What exactly constitutes a non-traditional student?

i believe it means someone who isn't continuing from their undergraduate without missing a school year.

i.e. someone who took at least one year off before law school.


there could be more to it though.

I think this can better be answered by considering what a "traditional" applicant is.

Generally "traditional" or "typical" applicants are white, applying either straight out of UG or after 1 year of WE, single or married but with no kids, with a GPA and LSAT of equivalent strength. A non-traditional applicant could therefore be someone who's different in any one of these ways. They could be representative of a minority group, coming from 5 or more years of WE after their UG, someone with a family including a few kids, someone who had major medical or family issues that impacted their education or their life, or someone with a serious criminal record. Each of these people has something that sets them apart from the "traditional" applicant and therefore makes them "non-traditional".

And that's basically what "non-traditional" means, something that majorly separates you from the majority of applicants that they see. This doesn't mean any little difference you can find is sufficient to separate you; they're not going to call you non-traditional because you were the only applicant who was on your school's Division I swim team. It means major differences compared to the life of a "traditional" applicant, that set you apart in a very noticeable way and mean you'll be bringing a whole different perspective than the "traditional" applicant to the table.

Lol, so I am thinking I may be one of the most non-traditional. 37 yo Native American/Mexican-American male, twice divorced with 16 and 12 yo daughters, 12 years out of UG, and venturing out into the unknown. Gonna love my DS!!

If only you realized that you were gay later in life... Otherwise, you're traditional.

I have to admit, I'm a bit confused by this too. I'm traditional in all senses except that I'm an old. I've been out of UG for 13 years, had a couple careers, am working on my paralegal certificate, and have decided that I don't want to be a paralegal, but an attorney.

Does any of that mean I should write a DS? "Wrinkle Cures n' Prune Juice: Overcoming [strike]Adversity[/strike] Not Being in My 20s."

You're non-traditional because most applicants don't have 13 years of work experience. You can write a DS about being a paralegal and the work you did there and how it led you to want to become an attorney.

lol

OP, More than one year out of undergrad is the general rough definition for non-traditional law student.

Don't quite agree with this. A "non-traditional" student needs to be recognizably different from a "traditional" student. Someone who's spent two years out of undergrad isn't going to have that much more experience than someone who spent one year out. Based on everything I've seen and read it appears that it takes at least 4-5 years of WE to distinguish you noticeably from a "traditional" applicant.

+1

I'm two years out, and I don't think I'll be very "nontraditional" when my apps arrive.

I figured that spending a year to three years out of school was probably more common for t14 than coming straight out of UG.

Why does a nontraditional student need to be recognizably different? It's a term for people who don't take the "traditional" route of coming to law school right from undergrad. There is a 19 yo in my class. He's recognizably different, but not nontraditional. The matter of how much WE will set you apart is different from what is "nontraditional"


One year yes, three years no. I would say (roughly) that 40% of my class came right from undergrad, 45% are one year out, and 15% have more than one year WE. Those with 3+ yrs WE are probably 5% or less.

+1

I was nine years out when I applied, and I think it helped me get in, and it's probably helping me now halfway through 1L. If only OP had a decent LSAT. Give them a reason to take you, and they will.

Non-traditional, as commonly used, refers to people who get a potential admissions boost because of some sort of life experience. If this experience was not recognizably different, there could be no boost because everyone with the same numbers would look the same. For 99% of the people here non-traditional is shorthand for significant professional experience. I agree it can be more than that, such as someone who overcame great obstacles, but the way it is used most of the time it refers to work exp.



At the top of the page you define going straight from undergrad as "traditional" and here you give an example where less than 1/2 the class went that route. Most people use "traditional" as a synonym for "mainstream" (which by your example includes people with 0-2 years between undergrad and law school), while it seems you are using "traditional" to describe the path people took to law school 20 years ago.

So like I said, the majority (55%) are at least one year out?

Thanks for your post. It was really informational.

We like to think of ourselves as progressive.

Reading comp. fail.
I stated a criterium (one year out of school or less) for "traditional", and offered weak anecdotal evidence to support it.

But my broader point is that being a nontraditional student means fuckall by itself. There is no "nontraditional boost." No admissions office cares how long you've been out of school. But, they might care if you've done something interesting with your time. In that case the boost is for your experience and achievements, not for passing time before applying.

If you graduated ten years ago and have been assistant manager at Burger King since then, you are not getting any boost. If you just finished your undergrad yesterday but happened to patent an interesting medical device or write a bestseller while in school, you're getting an admissions boost.

Well crud. I don't know if this is the place for this, but: Anyone wanna glance over my DS on being old and see if it's boost-worthy or not?

It's kind of long for a DS. It might turn into my PS. Let me know. Thanks.

The 19-year-old in your class is not, because of his age, recognizably different in the key application factors from the majority of applicants: LSAT, GPA, years of WE, racial/economic diversity. He's not really distinguishable from the majority of applicants in the factors that matter to adcomms.

This is what I meant by "recognizably different". It must be something that sets you apart from the majority of applicants in a significant way. Having a year and a half of WE doesn't significantly set you apart from someone who has one year of WE; having two years also doesn't. Where's the line? Looking at adcomms and admission histories, it's apparent the line is drawn somewhere around the 4-5 year mark. People with 4-5 years of WE are recognized by adcomms as having substantially different life experience than the majority of applicants they see.



Nobody that I see is arguing that how long you've been out of school matters. What I was arguing is that years of WE matters. It's years of WE that make you recognizably different from the majority of applicants, not your age or how many years out of school you are.

There is most certainly a variety of possible boosts for people who are recognizably different from the typical applicant or what's found in the majority of applicants. These recognizable differences get lumped together in what's called "nontraditional applicants". Whichever factor makes you "nontraditional" does matter.

You're making an argument that doesn't make sense.

The person you would call "nontraditional," I would call "interesting." Interesting people get preferential treatment in admissions. Work experience is not some magic elixir that makes you "interesting." Not everyone with work experience gets preferential treatment.

The "nontraditional" students' group at my law school is open to those who were more than one year out of undergrad when they entered law school. In other words they are not "traditional" law students, because they didn't come straight from undergrad, or take the ubiquitous "year off."

You're free to disagree, but if this argument doesn't make sense to you god help you in law school.

Oh, and I though I was using shady evidence. I'd really like to [strike]see[/strike] know (in case I'm right and it's a part of your anatomy) where you pulled this from.

This is apparently the problem. You're talking about applying whatever definition is possible. Yes, it's possible in some sense to define just about anyone who deviates in any way as a "nontraditional" student. However, I was talking about the definition as it applies to admissions decisions, which is different. They don't give consideration to things with the same level of detail a "students' group" at your law school will, and what your "students' group" does is irrelevant to the conversation.

The only definition of "nontraditional" that really matters on this board is the one that applies to admissions decisions, and that's the one I've been referring to. This is the definition which does not mean merely "interesting", as you put it, but "bringing unique enough life experiences to warrant special attention in a law school application." It's a more specific definition than the others you keep alluding to.

This is a problem you might have in law school, since things often have one definition in the "real world" and a different definition in the "legal world". It works just like this. Just because you can come up with a different dictionary definition of the word/phrase doesn't mean it's applicable here.



I can't point to any single thing to show where I got that from. I got it from being someone with 5-6 years' WE, wondering how that would affect my admissions chances, and reading through hundreds of different profiles and TLS threads to get an idea. I admit it is my own reading and opinion, but from what I've seen, people with less than 4-5 years of WE typically don't get a significant boost. There's no hard line that adcomms use, but in general I've seen a lot of people with 2 or even 3 years WE where it didn't look like it helped them, and people with 5+ years WE who definitely got in with a low GPA for that school. Given that, I interpret that the line is somewhere around 4-5 years.

I'd go look up facts and figures for you but I'm too busy studying Civ Pro. Anyone who doubts me should go do their own research into the matter.