Work Experience is proving to not matter this cycle. Forum

[Miracle]

I assure it's both extremely relevant to law and illustrative of several capacities which lend themselves perfectly to the same.

Maybe this is heresy, but if I were an admissions officer looking at your law-relevant work experience and LSAT, I would think, "Okay, he's spent 7 years working in a field where he's been doing legal-type work and could develop his potential in logical reasoning/other legal skills, and yet he's scoring worse on the LSAT than a kid who's basically had 4 years of general education? What does that say about their relative potential to develop those skills further in law school?"

This comment is assuming, of course, that you took the LSAT after accumulating a bunch of work experience.

ouch!

The guy has been doing executive level work dealing with multi-million-dollar, extremely complex, transactions.... and did this work full-time prior to taking the LSAT. He prepared for about a month, in the evenings. The UG kid who was having his clothes washed by his mom and having meals cooked while living for free and hanging out had a bit more time to focus on ONE singular mission which isn't really an indicator of your potential as an attorney. (just ability to get through 1L, at best)

Again, I understand the reliance on LSAT, but simply don't agree that a few points trump a considerable body of work experience that relates extremely well to law. 10-20 points? Absolutely. A few? No.

Disagree.

So anyone who is not capable of scoring 170+ on LSAT should just go work for couple of years and let the work experience
gain him/her admission to Harvard. Don't think so!

Who are you to say that a kid at undergrad has more time to focus on "ONE singular mission". I find your comment to be extremely offensive, because I worked full time, and was a full time student while preparing for LSAT.

Guess what? Person with 7 years of work experience had 7 years to study for LSAT!

No excuses!

[D. H2Oman]

[strike]I see what you're trying to get at, but think you're a little out of touch with reality. First of all, how can you say "the fact that you held a decent job for 7 years is not that impressive?" How do you know it isn't impressive? Do you know the scale of the work I've done? What is impressive, the inverse? Also, are you forgetting that I already have dozens of higher level connections through a near-decade of networking, etc? Why would a recent law school grad that went straight there from undergrad have more connections that I do? I'm sure you realize the silliness of this. Here, I'll paste some of my recommendation letter from a parter at a rather prominent firm... I subsituted "RD" for my name for obvious reasons.

EDIT: for security reasons.

That's from a senior partner... let me guess, you think he's wrong and you know more[/strike].

lol, you are ridiculous.

[09042014]

I see what you're trying to get at, but think you're a little out of touch with reality. First of all, how can you say "the fact that you held a decent job for 7 years is not that impressive?" How do you know it isn't impressive? Do you know the scale of the work I've done? What is impressive, the inverse? Also, are you forgetting that I already have dozens of higher level connections through a near-decade of networking, etc? Why would a recent law school grad that went straight there from undergrad have more connections that I do? I'm sure you realize the silliness of this. Here, I'll paste some of my recommendation letter from a parter at a rather prominent firm... I subsituted "RD" for my name for obvious reasons.

EDIT: for security reasons.

That's from a senior partner... let me guess, you think he's wrong and you know more.

Notice he didn't include your reasoning skills, but did tell us about your hard work, writing skills, etc etc. Like everyone in this thread is saying, schools value the LSAT because it tests those skills. And those skills are required to succeed in law school.

Furthermore, another reason why this won't be a heavily considered is that everyone's LOR say shit like that.

Focus your energy on your retake.

Or if you've got such great connections and you know you will do well, why not go to the lower ranked school. This partner will hook you up with a job right?

[Modian]

in b4 lock

Why do you think this will be locked?

It doesn't look like anyone in this thread is getting convinced either way, and responses are getting a little too personal for the Acceptances, Denials and WL forum? I'm not a moderator, so I have no idea. I just wanted in on the fun

[reasonabledoubt]

in b4 lock

Why do you think this will be locked?

It doesn't look like anyone in this thread is getting convinced either way, and responses are getting a little too personal for the Acceptances, Denials and WL forum? I'm not a moderator, so I have no idea. I just wanted in on the fun

I think this thread took a strange direction b/c they're taking it all way too personally.... which is ironic b/c I agree with most of the comments, aside from the more extreme ones.

Listen UG to Law people.... I'm not saying I'm "better" because of my experience. I also am not making excuses for my lsat score. It's actually quite fine... just not spectacular. I take full responsibility for this and if you read all my posts, admitted to not putting as much emphasis on prep as I should have.

Anyways... my ONLY firm point was that I simply disagree that 1 LSAT point should trump 7 years of experience, especially (subjective/my opinion, I know) it's relevant to both the study and subsequent practice of law.

This thread hit a nerve apparently.

[PoliticalJunkie]

W/E is never going to replace the hard factors like LSAT and GPA, but it helps.

A Yale law applicant can get their foot in the door with numbers, but isn't going to gain admission simply based on them.

For me, my sub 2.6 GPA closes the doors for many T14, but I've gotten into many due to my W/E (not just a paralegal or legal assistant job) and 170+ LSAT. While I got into the traditional splitter friendly schools, I also gained admission to a few that don't have a splitter friendly reputation. While my LSAT def. played a role, it simply got me in the door and without my W/E I doubt I would have garnered some of my admissions.

In the end, I think W/E does help, but only if it's unique. It did for me.

[Miracle]

in b4 lock

Why do you think this will be locked?

It doesn't look like anyone in this thread is getting convinced either way, and responses are getting a little too personal for the Acceptances, Denials and WL forum? I'm not a moderator, so I have no idea. I just wanted in on the fun

I think this thread took a strange direction b/c they're taking it all way too personally.... which is ironic b/c I agree with most of the comments, aside from the more extreme ones.

Listen UG to Law people.... I'm not saying I'm "better" because of my experience. I also am not making excuses for my lsat score. It's actually quite fine... just not spectacular. I take full responsibility for this and if you read all my posts, admitted to not putting as much emphasis on prep as I should have.

Anyways... my ONLY firm point was that I simply disagree that 1 LSAT point should trump 7 years of experience, especially (subjective/my opinion, I know) it's relevant to both the study and subsequent practice of law.

This thread hit a nerve apparently.

I do!

[reasonabledoubt]

I see what you're trying to get at, but think you're a little out of touch with reality. First of all, how can you say "the fact that you held a decent job for 7 years is not that impressive?" How do you know it isn't impressive? Do you know the scale of the work I've done? What is impressive, the inverse? Also, are you forgetting that I already have dozens of higher level connections through a near-decade of networking, etc? Why would a recent law school grad that went straight there from undergrad have more connections that I do? I'm sure you realize the silliness of this. Here, I'll paste some of my recommendation letter from a parter at a rather prominent firm... I subsituted "RD" for my name for obvious reasons.

EDIT: for security reasons.

That's from a senior partner... let me guess, you think he's wrong and you know more.

Notice he didn't include your reasoning skills, but did tell us about your hard work, writing skills, etc etc. Like everyone in this thread is saying, schools value the LSAT because it tests those skills. And those skills are required to succeed in law school.

Furthermore, another reason why this won't be a heavily considered is that everyone's LOR say shit like that.

Focus your energy on your retake.

Or if you've got such great connections and you know you will do well, why not go to the lower ranked school. This partner will hook you up with a job right?

Hard work, writing, communcation... these things aren't important to law? Anyways, I agree... if it doesn't work out this cycle, I'm going to retake and get a 172+.... but at the same time (b/c i'm confident in my prospects after LS b/c of things like my network, etc) I'm not a "T14 or bust" type either. If I get into IUB, I'll take it. They have a reasonable reach into the markets I see myself in (Chicago/DC) and I'm mostly excited just to start applying myself through the study of law at this point. A good legal education is inevitable because of how much effort I intend to put into it. I guess I'm a little conflicted because i'm not sure whether it's worth my working another year, getting a higher LSAT, and getting into a higher ranked school.

[englawyer]

LS admissions seem to be mostly about academic potential, as measured by LSAT/GPA. Interestingly enough, this seems to be exactly what their customers are seeking, whether they openly admit it or not (law firms).

If it wasn't, law firms would insist on different criteria and/or favor schools that try alternative policies (such as Northwestern's view of work experience). It is like any other market in our economy...the producers (law schools) are meeting the demands of their customers.

Law firms actually seem to even extend the emphasis on academics. For example, hiring based on class-rank as a primary criteria.

We can say "damn the USNEWS!!" all we want, but the reality is that the focus on academics is exactly what brings law firms to the campus. If it wasn't, law school admissions/rankings would tend towards the MBA system, where academics are a factor but not even close to the primary factor. After all, USNEWS ranks MBA programs as well, but we don't see a trend where it takes a 760 (99th percentile) to get into a top program yet.

[reasonabledoubt]

[strike]I see what you're trying to get at, but think you're a little out of touch with reality. First of all, how can you say "the fact that you held a decent job for 7 years is not that impressive?" How do you know it isn't impressive? Do you know the scale of the work I've done? What is impressive, the inverse? Also, are you forgetting that I already have dozens of higher level connections through a near-decade of networking, etc? Why would a recent law school grad that went straight there from undergrad have more connections that I do? I'm sure you realize the silliness of this. Here, I'll paste some of my recommendation letter from a parter at a rather prominent firm... I subsituted "RD" for my name for obvious reasons.

EDIT: for security reasons.

That's from a senior partner... let me guess, you think he's wrong and you know more[/strike].

lol, you are ridiculous.

D. Waterman... is this an alt account of some sort? Anyways, you are ridiculous.

[Kobe_Teeth]

I don't if the thread hit a nerve but I know entertaining your arrogance is certainly entertaining.

Also, I would say most law school applicants have at least a couple of years of WE. And, furthermore, many have just as much WE as you! Is your WE interesting? Probably. Unique? Not entirely.

Also, the difference in a couple LSAT points is actually sort of a big deal. Sometimes it's the difference between 2-4 percentile points. On top of that, I found at least a couple hours a day to study and I have a job that requires about 9-12 hours of my day. Find the time guy.

[keg411]

USNWR is important to schools and their ability to attract employers for their students. This is why the numbers, for the most part, drive admissions. Soft factors can help, but they really can't change things dramatically.

The only school that puts a huge focus on WE is Northwestern. I know one person who got into Harvard with a lower LSAT but his soft factors were off the charts and more than just 7 years WE (and this was like about 5-10 years ago).

[reasonabledoubt]

I don't if the thread hit a nerve but I know entertaining your arrogance is certainly entertaining.

Also, I would say most law school applicants have at least a couple of years of WE. And, furthermore, many have just as much WE as you! Is your WE interesting? Probably. Unique? Not entirely.

Also, the difference in a couple LSAT points is actually sort of a big deal. Sometimes it's the difference between 2-4 percentile points. On top of that, I found at least a couple hours a day to study and I have a job that requires about 9-12 hours of my day. Find the time guy.

There you go again Jabroni Bryant..... beating a dead horse. If I do retake to push my score into the 172ish range, it's not going to be reflect any elevated ability, drive, ethics, hard-work, etc.... the only thing it will reflect is that I took 20-30 PT's. That's all it will reflect in my particular case. I'm simply saying (for this and other reasons) that 1 LSAT point isn't more important that a ton of relevant W/E. You know what does reflect an elevated set of ethics, drive, hard-work, problem-solving, analytical thinking applied through real-world scenarios, etc? A relevant body of W/E. I should be more specific.... MY W/E experience. Beyond that, I'm not talking about absolutes here... just relative considerations of lsat points to W/E to other criteria and so forth. I agree with most of you generally, but just veer away when you start talking about the importance of 1 or 2 points over other criteria.

[secant]

.

[D. H2Oman]

I don't if the thread hit a nerve but I know entertaining your arrogance is certainly entertaining.

Also, I would say most law school applicants have at least a couple of years of WE. And, furthermore, many have just as much WE as you! Is your WE interesting? Probably. Unique? Not entirely.

Also, the difference in a couple LSAT points is actually sort of a big deal. Sometimes it's the difference between 2-4 percentile points. On top of that, I found at least a couple hours a day to study and I have a job that requires about 9-12 hours of my day. Find the time guy.

[strike]There you go again Jabroni Bryant..... beating a dead horse. If I do retake to push my score into the 172ish range, it's not going to be reflect any elevated ability, drive, ethics, hard-work, etc.... the only thing it will reflect is that I took 20-30 PT's. That's all it will reflect in my particular case. I'm simply saying (for this and other reasons) that 1 LSAT point isn't more important that a ton of relevant W/E. You know what does reflect an elevated set of ethics, drive, hard-work, problem-solving, analytical thinking applied through real-world scenarios, etc? A relevant body of W/E. I'm not talking about absolutes here... just relative considerations of lsat points to W/E to other criteria and so forth. I agree with most of you generally, but just veer away when you start talking about the importance of 1 or 2 points over other criteria[/strike].

You just don't get it.

[reasonabledoubt]

I don't if the thread hit a nerve but I know entertaining your arrogance is certainly entertaining.

Also, I would say most law school applicants have at least a couple of years of WE. And, furthermore, many have just as much WE as you! Is your WE interesting? Probably. Unique? Not entirely.

Also, the difference in a couple LSAT points is actually sort of a big deal. Sometimes it's the difference between 2-4 percentile points. On top of that, I found at least a couple hours a day to study and I have a job that requires about 9-12 hours of my day. Find the time guy.

[strike]There you go again Jabroni Bryant..... beating a dead horse. If I do retake to push my score into the 172ish range, it's not going to be reflect any elevated ability, drive, ethics, hard-work, etc.... the only thing it will reflect is that I took 20-30 PT's. That's all it will reflect in my particular case. I'm simply saying (for this and other reasons) that 1 LSAT point isn't more important that a ton of relevant W/E. You know what does reflect an elevated set of ethics, drive, hard-work, problem-solving, analytical thinking applied through real-world scenarios, etc? A relevant body of W/E. I'm not talking about absolutes here... just relative considerations of lsat points to W/E to other criteria and so forth. I agree with most of you generally, but just veer away when you start talking about the importance of 1 or 2 points over other criteria[/strike].

You just don't get it.

Your vague one-liners are dull.

[Kobe_Teeth]

I don't if the thread hit a nerve but I know entertaining your arrogance is certainly entertaining.

Also, I would say most law school applicants have at least a couple of years of WE. And, furthermore, many have just as much WE as you! Is your WE interesting? Probably. Unique? Not entirely.

Also, the difference in a couple LSAT points is actually sort of a big deal. Sometimes it's the difference between 2-4 percentile points. On top of that, I found at least a couple hours a day to study and I have a job that requires about 9-12 hours of my day. Find the time guy.

[strike]There you go again Jabroni Bryant..... beating a dead horse. If I do retake to push my score into the 172ish range, it's not going to be reflect any elevated ability, drive, ethics, hard-work, etc.... the only thing it will reflect is that I took 20-30 PT's. That's all it will reflect in my particular case. I'm simply saying (for this and other reasons) that 1 LSAT point isn't more important that a ton of relevant W/E. You know what does reflect an elevated set of ethics, drive, hard-work, problem-solving, analytical thinking applied through real-world scenarios, etc? A relevant body of W/E. I'm not talking about absolutes here... just relative considerations of lsat points to W/E to other criteria and so forth. I agree with most of you generally, but just veer away when you start talking about the importance of 1 or 2 points over other criteria[/strike].

You just don't get it.

+1

Also OP fails to realize HE is the dead horse here.

[reasonabledoubt]

I don't if the thread hit a nerve but I know entertaining your arrogance is certainly entertaining.

Also, I would say most law school applicants have at least a couple of years of WE. And, furthermore, many have just as much WE as you! Is your WE interesting? Probably. Unique? Not entirely.

Also, the difference in a couple LSAT points is actually sort of a big deal. Sometimes it's the difference between 2-4 percentile points. On top of that, I found at least a couple hours a day to study and I have a job that requires about 9-12 hours of my day. Find the time guy.

[strike]There you go again Jabroni Bryant..... beating a dead horse. If I do retake to push my score into the 172ish range, it's not going to be reflect any elevated ability, drive, ethics, hard-work, etc.... the only thing it will reflect is that I took 20-30 PT's. That's all it will reflect in my particular case. I'm simply saying (for this and other reasons) that 1 LSAT point isn't more important that a ton of relevant W/E. You know what does reflect an elevated set of ethics, drive, hard-work, problem-solving, analytical thinking applied through real-world scenarios, etc? A relevant body of W/E. I'm not talking about absolutes here... just relative considerations of lsat points to W/E to other criteria and so forth. I agree with most of you generally, but just veer away when you start talking about the importance of 1 or 2 points over other criteria[/strike].

You just don't get it.

+1

Also OP fails to realize HE is the dead horse here.

We'll see Jabroni, we'll see. My unique perspective has worked for quite a while now.... just like in the market, it's the contrarians that tend to be ahead of the herd.

[exdubliner]

I could easily get out of undergrad now, pick up a good job, and work there for a few years before applying to law school.

LOL at this post. Really? Could you? I'd like to see you try.

If you think academic achievement translates easily into success in this job market then you've got another thing coming.

That's just one thing you would have learned if you weren't jumping straight into law school. And looking at prospects out of undergrad right now, I'd be scared too. I don't blame you for that.

But the people who did actually spend some time in the real world before law school will have an edge. OP, that's the true advantage; whereas W/E may not help much with the adcomms, it will help you significantly with your 1,2,3L summers, your OCI, and in your first firm out of school. You will eventually get out of it what you put in. That's the real payoff.

[reasonabledoubt]

I could easily get out of undergrad now, pick up a good job, and work there for a few years before applying to law school.

LOL at this post. Really? Could you? I'd like to see you try.

If you think academic achievement translates easily into success in this job market then you've got another thing coming.

That's just one thing you would have learned if you weren't jumping straight into law school. And looking at prospects out of undergrad right now, I'd be scared too. I don't blame you for that.

But the people who did actually spend some time in the real world before law school will have an edge. OP, that's the true advantage; whereas W/E may not help much with the adcomms, it will help you significantly with your 1,2,3L summers, your OCI, and in your first firm out of school. You will eventually get out of it what you put in. That's the real payoff.

Voice of reason above... well said. I feel that many who haven't actually worked though a challenging market have no idea what it's really like. They think if they obsess over the LSAT, spend three years in school, pass the bar, they'll have a great job waiting. What a joke.... my 7 years+ experience (where I worked my ass off to make the 120K+/year) has made me a realist, if anything. You LSAT trolls will soon see how the world really works.... give it, i'd say, 3+ years.

[D. H2Oman]

[strike]Voice of reason above... well said. I feel that many who haven't actually worked though a challenging market have no idea what it's really like. They think if they obsess over the LSAT, spend three years in school, pass the bar, they'll have a great job waiting. What a joke.... my 7 years+ experience[/strike](where I worked my ass off to make the 120K+/year) [strike]has made me a realist, if anything. You LSAT trolls will soon see how the world really works.... give it, i'd say, 3+ years[/strike].

Well, good choice going to law school.

[wired]

[strike]Voice of reason above... well said. I feel that many who haven't actually worked though a challenging market have no idea what it's really like. They think if they obsess over the LSAT, spend three years in school, pass the bar, they'll have a great job waiting. What a joke.... my 7 years+ experience[/strike](where I worked my ass off to make the 120K+/year) [strike]has made me a realist, if anything. You LSAT trolls will soon see how the world really works.... give it, i'd say, 3+ years[/strike].

Well, good choice going to law school.

+1. Why go to law school when you want to do essentially the same work on the legal side that you are doing on the business side? Furthermore, why don't you go only part-time?

[reasonabledoubt]

I don't if the thread hit a nerve but I know entertaining your arrogance is certainly entertaining.

Also, I would say most law school applicants have at least a couple of years of WE. And, furthermore, many have just as much WE as you! Is your WE interesting? Probably. Unique? Not entirely.

Also, the difference in a couple LSAT points is actually sort of a big deal. Sometimes it's the difference between 2-4 percentile points. On top of that, I found at least a couple hours a day to study and I have a job that requires about 9-12 hours of my day. Find the time guy.

[strike]There you go again Jabroni Bryant..... beating a dead horse. If I do retake to push my score into the 172ish range, it's not going to be reflect any elevated ability, drive, ethics, hard-work, etc.... the only thing it will reflect is that I took 20-30 PT's. That's all it will reflect in my particular case. I'm simply saying (for this and other reasons) that 1 LSAT point isn't more important that a ton of relevant W/E. You know what does reflect an elevated set of ethics, drive, hard-work, problem-solving, analytical thinking applied through real-world scenarios, etc? A relevant body of W/E. I'm not talking about absolutes here... just relative considerations of lsat points to W/E to other criteria and so forth. I agree with most of you generally, but just veer away when you start talking about the importance of 1 or 2 points over other criteria[/strike].

You just don't get it.

+1

Also OP fails to realize HE is the dead horse here.

You guys are seriously fucking morons. I have a close friend who has managed a group of 20+ high tech IT sales reps who was making around 160K prior to our little global crisis while also doing a part-time MBA at Northwestern. Guess how long it took him to secure just a 2-month trial-run/internship at an investment bank this summer in NYC? About 6 months of HEAVY networking... meetings, etc. GMAT doesn't fucking matter in the real world... neither does the LSAT. Grow up. It matters for admissions, yes, but I still claim (if schools want to produce good lawyers) they should weigh work experience into this equation more than it currently is.

[reasonabledoubt]

[strike]Voice of reason above... well said. I feel that many who haven't actually worked though a challenging market have no idea what it's really like. They think if they obsess over the LSAT, spend three years in school, pass the bar, they'll have a great job waiting. What a joke.... my 7 years+ experience[/strike](where I worked my ass off to make the 120K+/year) [strike]has made me a realist, if anything. You LSAT trolls will soon see how the world really works.... give it, i'd say, 3+ years[/strike].

Well, good choice going to law school.

You're too fucking stupid to respond to at this point. Learn how the world works.

[Rawlsian]

[strike]Voice of reason above... well said. I feel that many who haven't actually worked though a challenging market have no idea what it's really like. They think if they obsess over the LSAT, spend three years in school, pass the bar, they'll have a great job waiting. What a joke.... my 7 years+ experience[/strike](where I worked my ass off to make the 120K+/year) [strike]has made me a realist, if anything. You LSAT trolls will soon see how the world really works.... give it, i'd say, 3+ years[/strike].

Well, good choice going to law school.

You're too fucking stupid to respond to at this point. Learn how the world works.

You're embarrassing yourself with your anger.