3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Not sure where your numbers will get you? Dying to know where you stand? Come have your palms read by your fellow posters!
CentrumToLawSchool

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:03 am

3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby CentrumToLawSchool » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:34 am

I had a mentor get cranky on me tonight and told me it doesn't matter how great I am doing or that I score high on the LSAT -- I'm 3.56 and 172 -- that I am too old and I'm stupid to want to go to law school now because my life is almost over. I was amused. She said I won't get hired anywhere. I am a working paralegal of 13 years already. But I'm going to open a practice with a couple young attorneys I know.

Is it true that law school is there to make me fail and that no one will want to invest in an "old lady." Wow. Guess she had a bad day.

What does everyone think?

Thanks

V

User avatar
trebekismyhero

Silver
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 5:26 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby trebekismyhero » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:28 am

I do think that most law firms would be age-ist and not hire you. With that said, a 172 is a great score. If you can do this without taking on any debt or impacting your retirement savings, then it might be worthwhile since you already have experience as a paralegal you won't have as steep of a learning curve in terms of opening up your own shop. But it really depends on what you want. If you go to school and graduate at 58 and want to retire at 65, then this doesn't seem worth it. Just keep working as a paralegal and save for retirement.

User avatar
totesTheGoat

Moderator
Posts: 941
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:32 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby totesTheGoat » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:19 pm

I think the crankiness would make a bunch more sense if you were gunning for biglaw or had no idea about what you were getting into. Considering that you've been in the industry and that you have a business plan, it sounds like law school is a reasonable choice for you. Of course, that assumes that you have a plan for doing it on the cheap.

The Lsat Airbender

Bronze
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby The Lsat Airbender » Tue Aug 13, 2019 2:46 pm

You seem like the perfect fit for a WashU full ride. Agree that at your age you shouldn't spend a penny on tuition unless you're way ahead of your retirement savings needs.

CentrumToLawSchool

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:03 am

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby CentrumToLawSchool » Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:47 am

Thank you for the replies folks, but I'm living life in reverse. I lived a life of much leisure and doing what i wanted to do. The world was my oyster and I had no ambition. It took me unto age 50 to finally grow up and know what I want, need and should do.

There is no retirement for me now. I am just getting started.

I am blessed to have a husband who supports me and I have the luxury of being able to make these choices as such.

V

The Lsat Airbender

Bronze
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby The Lsat Airbender » Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:04 pm

If you're lucky enough to be able to just bankroll law school with discretionary income, more power to you.

We're bringing up finances because that's the most obvious risk of (any career change but especially something railroaded like) starting law school when most people are getting ready for retirement. Things can be hard to predict: you might have 25 working years ahead of you yet, or you might run into health problems, and ditto for your husband.


If your question is literally just whether 58-year-olds can attend law school, then yeah, of course. Your LSAT implies that you're still quick enough to hang in there with your law-school classmates.

User avatar
LSATWiz.com

Partner
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:37 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby LSATWiz.com » Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:43 pm

Yeah, there was recently a poster with similar circumstances who matriculated with a 139. With a 172, it's a totally different ballgame. You will have employment options.

People normally have an expectation of what the person filling a role will look like, but it's not necessarily set in stone. If it was, all lawyers would still be white males. Even before the Civil Rights Act, some people hired people who didn't fit the mold.

The difficult thing with big law for you is that hiring decisions are not made by one person so if we say there's a 25% chance someone won't discriminate against you, you may get past Stage 1, but will need 7 or 8 people to be similarly open-minded at Stage 2. That's the real reason it's virtually impossible. The statistical odds nobody will discriminate against you are unrealistically high.

But at places where you just need one yes, you are likely to get a job. I think it may make sense to keep debt low, because you are going with somewhat greater risk than most.

sarahlgee

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby sarahlgee » Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:53 pm

With all due respect to all posters, the bigotry implied in some of these responses is possibly equaled only by the shortsightedness of the notion of what people expect in a lawyer. Frankly, someone older may command more respect due to the presumption of wisdom and experience, while someone younger may not inspire as much confidence due to the presumption of exactly the opposite.

As far as employability is concerned, today’s market is defined by mid-career changes and unusual circumstances, in large part brought about by the ‘08 financial collapse. That event profoundly changed this country and the way we work—and is one of the reasons why both medical and law schools have seen a considerable uptick in the number of those in their 50s in entering classes.

Bottom line: you absolutely should pursue law school. Your experience and intelligence would be a fantastic addition to any 1L class. I’m sure you’ll have a long and exciting career.

The Lsat Airbender

Bronze
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2019 7:34 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby The Lsat Airbender » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:31 pm

sarahlgee wrote:With all due respect to all posters, the bigotry implied in some of these responses is possibly equaled only by the shortsightedness of the notion of what people expect in a lawyer. Frankly, someone older may command more respect due to the presumption of wisdom and experience, while someone younger may not inspire as much confidence due to the presumption of exactly the opposite.

As far as employability is concerned, today’s market is defined by mid-career changes and unusual circumstances, in large part brought about by the ‘08 financial collapse. That event profoundly changed this country and the way we work—and is one of the reasons why both medical and law schools have seen a considerable uptick in the number of those in their 50s in entering classes.

Bottom line: you absolutely should pursue law school. Your experience and intelligence would be a fantastic addition to any 1L class. I’m sure you’ll have a long and exciting career.


Lol? Everyone seems pretty supportive of OP's decision with the obvious caveat that one shouldn't plow $300k into risky, illiquid investments that late in life. Nowadays it's not even a great financial choice for 22-year-olds, who have much longer to realize the return.

cavalier1138

Platinum
Posts: 6333
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby cavalier1138 » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:32 pm

sarahlgee wrote:With all due respect to all posters, the bigotry implied in some of these responses is possibly equaled only by the shortsightedness of the notion of what people expect in a lawyer. Frankly, someone older may command more respect due to the presumption of wisdom and experience, while someone younger may not inspire as much confidence due to the presumption of exactly the opposite.

As far as employability is concerned, today’s market is defined by mid-career changes and unusual circumstances, in large part brought about by the ‘08 financial collapse. That event profoundly changed this country and the way we work—and is one of the reasons why both medical and law schools have seen a considerable uptick in the number of those in their 50s in entering classes.

Bottom line: you absolutely should pursue law school. Your experience and intelligence would be a fantastic addition to any 1L class. I’m sure you’ll have a long and exciting career.


With all due respect to someone who sounds like they haven't attended law school--much less experienced legal hiring--reality bites. No one here said that the OP shouldn't practice law because of her age. They simply pointed out (correctly) that age bias is real and that law school can put you in a financially ruinous amount of debt.

The OP apparently has plenty of disposable assets and plans on starting her own firm. So more power to her. But warning her about the risks before knowing that she won't take on any debt wasn't "bigotry."

nixy

Gold
Posts: 1523
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby nixy » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:36 pm

I think the responses have been very clear that the concerns about ageism are specific to firms, particularly biglaw firms, which aren’t looking for wisdom and experience in first-year associates. They’re looking for a certain level of intelligence and the ability to work long hours working for other people on other people’s cases, at other people’s beck and call. I’m not saying older attorneys can’t do that, but that biglaw firms may not think they want to.

No one has questioned the OP’s potential ability as a lawyer or said that s/he shouldn’t follow this path. They’ve simply pointed out from knowledge of biglaw hiring and hierarchies that the OP will have an uphill climb getting hired in such a firm, but since that’s not the OP’s goal, law school sounds reasonable.

(Not all experienced students’ experiences actually add to a 1L class, although I’m sure the OP will be fine.)

User avatar
totesTheGoat

Moderator
Posts: 941
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:32 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby totesTheGoat » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:50 pm

sarahlgee wrote:With all due respect to all posters, the bigotry implied in some of these responses is possibly equaled only by the shortsightedness of the notion of what people expect in a lawyer.


yawn. Thank you for signalling how virtuous of a person you are. Now can we get back to the conversation at hand?

User avatar
LSATWiz.com

Partner
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:37 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby LSATWiz.com » Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:02 pm

sarahlgee wrote:With all due respect to all posters, the bigotry implied in some of these responses is possibly equaled only by the shortsightedness of the notion of what people expect in a lawyer. Frankly, someone older may command more respect due to the presumption of wisdom and experience, while someone younger may not inspire as much confidence due to the presumption of exactly the opposite.

As far as employability is concerned, today’s market is defined by mid-career changes and unusual circumstances, in large part brought about by the ‘08 financial collapse. That event profoundly changed this country and the way we work—and is one of the reasons why both medical and law schools have seen a considerable uptick in the number of those in their 50s in entering classes.

Bottom line: you absolutely should pursue law school. Your experience and intelligence would be a fantastic addition to any 1L class. I’m sure you’ll have a long and exciting career.

I think you're taking posts from practicing attorneys about unfortunate practices in the legal world to mean that they support those practices. They don't. The legal world has historically been the slowest field to modernize. I'd go so far as to say the reason why law firms have diversity initiatives is because major clients don't want to be associated with a firm who only has white lawyers. It's bad PR and there's not enough to distinguish one firm from another to justify any bad PR. There are likely many firms who would love to go back to the way things were in the '50s if it wouldn't hurt them financially.

Because it doesn't harm a firm's pocketbook to not have any associates pushing 60 (assuming they can make up a non-age related reason to say "no"), they are likely to encounter widespread discrimination and should plan a way to succeed notwithstanding such discrimination. The way the world should be is not always the way the world is, and we can point that out all day or we can give constructive advice on how to succeed in an imperfect society.

User avatar
LSATWiz.com

Partner
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:37 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby LSATWiz.com » Wed Aug 14, 2019 4:39 pm

I'd just also add that the idea of commanding more respect because of experience and wisdom is simply not true. Nobody cares about your experience at the entry-level stage. At that level, employers want moldable clay and take what they consider to be best clay. It doesn't matter how great of a sculpture the clay previously made. They are only interested in the clay.

Anyone that got a 172 is likely very intelligent, and can probably turn in an enviable career for themselves even if they don't start practicing until they are 60, but they are going to be disadvantaged coming out and have less time to make the investment worthwhile as they don't have as many working years. I'd say health and fitness should be a greater priority than for the average student to maximize the payout of the investment.

sarahlgee

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby sarahlgee » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:59 am

cavalier1138 wrote:
sarahlgee wrote:With all due respect to all posters, the bigotry implied in some of these responses is possibly equaled only by the shortsightedness of the notion of what people expect in a lawyer. Frankly, someone older may command more respect due to the presumption of wisdom and experience, while someone younger may not inspire as much confidence due to the presumption of exactly the opposite.

As far as employability is concerned, today’s market is defined by mid-career changes and unusual circumstances, in large part brought about by the ‘08 financial collapse. That event profoundly changed this country and the way we work—and is one of the reasons why both medical and law schools have seen a considerable uptick in the number of those in their 50s in entering classes.

Bottom line: you absolutely should pursue law school. Your experience and intelligence would be a fantastic addition to any 1L class. I’m sure you’ll have a long and exciting career.


With all due respect to someone who sounds like they haven't attended law school--much less experienced legal hiring--reality bites. No one here said that the OP shouldn't practice law because of her age. They simply pointed out (correctly) that age bias is real and that law school can put you in a financially ruinous amount of debt.

The OP apparently has plenty of disposable assets and plans on starting her own firm. So more power to her. But warning her about the risks before knowing that she won't take on any debt wasn't "bigotry."


I’m well aware of the legal employment situation and the financial risks.

I did not say posters here were telling her not to go to law school because of her age, obviously from what I’ve written.

I did not mention nor does my response have anything to do with op’s wanting to start her own firm.

I found the discussion about someone in their 50s needing to get a free ride because they could end up infirm or passed over due to age to be a bit much, especially given the fact that she never mentioned wanting a job. The OP is in her 50s, not 80s.

It’s certainly true that she should be warned of age bias.

Btw, as a matter of course, you should be a little more aware of the fact that you have absolutely no idea who you’re talking to on the internet. Whatever you may think in your private thoughts, politeness is always a good default.

That doesn’t mean you can’t have a vigorous chat, though.

sarahlgee

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby sarahlgee » Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:08 am

LSATWiz.com wrote:
sarahlgee wrote:With all due respect to all posters, the bigotry implied in some of these responses is possibly equaled only by the shortsightedness of the notion of what people expect in a lawyer. Frankly, someone older may command more respect due to the presumption of wisdom and experience, while someone younger may not inspire as much confidence due to the presumption of exactly the opposite.

As far as employability is concerned, today’s market is defined by mid-career changes and unusual circumstances, in large part brought about by the ‘08 financial collapse. That event profoundly changed this country and the way we work—and is one of the reasons why both medical and law schools have seen a considerable uptick in the number of those in their 50s in entering classes.

Bottom line: you absolutely should pursue law school. Your experience and intelligence would be a fantastic addition to any 1L class. I’m sure you’ll have a long and exciting career.

I think you're taking posts from practicing attorneys about unfortunate practices in the legal world to mean that they support those practices. They don't. The legal world has historically been the slowest field to modernize. I'd go so far as to say the reason why law firms have diversity initiatives is because major clients don't want to be associated with a firm who only has white lawyers. It's bad PR and there's not enough to distinguish one firm from another to justify any bad PR. There are likely many firms who would love to go back to the way things were in the '50s if it wouldn't hurt them financially.

Because it doesn't harm a firm's pocketbook to not have any associates pushing 60 (assuming they can make up a non-age related reason to say "no"), they are likely to encounter widespread discrimination and should plan a way to succeed notwithstanding such discrimination. The way the world should be is not always the way the world is, and we can point that out all day or we can give constructive advice on how to succeed in an imperfect society.


Great point, but I’m not sure who supports those unfortunate practices but practicing lawyers who warn against the practices of lawyers in practice.

CentrumToLawSchool

New
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:03 am

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby CentrumToLawSchool » Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:08 am

Everyone of you who responded, I thank you from my heart. Means alot to me. I can say that at this stage in my life with work experience and the level of paralegal and areas -- and who I worked for even -- joined with my specilized areas I have gained a solid reputation for, coming out of law school. passing the bar and being able to hit the floor running, has me not even thinking about debt or jobs as the top thing to think about. not concern me. Most of you are so young that you won't understand my attitude until you have lived the years I have and worked where and gained the skills I have to date before you can get it. But, I've been giving thought to the consideration of good old JFK law school in Pleasant Hill, for reasonable and logical avenue for my "diverse" situation. It at least deserves to be put on the list.

But I am taking serious pause to think about what my cranky mentor said to me there are some areas that i should revisit. No matter what, I am going to go for it, and go for it in a big way. But now, the "big way" is more reasonable and tempered with reality (which I already knew about), that my ability to check out of my life at my age and go for a real, full-blown law school experience at a top tier school that will allows me to go "away to college" and leav my home and husband of 26 years is a selfish and inappropriate move in some people's eyes. Even though, this is a separation we need to have to give us time to chill and have some time alone to regroup, it is really irresponsible and unfair to hubby. I may sound like a heartless bitch, but we have no kids, and he is not exactly the type of spouse that it is criminal to leave for years at a time to engross onself in studies like like.......etc. ....but, the opportunity is there, the schools are there, there chance to be alone and breathe and not have him n the same house distracting me constantly making me lock myself in my study room, holding it together to be decent and kind to him, etc.. will never work if i'm going to commit to law school. It has been a struggle to not stab him in the face every day with his moronic and repeatedly interruptions to speak to me when I ask him every day if you see me please don't talk to me so I don't look focus stance, and keep myself in a pleasant and sweet person he deserves ( most of the time).

I'm getting very tired and I'm rambling so to the point I wanted to make. In this stage of my life, I don't concern myself about the debt part -- you'll get it someday. The gift of being 55 is that my priorities of worry are not the same as you guys in your 20s and even 30s. Factor in no kids, being a retired "Thrillseeker," was a legend not only in my mind but the great tribe I knew in the 80s -- that's right, the 80s, you guys missed everything -- and not giving a shit about anything except this calling that came to me after my parents died and I lost all of my family, leaving me an orphan -- it kind of changes things.

I look forward to when you can think like I do which is "I have plans, I know what I am going to do, etc. and I am not scared, just exhausted. I never went to college in my life because my parents didn't teach me anything but how to find a rich man and money was everything. Another time and another forum and 30 plus years and some adventure and experience. And these deaths that just suck..... I was admitted on academic caution for my undergrad and have stayed on the dean's list without tutors my mother would hire before I had a chance to fail and committing myself to working so hard. I'm shocked and proud of myself and that makes it worth the journey. I have not illusions -- the debt, the time I have left and employment.

But guys, I already know what I'm doing. I am graduating, going to take at least a 2 day rest ha ha -- and start my own practice. I have the know how and experience and people to know. I have many options and I can do so many things I want to do while making my first dollar as an attorney. My main goal is to come out and set the stage for the generation that is coming up. That attorney mentor told me that if i thought I was going to make a difference I was in for a rude awakening, doesn't know I have insomnia and anything rude has been sent away.

The difference I will make is that when I finish my big 20 to 25 year active law career, I will leave a practice with the young attorneys I've been in talks with who would not have been able to have the opportunity my old lady dream will give them, and I not only will make a difference if their lives, but I make a difference in people I meet every day, because i'm a person you cannot forget, I have a market waiting and ready for my practice, and I've been building myself up for this from the beginnings. The young attorneys are exceptional people and will be the ones to make a mark that will never be forgotten, but I get to set the stage -- and make a little noise -- and with other little areas I want to make some noise in, I know that when I'm gone...there will always be someone who will hear my name, or see the people I gave my own chances to think of me and laugh their heads off, and always have a crazy story to tell.

With a name like mine, there is no way I will be forgotten. And my experience is what I've been dreaming about and preparing for. My father was in his final year of law school at Temple in Philly when he was drafted and went to Europe thinking he would come back and return. But he didn't leave the Army for another 20 years. So, I'm also doing this for him.

Sorry for this long and crazy post. Very good for the mind I must say.

Npret

Gold
Posts: 1979
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:42 am

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby Npret » Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:08 am

^ not sure what you’re saying?

You’re going to take your rich husband’s money, pay cash for law school, and build a firm (doing what?) for the next generation because you’re so unforgettable.

Good for you, I guess?

I’m not great at spotting trolls but perhaps this is one.

User avatar
LSATWiz.com

Partner
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:37 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby LSATWiz.com » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:32 am

sarahlgee wrote:
LSATWiz.com wrote:
sarahlgee wrote:With all due respect to all posters, the bigotry implied in some of these responses is possibly equaled only by the shortsightedness of the notion of what people expect in a lawyer. Frankly, someone older may command more respect due to the presumption of wisdom and experience, while someone younger may not inspire as much confidence due to the presumption of exactly the opposite.

As far as employability is concerned, today’s market is defined by mid-career changes and unusual circumstances, in large part brought about by the ‘08 financial collapse. That event profoundly changed this country and the way we work—and is one of the reasons why both medical and law schools have seen a considerable uptick in the number of those in their 50s in entering classes.

Bottom line: you absolutely should pursue law school. Your experience and intelligence would be a fantastic addition to any 1L class. I’m sure you’ll have a long and exciting career.

I think you're taking posts from practicing attorneys about unfortunate practices in the legal world to mean that they support those practices. They don't. The legal world has historically been the slowest field to modernize. I'd go so far as to say the reason why law firms have diversity initiatives is because major clients don't want to be associated with a firm who only has white lawyers. It's bad PR and there's not enough to distinguish one firm from another to justify any bad PR. There are likely many firms who would love to go back to the way things were in the '50s if it wouldn't hurt them financially.

Because it doesn't harm a firm's pocketbook to not have any associates pushing 60 (assuming they can make up a non-age related reason to say "no"), they are likely to encounter widespread discrimination and should plan a way to succeed notwithstanding such discrimination. The way the world should be is not always the way the world is, and we can point that out all day or we can give constructive advice on how to succeed in an imperfect society.


Great point, but I’m not sure who supports those unfortunate practices but practicing lawyers who warn against the practices of lawyers in practice.

I appreciate your complementing my point, but it doesn't seem like you understood it. We do not support them, but are warning others to anticipate ageism. If OP wants to fight a discriminatory practice, good for them - we have their support, but they should know what they are signing up for. It sounds like that's what the mentor was saying. While we all have a great deal of respect for someone like Jackie Robinson, not everyone wants to be Jackie Robinson. Many people just want to provide for their families, go home to their family, sleep, rinse, and repeat.

If OP wants to start their firm, then the entire calculus changes, and their age is irrelevant. They should look to go somewhere on a full scholarship because there isn't real value in going to School A vs. School B, and it can take years to earn to grow a practice into six-figure profits by which point the school you attended will no longer be relevant. Ageism won't really apply there because the real reason it is a thing is because being an associate at any law firm is by its very nature a position of subservience. People feel awkward bossing around and training those much older than them. In a sense, ageism is caused as much if not more by the perpetrator's own insecurities than by the victim's age, but I suppose we can say that about any form of discrimination.

User avatar
LSATWiz.com

Partner
Posts: 591
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 10:37 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby LSATWiz.com » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:12 pm

sarahlgee wrote:
cavalier1138 wrote:
sarahlgee wrote:With all due respect to all posters, the bigotry implied in some of these responses is possibly equaled only by the shortsightedness of the notion of what people expect in a lawyer. Frankly, someone older may command more respect due to the presumption of wisdom and experience, while someone younger may not inspire as much confidence due to the presumption of exactly the opposite.

As far as employability is concerned, today’s market is defined by mid-career changes and unusual circumstances, in large part brought about by the ‘08 financial collapse. That event profoundly changed this country and the way we work—and is one of the reasons why both medical and law schools have seen a considerable uptick in the number of those in their 50s in entering classes.

Bottom line: you absolutely should pursue law school. Your experience and intelligence would be a fantastic addition to any 1L class. I’m sure you’ll have a long and exciting career.


With all due respect to someone who sounds like they haven't attended law school--much less experienced legal hiring--reality bites. No one here said that the OP shouldn't practice law because of her age. They simply pointed out (correctly) that age bias is real and that law school can put you in a financially ruinous amount of debt.

The OP apparently has plenty of disposable assets and plans on starting her own firm. So more power to her. But warning her about the risks before knowing that she won't take on any debt wasn't "bigotry."


I’m well aware of the legal employment situation and the financial risks.

I did not say posters here were telling her not to go to law school because of her age, obviously from what I’ve written.

I did not mention nor does my response have anything to do with op’s wanting to start her own firm.

I found the discussion about someone in their 50s needing to get a free ride because they could end up infirm or passed over due to age to be a bit much, especially given the fact that she never mentioned wanting a job. The OP is in her 50s, not 80s.

It’s certainly true that she should be warned of age bias.

Btw, as a matter of course, you should be a little more aware of the fact that you have absolutely no idea who you’re talking to on the internet. Whatever you may think in your private thoughts, politeness is always a good default.

That doesn’t mean you can’t have a vigorous chat, though.

It's not that. It's that one of the reasons law school is often a good investment is that as long as your brain works and you don't do terrible things to get disbarred, you can do it for 40 years so if you make even $10,000 more a year because of your license, you've already offset the cost.

Realistically, OP has 10-years. There are very few lawyers who practice law after they're 70.

nixy

Gold
Posts: 1523
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby nixy » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:43 pm

sarahlgee wrote:I found the discussion about someone in their 50s needing to get a free ride because they could end up infirm or passed over due to age to be a bit much, especially given the fact that she never mentioned wanting a job. The OP is in her 50s, not 80s.

But no one actually referenced the OP becoming infirm, just when she might want to retire. Most people going to law school in their 20s are looking at a 40-odd year career, and the OP is looking at more like 10-15. She is more likely to end up infirm due to age sooner in her career than traditional students are, and she is more likely to want/need to retire after a shorter career than they are (even if she continues to 80 it will be a shorter career). I don’t think those things should preclude her from going to law school, at all, but they are realities to consider. Paying off sticker cost of law school is more likely to interfere with the OP’s retirement plans than it is someone in their 20s. She may be financially fine and not need to worry about such things, but posters aren’t going to assume that. I don’t think that’s age-based bigotry.

If you makes you feel any better the posters here tell everyone to go on a full ride and not take out debt, regardless of age.

sarahlgee

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby sarahlgee » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:56 pm

LSATWiz.com wrote:
sarahlgee wrote:
LSATWiz.com wrote:
sarahlgee wrote:With all due respect to all posters, the bigotry implied in some of these responses is possibly equaled only by the shortsightedness of the notion of what people expect in a lawyer. Frankly, someone older may command more respect due to the presumption of wisdom and experience, while someone younger may not inspire as much confidence due to the presumption of exactly the opposite.

As far as employability is concerned, today’s market is defined by mid-career changes and unusual circumstances, in large part brought about by the ‘08 financial collapse. That event profoundly changed this country and the way we work—and is one of the reasons why both medical and law schools have seen a considerable uptick in the number of those in their 50s in entering classes.

Bottom line: you absolutely should pursue law school. Your experience and intelligence would be a fantastic addition to any 1L class. I’m sure you’ll have a long and exciting career.

I think you're taking posts from practicing attorneys about unfortunate practices in the legal world to mean that they support those practices. They don't. The legal world has historically been the slowest field to modernize. I'd go so far as to say the reason why law firms have diversity initiatives is because major clients don't want to be associated with a firm who only has white lawyers. It's bad PR and there's not enough to distinguish one firm from another to justify any bad PR. There are likely many firms who would love to go back to the way things were in the '50s if it wouldn't hurt them financially.

Because it doesn't harm a firm's pocketbook to not have any associates pushing 60 (assuming they can make up a non-age related reason to say "no"), they are likely to encounter widespread discrimination and should plan a way to succeed notwithstanding such discrimination. The way the world should be is not always the way the world is, and we can point that out all day or we can give constructive advice on how to succeed in an imperfect society.


Great point, but I’m not sure who supports those unfortunate practices but practicing lawyers who warn against the practices of lawyers in practice.

I appreciate your complementing my point, but it doesn't seem like you understood it. We do not support them, but are warning others to anticipate ageism. If OP wants to fight a discriminatory practice, good for them - we have their support, but they should know what they are signing up for. It sounds like that's what the mentor was saying. While we all have a great deal of respect for someone like Jackie Robinson, not everyone wants to be Jackie Robinson. Many people just want to provide for their families, go home to their family, sleep, rinse, and repeat.

If OP wants to start their firm, then the entire calculus changes, and their age is irrelevant. They should look to go somewhere on a full scholarship because there isn't real value in going to School A vs. School B, and it can take years to earn to grow a practice into six-figure profits by which point the school you attended will no longer be relevant. Ageism won't really apply there because the real reason it is a thing is because being an associate at any law firm is by its very nature a position of subservience. People feel awkward bossing around and training those much older than them. In a sense, ageism is caused as much if not more by the perpetrator's own insecurities than by the victim's age, but I suppose we can say that about any form of discrimination.
LSATWiz.com wrote:
sarahlgee wrote:
LSATWiz.com wrote:
sarahlgee wrote:With all due respect to all posters, the bigotry implied in some of these responses is possibly equaled only by the shortsightedness of the notion of what people expect in a lawyer. Frankly, someone older may command more respect due to the presumption of wisdom and experience, while someone younger may not inspire as much confidence due to the presumption of exactly the opposite.

As far as employability is concerned, today’s market is defined by mid-career changes and unusual circumstances, in large part brought about by the ‘08 financial collapse. That event profoundly changed this country and the way we work—and is one of the reasons why both medical and law schools have seen a considerable uptick in the number of those in their 50s in entering classes.

Bottom line: you absolutely should pursue law school. Your experience and intelligence would be a fantastic addition to any 1L class. I’m sure you’ll have a long and exciting career.

I think you're taking posts from practicing attorneys about unfortunate practices in the legal world to mean that they support those practices. They don't. The legal world has historically been the slowest field to modernize. I'd go so far as to say the reason why law firms have diversity initiatives is because major clients don't want to be associated with a firm who only has white lawyers. It's bad PR and there's not enough to distinguish one firm from another to justify any bad PR. There are likely many firms who would love to go back to the way things were in the '50s if it wouldn't hurt them financially.

Because it doesn't harm a firm's pocketbook to not have any associates pushing 60 (assuming they can make up a non-age related reason to say "no"), they are likely to encounter widespread discrimination and should plan a way to succeed notwithstanding such discrimination. The way the world should be is not always the way the world is, and we can point that out all day or we can give constructive advice on how to succeed in an imperfect society.


Great point, but I’m not sure who supports those unfortunate practices but practicing lawyers who warn against the practices of lawyers in practice.

I appreciate your complementing my point, but it doesn't seem like you understood it. We do not support them, but are warning others to anticipate ageism. If OP wants to fight a discriminatory practice, good for them - we have their support, but they should know what they are signing up for. It sounds like that's what the mentor was saying. While we all have a great deal of respect for someone like Jackie Robinson, not everyone wants to be Jackie Robinson. Many people just want to provide for their families, go home to their family, sleep, rinse, and repeat.

If OP wants to start their firm, then the entire calculus changes, and their age is irrelevant. They should look to go somewhere on a full scholarship because there isn't real value in going to School A vs. School B, and it can take years to earn to grow a practice into six-figure profits by which point the school you attended will no longer be relevant. Ageism won't really apply there because the real reason it is a thing is because being an associate at any law firm is by its very nature a position of subservience. People feel awkward bossing around and training those much older than them. In a sense, ageism is caused as much if not more by the perpetrator's own insecurities than by the victim's age, but I suppose we can say that about any form of discrimination.


Friend, I assure you that I understand it well.

Most of what you’re saying is not relevant to neither what I’ve said nor what the op has said. She is well aware of what you’ve written above as her writing confirms.

If the subsequent posters limited their responses to the exact questions posed by op—and avoided the gratuitous financial and age information—I may not be making the argument that their admonitions are in fact grounded in subconsciously held prejudices about age.

Its kind of like warning an ethnic minority about the perils of discrimination from people exactly like yourself—having been raised and conditioned in that very system but the minority never asked you for that information—and then claiming to be entirely unaffected by those conditionings.

In any case, thank you for chatting with me.

QContinuum

Moderator
Posts: 2453
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:52 am

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby QContinuum » Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:37 pm

With all due respect, Sarah, who exactly are you? What are your qualifications for giving advice about legal employment?

All I see is someone who's never posted on TLS before, who's charged into this thread launching completely unfounded allegations of bigotry and prejudice against posters who are only trying to be helpful. Please stop. The thread is about whether OP should go to law school, and if so, what kind of legal career they can reasonably expect after graduation. This is not the place for you - or any other poster - to rail against the evils of ageism or other forms of societal discrimination.

sarahlgee

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2019 4:57 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby sarahlgee » Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:21 pm

QContinuum wrote:With all due respect, Sarah, who exactly are you? What are your qualifications for giving advice about legal employment?

All I see is someone who's never posted on TLS before, who's charged into this thread launching completely unfounded allegations of bigotry and prejudice against posters who are only trying to be helpful. Please stop. The thread is about whether OP should go to law school, and if so, what kind of legal career they can reasonably expect after graduation. This is not the place for you - or any other poster - to rail against the evils of ageism or other forms of societal discrimination.


Ok, no problem at all, though I am not railing against anyone or anything but am merely responding in a civilized way to a discussion in an open forum, something I would’ve thought would be welcomed here—even if my views were offensive.

But I’ve been nothing but polite and have remarked only on what seems to be gratuitous and unwarranted responses to op’s original questions. That’s all.

I mentioned nothing about employment because op wishes to go into business for herself and did not ask for employment advice.

I certainly did not mean to offend by airing my opinion.

I have no idea what who I am or what my credentials are have to do with this, but, as you wish, I will no longer respond.

Good day.

cavalier1138

Platinum
Posts: 6333
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2016 8:01 pm

Re: 3.56/172 and I'm 55 years old

Postby cavalier1138 » Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:25 pm

Yeah, can we ignore whatever the hell Sarah is doing on her high horse and focus on this bit:

CentrumToLawSchool wrote:But, I've been giving thought to the consideration of good old JFK law school in Pleasant Hill, for reasonable and logical avenue for my "diverse" situation. It at least deserves to be put on the list.


I've literally never heard of this school, and the idea that anyone with a 172 would contemplate going there is terrifying.



Return to “What are my chances??

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests