“… Law school admissions committees strive to identify students who have the potential to have a lasting positive impact on the legal profession. That’s one reason why they look for applicants who have the capacity to speak with authority and conviction in a way that inspires others. But law schools also have a more pragmatic reason to recruit students with a silver tongue: Oral advocacy is a crucial part of many legal jobs.” …
I read the article noted above as well as an accompanying article available to all once on the US News website.
Both articles seem a bit misleading as law schools rarely interview applicants to the best of my knowledge & experience, and law schools admissions is overwhelmingly focused on LSAT scores & undergraduate GPAs.
I find the first article heading interesting “law school interview questions”. Which law schools interview applicants ?
Harvard, and maybe Yale. Maybe some scholarships ask applicants for an interview ?
I think that these articles need to specify when interviews occur for law schools as the practice is not common unless admissions has changed drastically in the last year.
Also, the sample essay given in another US News article is just average but successful because it was from an URM candidate to a modestly selective law school–LSU. While okay as a law school personal statement, it is insufficient for a non-URM applying to a competitive law school.
P.S. I would enjoy reading posts from others who have recently experienced the law school admissions process critiquing the US News articles.
Nevertheless, any prospective applicant to law school should think about why that person wants a law degree.
With respect to responding to questions from judges, not all lawyers litigate.
@publisher - Very much agree with your assessment. Of the top 15 law schools, at least 1/3 expressly state they do not do interviews. Of the remainder, with the exception of Northwestern which actually recommends an interview, any interview is by invitation only. The information I have obtained with respect to this is that the invitation is reserved almost exclusively for applicants who fall on the admissions fence. Frankly, I feel that this concept of “holistic” admissions and looking for students who contribute to the broader school community is as much a crock for law school as it is for undergrad. Whether or not schools pay attention to ECs, personal statements, and other so-called ‘soft’ application components, the fact remains that the top schools maintain very high grading and testing levels. Empirically, there are just so many law school applicants with less than a 3.7-3.9, and/or less than a 170 on the LSAT who can gain admission, without the school seeing a decrease in its admissions scores/grades stats. This is just never going to happen at the top schools, nor at those schools aspiring to break into a higher ranking level.
I will say interviewing skills are critical for law school graduates in their job seeking process. I did both on-campus screening interviews and final office interviews. During the screening interviews, the applicants had to have the grades to even be considered (the law schools I interviewed at, Berkeley, UCLA, USC and UT did not allow law firms to pre-screen based on resumes and grades), but after that, the 4 to 6 flybacks we granted (or the 20-30 we hired as summer associates) had to impress us with their communication skills. Were their answers thoughtful and insightful? Were they articulate? Were they attentive? Were they personable? Also communication skills are probably more important as they relate to clients and colleagues rather than judges, even assuming you are a litigator, for most practitioners.
@BKSquared: As a litigator, I agree. I spend way more time talking to clients than talking to judges. Mostly we communicate with the court through writing. Clients tend to like phone calls.
Communication skills are equally important in corporate practice, the whole “getting to yes” idea. After all, the whole point is to avoid having to call in the litigators later on!
Although interesting & valuable insights, in the context of this thread I think that it is misleading if a law school applicant is left with the impression that interviewing skills matter in the admissions process at any law schools other than Harvard & Northwestern.
Also, I think that “interviewing skills” in the courtroom are quite different than “interviewing skills” in a client meeting and “interviewing skills” with a prospective legal employer.
Like Harvard, more law schools are inviting applicants to interview as part of the process. Chicago has used this approach for the last 5 years, at least. Columbia, UVA, Duke and others also invite certain students to interview. Northwestern allows students to request an interview, no invitation required, The extent to which these interviews can tip the balance for an application is the real question, as is the % of applicants invited to interview who are ultimately offered admission. Is it a hoop or is it a meaningful part of the application?
@runnersmom: Curious as to “Chicago’s approach” for at least the last 5 years.
I reviewed Chicago’s website. Only certain applicants are requested to interview. If the applicant does not schedule an interview within 7 days of receipt of the email requesting an interview, then the file is returned to the admissions committee for a decision.
I doubt that applicants with above median numbers are asked to interview, and I would recommend that such an applicant not interview unless part of a scholarship competition or unless there was an obvious concern about the applicant that warranted further explanation. (According to Chicago’s website the Skype interview is to be about 20 minutes long.)
I do know of one law school applicant who was asked to interview at Wisconsin for a scholarship even though he had never applied to that law school, but had expressed interest by requesting application materials. Maybe he did it by telephone & was prescreened. Not sure.
@runnersmom: Disregard my request as I found the information on Chicago’s website.
Within the past 5 years I have been in contact with several Chicago law admits none of whom had received a request for an interview. That is why I asked the question posted above.
@runnersmom - Fresh from the 2018 July LSAC forum in DC, including direct meetings with the deans of admission or other admissions personnel from all of the top 15 law schools, my D1 confirms my post #3 above with respect to law school interviews. Northwestern strongly recommends an interview. They are the only one who does this. Yale, Stanford, Penn, Michigan, and Berkeley, flat out do not interview. NYU offers interview by invitation only, but solely for top scholarship candidates. The rest of the top 15 (ex UT-Austin) - Harvard, Chicago, Columbia, UVA, Duke, Cornell, and Georgetown - are invitation only. D1’s sense, from speaking with admissions at many of these schools as to when these interviews are offered, is when a candidate’s application falls on the fence between rejection/WL, and outright acceptance.
One interesting wrinkle - A student who graduated the year before my D1, who applied to law school, was surprised to see that the interview box or other slot indicating that an interview had taken place, was checked, I think it was for Duke or for Cornell. When he called the school to inquire, the person with whom he spoke said, “It says here that you met with (so and so) at the – LSAC Forum.” So be aware that some law schools may take greater note of the applicant’s interaction with admissions people while at LSAC than one might think…
D2 is a first year law student. She applied 3 years ago and again last year. She only applied to T14 schools. She did a lot of interviews. There was one school where she did very well on the interview 3 years ago and received a lot of scholarship money, and last year she bombed the interview and was WL. Many law schools did digital interviews, which was very unnerving for some people. D2 was not interviewed at her current school, even though most applicants said they were interviewed before they were admitted. D2 was very nervous because she didn’t get an invitation, so it was quite a surprise when she was admitted.
@oldfort, I would guess that it depends on the student. If your D2 ended up at a T14, she was clearly a strong candidate. The circumstance that she did not receive an interview at her current law school is probably due to the strength of her candidacy, i.e., admissions was not on the fence as to her application. Interviews at other schools were most probably due to her strength but still relative to a competitive applicant pool.
@oldfort: It would be interesting & helpful to know the law schools.
@oldfort: Would you please share the names of the law schools which conducted digital interviews ? Thank you in advance !
Does anyone think that the law schools which are doing interviews are doing it to get around any US Justice Dept. investigations concerning the use of race in admissions ?
@publisher - You mean using the interview to actually see an applicant? It’s possible, but, despite recent reporting on this issue, I am disinclined to leap to that conclusion. In any case, I find the “on the fence” status of typical interviewees very reasonable.