<p>It appears to me that a vast number of you are applying right after you ascertain your undergraduate degrees. However, whenI see law statistics at places like NYU, Northwestern, Upenn, etc. it appears as if a significant margin of applicants have had at least two years of work experience after college. Law schools seem to endorse the "mature perspective" of older applicants, so....am I at a disadvantage already? Maybe around 30% of law school applicants apply coming out of a 4 year college. Needless to say, maybe people with higher degrees of education are at a distinct vantage point over the others just because of their added experience in a field. However, I know that great (make that terrific) stats out of UG should be able to supplant this entire thesis.</p>
<p>I would argue that some of those older applicants you are seeing are older not because they went out and worked, but because they had pursued some other level of higher education. For example, if I was offered a Rhodes or Marshall scholarship right after graduation, I'd surely use it to go to study for a few years in England before starting law school.</p>
<p>Yeah I made that point about pursuing a further education in one's field. However, the lingering query is....am I at a disadvantage for applying out the gate?</p>
<p>Word through the grapevine is that law schools are really looking more favorably upon 2+ years of work experience before applying, though that need not be in the legal profession (as a paralegal, for instance).</p>
<p>One important exception is if you are applying to the law school where you've done your undergraduate work. Admissions officers in this case are likely to recommend that you get out of town for a year or two just to mix things up.</p>
<p>As a lawyer who worked for 4 years before law school, I am a strong proponent of getting some "real world" experience before entering law school. This was back in the 70's, and admittedly I had no "life plan" to do this. What I found was that, unlike my classmates who had come straight from college, I was NOT burned out on school, that I appreciated the respite from the world, and that I had an appreciation of how much free time you actually have in school. I also had a more realistic frame of reference about the things we were learning.</p>
<p>The downside of taking that 4 year hiatus was that I was no longer used to dealing with the continuing underlying stress of upcoming testing, and I was SO stressed my first semester of law school, that I came within a hair of dropping out. However, my dad gave me the invaluable advice of telling me to take my first semester exams, and then if you drop out, it will be because you didn't like law school and NOT because you couldn't do it. </p>
<p>I followed his advice, did very well, and realized that the first semester is the very toughest, because you're dealing with the unknown. Since I had just gone through the worst, I knew I could handle the rest. I practiced law for 20 years and retired a few years ago.</p>
<p>I think that a 2 year hiatus is probably ideal. You should think about this.</p>
<p>hoosfun, but would it really matter whether you get the experience or not if 90% of your app is GPA and LSAT like I've heard?</p>
<p>if one is to take a hiatus from academics (including grad school) and try some work experience, then what kind of work should he/she be doing? does it necessarily have to relate to law? can one bend it like working in finance/consulting in a company/firm and say "i want to go work in corporate law or business law in the future" ? what would you recommend?</p>
<p>You should take a job that interests and challenges you--ANY kind of work experience is a benefit. Who knows--if you like the job enough you might change your mind about going to law school!</p>