help! Am I screwed for HYS?

Graduate School Law School
41

<p>
[quote]
USC for one is barely 5% of the total enrolled, and UCLA is just above 1%.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>southpasdena - in a way this makes an important point about drawing conclusions -- earlier you were making statements which you clarified were based on having spoken with people from USC and UCLA. the difference in stats you are now noting evidences why it can be very misleading to try to draw generalized conclusions from information about specific schools.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Seems as you go down the usnews scale, the number of students holding advanced degrees severly drops.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i don't know if one can draw any conclusions from this as to the importance of graduate work in the admissions process in general or at specific schools. does it mean that those advanced degrees are valued more at higher level schools? does it mean that those with advanced degrees are more likely to switch fields only if they can get into a higher level school? perhaps a little of both? i don't think you can conclude that the graduate work is unimportant at to lower ranked schools -- just may be a reflection of the appliant pool they see vs. the applicant pool at the higher ranked schools.</p>

42

<p>Or, unbelieableM, there is the possibility that lower-ranked schools would like applicants with advanced degrees, but finds that they are all going to top schools, much in the same way that they would like applicants with 170+ LSAT scores.</p>

43

<p>unbelievable, you first statement was just plain confusing. Secondly, my belief is that higher ranked schools recieve more applicants that intend to follow a more academic path, especially with stanford. And the lower ranked the school, the more career focused. Possibility, i dunno yet. But i have looked over other data, and average entering age has remained the same, but i havent checked northwestern yet, the only one the has really openly said the pursuit of 2-5 years or work experience is greatly desired</p>

<p>And correction to a mistake, UCLA is a little over 10%, i was tired and overlooked that,</p>

44

<p>Now, i will compile the data later from the rest of the top schools and post them when i have time and maybe there will be a more noticable trend in accordence to age and degree recieved</p>

45

<p>There is a very simple answer: A graduate degree with strong performance in getting the degree helps provided that you already have a solid undergraduate performance. A mediocre performance in college is not going to be overcome by strong performance in graduate school. Graduate schools are notorious for grade inflation. </p>

<p>I know Yale puts a premium on graduate degrees provided you've done excellent research in your field and published. They are looking for people who are going to continue their reputation of being the school for academics and so this shouldn't be surprising. Harvard and Stanford the same way. They aren't just looking for people with graduate degrees though, but people who have shown some innovation in their graduate field. </p>

<p>That leaves the question of the student that has excellent grades in college, but doesn't do exceptionally well in grad school. Its not going to matter. It isn't going to hurt you per say. You're just going to be judged on your accomplishments compared to the rest of the field. Consider a 3.9UGPA/175 LSAT with a 3.2 GGPA in english Lit. I guarantee this person still gets into Harvard Law.</p>

46

<p>Jamimom, who no longer posts on CC, had some excellent comments about a graduate degree. I think she went to MIT, was a math major, then got a master's degree. The higher grades and the second degree helped her get into an excellent law school. Do a search through the archives.</p>

<p>The only caveat I offer is that rankings are incredibly important. Until US News includes students who have work experience and students who have graduate degrees, those things will not balance out undergrad grades at many schools. Note that schools who are more secure in their rankings will have a different perspective.</p>

47

<p>If us news included experience, grad degrees etc, that would be a basis point for a potential applicant to assess their competitveness for getting into that school, it wouldnt necessarily affect rankings, at least i dont think it should. US news really i feel should only be a starting point to see what colleges there are instead of only going by rankings as it doesnt tell the full story, especially for schools near capitals in which students have great access to government jobs and the fact that - students are not hired until passing the BAR, so after they have already graduated bringing employed numbers down thus bringing rankings down</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
the fact that - students are not hired until passing the BAR, so after they have already graduated bringing employed numbers down thus bringing rankings down

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i really can't tell what you are trying to say here -- at top law schools it is common practice for students to have their jobs well before they graduate and thus well before they take the bar, let alone learn if they've passed.</p>

49

<p>
[quote]
US news really i feel should only be a starting point to see what colleges there are instead of only going by rankings as it doesnt tell the full story

[/quote]

I frankly don't care what USNews thinks it is doing; the EFFECT of its rankings is that law schools are very aware of what happens when they admit low-stat but promising students. US News isn't working on law school admissions, but it certainly affects how they think.</p>

50

<p>unbelievablem, you cant be hired for a government job until you have passed the bar. Even at a top school, you will not be hired till you pass. I am saying this effects schools negatively when a large number of their students go on to take government jobs becuase employed numbers at graduation will be artificially low.</p>

<p>And did i ever say US news doesnt effect law school admissions? I just said it doesnt tell you the full story. I dont know how you got your last post from my statement</p>

51

<p>
[quote]
you cant be hired for a government job until you have passed the bar.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i'm sorry, but this just isn't true. the following are a couple of examples i could quickly find of gov't jobs available to those straight out of law school.</p>

<p>info re us doj entry level positions that require passage of the bar within 14 months of beginning work. <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/oarm/arm/hp/hpfaqs.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usdoj.gov/oarm/arm/hp/hpfaqs.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>re entry level positions with the SEC prior to passing bar exam <a href="http://www.sec.gov/jobs/jobs_acp.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sec.gov/jobs/jobs_acp.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>there are gov't positions for which having passed the bar or a certain number of years of experience may be a prerequisite, but it is not accurate to say that there are no gov't jobs for which a law student can be hired prior to passing the bar. </p>

<p>please be more careful about making blanket statements -- it does little to help prospective lawyers reading this forum if very definitive generalized statements are made which are not true.</p>

52

<p>from a perspective application to become a CA deputy attorney general.</p>

<p>"Membership in The State Bar of California. (Applicants must have active membership
in The State Bar before they will be eligible for appointment. Applicants who are not
members of The State Bar of California but who are eligible to take The California
State Bar examination will be admitted to the examination but will not be considered
eligible for appointment until they are admitted to The State Bar.)
Applicants who are members of The California State Bar must show their
membership number"</p>

<p>so please take back what you considered my blanket statement. NO where did i say "no" government job is available, i am sorry if i do not have time to go and search and list every explicit detail for every government position there is but the majority i have seen, at least in the state of CA require you to have passed the BAR first before YOU are actually HIRED.</p>

<p>Not to mention you link to the us department of justice is for a highly competitive honors program only, it doesnt go over regular hiring practices, that is one specific special program</p>

53

<p>
[quote]
, you cant be hired for a government job until you have passed the bar.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>was this quote supposed to mean that you were only talking about one specific type of gov't job with the state of CA? i'm sorry, but "can't be hired for a gov't job" sounds like a pretty all inclusive statement to me. </p>

<p>i presented examples to show that it was not correct to say that a student could not be hired for a gov't job -- there are gov't jobs that a student can be hired for before passing the bar exam. i conceded that there were other jobs for which passing the bar was a prerequisite -- such as the job you referenced. </p>

<p>the fact that an example i posted is for a selective position isn't relevant to the issue of whether of not there are gov't jobs that hire people before they've passed the bar -- there are. that is an accurate statement of fact. your statement that "you cant be hired for a government job until you have passed the bar" was not accurate.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Even at a top school, you will not be hired till you pass.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>in fact it is the students at such top schools who will have the opportunity to be considered for a selective position such as the one i cited previously.</p>

<p>if you have any thoughts of actually applying to law school and being a successful law student and then successful lawyer (and for the benefit of all other prospective students reading here), i would strongly recommend thinking about some skills that are essential for those pursuits-</p>

<p>1) good lawyers make sure they know their facts before citing them -- you don't tell a client, a superior attorney, a judge, or anyone else that "all, most, many, or some" of something is the case unless you have done your research and know it to be true unless you want your credibility to sink like a lead weight. </p>

<p>2) good lawyers use language very carefully -- they don't say things in ways that require them to later come back and say "that's not what i really meant."</p>

<p>if you don't have time to do the research for the purposes of posting here, you could indicate that "you believe" something is true or indicate that "in some cases" something may be true or describe the specific example you may know about as true -- but if you instead chooose to make an absolute statement that turns out not to be absolutely true, don't be surprised when you are called on it.</p>

<p>fyi -- i am not going to be pulled into some debate on the number of gov't jobs that may or may not be available to those who haven't passed the bar yet, nor on the issue of what consitutes a true blanket statement or not. i have made the point that i wish to make and i think anyone reading here is capable of drawing their own conclusions as the merit of postings they are reading here.</p>

54

<p>i am giving a bases for someone to do a search for themselves. I am not going to sit here for a long period of time searching for proof to back up my statement. This is a forum. I write quickly, i dont double check my spelling, i am not going to go and have to prove myself to a faceless person wandering the internet. I said something, someone so very interested in becoming a lawyer and going to law school will be inclined enough to search and investigate more. The fact that a good majority of government jobs do require the passing of the BAR before being hired is enough for me to make such a statement.</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
The fact that a good majority of government jobs do require the passing of the BAR before being hired is enough for me to make such a statement.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>saying that something is a "fact" just doesn't make it so. personally, i have no idea if a reveiw of every type of gov't legal job (fed'l, state, and local) would reveal that a majority required prior passing the bar or not. i do know that it makes no logical sense to draw general conclusions as to what is or isn't the "majority" practice from limited factual information.</p>

<p>some more examples of law jobs available to new graduates (not presented to try to prove anything about the proportions of such jobs out there, but simply that they exist and that someone interested in working for the gov't needs to look at the types of different requirements out there for different types of positions and different jurisdictions):</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cs.state.ny.us/announ/cr_announcements/20-131.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cs.state.ny.us/announ/cr_announcements/20-131.htm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.nyc.gov/html/law/html/careers/students_faq.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nyc.gov/html/law/html/careers/students_faq.shtml&lt;/a> (which refers to "the state court practice orders that permit our non-admitted attorneys to appear in court")</p>

56

<p>let me state that the term majority in relation to this topic comes from a few friends that were former students from hastings, a school that sends a good number of students into public interest law. If anyone has read this entire thread, they would know i am not a law student nor am i lawyer, i am a person that has done my research only becuase of my ability to ace the LSAT, not due to any interest in the law and i am a person passes on what he says she says from what i consider reliable resources. </p>

<p>secondly, not as an insult, but i feel you take these forums to seriously. I am not striving for credibility as i would feel i have none period unless i have had first hand experience. Thats why posters such as alexandre, sakky, etc have their presence due to their experience. I am here for the entertainment and the occasional wow presented when i find out about a new interesting program or school.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
i feel you take these forums to seriously.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>personally, i've been to law school, i've practiced law. i really have no need for information posted here. i came to CC when my d started looking at colleges, came over to the law school forum as a curious former lawyer and post here in the hopes of sharing some first hand knowledge with prospective lawyers (since i personally think one of the biggest problems facing prospective lawyers is that they don't always know what the practice of law is really like and more real info about it can only help their decision making process).</p>

<p>from what i have seen in my time here, there are many prospective lawyers who come here seeking advise who really do seem to take things seriously and are here for serious information about law school and the legal profession.. perhaps this forum is not like other on-line forums you have participated in, either here on CC or elsewhere. (if other people really are here just to chat and not expect any real information, just let me know, i'll be happy to stop bothering to try to offer information)</p>

<p>if you are here for "the entertainment and the occasional wow presented when i find out about a new interesting program or school," that's fine by me. but to be honest, it does trouble me when you or anyone else makes statements here that are presented as if they are facts when they are merely opinions, or examples based on very isolated incidents - because even though you may put those statements out there thinking they don't really mean much, potential readers may not know the appropriate weight to give your comments -- you explained your background and sources of your information only after being questioned about your assertions. (though i do note, i give you credit for doing so after being questioned -- there have been times when even under questioning, posters fail to explain the basis for their comments)</p>

<p>if you had originally stated, "well based on what my friends at hastings tell me, it seems like law students don't have a shot at gov't jobs" i would have had no problem with that posting, and may have merely mentioned that such experience was not necessarily universal.</p>

<p>regardless of how casual on-line communication may seem at times, words carry import. and on a forum frequented by lawyers and potential lawyers, i don't think one should be surprised that an importance is placed on the accuracy of words.</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
if other people really are here just to chat and not expect any real information, just let me know, i'll be happy to stop bothering to try to offer information

[/quote]

Please don't do that! I have learned a tremendous amount even though I'm here more as a "mentor" type!</p>

59

<p>I am not asking you to not post or offer information. Rather, to note, i am most often a frequent visitor to the business major subforum. If you take a romp through there, you will find the ever so "slight" differences in how poster react and how their posts are validated. When compared to how i post in this subforum, i post in the same manor, but i should have obviously realized that the members in this area are different from my main stay. </p>

<p>In response to showering visitors with your knowledge, i applaud you, but i will have to say to those that are prospective as i was. It takes an effort beyond reading and questioning from an internet forum to know wether or not law is for you. My HR at work put me in contact with a few of his lawyer friends and that is what finally turned me away. How weird is it to have a home depot HR manager that was a grad from berkley with masters in elec eng and MBA. There is my whole hearted advice, and in the future if i do post here i will post the background for my information. But dont stop posting on my account as i am ill tempered due to lack of sleep and argumentative by nature. If only i was an oustanding public speaker, i would join the forensics team to argue my points instead of arguing on a public forum</p>

60

<p>i was at a harvard admissions meeting today and she said 47% of accepted come straight from undergrad, much higher that was earlier claimed (1/3 in general, probably higher for top schools). the admissions person said that seniors (should?) take time off to boost their gpas a little bit because senior grades are generally better. if you apply early they will not see that whole years worth of grades so maybe that is something.</p>