Why do lawyers become Adcomms? Forum

[dutchstriker]

Several people have implied that adcomms might not be "professor material." But since the skill sets required for the two jobs are so different, it is really hard to make the comparison between adcomms and professors. Most professors I know would make terrible adcomms, and adcomms as professors likewise.

OK... So you agree with us. Thanks.

[charlesjd]

If they work for a state school, they can get their loans paid off through that program with the government. Seems like a good deal to me.

[Vincent Vega]

It could be that they just really liked the time they spent in college and law school and found non-university life to be less satisfying. Thus, the return to their old law school.

[APHill]

u

[crazycanuck]

It has to be QOL. I would love to have a job like that. USNWR basically sets the formula for you to use when deciding who gets in. Your job is to entice X number of students above the median LSAT and X number above the Median GPA to go to your school. How do you entice them??? Scholarships. You need enough URMs so that no one accuses your school of racism and some screwballs who don't deserve to get in but who will pay full price (thus provide scholarships to the median boosters) Easy.

And that is the hard part. With that out of the way you pretty much have free reign to do as you please. Admit people from your undergrad institution, your friends kids, alumni's kids, etc.
For a few months you can travel around the country visiting colleges. Weekends off. Plus think of all the meaningful exciting personal statements you get to [strike]read![/strike] throw in the garbage.

[APHill]

On the other hand, if you are smart and hardworking, in 8 years after law school you can make partner and get on a few boards of directors - attend 3-4 meeting a year for 65K times 3-4 boards you can be on. Biglaw is only super tough for associates, as you move up pressures subside a bit. I think even T10 have loser graduates and those are the ones that come back to work for them...

[crazycanuck]

On the other hand, if you are smart and hardworking, in 8 years after law school you can make partner and get on a few boards of directors - attend 3-4 meeting a year for 65K times 3-4 boards you can be on. Biglaw is only super tough for associates, as you move up pressures subside a bit. I think even T10 have loser graduates and those are the ones that come back to work for them...

Um.........

No.

Partners are under far more pressure than associates.

[soullesswonder]

Biglaw is only super tough for associates, as you move up pressures subside a bit.

On more than one occasion I have heard it said that partnership track is a pie eating contest where the winner receives a lifetime's supply of extra pie. Your statement = FAIL

[APHill]

maybe it is...but no more fail than coming back to your T10 law school 8 years after grad to make as much money as you did before you started law school.

[dutchstriker]

What is everyone's obsession with money? The whole concept of this thread is stupid. The answer is -- shocker -- not everyone is motivated by money.

I bet I'll be making under $60k for ten years after graduating from HLS. I'm sure I could make that without going to law school. But I want to be a lawyer. The people who work in admissions offices want to be there. Money is not the overriding factor, as hard as that may be to believe for some of you.

[Vincent Vega]

maybe it is...but no more fail than coming back to your T10 law school 8 years after grad to make as much money as you did before you started law school.

$60K/year isn't what most folks with college degrees are making. The national average is around $40K.

[BigA]

The subject says it all... I have been looking to find the reason, but I can't really find one.

If you can't see the satisfaction of pressing a big red rejection stamp on someone's application, I can't help you

[APHill]

The adcomm guy at UVA was an accountant - accountant with a BS degree starts at around 50K and, depending on career, goes up to 80-90k average after 10 years ().

It is understood that there are people willing to be lawyers even if the pay is very low. I am just saying if people from top 10 schools are coming back to work on ls adcom, they messed up by either:

-failing to get a job in law
-failing at lawyer work after being hired
-realizing that they really really hate law after working in it for a couple of years

All of those point out to either intellectual, professional or planning failure. I think that when the adcom has a lot of alumni, this is not a good sign, as this denotes a failure of the law school to recognize people who are both capable and interested in studying and practicing law. These half a dozen spots in UVA which were taken by current UVA adcom employees could have been given to another students (students who probably had to downgrade), and the adcom position could have been given to qualified people without hot TOP 10 LS JD's.

[romothesavior]

An admissions dean at a tier 1 school told me he loves his job because all the people who got in like him because he let them in, while those who are upset by getting rejected aren't there. He said this in a humorous way, but in a lot of ways it is true. None of the students at your school would really have a reason to be upset with you. As long as you are meeting the goals of the university in terms of bringing in quality students, keeping steady in the US News rankings, etc., then I'd imagine the administration would have no problems either. You don't have to work crazy hours, deal with critical partners at firms, and best of all, you get to enjoy spending quality time with law students. I'm not saying it would be a cakewalk, but it would certainly be less stressful than big law or in-house. While being an adcomm wouldn't be a job for everyone, I can see how it would be a lot of fun.

[romothesavior]

For some, the old adage applies: Those who can...do...and those who can't...teach. In law school, the rule is: Those who can't teach...are adcoms.

For others there's an agenda: "My white friends got screwed over by this AA garbage, and I'm going to make sure that doesn't happen at my school"...without everybody detecting it. I interviewed at Northwestern with a gal I knew didn't like me as soon as she saw my face. I had received rave reviews the year before and nearly got in (I was on the WL until the first say of classes). But this lady did not like me and was not very engaging from the first words she spoke. She tried to talk me out of wanting to go to NU. I sent her a "thank you" note anyways and she never even responded to it.

For still others, they actually like administration and they like the job.

How does a thread like this have anything to do with AA? Do you have any evidence that some adcomms are seeking this type of agenda, or are you just throwing out a wild conspiracy theory to make yourself feel better about your treatment at NU? My guess is the latter...

[Vincent Vega]

-failing to get a job in law
-failing at lawyer work after being hired
-realizing that they really really hate law after working in it for a couple of years

Or they just might like being an adcomm better.

[Unitas]

What is everyone's obsession with money? The whole concept of this thread is stupid. The answer is -- shocker -- not everyone is motivated by money.

I bet I'll be making under $60k for ten years after graduating from HLS. I'm sure I could make that without going to law school. But I want to be a lawyer. The people who work in admissions offices want to be there. Money is not the overriding factor, as hard as that may be to believe for some of you.

This makes no sense as an answer, my question doesn't revolve around money - money is just one factor. In fact, in my question I also ask do they make a lot of money as I have no idea if they do or not. I was trying to find the motivation for them doing it, not attacking them. I have never heard of anyone before this question say they want to be an admissions dean after law school, thus the question. In my mind anyone who would say that would most likely just decide to be an admissions dean to an UG college. Same basic pay, hours, and power less the 3 years lost and 100,000+ debt. I also don't question people going into PI work.

Has everyone that says wonderful QOL read about them reading applications until 2 am or staying outside their kid’s soccer games reading applications instead of watching the game? Not much different than a lawyers work. This doesn't even include the travelling away from families to UG's to sell the school, which is done during the slow times. I am not saying it is a horrible QOL at all, but I doubt the QOL alone would take lawyers away from being lawyers. Maybe they can still practice or research while working?

I still don't know why people would do it, but I also don't think, as someone else has implied, that they failed at anything. I think it is a choice they make for certain reasons and motivations, that I am still unaware of.

[Bauer24]

I would love to be an adcom at a place like Duke. Who knows? Maybe I'd let a few people with *gasp* below a 3.5 but above a 173 in. But then I'd realize that none of these people want to go to Duke anyway because there are better law schools who actually accept people like this and then I'd just paint myself blue and go to basketball games.

[Bauer24]

The subject says it all... I have been looking to find the reason, but I can't really find one.

If you can't see the satisfaction of pressing a big red rejection stamp on someone's application, I can't help you

TITCR.