. Forum

[thelawdoctor]

Anyone else tired of the same question and the same answers?

3 years later................beat working in the factory or going another tour.

Your call kid.

[PRgradBYU]

Don't worry about BigLaw, as it is very unlikely with your current law school prospects. But my honest opinion is that if you were PTing in the 170s, you owe it to yourself to RETAKE and reevaluate your options.

[GM544]

.

[alwayssunnyinfl]

Times have changed. A 3.2, especially from HYP, is not a death knell anymore at the lower T14 or even UW. I'm pretty sure a 3.6 is below almost all of the top 20 schools' median, so you guys aren't that different. I have a GPA .5 points lower than yours and have managed to get some decent scholarship offers with a 170+. It's worth it. Retaking in June and then reevaluating really does sound like your best option.

[rad lulz]

Or you could just, I dunno, NOT go to law school

[rad lulz]

Don't listen to that rad guy. You can just IBR or get a job teaching if it doesn't work out.

You're right. Getting the debt finally forgiven when you're 50 after it's been sitting on your books for 20 years sounds like a good idea.

[alwayssunnyinfl]

Don't listen to that rad guy. You can just IBR or get a job teaching if it doesn't work out.

You're right. Getting the debt finally forgiven when you're 50 after it's been sitting on your books for 20 years sounds like a good idea.

They'll fix the tax bomb. And she can just marry rich.

[shntn]

I'm always a fan of the retake. Shit works wonders.

[enigmabk]

...math major from hyp? Depending on how many years ur out of ugrad, you should find a quant/stat/ banking gig. Forget ls.

[GM544]

.

[GM544]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

There are a few UW grads at UW, yes. It's more like 20%. Most of them are teaching legal writing or clinic courses, or are lecturers, which makes them the second-class citizens of legal academia. The ones that aren't are generally very senior, and 2 of those have an LLM and PhD. And otherwise, there are a TON of Harvard grads, as well as Yale, Michigan, Columbia, and the odd UCLA/Penn.

It's also about 20% at Gonzaga, and only one of those is non-legal writing, non-clinic. And he got his JD in 1977.

It's true that the market will continue to change, but there are not going to be more positions in legal academia and they're not going to become more accessible to people outside the very top schools. In this respect, legal academia is just like all other sectors of academia.

"teaching legal writing or clinic courses, or are lecturers" sounds like what I would want. What are the "first-class citizens" doing? I'm also not against going back for an LLM or PhD later if that makes sense for my career at that point, but I promise, I'm not gunning for academia right now.

The "first-class citizens" are tenured or tenure track professors teaching doctrinal courses - i.e. legal subject content. Legal writing and clinical instructor teach practice skills. I agree this is completely important, but it's not valued in the context of legal academia - what is valued is producing scholarship by writing articles in law reviews about the current state of legal doctrine in a given subject and the way it should be developing. Lecturers are by definition not tenure-track. At many (most?) schools, legal writing professors (and some clinical professors) are not tenure-track and do not get to participate in faculty governance. Faculty in these groups don't generally get paid as much as tenured/tenure-track professors. My point is just that UW grads are not getting the positions that are more highly-valued (in the academic hierarchy).

[WanderingPondering]

So you're obviously a smart guy or gal. Let me ask you, why law school? You have a solid math background. Why not take the first two actuary tests and go in that direction? No debt, little stress, good pay, reasonable hours, solid job market.

Or use the degree and get a finance job? As a graduate from Princeton or Yale, you have an enormous leg up on everyone else. And with a math background, you're golden.