Law School Question

Parents Forum
1

<p>Hi! I posted this in the "Law School" forum but no one seems to have answered it:</p>

<p>I am an undergraduate who wants to eventually go to Harvard Law School. I currently attend Princeton Univ. and will graduate with a 3.74 GPA (top quintile, but not summa cum laude). My sample LSAT scores right now are between 172 and 178, so a conservative estimate of my actual score might be 174.</p>

<p>Should I apply to HLS immediately, or maybe take some time off? I suggest this simply because many of my friends who are applying to HLS have near-perfect GPA's, above 3.8. This will clearly be a detriment, and since I will only go to Law School once, I want to make sure I get the most out of my school and my education. If I decide to postpone law school, what could I do to make my application more competitive? Is there research, etc. that anyone would recommend?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>-DM</p>

2

<p>Are these the facts?: You are a rising college senior, your GPA is currently 3.74, and you will be taking the LSAT in October?</p>

<p>If not, please correct me. If so, well, I hate to dodge the question, but wait 'till you have an actual LSAT score before even thinking about any decisions. There's many a slip between the practice tests and the real thing.</p>

<p>(I'm a NYC "biglaw" atty with 25 yrs experience.)</p>

3

<p>He currently goes to Princeton.</p>

4

<ol>
<li> Harvard Law School is a great institution, but it's not so unique that it should be the only place you are thinking about. If you want to be a lawyer, you should go to law school. I would recommend going to the school with the best reputation that accepts you (or close to it), but if you want to be a lawyer, you have to go to law school somewhere. If you don't want to be a lawyer, don't go to law school, at least not yet. If you're only willing to go to Harvard, you don't want to be a lawyer.</li>
</ol>

<p>(If you don't want to be a lawyer, but have some legitimate reason to want a law degree, there are better schools than Harvard at which to do that. Harvard would be OK, too.)</p>

<ol>
<li> Graduate study and a graduate degree, almost regardless of the field, is an admissions plus at every elite law school. It's a near necessity at some (not so much Harvard, because it's so big). "Time off" is not a plus anywhere, unless you do something really compelling and romantic. "Time on" would be more like it.</li>
</ol>

5

<p>Oops, thought Roscoe said "rising HS senior." Nevermind.</p>

6

<p>Short of a graduate degree, which I agree is a plus for law school admissions (there were several PhD's, including myself, in my law school class), you might get some benefit from a Fulbright, Marshall, Mellon, or similar fellowship to study abroad for a year or two. Even something like Teach for America might make you seem a more interesting candidate. Who knows? But you may not need to do any of those things to get into a top law school and I agree that if your goal is to be a lawyer, you should be considering a range of law schools -- going to Harvard doesn't guarantee any particular outcome and certainly isn't the only enriching law school environment; graduates of all of the top law schools have many opportunities for clerkships and to practice law at excellent firms.</p>

7

<p>I agree with every word offered by JHS on this thread. Also, Law admissions folks like to see a little creativity, intellectual/professional diversity and motivation in applicants. Just taking a year off won't cut it at the elite schools. And it may reveal that you're not particularly interested in the law.</p>

8

<p>Respectfully disagree with the statement that a graduate degree is a plus. Moreover, while Ph.D. programs are usually funded, i.e, you don't pay for them, most master's programs are not. The cost of a top law school, including living expenses is about $180,000. (Yes, the official estimates are ia bit less, but tend to assume you will live in a dorm all 3 years. Few people do and at most top schools, you are promised, at best, first year housing. The cost of housing in Cambridge is high. )</p>

<p>Anything below a Ph.D. won't really help. The exception is if you get a top fellowship--Rhodes, Marshall, Gates, Fullbright, Mellon etc. </p>

<p>Teach for America, Peace Corps, the Jesuit program in SA--can't remember the name, etc. will help more.</p>

<p>I'm an attorney, but more importantly, I'm the parent of someone who just graduated from a top law school. While a LOT of kids at top law schools have masters, many got fellowships. Others had the #s for a top law school coming out of college, but chose Ph.D. programs. They then dropped out at the point where you can get a master's.</p>

<p>Your numbers are fine--though breaking the 3.75 barrier would help--silly, but true.</p>

9

<p>Excuse me for hijacking this thread, but...</p>

<p>I understand that it matters more where you go to law school than where you go to med school, but in what ways?? How does a young person decide which law school to attend?? Obviously going to Yale or Harvard is an advantage if you want to sit on the Supreme Court, but are there specialities at certain law schools, and how does one figure out what you are interested in? Are some schools better general schools than others? What if you are just under the stratopheric grade level, which law schools are "just under" the stratopshere?</p>

10

<p>I and others have written a lot about this before.</p>

<p>Below the top 12-13 law schools, every law school is pretty much regional. And an argument can be made that there is really only one truly national law school: Harvard. (Yale would count, too, if it weren't so small and so little focused on the practice of law that it's hardly worthwhile for firms in most places to recruit there.)</p>

<p>Within the top 7 or 8 schools, it really doesn't matter much where you go, except that Yale and Harvard (and maybe Stanford) have a little more prestige, Yale and Stanford are very small and intimate -- LAC-like -- and Harvard (the largest law school still, I think) has alumni and name recognition in every corner of the globe. Otherwise, it's like choosing among top colleges -- you really can't go wrong, and relatively subtle differences will decide things. Then there's a thin layer of schools that are almost as good at opening doors, etc., everywhere. And after that you really have to be asking yourself what market you want to start (at least) your career in.</p>

<p>The top law schools do have some meaningful differences. More conservative / more liberal; how many clinical opportunities and what type; theory vs. practice; how much interdisciplinary stuff; how competitive. </p>

<p>If you want to be a plaintiff's personal injury lawyer in your hometown, it may not matter at all where you go to law school. If you want to work at a white-shoe international firm, or to teach, it matters a lot. In general, the importance of your law school fades almost completely 5-10 years into your career, but it can matter a lot to the first two or three opportunities you get out of law school (which lays the groundwork for what comes later). </p>

<p>I don't know what you mean by sub-stratospheric. Places like Duke, Cornell, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, UCLA, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Tulane . . . that's what I think of as the layer between the very top schools and the purely regional schools (and every one of them could make an argument that it belongs in the top group, but maybe not as good an argument as others).</p>

11

<p>Thanks JHS, couple more questions, out of curiosity, if Yale doesn't focus on the practice of law, what does it focus on? Teaching? Public Policy? Constitutional issues?
As for "sub-stratospheric" I don't really know, I guess Duke, Cornell, Vandy, NW. Now I'm beginning to wrack my brain, thinking of law schools - Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Penn (does Penn have a law school???), does Georgetown have a law school???
I know I sound ignorant, but ask me about med school.
If someone was interested in international contracts or intellectual property rights, for example? And, last dumb question, what is a "white-shoe" firm??</p>

12

<p>Typically, white-shoe refers to old boy, Wall Street-type law firms.</p>

13

<p>"White-shoe": An outdated term denoting high-class, WASPy, big business. In the legal world, it would also apply to the high-class, imitation-WASP Jewish and Catholic firms that grew up when the legal profession and its clientele were essentially segregated by ethnicity. None of that matters anymore, and hasn't for a long time, but some of the historical residue lingers.</p>

<p>Yale: The focus is on Big Theory, and on the impact of other disciplines on legal analysis -- economics, anthropology, philosophy, semiotics and language, political science. That's really true at all the top law schools, but Yale really stands out because probably only about half its (small) class actually goes to work as lawyers coming out of law school, so there isn't even the student-generated demand all other schools have to learn something actually useful.</p>

<p>My list of "top" schools, which may be a little idiosyncratic, but not much:</p>

<p>Yale, Harvard, Stanford, [Michigan, Virginia, Chicago, Penn, Columbia], Boalt (Berkeley), [Georgetown, NYU]. Then see the list above. You could argue that Duke or Northwestern or UCLA (or others) are equivalent to Georgetown and NYU, or whether Stanford is really a notch above the next set. (It gets a lot of boost for being the most prestigious school west of Chicago, and California is a huge and vibrant market. Also, its Business School and Economics Department are very high prestige, and engaged with the law school.) </p>

<p>Law schools seem to come in three approximate sizes, by the way: Small, classes of about 200 (Yale, Stanford, Penn, Cornell); Medium, classes around 350 (most schools); and Large, classes over 500 (Harvard, Georgetown, and probably some others).</p>

<p>There is some specialization among law schools, and Harvard, for example, has a much larger faculty than Yale or Stanford, so it has more experts in specific things. But since students rarely take more than two or three classes in any area in law school, one of which will be very introductory, the answer to "What's the best school for international contracts?" is generally "What's the best school?" You learn the basic theory and method, and get a taste of specific areas, but you develop real expertise post-law school. Again, there's a market-tier difference here. No one really hires Harvard students based on which courses they've taken, although if a student is really interested in one particular area it will always help to have demonstrated that interest somehow. You wind up taking about 12 courses in law school other than basic, broad introductory courses, and if four of them are in one focused area that's a lot.</p>

14

<p>From a lay person who has a d who will probably be applying to Law school within the next year or two, this is what I know: </p>

<p>You'll often hear the expression T-14 Law school, which implies The Top 14 schools. (some will argue- but they are generally considered):
Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, NYU, Chicago, Michigan, UVA, Penn, Northwestern, Cornell, Georgetown, Berkley and Duke.<br>
These schools have more of a national reputation so they may garner a bit more "prestige" than some other wonderful schools that may have a bit more regional pull. Other schools that may "round out" the top 20 but may be considered more regional include: USC, UCLA, Vanderbilt, U of Texas and a few others.<br>
I'm not justifying any ranking, but just trying to pass info along</p>

<p>PS And Paco-- 3.74 and 174 LSAT(take the LSAT before you "project" your score) You'll get into a fine school.
And if you can only live with the idea of Harvard Law, me think you have a bit more maturing to do. Research the Law schools, you might find a better fit than Harvard Law.</p>

15

<p>Almost every school has the same basic first-year curriculum: Contracts, Torts, Property, Criminal Law, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, some formal legal research/writing/argument training, and some kind of course involving statutory interpretation. And maybe one elective. None of those, except maybe criminal law, is remotely a legal specialty in and of itself. The next layer of courses are only a little more focused: Corporations, Tax I, Criminal Procedure, Federal Jurisdiction, Conflict of Laws, Trusts and Estates, Antitrust, Environmental Law, Labor Law, etc. -- really the law equivalent of 100-level college courses. And almost every school now requires some kind of clinical practice experience. So by the time you get out of law school, you have only taken a handful of courses that are at the next layer up in specificity. Lots of students work on journals -- almost all academic legal publications are 100% student-edited and contain a fair amount of student-written content -- and will do independent, focused scholarship in an area that interests them.</p>

<p>Edit: As you can see, there's not a whole lot of difference between my list and marny1's. It's pretty conventional. I agree about Texas and USC.</p>

16

<p>And yes, with regard to placement and hiring, law employers' recruitment practices can still be quite provincial, favoring schools in their region. Sure, an Ivy League law or Stanford law graduate will get an interview [and likely a job] in the hinterlands if she makes a good impression, but in the main, the top graduates from law schools in the region have the upper hand at the top local firms. The firm that I was most familiar with in Seattle hired mostly from U of Washington and U of Puget Sound (now Seattle U School of Law). It was one of the most influential [successful] commercial litigation firms, and one of the largest law firms on the west coast. And it was the home firm of a future Attorney General [who attended a not well known law school in the midwest]. For window dressing, there was one hire from Hah-Vahd.</p>

17

<p>I was aware of the regionality of hiring, although most of the big general practice firms in my city, expecially those that deal with the larger companies, seem to have at least one or two "outside" trained attorneys, often Harvard Law grads. It is especially noticeable in politics and appointed vs elected judgeships, local politics involves a lot of local attorneys, including locally elected judges. The appointed judges and, until recently, the state wide elected judges have more people with OOS training at more presitigious schools. MDs are partially responsible for the politicization of our Supreme Court judges, then Roy Moore came along and things got really surreal.</p>

18

<p>Graduates of regional schools predominate in the hiring in most markets, in part because there aren't enough graduates of the fancy schools available to meet the demand. Also, the big centers -- New York, LA, Washington, San Francisco/Silicon Valley, Chicago, Boston -- suck up a disproportionate number of them (at salaries that firms elsewhere don't even try to match). Firms are usually willing to go much deeper into the class at the top law schools in their hiring, though. Here, the top 10% of the class at Villanova or Temple doesn't have any trouble getting hired, but someone from the bottom half of the Harvard class doesn't, either, unless he is close to flunking out. And someone from Yale or Stanford shows up here once every third year.</p>

<p>Judges: State court judges tend to come out of the local tort bar and local prosecutors, and are usually local law school graduates. Some federal judges come from the same source, but in general they are much more likely to hold national-school degrees, especially at the Court of Appeals level. And the Supreme Court looks like the Harvard-Yale Club (6 Harvards, 2 Yales, 1 Northwestern). Same with prosecutors -- assistant DAs are usually local-school grads, assistant US Attorneys (and their bosses) are more likely to have fancy credentials, and people at the Justice Department in Washington even more so.</p>

19

<p>"National Law Schools..."</p>

<p>Harvard
Yale
Columbia
Cornell
Pennsylvania
California-Berkeley
U of Chicago
Northwestern U
Stanford
Michigan
UCLA
New York University
U of Virginia
Duke University
U of Texas-Austin
Washington and Lee University
Washington U in Saint Louis
College of William and Mary
U of Wisconsin
U of Minnesota</p>

<p>and some very fine regional law schools....
Case Western Reserve University
George Mason University
Emory University
Saint Louis University
U of Washington
Seattle University
U of Iowa
Indiana University
Fordham University
West Virginia University
Vanderbilt University</p>

20

<p>Paco, I'm still wondering how, if you are a rising college senior, you already know that you "will graduate with a 3.74 GPA."</p>

<p>Maybe you mean your GPA is 3.74 after junior year of college. In which case my advice would be: ace that LSAT, baby. If you hit 175 or higher, go straight to the Harvard app, since 3.74/175+/Princeton gives you a good shot at HLS. If you hit in the 172-174 range, you're on the borderline for HLS, and a year or two in Teach for America, the Peace Corps or an NGO would be a big plus (grad school not so much). If you hit lower than 172, sign up for the test again and take it from there if HLS is your goal.</p>

<p>You may think these gradations based on a few LSAT points are silly, but law admissions is VERY numbers-driven and a 172 is VERY different from a 176.</p>

<p>All of the above assumes that your one and only goal is Harvard Law. I do agree with the others that that's a myopic view; you should be burning to be a lawyer, not an HLS student. But it's your life, and I'm here to help.</p>