<p>A quick question this time about what might be the best age for entering law school. I've been hearing different views and realize there is no one size fits all for this question, but nevertheless would love to get some opinions and perspective!!!</p>
<p>On one side of the equation, I hear that going to law school earlier is a positive in terms of career earnings potential. You have more time to earn money and pay back your loans. You also do not face potential age discrimination. </p>
<p>Is it true that if you graduate from law school over 30 that big law would think you're over-the-hill and not want to hire you? (Assuming you aren't from Harvard, Yale, and Stanford where I'm guessing age won't matter much...just having a law degree from those three wuold seem a golden ticket, no?? ....but for the rest of folks not at HSY..??) I read an article where a women said she graduated from law school at age 31, I believe, and speculated that lbig law firms didn't want to hire her because she couldn't be broken in and made to devote herself to being a "slave" (her words) to big law the way young 20 year olds can. ....Although I don't recall her saying what her class rank was or whether it was a T14 school...just that she was 31.</p>
<p>Is there anything to these stories about age discrimination in law?</p>
<p>On the other hand, it seems that a commitment as HUGE (financially and mentally) as law school should NOT be taken lightly and that having had several years over work and "real life" experience outside of school would greatly help (both mentally and financially). So, I've ehard the case also for going to law school later in life, where you've had time to think it through better and know yourself more and what you want in life, etc. Plus, assuming you've grown (better) as a person, you'll be more mature and able to handle law school better than some who are coming straight out of college and may not really know what they want to do, nor have had real life financial responsibilities, etc. </p>
<p>There's A LOT to both sides of the argument (these are only the tip of the iceberg above) and I'm sure it depends on the individual person, but what do you guys feel IN GENERAL is the best age for attending and graduating from law school and why? </p>
<p>Thanks!!!</p>
<p>(Also, stories of people in these various situations would be great.....do you know of anyone who went later in life and did very well? ....what about those who went earlier in life who failed?.....or vice versa??? And, will law school admissions itself discriminate against those applying after a certain age and label them as "too old"? THANKS!!!)</p>
<p>Most people I know that are hired as associates at big law firms are in their 20s. I never tried to get into a big firm, so I don’t know whether this is due to discrimination by the firms or because older students might gravitate away from the long hours necessary to be an associate at a big firm. But law firms get a lot of applicants and are very judgmental, and I’m guessing that at least some firms will hold age against you.</p>
<p>But if you’re looking to work on your own as a solo attorney, age is probably an advantage. Clients probably see age as being the same as experience, so they will think it means you’re a good lawyer. But if you’re looking to get into a firm, it’s probably a bad thing.</p>
<p>How late in life are you talking about, brownug?
This sounds off to me. If someone attends law school immediately after college, about the youngest they’ll be at graduation is 24, maybe 23 … not all that much younger than 31. If the graduate in the story speculated that she didn’t get a biglaw job because she couldn’t be made a “slave to biglaw,” she must not have been paying attention - biglaw associates work long hours. That’s what they do. I imagine it was her reluctance to do this, rather than her supposedly advanced years, that explains why she didn’t get a biglaw offer. Many biglaw firms pay big bonuses to associates who do judicial clerkships immediately after law school, and even bigger bonuses to associates who do Supreme Court clerkships (which can only be done after completing a 1-year clerkship elsewhere). That obviously means the associate will be older when he/she begins work; yet the firm values the experience.</p>
<p>Many law schools value work experience, though it doesn’t outweigh GPA/LSAT scores for admission. Northwestern Law, a T14 school, is particularly upfront about preferring applicants who have at least two years of work experience (more than 80 percent of their students do).</p>
<p>My daughter is at Virginia Law following two years of experience as an elementary school teacher. She says that she sees a marked difference between students who have worked previously and those who attend law school immediately after college, in terms of time management and, frequently, academic success.</p>
<p>I think you will find that an increasing number of law schools including top schools prefer applicants with SOME work experiece. That does not mean 10 years, but 2-3 years is increasingly common if not the norm. </p>
<p>Beyond admission to law school, the key is obviously getting a good internship and eventually a job offer. There again, there is increasing evidence that law school graduates with some work experience fare better in the job market that those who have never worked at all. They require less training and have greater maturity which is a definite plus in dealing with corporate clients or standing in front of a jury. </p>
<p>As far as law as a second career, that’s a completely different ballgame!</p>