Work Experience is proving to not matter this cycle. Forum

[scribelaw]

I have 5+ years high quality WE..I also have a good LSAT, but I do think my WE helps. One example is, I got a full ride offer at Minnesota. If you look at LSN graphs, a lot of candidates with equal or better numbers got lesser scholarships this cycle. I think my WE made the difference.

Similarly, I'm hoping my WE will give me a shot at Harvard and get me through the door with perhaps some scholly consideration at CCN.

I don't expect my WE to work miracles, but I do think there's a tangible benefit.

[wadeny]

When it comes down to it, WE is a soft - nothing more and nothing less. Like any soft, because it can vary so much from applicant to applicant, it's difficult to use it as a standard measure to compare applicants with different #s. The GPA and LSAT (to a much greater extent) are standardized among all applicants, so they are the most surefire way (whether you like it or not) for adcoms to compare the applicants' relative strengths. While some schools might vary in the degree to which they weigh WE in their decisions (i.e. NU), GPA and LSAT trump everything else in this process.

I mean, think about it. Adcoms only have a few minutes to determine which applicants are the "most qualified," and relying on a standard set of #s is the easiest way for them to do this. WE might be a tiebreaker in some cases, but adcoms have to get through thousands of apps in the space of a few months. Obviously, it would be more ideal for WE and other softs to play a larger role here, but doing this is not the fastest and (probably) accurate way to handle the process.

[D. H2Oman]

[strike]Does anyone have evidence denying this claim? The more my cycle unfolds, the more I'm realizing it's predominantly LSAT based this cycle. Applications are up, schools are looking for above median numbers and holistic considerations are a fanciful myth. Who cares if you've proven that you'd be a tremendous addition to the legal profession, we need a few points over our median LSAT, Mr. professional.

It's a bit troubling to think my 7+ years of quantifiable acheivement in the real world is trumped by a fresh-out-of-undergrad applicant with an LSAT a few points higher (who didn't have to juggle working full time w/preparing) but that is exactly what the data is starting to prove.

Oh well - my presence on TLS might be extended until the fall as I may have to retake in June or Oct. Time to really prepare this time.

Speaking of which.... any advantage to taking June over Oct LSAT in terms of getting a possible advantage being the first app in the door w/score next cycle?[/strike]

Quit crying.

[charlesjd]

I'm pretty sure the entire admissions process has not changed in a year. LSAT>GPA>PS>RESUME>LOR

It comes down to you personally and how it fits into your application.

Read the interviews by the deans of schools.

[clevinger33]

[strike]Does anyone have evidence denying this claim? The more my cycle unfolds, the more I'm realizing it's predominantly LSAT based this cycle. Applications are up, schools are looking for above median numbers and holistic considerations are a fanciful myth. Who cares if you've proven that you'd be a tremendous addition to the legal profession, we need a few points over our median LSAT, Mr. professional.

It's a bit troubling to think my 7+ years of quantifiable acheivement in the real world is trumped by a fresh-out-of-undergrad applicant with an LSAT a few points higher (who didn't have to juggle working full time w/preparing) but that is exactly what the data is starting to prove.

Oh well - my presence on TLS might be extended until the fall as I may have to retake in June or Oct. Time to really prepare this time.

Speaking of which.... any advantage to taking June over Oct LSAT in terms of getting a possible advantage being the first app in the door w/score next cycle?[/strike]

Quit crying.

I agree with this statement.

[Kobe_Teeth]

[strike]Does anyone have evidence denying this claim? The more my cycle unfolds, the more I'm realizing it's predominantly LSAT based this cycle. Applications are up, schools are looking for above median numbers and holistic considerations are a fanciful myth. Who cares if you've proven that you'd be a tremendous addition to the legal profession, we need a few points over our median LSAT, Mr. professional.

It's a bit troubling to think my 7+ years of quantifiable acheivement in the real world is trumped by a fresh-out-of-undergrad applicant with an LSAT a few points higher (who didn't have to juggle working full time w/preparing) but that is exactly what the data is starting to prove.

Oh well - my presence on TLS might be extended until the fall as I may have to retake in June or Oct. Time to really prepare this time.

Speaking of which.... any advantage to taking June over Oct LSAT in terms of getting a possible advantage being the first app in the door w/score next cycle?[/strike]

Quit crying.

Haha. Two things:

1. If OP finds this so troubling maybe he shouldn't go to LS.

2. Anyone else notice OP hasn't come back to this thread and we're now on page 3?

[TWoodWil]

It's called the Law School Admissions Test for a reason.

The OP said:

It's a bit troubling to think my 7+ years of quantifiable acheivement in the real world is trumped by a fresh-out-of-undergrad applicant with an LSAT a few points higher (who didn't have to juggle working full time w/preparing) but that is exactly what the data is starting to prove.

Scoring a few points higher on an examination that by design and purpose is used for admissions purposes for ABA law schools should trump other factors. While the statistical correlation between LSAT scores and 1L grades is far from perfect, it is the best predictive tool that the schools have at their disposal. There's no quantifiable way to correlate "achievement" in the real world (at least as far as the admissions process is concerned).

While someone may have seven years of work experience, that also means that they happen to be seven years older. The experience of working for a number of years, and being older than other students, may help enrich and broaden the student community and the school. However, that does not mean the lower LSAT-higher WE candidate will be a better student, or potential future lawyer, than the higher LSAT-lower/no WE person.

As for the claim that "holistic considerations are a fanciful myth" - I will argue that the problem is what applicants think the holistic process should be and what it really is. Everyone thinks they are extraordinary, unique, and have the makings to be among the leading lawyers of their generation. Holistic evaluations by AdComs really only happen when the applicant does not have the raw statistical indicators that would otherwise make them an admitted candidate. There are a finite number of positions available in an incoming class, and even fewer available to those with lower LSAT scores. So I would argue that the holistic process, which is based on qualitative and subject measures, is much more competitive than the normal numbers-only process.

Is 7 years of working better than a masters degree? How about a first-generation college grad who grew up in the inner city? Military veteran? Fresh from undergrad student who interned at a DA's office for three summers in college?

So the OP, or anyone reading this, may believe their WE and other softs make them a better applicant than someone with an LSAT a few points higher; but the inescapable point is that on the one thing in the universe purposefully designed to try to statistically predict law school performance you underperformed. Now, once in law school one can always out- or under-perform their LSAT but you cannot go around blaming schools for rejecting you based on the test all applicants must take and all schools must use.

[Veyron]

-

[reasonabledoubt]

[strike]Does anyone have evidence denying this claim? The more my cycle unfolds, the more I'm realizing it's predominantly LSAT based this cycle. Applications are up, schools are looking for above median numbers and holistic considerations are a fanciful myth. Who cares if you've proven that you'd be a tremendous addition to the legal profession, we need a few points over our median LSAT, Mr. professional.

It's a bit troubling to think my 7+ years of quantifiable acheivement in the real world is trumped by a fresh-out-of-undergrad applicant with an LSAT a few points higher (who didn't have to juggle working full time w/preparing) but that is exactly what the data is starting to prove.

Oh well - my presence on TLS might be extended until the fall as I may have to retake in June or Oct. Time to really prepare this time.

Speaking of which.... any advantage to taking June over Oct LSAT in terms of getting a possible advantage being the first app in the door w/score next cycle?[/strike]

Quit crying.

Haha. Two things:

1. If OP finds this so troubling maybe he shouldn't go to LS.

2. Anyone else notice OP hasn't come back to this thread and we're now on page 3?

Oh, I've been reading the responses. Anonymity is a bit of a barrier here because I'm not able to fully explain the type and level of experience i'm referring to but I assure it's both extremely relevant to law and illustrative of several capacities which lend themselves perfectly to the same. Anyways, I understand the defense of LSAT over W/E, but not to the degree (i.e. 1 point > extensive W/E) expressed in some of these comments.

[Miracle]

It's called the Law School Admissions Test for a reason.

The OP said:

It's a bit troubling to think my 7+ years of quantifiable acheivement in the real world is trumped by a fresh-out-of-undergrad applicant with an LSAT a few points higher (who didn't have to juggle working full time w/preparing) but that is exactly what the data is starting to prove.

Scoring a few points higher on an examination that by design and purpose is used for admissions purposes for ABA law schools should trump other factors. While the statistical correlation between LSAT scores and 1L grades is far from perfect, it is the best predictive tool that the schools have at their disposal. There's no quantifiable way to correlate "achievement" in the real world (at least as far as the admissions process is concerned).

While someone may have seven years of work experience, that also means that they happen to be seven years older. The experience of working for a number of years, and being older than other students, may help enrich and broaden the student community and the school. However, that does not mean the lower LSAT-higher WE candidate will be a better student, or potential future lawyer, than the higher LSAT-lower/no WE person.

As for the claim that "holistic considerations are a fanciful myth" - I will argue that the problem is what applicants think the holistic process should be and what it really is. Everyone thinks they are extraordinary, unique, and have the makings to be among the leading lawyers of their generation. Holistic evaluations by AdComs really only happen when the applicant does not have the raw statistical indicators that would otherwise make them an admitted candidate. There are a finite number of positions available in an incoming class, and even fewer available to those with lower LSAT scores. So I would argue that the holistic process, which is based on qualitative and subject measures, is much more competitive than the normal numbers-only process.

Is 7 years of working better than a masters degree? How about a first-generation college grad who grew up in the inner city? Military veteran? Fresh from undergrad student who interned at a DA's office for three summers in college?

So the OP, or anyone reading this, may believe their WE and other softs make them a better applicant than someone with an LSAT a few points higher; but the inescapable point is that on the one thing in the universe purposefully designed to try to statistically predict law school performance you underperformed. Now, once in law school one can always out- or under-perform their LSAT but you cannot go around blaming schools for rejecting you based on the test all applicants must take and all schools must use.

+1

Well said! I absolutely agree.

[reasonabledoubt]

It's called the Law School Admissions Test for a reason.

The OP said:

It's a bit troubling to think my 7+ years of quantifiable acheivement in the real world is trumped by a fresh-out-of-undergrad applicant with an LSAT a few points higher (who didn't have to juggle working full time w/preparing) but that is exactly what the data is starting to prove.

Scoring a few points higher on an examination that by design and purpose is used for admissions purposes for ABA law schools should trump other factors. While the statistical correlation between LSAT scores and 1L grades is far from perfect, it is the best predictive tool that the schools have at their disposal. There's no quantifiable way to correlate "achievement" in the real world (at least as far as the admissions process is concerned).

While someone may have seven years of work experience, that also means that they happen to be seven years older. The experience of working for a number of years, and being older than other students, may help enrich and broaden the student community and the school. However, that does not mean the lower LSAT-higher WE candidate will be a better student, or potential future lawyer, than the higher LSAT-lower/no WE person.

As for the claim that "holistic considerations are a fanciful myth" - I will argue that the problem is what applicants think the holistic process should be and what it really is. Everyone thinks they are extraordinary, unique, and have the makings to be among the leading lawyers of their generation. Holistic evaluations by AdComs really only happen when the applicant does not have the raw statistical indicators that would otherwise make them an admitted candidate. There are a finite number of positions available in an incoming class, and even fewer available to those with lower LSAT scores. So I would argue that the holistic process, which is based on qualitative and subject measures, is much more competitive than the normal numbers-only process.

Is 7 years of working better than a masters degree? How about a first-generation college grad who grew up in the inner city? Military veteran? Fresh from undergrad student who interned at a DA's office for three summers in college?

So the OP, or anyone reading this, may believe their WE and other softs make them a better applicant than someone with an LSAT a few points higher; but the inescapable point is that on the one thing in the universe purposefully designed to try to statistically predict law school performance you underperformed. Now, once in law school one can always out- or under-perform their LSAT but you cannot go around blaming schools for rejecting you based on the test all applicants must take and all schools must use.

+1

Well said! I absolutely agree.

Yeah, it's well said but relies on assumptions which don't apply for the OP, me. This may be a thread fail on my part because I can't reveal too many details, otherwise it would be somewhat easy to figure out who I am. I could say this: My experience was remarkably close to the actual practice of law and the approach I took as well as quantifiable achievment I experiened within it is absolutely, in my opinion, an indicator of the caliber of attorney I will become. Sorry to be vague... the comments were all good though. Thanks. We'll see what happens within the next few months.

[Kobe_Teeth]

I assume you put this in your personal statement?

[reasonabledoubt]

I assume you put this in your personal statement?

Let me tell you a little about how I operate, Kobe tooth. Scroll up and re-read your statement about the OP, me. Yeah, real funny. Not. Fuck yourself. You see, even in la-la-forum-land, you cross me, you don't get an answers to questions anymore. You're dead to me Jabroni, I mean Kobe.

[Kobe_Teeth]

You entertain me.

[jmaan]

I assume you put this in your personal statement?

Let me tell you a little about how I operate, Kobe tooth. Scroll up and re-read your statement about the OP, me. Yeah, real funny. Not. Fuck yourself. You see, even in la-la-forum-land, you cross me, you don't get an answers to questions anymore. You're dead to me Jabroni, I mean Kobe.

wtf

[roguey]

It seems to me as though work experience does play somewhat of a factor at least at some schools. I know at least one of the schools that accepted me has turned down several other candidates with my same scores. But I taught in public schools for four years and I have now been a paralegal for a year. While my stats aren't the best (164/3.66 at a 3rd tier), I can see how they at least impacted the decision at one school. I don't know what exactly your 7 years of experience include, but I think it really depends on where your LORs come from, how strong and meaningful they are, and how much information is reflected in your overall application package. For example, nowhere in my personal statement did I mention teaching. Why? Because two of my LORs came from my principals, and I knew what they wrote about. My current employer (who is a lawyer) wrote about the financial hardships I faced growing up with a single mother, and the way that and my abusive marriage along with a strong work ethic and problem-solving skills have given me the ability to truly empathize with our clients (he practices immigration) and navigate the legal system. My 4th LOR was from a professor who talked about the innovative study abroad program I completed in Spain and the prestige that added to my university. I figured "ok, that stuff is already accurately reflected in my file, so I need to emphasize something else that is lacking." Most importantly, I think, my personal statement highlighted three times where I said, "I want to go to law school" starting when I was about 10 years old. I also talked about my love of figuring things out and helping people with it. In no way did I summarize my resume, which speaks for itself. Nor did I detail the immense amount of community service activities listed on it (all that was described in the resume). I think the best way to get the most out of years of experience in any field is to have others describe it for you while you briefly mention it in your resume and personal statement. It is important that they get a complete picture of you as a person and as a student. Also, it is important that somewhere they get a sense of why you are now wanting to go to law school instead of continuing your career.

[FunkyJD]

It seems to me as though work experience does play somewhat of a factor at least at some schools. I know at least one of the schools that accepted me has turned down several other candidates with my same scores. But I taught in public schools for four years and I have now been a paralegal for a year. While my stats aren't the best (164/3.66 at a 3rd tier), I can see how they at least impacted the decision at one school. I don't know what exactly your 7 years of experience include, but I think it really depends on where your LORs come from, how strong and meaningful they are, and how much information is reflected in your overall application package. For example, nowhere in my personal statement did I mention teaching. Why? Because two of my LORs came from my principals, and I knew what they wrote about. My current employer (who is a lawyer) wrote about the financial hardships I faced growing up with a single mother, and the way that and my abusive marriage along with a strong work ethic and problem-solving skills have given me the ability to truly empathize with our clients (he practices immigration) and navigate the legal system. My 4th LOR was from a professor who talked about the innovative study abroad program I completed in Spain and the prestige that added to my university. I figured "ok, that stuff is already accurately reflected in my file, so I need to emphasize something else that is lacking." Most importantly, I think, my personal statement highlighted three times where I said, "I want to go to law school" starting when I was about 10 years old. I also talked about my love of figuring things out and helping people with it. In no way did I summarize my resume, which speaks for itself. Nor did I detail the immense amount of community service activities listed on it (all that was described in the resume). I think the best way to get the most out of years of experience in any field is to have others describe it for you while you briefly mention it in your resume and personal statement. It is important that they get a complete picture of you as a person and as a student. Also, it is important that somewhere they get a sense of why you are now wanting to go to law school instead of continuing your career.

This x20. This is the kind of person who I'd like to have as a classmate in law school.

[LessThanLiz]

I understand your frustration however in LSAT we're all equal, and that's why I believe it should carry the weight that it does.

Except that if you, say, work such-and-such hours a week while going to school full time you're going to have way less time to devote to the LSAT. Same with funds; if you have the money (or your parents do) to pay for prep, classes, etc etc you're in a better position than others who don't have those funds when it comes to the LSAT. It's an important test, no doubt, and it does a fairly good job of equalizing things, but I'd hardly say it's truly qualifies as equal. Folks who can "make studying their full time job" are in a fortunate position, frankly.

My work experience doesn't really shout anything about the legal profession. I just want it taken into consideration that I worked my butt off in school and work. Midnight Student Life meetings would have been swell, but gotta pay dem billz.

[roguey]

It seems to me as though work experience does play somewhat of a factor at least at some schools. I know at least one of the schools that accepted me has turned down several other candidates with my same scores. But I taught in public schools for four years and I have now been a paralegal for a year. While my stats aren't the best (164/3.66 at a 3rd tier), I can see how they at least impacted the decision at one school. I don't know what exactly your 7 years of experience include, but I think it really depends on where your LORs come from, how strong and meaningful they are, and how much information is reflected in your overall application package. For example, nowhere in my personal statement did I mention teaching. Why? Because two of my LORs came from my principals, and I knew what they wrote about. My current employer (who is a lawyer) wrote about the financial hardships I faced growing up with a single mother, and the way that and my abusive marriage along with a strong work ethic and problem-solving skills have given me the ability to truly empathize with our clients (he practices immigration) and navigate the legal system. My 4th LOR was from a professor who talked about the innovative study abroad program I completed in Spain and the prestige that added to my university. I figured "ok, that stuff is already accurately reflected in my file, so I need to emphasize something else that is lacking." Most importantly, I think, my personal statement highlighted three times where I said, "I want to go to law school" starting when I was about 10 years old. I also talked about my love of figuring things out and helping people with it. In no way did I summarize my resume, which speaks for itself. Nor did I detail the immense amount of community service activities listed on it (all that was described in the resume). I think the best way to get the most out of years of experience in any field is to have others describe it for you while you briefly mention it in your resume and personal statement. It is important that they get a complete picture of you as a person and as a student. Also, it is important that somewhere they get a sense of why you are now wanting to go to law school instead of continuing your career.

This x20. This is the kind of person who I'd like to have as a classmate in law school.

Thank you! I hope the adcoms all think the same thing!!!

[MC Southstar]

Probably helped in my case.

[monkeygirl]

My $0.02:

For non-traditional students, it's always going to be a bit of crap shoot. There will be some people who read our apps who love the idea of who we are and where we have been, but there will be others who dislike us for precisely those same factors.

I have noticed this with my cycle. I mean, aside from mystical long shots like Harvard and Yale (whom I fully expected to reject me: they did not disappoint), schools have defied any expectations I might have had. For example, I was flat-out rejected by Northwestern but accepted by NYU and Chicago. What can that possibly mean? I have no idea, or at least none that is solid enough to be able to defend here, but I do know that I am very grateful to have applied to almost 20 schools.

To the OP: I hope that you get into a school that is right for you, but please try not to take the denials too personally. At the end of the day, this is an extremely fickle process for applicants like us.

I wish you the best.

[missvik218]

For myself personally I think it has helped my cycle. I don't have great numbers (one much better than the other) but have managed to get into a few schools where I was borderline at best. I guess my recs (two of three came from my WE) and essays could have been outstanding ... but if anything it must be a combination of all of my softs coming together and making schools for whatever reason decide to take a chance with my crappy GPA. It's not a deciding factor, but I definitely believe it can help.

[englawyer]

My $0.02:

For non-traditional students, it's always going to be a bit of crap shoot. There will be some people who read our apps who love the idea of who we are and where we have been, but there will be others who dislike us for precisely those same factors.

I have noticed this with my cycle. I mean, aside from mystical long shots like Harvard and Yale (whom I fully expected to reject me: they did not disappoint), schools have defied any expectations I might have had. For example, I was flat-out rejected by Northwestern but accepted by NYU and Chicago. What can that possibly mean? I have no idea, or at least none that is solid enough to be able to defend here, but I do know that I am very grateful to have applied to almost 20 schools.

To the OP: I hope that you get into a school that is right for you, but please try not to take the denials too personally. At the end of the day, this is an extremely fickle process for applicants like us.

I wish you the best.

wow, you have had a great cycle! congrats!!

[monkeygirl]

My $0.02:

For non-traditional students, it's always going to be a bit of crap shoot. There will be some people who read our apps who love the idea of who we are and where we have been, but there will be others who dislike us for precisely those same factors.

I have noticed this with my cycle. I mean, aside from mystical long shots like Harvard and Yale (whom I fully expected to reject me: they did not disappoint), schools have defied any expectations I might have had. For example, I was flat-out rejected by Northwestern but accepted by NYU and Chicago. What can that possibly mean? I have no idea, or at least none that is solid enough to be able to defend here, but I do know that I am very grateful to have applied to almost 20 schools.

To the OP: I hope that you get into a school that is right for you, but please try not to take the denials too personally. At the end of the day, this is an extremely fickle process for applicants like us.

I wish you the best.

wow, you have had a great cycle! congrats!!

Thanks! I am beyond thrilled, to say the least. Plus, it means that there's hope for those of us who do not fit "inside the box."

[pa.wink]

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.