<p>Because, it illustrates my point that time spent at school is but one number. It can be as meaningful or meaningless as you want it to be. In my opinion, it means close to nothing. 1 year in the grand scheme of things makes close to no difference. I doubt law firm hiring partners are so short-sighted as to look at the applicant’s date of birth and say “Let’s not hire him, he’s 9 months younger than the other candidates. He MUST be less mature.” In the long run, I would think it makes zero difference to clients whether someone’s 30 or 31. They just want the work done right. They couldn’t care less if it’s a high school student doing it or a senior partner with 50 years experience in the business.</p>
<p>My point was that you established a false dilemma. There is no need to compare a three-year with a six-year undergrad. Law schools are perfectly happy to disadvantage both of them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I had a dime for every time a hiring committee at a law firm (in a room in which I sat) questioned an applicant’s maturity based upon a rush to graduate from college or a lack of real world experience, I would be so wealthy that I wouldn’t have to work anymore.</p>
<p>It is not the difference in age that matters, but rather the time to experience things away from living under mom and dad’s roof that does. That’s why work experience and internships, particularly during the school year, even if part time, are looked upon so favorably by potential law firm employers. Law firms need some indication that an applicant is not just book smart. They need some evidence that the applicant can function in the real world, with real responsibilities that cannot be influenced by extra credit projects. If you graduate early and have had less time to develop skills outside of achieving A’s in the classroom, you do yourself a disservice. </p>
<p>Oh, and yes, clients DO, in fact, care whether the work for which they are paying a substantial amount of money is done by a high school student or a senior partner with 50 years of experience. Why? Because experience matters – a lot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough. Do they care if the person had 7 years of experience or 8 years? I highly doubt it.</p>
<p>Maybe someone who graduated in 3 years has the maturity to know college costs REAL MONEY, about $55k, that their parent’s can’t afford. To say someone who graduated early is necessarily less mature than someone who graduated on time because and solely because they spent less time spending their parents’ money in college is, in my opinion, absolute nonsense. Most people spend that 4th year doing nothing productive anyway.</p>
<p>“Do they care if the person had 7 years of experience or 8 years? I highly doubt it.”</p>
<p>Well, then you’re mistaken. At the firm I worked at (and all other firms I know of), clients are billed at different rates based on which lawyer is working for them. The fee charged for a lawyer with 8 years experience is indeed greater than that of one with 7 years of experience. It doesn’t matter whether the 7-year lawyer went to a ‘better’ law school or has other skills–it’s strictly based on their class year at the firm (by class year I don’t mean when they finished school but their seniority at the firm–and people who come in from clerkships or other legal jobs often enter the firm not as first years but with a class year that reflects their prior experience).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t necessarily disagree with you. However, when you are being interviewed along with hundreds of your classmates and hiring committees need to make quick judgments about you after you have met with one interviewer on campus for no more than 15 minutes, the assumption will often be that one who is younger is less mature, experienced and knowledgable, whether or not that is, in fact, accurate. Often, in fact, students who finish college in three years (or less) have had fewer jobs/internships, leadership roles in in-school and out-of-school organizations and less opportunity, generally, to demonstrate the skills that that individual may have and that law firms desire, when compared to those who take four years to finish college or who work for a few years before going to law school. </p>
<p>Please note that not everyone spends their parents’ money in college. Plenty of us paid our own way. Perhaps if one explained in a job interview that the reason why he or she finished college in three years was because he or she was paying the full bill by themselves through loans and working at two part-time jobs, that might win back some points.</p>
<p>So I know the drawbacks of graduating in 3 years, but how bad is it to stay in school for the full 4 years while taking the minimum classes each semester? I have my entire college career planned out and I only have to take 13 or 14 units each semester in order to gradute in 4 years. Is this light load looked down upon by law schools?</p>
<p>To those of you who are making this case for the 3 year student, I feel like you are simply looking at this discussion in the wrong way.</p>
<p>sallyawp and bdm are NOT saying that a student that graduates in 3 years is less mature than one who graduated in 4. They are NOT saying that a student who stays in school for 6 years is at an advantage. Finally they are NOT saying that it is impossible to get in with 3 years of undergraduate. </p>
<p>What they are saying is that in general, it does HURT you to graduate in 3 years, and that it IS looked down upon. </p>
<p>Why? To reiterate what has already been said, a student graduating in 3 years did one (or many) of the following:
- used a massive amount of AP credits
- took more than the average amount of classes in a semester
- took a multitude of classes during the summer </p>
<p>NONE of these are looked upon favorably by law schools. AP credits mean nothing, and in actuality just mean that the student has less college coursework experience. Taking more than the average amount of classes in a semester meant the student had less time for extracurriculars and socializing, and instead opted to spend more time on studies. Doing an amalgam of credits during the summer means they consequently had less time for internships/work experience which is very valuable during the summer months.</p>
<p>Now, does this mean that they didn’t have enough college experience? No, but they could have had more. </p>
<p>Does it mean they had less extra leadership/volunteer/work experience than someone who finished work experience in 4 years? No, but it means the 3 year student had the option to do more, and instead opted against it to finish something early they didn’t have to. </p>
<p>Does it mean they didn’t have jobs/internships during the summer? No, but it means that (similar to the last statement) they didn’t devote enough time to it as possible, showing again their priorities laid elsewhere; in finishing their undergraduate studies before they had to. </p>
<p>I think this is where the heart of the matter is: a student that finished school in 3 years will consequently have a difference college experience than if that SAME student had completed school in 4 years, and this decision is often based on the priorities of the student. The thing is, undergraduate studies are much more than just maintaining a solid GPA; they are an experience in themselves. Law schools want to see that students thrive in that environment while still maintaining an exceptional GPA, not just one or the other. </p>
<p>In the end, think of it this way: you cannot possible argue that the student could not have done more with an additional year in school. If they already did 120 credits in 3 years, that means they could have graduated with 150. If they had 2 summer internships, they could have had 3. If they had 200 hours of volunteer of experience, they could have had 300. Will law schools give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming that you could have done this things if you spent an extra year in college? Not likely, at least in my opinion (sallyawp feel free to chime in here). </p>
<p>Is this to say 3 year students are less qualified? Not at all. Is it to say they could have been more qualified? Absolutely. Therefore, they are placed at a disadvantage. </p>
<p>To sum it up in one sentence: It’s not what they didn’t do, it’s what they could have done.</p>
<p>i think you are making a lot of assumptions in the above post. keep in mind that people who have the determination to take extra classes and graduate an entire year early, are usually the same people who are extremely motivated and able to handle a lot of things on their plate. as mentioned earlier, i graduated in 3 yrs at the top of my class and did pretty well this cycle. i had to take extra classes every semester, but still managed to have 3 internships (2 of which were at bulge brackets), a volunteer position, and a social life. </p>
<p>now could i have done more had i graduated in 4 years - probably. but did i do more than most of the other kids who do take 4 years to graduate - probably. it can just as easily be argued that the kids who are motivated enough to finish early are the same ones who are more mature than everyone else, and it is from this maturity why they understand that an extra 30k a year isnt worth it, and if one is motivated enough, the same experience can be had in 4 years.</p>
<p>this is certainly anecdotal evidence, but from the several people who i know who graduated in 3 years, they were all of the above type, in that they accomplished more in 3 years what many kids do in 4.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you want to, you can argue about the maturity of these students, but it’s not the point at issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s fine, if all you want to do is compete against “many” of the 4-year graduates. At the highest levels, though, you’re going against the top 4-year graduates.</p>
<p>Roneald makes a good point, it really is about what you could have done. I know people who are trying to graduate in 3 years and they almost never have summer vacation anymore due to summer school, their coursework in the 3 years they planned for college is jam packed with major and graduation requirements, and they are constantly complaining about how they don’t have time to take, say, Intro to Buddhism or the Chemistry of Thinking. They are all about squeezing in all the credits they can and getting out of there. No fun. Of course, that is just a percentage of 3-year graduates. </p>
<p>Yes mitssu, many students who graduate in 3 years are indeed motivated and perhaps even achieve more than a student who takes 4 years. But I think what most people are trying to say here is: it doesn’t matter if you were amazing, because the admissions board isn’t going to know why you only chose to spend 3 years, unless you give them a concise and convincing reason somewhere in your app/interview. Building on to what sallyawp said, they aren’t going to spend hours researching your background and measuring your determination in college. They probably spend 1 minute tops reading your app, see that you graduated in 3 years, form their opinion, and move on. And according to what people have posted, many law schools just look unfavorably upon 3-year graduates, period.</p>
<p>People are here to answer the question whether graduating in 3 years will hurt chances for law school, and the answer is YES, from people’s experiences, it seems that way. I don’t know why or how the admissions board functions. That’s just the way it is. So all these posts about how 3-year graduates are just as good, achieve just as much, and are just as mature as 4-year graduates: we believe you (or at least I do). But it’s not us you need to convince. It’s the admissions board.</p>
<p>This is 2009, not 1989. the world has changed.In today’s educational environment, where AP and IB are so widespread, someone, in my view, who is seeking admission to a top graduate or law school almost looks as if they are in the slow group if they are unfortunate enough to have not accumulated sufficient IB and AP credit(maybe supplemented by two or three summer classes)to graduate in 3 years. Or perhpas they are tuition suckers who choose to attend AP disrespecting liberal arts colleges, or rich slackers who just want to hange around college for an extra year and to whon $50K or $60K is nothing. I don’t speak with any authoratitve or first hand kinowledge but if I was running a law school I would prefer accomplished 3 year graduates over the slow group, tuition suckers or rich slackers.</p>
<p>^^ What if you’re like me and will have enough credits to graduate after 3 years but would like to spend a 4th year completing an additional major and taking more classes, enjoying what many believe to be the one of the greatest parts of our lives (our undergraduate college years)? </p>
<p>To me, I think it’s pretty narrowminded to group a majority of 4 year graduates in your three group system. </p>
<p>If you notice, in my own post I did not make any prejudgments regarding the 3 year graduates. However I did, like sallyawp, make references to the extrapolations that law school admissions boards could make and attempted to trace the rationale which against they made these judgments. </p>
<p>To reiterate, I never said graduating in 3 years had any sort of negative connotation. However, I do that a law school could look upon it unfavorably when taking into account why the student made that decision in the first place, and what were their priorities in making it. </p>
<p>To flip the argument, let’s say I was one of the “accomplished 3 year graduates”, compiling 120 credits by the end of my junior year, along with a stellear LSAT and well above average GPA. Now, if I take another year of college, I would have the exact same LSAT, let’s hypothetically say I maintained the exact same GPA, and with the extra year I was able to obtain higher leadership positions, more community service hours, and an internship slightly better then the one I had the previous. Due to the fact that I spent an extra year in college am I now a 4 year slow thinker, tuition sucker, or rich slacker? </p>
<p>Or, on the contrary, am I one year more experienced, one year more intelligent, one year more mature, one year better at managing a mixture of school and leadership roles, and overall one more better equipped to handle the intense mental obstacle course which is law school?</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062833904-post18.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062833904-post18.html</a></p>
<p>Wow. Vienna man, I went into college as a sophomore (academically) after years of AP, and I work to pay off half of my tuition every year. I am probably going to spend 4 years in college because I’m double majoring, and I am planning on using my summers for internships, like I am doing this year. I could easily graduate in 3 years with one major, but I realized it would leave no room for me to explore my intellectual interests or to pursue worthwhile commitments outside of school. I’m sorry if this comes off as a little personal here, but your generalization about 4 year grads as “slow”, “slackers” and “suckers” was offensive. Of course, people have their reasons for graduating in 3 years, and I respect that, but similarly, just because some of us value academia and want to take in the opportunities only undergraduate experiences can offer doesn’t make us any less than them. I cannot believe 4 year graduates now have to justify themselves for what was always the average expected rate of graduation. Yes, times change, but there is a reason people going into college this year still call themselves the Class of 2013.</p>
<p>I had a 3.4 GPA and a 180 LSAT while graduating in three years. I am also already pretty young for my original class (2010). There is no evidence of graduating early affecting my cycle. I am going to NYU, after getting into Columbia, NYU, Penn, and Chicago. I did not have too many EC’s etc, though I did go to a top school and had two majors. </p>
<p>My point is that I don’t think that it is a big deal. Some people say I might have gotten into Harvard, but I think it was the 3.4 that kept me out. Hope this helps.</p>
<p>I believe that those who are arguing that 3-year graduates are significantly disadvantaged are missing a huge point: LAW SCHOOL ADMISSIONS IS A NUMBER GAME. LSAT and GPA (and your academic letters of rec) are the biggest factors in determining where you go. Anything else is a soft factor. A T14 or any law school for that matter would rather select someone with a high LSAT score and GPA who graduated in three years than someone with significantly lower numbers who graduated in four years. Perhaps the three-year graduate with a high LSAT score and GPA could’ve gotten into a few more schools had he waited an extra year to finish. But really, the discrepancy between a 3-year and 4-year graduate is ultimately a SOFT factor. I’m sure that even though that 3-year-graduate with a high LSAT and GPA got rejected by a few schools because of this discrepancy, he will be accepted by another great law school.</p>
<p>What bothers me about SallyAWP’s argument is that she is mainly explaining how law FIRMS select their applicants. Before we get ahead of ourselves, we need to get into law SCHOOL first, right? Like I said before, LSAT admissions is primarily about your LSAT and GPA. I cannot emphasize enough that everything else is a soft factor. So after you graduate in three years, get into a law school of your choice, and start applying for a firm, these firms will certainly care more about your law school experience than your undergrad experience.</p>
<p>And if you’re uncertain about the way firms will view your early undergrad graduation, then explain! Explain to them that you couldn’t afford to. Explain to them that you had other plans that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise. Then explain about your great law school experience, and I’m sure then the discrepancy will be pretty minor.</p>
<p>So bottom line: if you’re graduating early from undergrad, make sure you have a stellar GPA and LSAT score as well. If not, take an extra year to up your GPA or LSAT score. There’s nothing wrong with graduating in 4 years, but there’s also nothing wrong with graduating earlier.</p>
<p>And really people, we’re talking about the difference of ONE YEAR here. So okay, the firm doesn’t hire you because you’re a year younger. Wait one more year (doing something else productive of course), and that shouldn’t be a major problem.</p>
<p>harley, what you put up is a straw man argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are certainly entitled to your opinion. The fact of the matter is that law firms do indeed care – particularly the most competitive law firms that pay the highest salaries. The part you are missing is that because law firms care, so do law schools. A significant factor in law school rankings (which law schools claim not to care about, but it is quite clear that they actually do care quite a bit) is placement in law firms (reflected in percentage employed numbers), placement in top law firms (often touted by career placement offices as a reason to come to a particular law school) and average starting salaries (which are pulled upward by students who work for, you guessed it, the most competitive law firms that pay the highest salaries). In addition, law schools care because they try their darndest to compose entering classes of not only the students with the highest scores, but also the students with the most interesting and diverse backgrounds (one of the reasons why, for example, students with so many different majors are welcome at law school). The more time an applicant has had to have interesting and diverse experiences, the more attractive a candidate they become. </p>
<p>I’ve been involved with law school applicants and law firm applicants for a lot of years now (more than I care to admit), but you are certainly welcome to take my advice or leave it. However, I would prefer if you wouldn’t try to shoot down my advice, which is based on actual experiences, merely because it doesn’t suit your point of view.</p>