<p>I'm a junior at UCLA majoring in economics. I want to have an interest in going to law school. Well I want to learn corporate tax. However, I don't know where to begin my research. My graduating gpa might be around a 3.5-3.6 if I continue at the pace I'm going now. I haven't taken any practice lsats. But should I be concerned with my gpa?</p>
<p>BTW: i'm looking to utilize the jd in a finance career.</p>
<p>Why would you need a JD for a career in finance? A JD prepares you to practice law - it is not that helpful in other careers, especially when you factor in the costs and the lost income during the time it takes to get the degree.</p>
<p>^^^^^^
Well thats a pretty general, and inaccurate statement to make. The fields of law and business finance can very easily overlap. Having a JD is a perfect degree to have in finance when combined with a business related undergrad degree such as economics.</p>
<p>Having a background in finance can be very helpful when you are a finance lawyer - I think business experience generally can be very helpful to the practice of law. However, getting a law degree to do anything but practice law does not make sense to me.</p>
<p>You can practice law, and still work in finance though.</p>
<p>The CEO of Goldman Sachs went to Harvard Law....</p>
<p>Why a JD over an MBA?</p>
<p>If you haven't taken the lsat then its hard to gauge what kind of law school you can get into. With a 3.5-3.6 and lsat in the high 160s you should not have a problem at some t14 schools.</p>
<p>Why don't you just wait until next year and then apply to banks, PE firms, hedge funds or wherever it is you want to work? A JD isn't going to help you get a job you wouldn't otherwise have gotten in finance and it would be a waste of three years and a lot of money. And as mentioned, it's impossible to tell you what your chances are without an LSAT score.</p>
<p>Kind of want to do both. JD/MBA. How long before I have to take another lsat if I were to take it next december? I plan to work two to three years before applying to law/biz schools.</p>
<p>Remember, Harvard Law is a crapshoot regardless of GPA unless you're a legacy, your last name is Harvard, or your parents donated (or plan to donate) a building to HLS, or you found a cure to cancer, invented the personal computer, and won the nobel prize in economics. Of course, if you got a 4.0 at Wharton and a 180 LSAT, that might improve your standing from crapshoot to something like...long shot.</p>
<p>By reputation, Harvard Law is quite numbers-oriented. LSAT is of crucial importance. (FNS: Are you thinking of Yale?)</p>
<p>Um..last I knew, Harvard Law didn't even ask about legacy status on its application. Moreover, it has about 560 or so students per class, which makes it a bit easier to get into than either Yale or Stanford. Its admissions process is pretty straight forward and if both your LSAT and your GPA are above the 75th percentile, and you don't have issues (like a DUI,or cheating, etc.), it's very unlikely you'll be rejected as long as you did SOMETHING EC wise. It doesn't have to involve curing cancer. A 4.0 at Wharton and a 180 LSAT would be FAR from a "long shot." </p>
<p>Back to the OP...a LSAT score is good for 5 years.But this is the sort of thing you should be checking at Law</a> School Admission Council :: LSAC.org rather than here. You should rely on the official answers.</p>