Top Law Schools

firemed wrote:

rinkrat19 wrote:Every time I see another one of taxguy's rants against the LSAT, it makes me think of NU assistant dean Johann Lee's tweet from a few weeks ago:

Also- your parents should not be calling for you. can't talk to them anyway. something about privacy and being an adult.

I'd wonder if that was taxguy, except his son only applied to TTTTs.

This is, unfortunately, probably an issue everywhere. Actually, I bet it is worst at the T14 (where you have a lot of overachievers whose parents interfere to much) and at the TTTTs where parents have a totally unrealistic idea of both their child and the legal profession. The middle of the pack probably gets less of this (though I know it is still there since I met a couple who were there in place of their son who couldn't make it to the ASD)

Rooney wrote:

firemed wrote:

rinkrat19 wrote:Every time I see another one of taxguy's rants against the LSAT, it makes me think of NU assistant dean Johann Lee's tweet from a few weeks ago:

Also- your parents should not be calling for you. can't talk to them anyway. something about privacy and being an adult.

I'd wonder if that was taxguy, except his son only applied to TTTTs.

This is, unfortunately, probably an issue everywhere. Actually, I bet it is worst at the T14 (where you have a lot of overachievers whose parents interfere to much) and at the TTTTs where parents have a totally unrealistic idea of both their child and the legal profession. The middle of the pack probably gets less of this (though I know it is still there since I met a couple who were there in place of their son who couldn't make it to the ASD)

There was a really hot chick at Vanderbilt's ASD whose parents tagged along. I was disappoint.

Flips88 wrote:

Rooney wrote:

firemed wrote:
This is, unfortunately, probably an issue everywhere. Actually, I bet it is worst at the T14 (where you have a lot of overachievers whose parents interfere to much) and at the TTTTs where parents have a totally unrealistic idea of both their child and the legal profession. The middle of the pack probably gets less of this (though I know it is still there since I met a couple who were there in place of their son who couldn't make it to the ASD)

There was a really hot chick at Vanderbilt's ASD whose parents tagged along. I was disappoint.

Was mom hot?

firemed wrote:

flips88 wrote:
There was a really hot chick at Vanderbilt's ASD whose parents tagged along. I was disappoint.

Was mom hot?

Meh. They clearly seemed wealthy and stuck up just by the way they looked

Flips88 wrote:

firemed wrote:
There was a really hot chick at Vanderbilt's ASD whose parents tagged along. I was disappoint.

Was mom hot?

Meh. They clearly seemed wealthy and stuck up just by the way they looked[/quote]

Pressure cooker. I'd say more, but this isn't the lounge.

geoduck wrote:How about this RE: military service. A lot of you say that the majority of people you know who have gone into the service have done so to get their shit together. The military is in fact an organization known to be very good at doing this (though on occasion taking people beyond their breaking point). Therefore, someone with military service who fulfilled their commitments have that as proof that they have their shit together. With similar numbers, I'd definitely admit the person whose shit is together over the person with an unknown shit dispersion status. The service part of it just sweetens the deal.

I think this is kind of what I said, but in more scatological terms.

Because being able to cure cancer isn't goana help you succeed in law school.

vanwinkle wrote:

geoduck wrote:How about this RE: military service. A lot of you say that the majority of people you know who have gone into the service have done so to get their shit together. The military is in fact an organization known to be very good at doing this (though on occasion taking people beyond their breaking point). Therefore, someone with military service who fulfilled their commitments have that as proof that they have their shit together. With similar numbers, I'd definitely admit the person whose shit is together over the person with an unknown shit dispersion status. The service part of it just sweetens the deal.

I think this is kind of what I said, but in more scatological terms.

This comment was just an excuse for you to say "scatological."

Anyone with actual success and talent wouldn't apply to law school anyway. Therefore no "good" softs exist.

And no, spending two years teaching poor kids how to read with little to no results isn't good.

DaftAndDirect wrote:

AreJay711 wrote:

albusdumbledore wrote:

AreJay711 wrote:Why should military service count as a soft? Does knowing how to kill people or patriotism help you as a lawyer? I guess maybe following orders and attention to detail but that isn't unique to the military.

I imagine the ability to be treated like a commodity or a herd animal would come in handy in law.

Yeah but thats true in sports too. At least the commodity part.

What separates military experience from sports and other activities - in terms of discipline and attention to detail - is the degree to which these two traits are reinforced by the training you receive. When you're trained to clean a weapon, you're trained under the expectation that you will clean that weapon correctly every single time so that, when the time comes for you to fire it to defend your own life or the life of another soldier, that weapon fires exactly the way that it's supposed to. When you're trained to catch a football, you're not trained with the expectation that someone's life may depend on you catching that football correctly.

I'm a little shocked by how dismissive this thread is regarding the value of military training. No, military service can't stand alone without a good LSAT and GPA, but it's an ancient and well known institution that provides a far more "standardized" and objectively measureable experience than the myriad softs into which admissions officers would otherwise have little insight.

This thread isn't about our personal views on the benefits of military experience -- it's about how military experience counts as a soft for law school admissions. And if you actually looked at peoples cycles you would see it's a mediocre soft.

Retake and, more importantly, re-apply. I'd have someone review your application too, as you did not do as well as your numbers would suggest. We have VERY similar numbers, and I'm in at UVA with $$, Boalt, and Penn and WL'd to Harvard and Stanford. I've been out of school for several years and have what I think are pretty strong softs, but still. I think you can do better than what you've done even if your numbers stay the same. Get that LSAT up a few points though, and your options will be significantly better.

As long as you can get a solid job next year, it never hurts to make a little $$ and take another shot at it. The return on investment will be enormous if you go from IUIC/GW to T14, much less a T6 (which isn't out of the question).

The people applying for law school aren't the average soldier, either. They have to have a bachelor's degree. That means they either earned it post-service with the GI Bill, while serving, or that they were an officer (and likely had more responsibilities). Any of those paths are pretty impressive and show drive and determination.

I don't see why earning a bachelors degree post-service with the GI Bill is impressive. Officer sure. Earning a bachelors post service though? What am I missing here? That they took up education post service is supposed to somehow show some immense drive and determination? You kid.

bfaiken wrote:Retake and, more importantly, re-apply. I'd have someone review your application too, as you did not do as well as your numbers would suggest. We have VERY similar numbers, and I'm in at UVA with $$, Boalt, and Penn and WL'd to Harvard and Stanford. I've been out of school for several years and have what I think are pretty strong softs, but still. I think you can do better than what you've done even if your numbers stay the same. Get that LSAT up a few points though, and your options will be significantly better.

As long as you can get a solid job next year, it never hurts to make a little $$ and take another shot at it. The return on investment will be enormous if you go from IUIC/GW to T14, much less a T6 (which isn't out of the question).

Sorry...I have no idea why this was posted in this forum; it was a response to a completely different thread.

bfaiken wrote:Retake and, more importantly, re-apply. I'd have someone review your application too, as you did not do as well as your numbers would suggest. We have VERY similar numbers, and I'm in at UVA with $$, Boalt, and Penn and WL'd to Harvard and Stanford. I've been out of school for several years and have what I think are pretty strong softs, but still. I think you can do better than what you've done even if your numbers stay the same. Get that LSAT up a few points though, and your options will be significantly better.

As long as you can get a solid job next year, it never hurts to make a little $$ and take another shot at it. The return on investment will be enormous if you go from IUIC/GW to T14, much less a T6 (which isn't out of the question).

ETA: I've heard other people saying cross-thread accidents are happening. Weird.

FiveSermon wrote:

DaftAndDirect wrote:

AreJay711 wrote:

AreJay711 wrote:Why should military service count as a soft? Does knowing how to kill people or patriotism help you as a lawyer? I guess maybe following orders and attention to detail but that isn't unique to the military.

Yeah but thats true in sports too. At least the commodity part.

What separates military experience from sports and other activities - in terms of discipline and attention to detail - is the degree to which these two traits are reinforced by the training you receive. When you're trained to clean a weapon, you're trained under the expectation that you will clean that weapon correctly every single time so that, when the time comes for you to fire it to defend your own life or the life of another soldier, that weapon fires exactly the way that it's supposed to. When you're trained to catch a football, you're not trained with the expectation that someone's life may depend on you catching that football correctly.

I'm a little shocked by how dismissive this thread is regarding the value of military training. No, military service can't stand alone without a good LSAT and GPA, but it's an ancient and well known institution that provides a far more "standardized" and objectively measureable experience than the myriad softs into which admissions officers would otherwise have little insight.

This thread isn't about our personal views on the benefits of military experience -- it's about how military experience counts as a soft for law school admissions. And if you actually looked at peoples cycles you would see it's a mediocre soft.

Arguing that the benefits of military training are transparent, measurable, and standardized = arguing that the military should be considered at least a standard soft. If you'll look at the quote I was responding to, AreJay was questioning why the military should be even counted as a soft, and I gave him a reason. No where did I say it was the BEST soft. Or even an above average soft. I said that it provides training in discipline and attention to detail better than any other organization - two traits that are admirable and valuable but by no means sufficient to be successful in the admissions process or in law school in general.

I'm not shocked by the personal view. I'm shocked by the logic that led to the conclusion that the military is not a soft.

FiveSermon wrote:

The people applying for law school aren't the average soldier, either. They have to have a bachelor's degree. That means they either earned it post-service with the GI Bill, while serving, or that they were an officer (and likely had more responsibilities). Any of those paths are pretty impressive and show drive and determination.

I don't see why earning a bachelors degree post-service with the GI Bill is impressive. Officer sure. Earning a bachelors post service though? What am I missing here? That they took up education post service is supposed to somehow show some immense drive and determination? You kid.

It's not that common for people who have no education beyond high school to go back to school years later and try to learn more and do more with their lives. You have to downshift from having a paycheck and a life of your own to living on debt and a lot of uncertainty. Unlike law schools, colleges and universities aren't really set up in favor of people who are older and have work experience. And, let's be honest here, most people who go into the military do it because they weren't in a position to go to college when they graduated high school, for whatever reason. For them to not only go back to college, but to presumably do well there, shows they didn't give up on higher education or a higher purpose.

vanwinkle wrote: It's not that common for people who have no education beyond high school to go back to school years later and try to learn more and do more with their lives. You have to downshift from having a paycheck and a life of your own to living on debt and a lot of uncertainty. Unlike law schools, colleges and universities aren't really set up in favor of people who are older and have work experience. And, let's be honest here, most people who go into the military do it because they weren't in a position to go to college when they graduated high school, for whatever reason. For them to not only go back to college, but to presumably do well there, shows they didn't give up on higher education or a higher purpose.

Amen to all of the above. Especially the bolded.... though I have to say that law schools seem to me like they could be more favorable too. But they are definitely better than UG.


Also, you know how many times I see people go to (or back to) college because of the GI Bill or because their employer will pay for it... and then drop out? It is remarkably common. People who do it, do it because they want something more. I don't do a lot of things that are effectively free for me to do just because they are free if they require work. I have to want to do that work.

FiveSermon wrote:

The people applying for law school aren't the average soldier, either. They have to have a bachelor's degree. That means they either earned it post-service with the GI Bill, while serving, or that they were an officer (and likely had more responsibilities). Any of those paths are pretty impressive and show drive and determination.

I don't see why earning a bachelors degree post-service with the GI Bill is impressive. Officer sure. Earning a bachelors post service though? What am I missing here? That they took up education post service is supposed to somehow show some immense drive and determination? You kid.

I think OP making the point that any post-service law applicant going from military service (with at least 2-3 OIF/OEF deployments), to a bachelors degree, then finally, enrolling in a law school in a span of 8+ years is a pretty driven individual and should be worth a look given the respective GPA/LSAT. If the applicant went the enlisted route, he may have theoretically served in a junior leadership role by the end of service (fire team leader, squad leader, section leader, etc.) anyway, which could and should warrant a worthy look from adcomms.

Serving as a commissioned officer in the US Army was an outstanding experience from a leadership, responsibility, goal oriented, and decision making perspective and hopefully the experiences can propel me come application time. From those who I served with (officers & enlisted-mostly combat arms and intel), that have graduated with a JD or currently in LS, they cited the biggest take aways from the military as the ability to work under stress/time constraints, project management, and problem solving.

jessedvhs wrote:

FiveSermon wrote:

The people applying for law school aren't the average soldier, either. They have to have a bachelor's degree. That means they either earned it post-service with the GI Bill, while serving, or that they were an officer (and likely had more responsibilities). Any of those paths are pretty impressive and show drive and determination.

I don't see why earning a bachelors degree post-service with the GI Bill is impressive. Officer sure. Earning a bachelors post service though? What am I missing here? That they took up education post service is supposed to somehow show some immense drive and determination? You kid.

I think OP making the point that any post-service law applicant going from military service (with at least 2-3 OIF/OEF deployments), to a bachelors degree, then finally, enrolling in a law school in a span of 8+ years is a pretty driven individual and should be worth a look given the respective GPA/LSAT. If the applicant went the enlisted route, he may have theoretically served in a junior leadership role by the end of service (fire team leader, squad leader, section leader, etc.) anyway, which could and should warrant a worthy look from adcomms.

Serving as a commissioned officer in the US Army was an outstanding experience from a leadership, responsibility, goal oriented, and decision making perspective and hopefully the experiences can propel me come application time. From those who I served with (officers & enlisted-mostly combat arms and intel), that have graduated with a JD or currently in LS, they cited the biggest take aways from the military as the ability to work under stress/time constraints, project management, and problem solving.

The bolded is absolute truth. I'm currently in the Army -- officer, captain-type, one each -- attending law school as a FLEP-er. I have to say that compared to two deployments, law school is cake. Studying for exams sucks donkey dick, but I'm used to the crazy time commitment, sacrificing my social life, and dealing with stress. At least here, nobody is trying to blow me up. Plus, as an officer (particularly a platoon or company commander) you get a good bit of experience in the military justice system, you tend to have to brief higher commanders (something like a junior associate/partner relationship), if you're a staff weenie you have to take and distill lots of information into something manageable for your boss to read...my point is that SOME military experience is more relevant to law school than some people in this thread are indicating. It isn't ALL shooting people and patriotism.

But as far as being a great soft? I don't know. I outperformed my GPA, but not really my LSAT -- the best school I got into was Vandy, IIRC, and I think my LSAT was 1 point higher than their 75%. My GPA was weak (3.3), but I had 5 years of work experience when I applied. Who knows if the fact that my work experience was military service made any difference, or if a candidate with 5 years of experience as a manager at McDonalds would have had just as much luck as I did.

Paichka wrote:
The bolded is absolute truth. I'm currently in the Army -- officer, captain-type, one each -- attending law school as a FLEP-er. I have to say that compared to two deployments, law school is cake. Studying for exams sucks donkey dick, but I'm used to the crazy time commitment, sacrificing my social life, and dealing with stress. At least here, nobody is trying to blow me up. Plus, as an officer (particularly a platoon or company commander) you get a good bit of experience in the military justice system, you tend to have to brief higher commanders (something like a junior associate/partner relationship), if you're a staff weenie you have to take and distill lots of information into something manageable for your boss to read...my point is that SOME military experience is more relevant to law school than some people in this thread are indicating. It isn't ALL shooting people and patriotism.

But as far as being a great soft? I don't know. I outperformed my GPA, but not really my LSAT -- the best school I got into was Vandy, IIRC, and I think my LSAT was 1 point higher than their 75%. My GPA was weak (3.3), but I had 5 years of work experience when I applied. Who knows if the fact that my work experience was military service made any difference, or if a candidate with 5 years of experience as a manager at McDonalds would have had just as much luck as I did.

You don't even know, bro.

Dude... one time he had to sprint to get the order sorted out before his server served the wrong thing... barely made it, and had to take an ass chewing from the customer. And on the way back to his office the fryer totally spat and burned his hand. You can't have experiences like that anywhere else. Pussies complaining about IEDs sure as shit don't know nothing about a hot fryer. That shit can cause 3rd degree burns!

Don't down on McD's bro. If you haven't served (McNuggets), you just don't know.

This thread smacks of ignorance and elitism. I want to E-PUNCH most of you in the throat.

The notion that people do not enlist or commission in the military for altruistic or patriotic reasons is flat out wrong. Of course these posters would have known this if they had actually served.

Though, I expect nothing less from the self-entitled X-Box generation. The only thing that this generation cares about is themselves and what they can do to help/enhance themselves. Seriously, anything service oriented done by most of you is to help make you "look" better or increase your "soft". Whoa, the notion of actually serving one's country.

A previous poster highlighted the fact of EARNING rank. That's right, rank is earned not given. This reminds me of a funny story that I can picture many a TLS poster being on the butt end of.

There was this boot ass Lt. straight from a service academy who just got assigned a bunch of grunts(infantry) right back from a combat deployment.

Well, Lt. Butterbar (he of service academy fame) tried to throw his weight around to gain respect, instead of trying to earn respect. A salty Sgt. had enough and called out the Lt. on why the men should follow him.

Lt: "I have a college degree from a service academy!"

Sgt: "Very well sir!" "Sir, by your reasoning you will now report to Private Awesome he enlisted with a PHD (from that crappy burnt college in Texas)"

You should have seen the look on his face. Total, look of a pussy.

On second thought most of you pussies look at yourselves in the mirror daily so you already know the look i'm talking about. Way to ride the coat tails of your peers and those generations that are for more superior than you.

Oh, and you are welcome for having the FREEDOM/RIGHT/CHOICE to become a lawyer, instead of whatever the regime/monarchy/oligarchy/dictatorship...would make you become.

Whatever'sClever wrote:This thread smacks of ignorance and elitism. I want to E-PUNCH most of you in the throat.

The notion that people do not enlist or commission in the military for altruistic or patriotic reasons is flat out wrong. Of course these posters would have known this if they had actually served.

Though, I expect nothing less from the self-entitled X-Box generation. The only thing that this generation cares about is themselves and what they can do to help/enhance themselves. Seriously, anything service oriented done by most of you is to help make you "look" better or increase your "soft". Whoa, the notion of actually serving one's country.

A previous poster highlighted the fact of EARNING rank. That's right, rank is earned not given. This reminds me of a funny story that I can picture many a TLS poster being on the butt end of.

There was this boot ass Lt. straight from a service academy who just got assigned a bunch of grunts(infantry) right back from a combat deployment.

Well, Lt. Butterbar (he of service academy fame) tried to throw his weight around to gain respect, instead of trying to earn respect. A salty Sgt. had enough and called out the Lt. on why the men should follow him.

Lt: "I have a college degree from a service academy!"

Sgt: "Very well sir!" "Sir, by your reasoning you will now report to Private Awesome he enlisted with a PHD (from that crappy burnt college in Texas)"

You should have seen the look on his face. Total, look of a pussy.

On second thought most of you pussies look at yourselves in the mirror daily so you already know the look i'm talking about. Way to ride the coat tails of your peers and those generations that are for more superior than you.

Oh, and you are welcome for having the FREEDOM/RIGHT/CHOICE to become a lawyer, instead of whatever the regime/monarchy/oligarchy/dictatorship...would make you become.

Greatest post on TLS. Especially the E-PUNCH in the throat part lol. I respect those who serve our country greatly and think they deserve a boost, even as someone from the generation he is tearing apart.

I think if an applicant has decent numbers (anything above 25th percentile LSAT/GPA), he or she has a fair shot at admissions.

Of course, if the applicant's numbers below both medians, the softs will matter a lot more. If the applicant's numbers are very strong, softs are not as important, or perhaps not even required.

Anecdotally and from a personal experience, I think softs matter a lot more in law school admissions than what is assumed on these forums. Just my two cents.

Also, wait lists are clever ways to circumvent (or "play"?) the numbers game if a school really likes an applicant on the basis of softs.

Whatever'sClever wrote:This thread smacks of ignorance and elitism. I want to E-PUNCH most of you in the throat.

The notion that people do not enlist or commission in the military for altruistic or patriotic reasons is flat out wrong. Of course these posters would have known this if they had actually served.

Though, I expect nothing less from the self-entitled X-Box generation. The only thing that this generation cares about is themselves and what they can do to help/enhance themselves. Seriously, anything service oriented done by most of you is to help make you "look" better or increase your "soft". Whoa, the notion of actually serving one's country.

A previous poster highlighted the fact of EARNING rank. That's right, rank is earned not given. This reminds me of a funny story that I can picture many a TLS poster being on the butt end of.

There was this boot ass Lt. straight from a service academy who just got assigned a bunch of grunts(infantry) right back from a combat deployment.

Well, Lt. Butterbar (he of service academy fame) tried to throw his weight around to gain respect, instead of trying to earn respect. A salty Sgt. had enough and called out the Lt. on why the men should follow him.

Lt: "I have a college degree from a service academy!"

Sgt: "Very well sir!" "Sir, by your reasoning you will now report to Private Awesome he enlisted with a PHD (from that crappy burnt college in Texas)"

You should have seen the look on his face. Total, look of a pussy.

On second thought most of you pussies look at yourselves in the mirror daily so you already know the look i'm talking about. Way to ride the coat tails of your peers and those generations that are for more superior than you.

Oh, and you are welcome for having the FREEDOM/RIGHT/CHOICE to become a lawyer, instead of whatever the regime/monarchy/oligarchy/dictatorship...would make you become.

Pot meet kettle.

In any case, military experience is a pretty good soft in my opinion. The fact that it doesn't really relate to law school is irrelevant, as the majority of softs don't really relate directly to law school. The leadership and discipline demonstrated has value though.

Whatever'sClever wrote:This thread smacks of ignorance and elitism. I want to E-PUNCH most of you in the throat.

The notion that people do not enlist or commission in the military for altruistic or patriotic reasons is flat out wrong. Of course these posters would have known this if they had actually served.

Though, I expect nothing less from the self-entitled X-Box generation. The only thing that this generation cares about is themselves and what they can do to help/enhance themselves. Seriously, anything service oriented done by most of you is to help make you "look" better or increase your "soft". Whoa, the notion of actually serving one's country.

A previous poster highlighted the fact of EARNING rank. That's right, rank is earned not given. This reminds me of a funny story that I can picture many a TLS poster being on the butt end of.

There was this boot ass Lt. straight from a service academy who just got assigned a bunch of grunts(infantry) right back from a combat deployment.

Well, Lt. Butterbar (he of service academy fame) tried to throw his weight around to gain respect, instead of trying to earn respect. A salty Sgt. had enough and called out the Lt. on why the men should follow him.

Lt: "I have a college degree from a service academy!"

Sgt: "Very well sir!" "Sir, by your reasoning you will now report to Private Awesome he enlisted with a PHD (from that crappy burnt college in Texas)"

You should have seen the look on his face. Total, look of a pussy.

On second thought most of you pussies look at yourselves in the mirror daily so you already know the look i'm talking about. Way to ride the coat tails of your peers and those generations that are for more superior than you.

Oh, and you are welcome for having the FREEDOM/RIGHT/CHOICE to become a lawyer, instead of whatever the regime/monarchy/oligarchy/dictatorship...would make you become.

You know what this stupid post and the rest of this thread tells me. That THERE ISN'T A ONE SHOE FITS ALL SCENARIO WHEN TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC ACTIONS. Certainly many people enlist to serve their country, there are also, certainly, those who enlist because they don't know what the fuck to do with their life or they couldn't find other jobs. This is why the military, like every other soft, is a little hard to accurately measure. Different jobs in the military are different, different ranks in different parts of the military are different, etc.

Anyways, can all the idiots just stop beating themselves up with stupid posts?