"According to an old wives’ tale, law school applications rise and fall with the applicant’s LSAT score and GPA, marginally aided by a personal statement. However, work experience is becoming increasingly important when applying to law school, with some schools openly stating that they prefer applicants a few years removed from college.
Yet, some applicants prefer not to wait and apply to law school while still in college. So how does such a student leverage their extracurricular activities to compete with applicants coming in with a few years of work experience under their belts? Here are a few tips." …
https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/law-admissions-lowdown/articles/2018-08-27/how-law-school-applicants-can-discuss-extracurricular-activities
“Old wives tale” meaning “actual data.”
It is interesting that the same two law schools which interview applicants, Northwestern & Harvard, also value work experience.
I speculate that Harvard’s preference for work experience may only extend to admitting those with an LSAT score of 173 or higher & a GPA of 3.80 or higher over those with similar numbers but no or insignificant work experience.
Data does support NWU’s preference for work experience. Their classes tend to skew disproportionately towards those with at least 2 years’ experience. Harvard, however, could never afford to be so picky while maintaining their medians. They basically have to let in every 173+ just to make the numbers work.
I have not checked in the past two years, but prior to that time NU law showed a very strong preference for applicants with work experience.
As for Harvard, do you think that it is possible since LSAT scores remain valid for 5 years that therefore the pool of 172+ LSAT scorers is larger than just the most recent year’s testers ?
@Publisher: It’s certainly possible, though I doubt it moves the count much. You’d have to find people that: 1. wanted to go to law school; 2. took the LSAT; 3. scored in the 99th percentile; and 4. nevertheless delayed applying. While I’m sure some people fall into that category, I’d be surprised if there are many. Certainly not enough to save H’s big class sizes.
There are those with high LSAT scores currently working in great jobs who will attend law school only if admitted to one of the top 5 or 6 law schools.
I know of one current example. Had a great position at a Big 4 accounting firm making $120,000 plus small bonus & due for a significant promotion this year. His LSAT score was 4 years old & he received a two-thirds tuition scholarship to a top 14 law school. As a 28 year old family man with an expiring LSAT score in the mid-170s & a promotion on the horizon, he decided that it was now or never. He chose to start law school this month even though his specialty at the Big 4 is booming.
I know of two other East Coasters who would only consider leaving their jobs to attend Harvard or Yale law schools.
About 5 years ago, I offered advice to another who was from the East Coast & only wanted Harvard or Yale law school. For some reason, she had also applied to Stanford & was admitted there but denied at Yale and waitlisted at Harvard. She could never accept going to Stanford.
This is common among cross admits. Yale’s yield is ~80%, Harvard’s ~60% and Stanford’s ~40%. The overwhelming majority of Yale admits who apply to Harvard are accepted there, but the converse is not true. Ditto for Stanford versus the other two.
Can’t really blame people. For the last 30+ years YLS entering classes have begun with the “get off the treadmill” speech, and no grades first semester (and basically all semesters, honestly) is a distinguishing characteristic. Also, as so many want to go into academia or government service, being able to get a tippy top private job without even showing a transcript is a powerful lure.
“I know of one current example. Had a great position at a Big 4 accounting firm making $120,000 plus small bonus & due for a significant promotion this year. His LSAT score was 4 years old & he received a two-thirds tuition scholarship to a top 14 law school. As a 28 year old family man with an expiring LSAT score in the mid-170s & a promotion on the horizon, he decided that it was now or never. He chose to start law school this month even though his specialty at the Big 4 is booming.”
I think your friend might be making a big mistake. Even with a 2/3 scholarship, law school will be expensive, especially when you factor in three years of lost salary. Assuming he gets big law when he graduates (which is not guaranteed coming out of a low end T14 like G-Town or Cornell), he won’t be making much more than he would be at a Big 4 accounting firm with three more years of experience under his belt. Plus, big law will probably have longer hours and worse long-term job security. In any event, I hope it works out for him.
^I know a number of T14 grads who, 20 yrs out, are making >1M. So, an income comparison would depend on whether the student was likely to be a top performer in either field and whether top talent partners in the Big 4 do similarly for income.
On Northwestern, my understanding is that even 25 yrs ago, at least half the class had post-college work experience.
@TheBigChef: You may be right. But he will be welcome back at the Big4 & almost certainly welcome at any Big4 accounting firm at a base salary closer to $180,000 -$200,000 plus bonus. May also receive a signing bonus & relocation. He already has his CPA license.
Law school at this T-14 will cost about $50,000 per year total, including books, housing & living expenses. The opportunity cost, therefore, is about $550,000 when considering $150,000 total COA for 2 years and 9 months of law school and almost three years of lost salary & bonuses. The $550,000 sacrifice should be reduced by two summers of well paid legal clerkships at about $4,000 per week x 20 weeks = $80,000. Total sacrifice = $470,000. Probably safer to estimate the net opportunity cost at over $500,000 since I did not factor in his likely Big 4 promotion.
An interesting aspect of working for a Big 4 accounting firm is, not only will they welcome one back after a separation, they also celebrate when an employee is hired away by a client or potential client firm. Most Big 4s hold alumni cocktails & dinners in order to maintain & to further cultivate the relationship.
Also, because of this particular Big 4s location & the clients with which he was in constant contact, he may have a highly desirable corporate attorney position waiting for him that will pay BigLaw money without BigLaw hours & without the constant threat of being asked to leave as often happens in BigLaw. This will be revealed possibly by his law clerkship after completing his first year of law school.
If pressed to guess, I think that he will recoup his law school investment within 4 to 5 years after graduating law school & be on a track for many years of seven figure income thereafter.
@TheBigChef: What I find interesting is that it was not an exit for an elite MBA program which would have entailed a 21 month sacrifice possibly with a full tuition scholarship. But in his specialty, most work at the Big 4 was done with attorneys from Fortune 100 companies & with BigLaw attorneys here and abroad.
To answer my own question as to why he did not pursue an M-7 MBA degree instead of a law degree: He already is a licensed CPA with a masters degree in taxation therefore many elite MBA programs would be unlikely to offer admission to him. Not sure why, but I have read that top MBA programs are not fond of CPA applicants.
It would be interesting to read of others posters experience or knowledge regarding elite MBA admissions’ attitude toward those with CPA licenses & relevant specialty masters degrees.