after year and 137k people are taking the test instead of 100k, I'd expect for their to be 37% more people making the same scores from 172-180 than before. Mathematically it seems appropriate.</p>

<p>Its hard to explain the LSAT inflation at the top schools in any other way.</p>

16

<p>The LSAC is pretty adamant about scores correlating very strongly with percentile. </p>

<p>There is an experimental section on each test, which is one of the five sections. It will be a duplicate logic games, reading comp., or logical reasoning section. That is not counted in scoring the test; however, the other four sections have a total of 101 questions, all of which are used to develop a raw score. The scaled score correlates almost exactly to a percentile of the raw score.</p>

17

<p>I'm not saying the percentile is wrong, just that if more people are taking the test, as a natural consequence each percentile ranking will represent a greater number of people than it did before.</p>

18

<p>Shiboing, </p>

<p>If this were a trial, I would obect that you're assuming facts not in evidence.</p>

<p>I haven't watched the numbers that closely of late, but when I was teaching at Stanley Kaplan a couple of decades ago, the cut-off for the 99th percentile did change from year to year. </p>

<p>The viscitudes in the job market may not result in equal growth (or contraction, for that matter) in the pool of test takers across the entire spectrum of abilities. </p>

<p>There were years in the 1970's when there was both a significant growth in the number of people taking the SAT over the previous year, and a significant drop in the raw number of people scoring over 700 on the verbal portion of the test. </p>

<p>My guess is that the rise in LSAT scores is explained by a number of factors: more people taking the LSAT, a greater emphasis being placed on the prestige of the school by applicants, and a greater emphasis being put on objective factors by admissions committees (with a view toward improving the school's US News ranking).</p>

19

<p>Well, I personally hope you're right greybeard since I scored pretty well on the test and don't want to be undercut by changes in methodology or the fact that more people are taking the test.</p>