Top Law Schools

Hi all-

I'm graduating this month from a top university with a 3.48 and with an offer lined up in the field of energy consulting and was wondering whether applying next fall with 1 year + 3 months of experience is preferable to applying this fall with only 3 months of work experience. I would also be promoted within a year, which can probably look good for admissions/employers if I were to apply next fall. This job involves project management as well as interaction with clients and private/public entities, so I am definitely going to take it since it is applicable to energy law. I definitely want to attend law school, but I am unsure whether taking an extra year will give me an advantage. I am studying for the LSAT and aiming for T15 schools, preferably in California.

Is it worth it to wait the extra year and gain the experience? Would it make a difference in terms of admissions? What about employment after law school?

Thanks for any and all help, comments, and questions.

Don't rush into it man. Law school will always be there. I personally think you'll be better for it to take 2-3 years off and build some real-world experience

apzakarian wrote:I am studying for the LSAT and aiming for T15 schools, preferably in California.

*T14

apzakarian wrote:Is it worth it to wait the extra year and gain the experience? Would it make a difference in terms of admissions? What about employment after law school?

It can only help you. If you wait an extra year or two to acquire some valuable full-time work experience, you'll have plenty of time to get a killer LSAT score. And FWIW, some schools (e.g., Northwestern) actually seem to prefer candidates who have a bit of work experience.

As others have said, law school will always be there. The added timeframe you have to study for the LSAT is massive (I'd presume you're either about to take the June LSAT or about to embark on studying for October, another year gives you the serious option of retaking or delaying your test date to solidify 170+ if you're not PT'ing where you want to coming up on test day). WE would also be sort of a good heg against your GPA (while decent, still relatively low for the T14).

I'm a little bit less sure about the difference applying with 15 months WE vs 3 months WE would make in terms of getting accepted somewhere (I'd imagine it helps at a school like Northwestern, but it seems that the type of work experience described as pushing applicants over the edge there is 2-3+ years in a serious field), but it seems the traditional TLS wisdom would hold that 2+ years of WE versus just over 1 year would definitely make somewhat of a difference in hiring prospects coming out of LS.

The real question here seems to be where your preferences lie. There really isn't any net negative to applying fall of 2014 versus this fall, and there's definitely somewhat of a benefit for your application to delaying. The only reason I can see for applying this fall would be some sort of dying need on your part to enroll in law school as soon as possible.

Skip law school and get an MBA instead.

.

PRgradBYU wrote:

apzakarian wrote:I am studying for the LSAT and aiming for T15 schools, preferably in California.

*T14

apzakarian wrote:Is it worth it to wait the extra year and gain the experience? Would it make a difference in terms of admissions? What about employment after law school?

It can only help you. If you wait an extra year or two to acquire some valuable full-time work experience, you'll have plenty of time to get a killer LSAT score. And FWIW, some schools (e.g., Northwestern) actually seem to prefer candidates who have a bit of work experience.

**He's probably open to the idea of going to UCLA with money, which is fine.

Total Litigator wrote:

PRgradBYU wrote:

apzakarian wrote:I am studying for the LSAT and aiming for T15 schools, preferably in California.

*T14

apzakarian wrote:Is it worth it to wait the extra year and gain the experience? Would it make a difference in terms of admissions? What about employment after law school?

It can only help you. If you wait an extra year or two to acquire some valuable full-time work experience, you'll have plenty of time to get a killer LSAT score. And FWIW, some schools (e.g., Northwestern) actually seem to prefer candidates who have a bit of work experience.

**He's probably open to the idea of going to UCLA with money, which is fine.

I'm not against anybody going to UCLA w/ money... I just don't like it when people create their own rankings groups with arbitrary cutoffs (only when it is done intentionally, which probably wasn't the case with OP).

But TBH, when I first heard the term "T14" a couple years ago, I thought to myself, "Ehh that can't be right" and insisted on calling it the "T15" for awhile.

Regulus wrote:

apzakarian wrote:Hi all-

I'm graduating this month from a top university with a 3.48 and with an offer lined up in the field of energy consulting and was wondering whether applying next fall with 1 year + 3 months of experience is preferable to applying this fall with only 3 months of work experience. I would also be promoted within a year, which can probably look good for admissions/employers if I were to apply next fall. This job involves project management as well as interaction with clients and private/public entities, so I am definitely going to take it since it is applicable to energy law. I definitely want to attend law school, but I am unsure whether taking an extra year will give me an advantage. I am studying for the LSAT and aiming for T15 schools, preferably in California.

Is it worth it to wait the extra year and gain the experience? Would it make a difference in terms of admissions? What about employment after law school?

Thanks for any and all help, comments, and questions.

I'm actually glad that you said T15 instead of T14 because UCLA is probably the only "top" school in Cali that you will be getting into with a 3.48 GPA. If you absolutely destroy the LSAT Berkeley might be an option, but it is still unlikely because Cali schools tend to be GPA whores. (Of course, if you are a URM this might change things, but I didn't see any mention of minority status in your original post, so I assume you're white / other non-URM.)

Yes, I was thinking of UCLA when saying T15 instead of T14. Anyway, back to things that are important, I'm not a URM applicant either although I have a very interesting life story, and my GPA reflects a change of major and an upward trend, passion, blah blah. I have also heard of Berkeley/Stanford being GPA whores, so the LSAT will be my life until October.

I think the deciding factor here for me is a year of lost law-firm salary by working an extra year as a consultant.

And in the long run, does it matter whether you come out of UCLA or Berkeley as long as you're in the top 25% of your class? Lots of questions.

apzakarian wrote:

Regulus wrote:

apzakarian wrote:Hi all-

I'm graduating this month from a top university with a 3.48 and with an offer lined up in the field of energy consulting and was wondering whether applying next fall with 1 year + 3 months of experience is preferable to applying this fall with only 3 months of work experience. I would also be promoted within a year, which can probably look good for admissions/employers if I were to apply next fall. This job involves project management as well as interaction with clients and private/public entities, so I am definitely going to take it since it is applicable to energy law. I definitely want to attend law school, but I am unsure whether taking an extra year will give me an advantage. I am studying for the LSAT and aiming for T15 schools, preferably in California.

Is it worth it to wait the extra year and gain the experience? Would it make a difference in terms of admissions? What about employment after law school?

Thanks for any and all help, comments, and questions.

I'm actually glad that you said T15 instead of T14 because UCLA is probably the only "top" school in Cali that you will be getting into with a 3.48 GPA. If you absolutely destroy the LSAT Berkeley might be an option, but it is still unlikely because Cali schools tend to be GPA whores. (Of course, if you are a URM this might change things, but I didn't see any mention of minority status in your original post, so I assume you're white / other non-URM.)

Yes, I was thinking of UCLA when saying T15 instead of T14. Anyway, back to things that are important, I'm not a URM applicant either although I have a very interesting life story, and my GPA reflects a change of major and an upward trend, passion, blah blah. I have also heard of Berkeley/Stanford being GPA whores, so the LSAT will be my life until October.

I think the deciding factor here for me is a year of lost law-firm salary by working an extra year as a consultant.

And in the long run, does it matter whether you come out of UCLA or Berkeley as long as you're in the top 25% of your class? Lots of questions.

My understanding is that top 25% at UCLA will get you a good job, and top 25% at Berkeley will get you a very good job. But more importantly at this point (i.e. 0L), median at Berkeley should get you a good job, but median at UCLA is precarious. I will note as well that if you have at least a year of work experience in a position like consulting, employers will like that.