Top Law Schools

So earlier I was pissing a fit about Saturday's crazy LSAT test and how most likely I undershot 170, and how my life is fucked and what not. Well I imagine my score, while not what I was practicing at, should get me into UConn. Not a total loss; I really wanted to work in NYC, but I live in CT and like it soooooo.....whatever.

My original plan was most likely retake in June and roll the dice again. The person who I was speaking with suggested a better idea would be to combine UConn's MPA and JD, since I want to do public sector work if I couldn't get into the NYC market. My experience is almost nil here.


MPA/JD at UConn, or retake for NYC prospects in 2012? Holla back?

It really comes down to what you want to do in your life. If you're really looking to break the NYC market and really did screw up the LSAT (you don't know yet, remember) then a retake is the only option. Also, in general, I've always been told that MPA's are pretty worthless and MPP's aren't much better. Perhaps in specific fields that's wrong though and someone can correct me.

James Bond wrote:It really comes down to what you want to do in your life. If you're really looking to break the NYC market and really did screw up the LSAT (you don't know yet, remember) then a retake is the only option. Also, in general, I've always been told that MPA's are pretty worthless and MPP's aren't much better. Perhaps in specific fields that's wrong though and someone can correct me.

The thing is, I would be happy with either trajectory. I've had a desire to be in the thick of the NYC legal arena, but wouldn't mind doing public sector work in CT/DC at all. The only thing influencing my decision is what kind of bricks are laid down in the initial stages (LSAT score, timing etc.)

I will say though that I have heard the exact opposite though about MPA degrees. My understanding is that they are one of the few degrees which are largely unaffected by the economic climate and are more vocational in nature than pretty much any other offshoot of a political science degree

James Bond wrote:It really comes down to what you want to do in your life. If you're really looking to break the NYC market and really did screw up the LSAT (you don't know yet, remember) then a retake is the only option. Also, in general, I've always been told that MPA's are pretty worthless and MPP's aren't much better. Perhaps in specific fields that's wrong though and someone can correct me.

As someone who has a MPP and had JD/MPP's as classmates, in my view, that combo is so unnecessary it hurts. If you have a JD, there's no reason why you need a master's in policy to advance your career interests. Unless you like lighting money on fire, don't go that particular dual degree route.

FunkyJD wrote: As someone who has a MPP and had JD/MPP's as classmates, in my view, that combo is so unnecessary it hurts. If you have a JD, there's no reason why you need a master's in policy to advance your career interests. Unless you like lighting money on fire, don't go that particular dual degree route.

Could you elaborate on that a little more, please? It seems to me that a joint degree's value can be measured primarily on either additional skill sets or additional employability. Presumably you are saying it doesn't deliver on the latter, but not on the former, either?

atlrower wrote:

FunkyJD wrote: As someone who has a MPP and had JD/MPP's as classmates, in my view, that combo is so unnecessary it hurts. If you have a JD, there's no reason why you need a master's in policy to advance your career interests. Unless you like lighting money on fire, don't go that particular dual degree route.

Could you elaborate on that a little more, please? It seems to me that a joint degree's value can be measured primarily on either additional skill sets or additional employability. Presumably you are saying it doesn't deliver on the latter, but not on the former, either?

Well, it won't help you with additional employability. If you want to be a legislative counsel, you don't need a MPP to get that gig if you have a JD. If you want to be a policy specialist, a JD is hardly necessary for that. One of my former advisors works for the EOP. Not having a JD didn't seem to hurt her.

If you're a law student who's interested in policymaking, take a class in legislation, read Foreign Policy, read the Washington Post and NY Times, and maybe take a cross-listed elective with the policy school on campus, if possible. Keep up with what's happening in the country and in the world. You hardly need to pay for a bunch of public policy seminars. Now, what the policy students will have on you is graduate-level economics and quant training, but a) what job are you wanting to do as a lawyer that requires that; and b) how much extra are you willing to pay for it? Is it worth it? Can't you just take an elective in economics, or quantitative methods for lawyers?

Bad, bad, investment. Seriously. Everyone I know who has done this has regretted it.

I realize the irony of the above. I'll be a JD with an MPP. Unfortunately, I want to be a lawyer, and you can't pass the bar with an MPP. At least I can't. I wish I had decided to be a lawyer earlier. I would have never gone to policy school.

I don't necessarily agree that MPP's are worthless. If you want to work for the government, they can be very useful. It may open doors that otherwise wouldn't open. The ability to analyze and communicate certain policies, both qualitatively and quantitatively, with an authoritative knowledge base about the issue in question, can put you at a big advantage over other applicants, without question.

But think about it. Can't you do the same thing with a JD? Why do you need both degrees?

If you want to work as a policy specialist in the private sector ... say, as a government affairs specialist for a Fortune 500 company ... skip the MPP and get a JD.