Top Law Schools

Did anyone's UG have a pre-law advisor? My school had two advisors. One was a history professor who you literally had to schedule three months in advance who "knew" deans of admission and had some friends who were lawyers. The other one was the school's General Counsel, or some such title, who was easier to met with, was interesting, and totally unhelpful when it came to admissions. He asked me my stats, told me I would get in to at least a Tier One school, but that I should try for T25. He did not even know that the LSAC was electronic. We did talk about being a lawyer for a bit so that was actually helpful.


Did anyone have a better experience?

I had one listed on my LSAC account for 5 years. I've never once heard from this person (via email, mail, call, or telepathy).

IMHO they are 100% useless, and I don't know why they bother adding this person on the LSAC info. I'd like to know how they justify paying this person.

Nope. Do a search for pre-law advisors: you'll see that they're almost universally worthless. Mine tried to lead me towards SLU and Northeastern, discouraged me from applying to many top-tier schools, and encouraged me to apply to schools where both my LSAT and GPA are above median (I'm a splitter). Her advice about applications was mostly incorrect or incomplete and, had I not done any outside research, would have actually hurt me (substantially) in the application process. Moral of the story: TLS > Your pre-law department.

beachbum wrote:TLS > Your pre-law department.

This is about the most damning statement I've ever heard uttered of anyone or anything. I always figured that below TLS, there was simply an empty void of intellectual free fall where nothing was even remotely intelligible.

beachbum wrote:TLS > Your pre-law department.

LOL That's sad but true.

From what I've seen, a lot of pre-law advisors know how to deal with exactly one kind of student, probably because it's the type of person they have to deal with most frequently by far: the person with the shit LSAT and/or GPA who wants to go to law school in the same state and has done not even the most basic research ("What is LSAC?" "What is the LSAT?" "What type of law do I want to major in?")

Bildungsroman wrote:From what I've seen, a lot of pre-law advisors know how to deal with exactly one kind of student, probably because it's the type of person they have to deal with most frequently by far: the person with the shit LSAT and/or GPA who wants to go to law school in the same state and has done not even the most basic research ("What is LSAC?" "What is the LSAT?" "What type of law do I want to major in?")

TITCR

Mine said I had a great chance at Texas and Notre Dame. I have a 163, 3.1. I literally laughed out loud.

Bildungsroman wrote:From what I've seen, a lot of pre-law advisors know how to deal with exactly one kind of student, probably because it's the type of person they have to deal with most frequently by far: the person with the shit LSAT and/or GPA who wants to go to law school in the same state and has done not even the most basic research ("What is LSAC?" "What is the LSAT?" "What type of law do I want to major in?")

I agree. I think the pre-law department took one look at my not-shitty stats and decided to spend their time with someone who, with a little help, could get into a state law school. Thats kind of a shame because it would be better for my UG and the legal industry to have a t-14 lawyer than an otherwise unemployable lawyer that attended my University's TT law school. (I assume they will be third rate not because of the school they went to but the fact that they needed to rely on help from the UG).

That being said, I wouldn't trust a thing the advisor said without research anyway, but it would have been nice to have someone to sound things off of other than my wholly supportive but one-hundred percent bewildered parents (they, like much of America, think that the rankings go Harvard>Yale>GULC>State School>Everything), my stoner friends, and my pre-med girlfriend who is convinced that anyone who doesn't reconnect nerve cells for fun is a functional imbecile.

Thanks TLS for filling that void!


PS, not sure why I was being so secretive, I guess its second nature. My UG=Rutgers.

SemperLegal wrote:

Bildungsroman wrote:From what I've seen, a lot of pre-law advisors know how to deal with exactly one kind of student, probably because it's the type of person they have to deal with most frequently by far: the person with the shit LSAT and/or GPA who wants to go to law school in the same state and has done not even the most basic research ("What is LSAC?" "What is the LSAT?" "What type of law do I want to major in?")

I agree. I think the pre-law department took one look at my not-shitty stats and decided to spend their time with someone who, with a little help, could get into a state law school. Thats kind of a shame because it would be better for my UG and the legal industry to have a t-14 lawyer than an otherwise unemployable lawyer that attended my University's TT law school. (I assume they will be third rate not because of the school they went to but the fact that they needed to rely on help from the UG).

That being said, I wouldn't trust a thing the advisor said without research anyway, but it would have been nice to have someone to sound things off of other than my wholly supportive but one-hundred percent bewildered parents (they, like much of America, think that the rankings go Harvard>Yale>GULC>State School>Everything), my stoner friends, and my pre-med girlfriend who is convinced that anyone who doesn't reconnect nerve cells for fun is a functional imbecile.

Thanks TLS for filling that void!


PS, not sure why I was being so secretive, I guess its second nature. My UG=Rutgers.

I have a friend who went to Rutgers as well, and I recall them telling me the same thing about their pre-law adviser. Luckily, however, they did not "drink the potion" and end up at RLS.

My pre-law advisor is fabulous (probably, because she's an 2L.) Her advice centers on big picture things, however, like finding a common thread for an application.

For specific details, I always refer to TLS: my saving grace during this cycle.

Mine seems pretty worthless in light of TLS but I thought he was really good before then. He really pushes the state schools hard but for most graduates that probably is the right idea. I can guarantee that I would never have even consider applying to my number one choice just by listening to him and not finding TLS.

Mine is a fifth year litigation associate at big firm in New York. She keeps telling me to just go to Fordham for free, that Columbia and schools like that aren't worth it. I keep trying to tell her that it's kind of a different world from when she graduated 5 years ago, but... Have you ever tried arguing with people who work in litigation? Plus she's on the hiring committee, so she has a lot more information than me. FML.

ahduth wrote:Mine is a fifth year litigation associate at big firm in New York. She keeps telling me to just go to Fordham for free, that Columbia and schools like that aren't worth it. I keep trying to tell her that it's kind of a different world from when she graduated 5 years ago, but... Have you ever tried arguing with people who work in litigation? Plus she's on the hiring committee, so she has a lot more information than me. FML.

Why not try to take her advice? I think that the fact that she's on the hiring committee, adds a bit to her credibility in these matters. What I think she's saying is "just get the JD and pass the bar with as little debt as possible."

TOMaHULK wrote:

ahduth wrote:Mine is a fifth year litigation associate at big firm in New York. She keeps telling me to just go to Fordham for free, that Columbia and schools like that aren't worth it. I keep trying to tell her that it's kind of a different world from when she graduated 5 years ago, but... Have you ever tried arguing with people who work in litigation? Plus she's on the hiring committee, so she has a lot more information than me. FML.

Why not try to take her advice? I think that the fact that she's on the hiring committee, adds a bit to her credibility in these matters. What I think she's saying is "just get the JD and pass the bar with as little debt as possible."

She just has an inordinate amount of confidence in me - she's pretty convinced that no matter what I'll do 10%+LR, whether I go to Fordham, Columbia, or wherever. While her confidence is appreciated of course, I'm just not sure that's a good career planning manuever. But no debt is exactly what she's saying. A friend of hers made the comment that she feels "trapped in a debt prison of her own making." That... doesn't sound like fun.

But yeah, her opinion of OCI is pretty interesting. Grades get you in the door, but if you're some sort of social retard, you're going to have problems. She's pretty unimpressed with people who go straight from UG to law school and walk into OCI not really knowing how to handle themselves. That being said, they realize they have to grab the smart talent off the market, even if it means it takes a few years before they're able to allow them to talk to clients.

ahduth wrote:

TOMaHULK wrote:

ahduth wrote:Mine is a fifth year litigation associate at big firm in New York. She keeps telling me to just go to Fordham for free, that Columbia and schools like that aren't worth it. I keep trying to tell her that it's kind of a different world from when she graduated 5 years ago, but... Have you ever tried arguing with people who work in litigation? Plus she's on the hiring committee, so she has a lot more information than me. FML.

Why not try to take her advice? I think that the fact that she's on the hiring committee, adds a bit to her credibility in these matters. What I think she's saying is "just get the JD and pass the bar with as little debt as possible."

She just has an inordinate amount of confidence in me - she's pretty convinced that no matter what I'll do 10%+LR, whether I go to Fordham, Columbia, or wherever. While her confidence is appreciated of course, I'm just not sure that's a good career planning manuever. But no debt is exactly what she's saying. A friend of hers made the comment that she feels "trapped in a debt prison of her own making." That... doesn't sound like fun.

But yeah, her opinion of OCI is pretty interesting. Grades get you in the door, but if you're some sort of social retard, you're going to have problems. She's pretty unimpressed with people who go straight from UG to law school and walk into OCI not really knowing how to handle themselves. That being said, they realize they have to grab the smart talent off the market, even if it means it takes a few years before they're able to allow them to talk to clients.

I have friends that have recently graduated LS that feel exactly the same way. At the time of their acceptances, they wanted to go for School Name. Now, they would have taken the money and just have passed the bar, after going to an ABA approved school. They say it really doesn't make much difference if you can pass the bar. Although I'm sure that alumni help a lot too (networking wise).

TOMaHULK wrote:

ahduth wrote:

TOMaHULK wrote:

ahduth wrote:Mine is a fifth year litigation associate at big firm in New York. She keeps telling me to just go to Fordham for free, that Columbia and schools like that aren't worth it. I keep trying to tell her that it's kind of a different world from when she graduated 5 years ago, but... Have you ever tried arguing with people who work in litigation? Plus she's on the hiring committee, so she has a lot more information than me. FML.

Why not try to take her advice? I think that the fact that she's on the hiring committee, adds a bit to her credibility in these matters. What I think she's saying is "just get the JD and pass the bar with as little debt as possible."

She just has an inordinate amount of confidence in me - she's pretty convinced that no matter what I'll do 10%+LR, whether I go to Fordham, Columbia, or wherever. While her confidence is appreciated of course, I'm just not sure that's a good career planning manuever. But no debt is exactly what she's saying. A friend of hers made the comment that she feels "trapped in a debt prison of her own making." That... doesn't sound like fun.

But yeah, her opinion of OCI is pretty interesting. Grades get you in the door, but if you're some sort of social retard, you're going to have problems. She's pretty unimpressed with people who go straight from UG to law school and walk into OCI not really knowing how to handle themselves. That being said, they realize they have to grab the smart talent off the market, even if it means it takes a few years before they're able to allow them to talk to clients.

I have friends that have recently graduated LS that feel exactly the same way. At the time of their acceptances, they wanted to go for School Name. Now, they would have taken the money and just have passed the bar, after going to an ABA approved school. They say it really doesn't make much difference if you can pass the bar. Although I'm sure that alumni help a lot too (networking wise).

What schools did these friends of yours go to?

What schools did these friends of yours go to?

Florida State, Stetson, and University of Miami. Obviously Umiami, and Stetson being the high sticker prices...

My school has a pre-law advisor in the career services department and that is his entire job.
He was fairly helpful as someone to bounce PS ideas off of, and when I asked him questions that I already knew the answers to off of TLS to test him, he passed.

2014 wrote:My school has a pre-law advisor in the career services department and that is his entire job.
He was fairly helpful as someone to bounce PS ideas off of, and when I asked him questions that I already knew the answers to off of TLS to test him, he passed.

TLS wisdom isn't all wise though. There was some guy this cycle who got into GTown with like a 164/3.8 as a non-URM hispanic.

My pre-law advisor was actually quite helpful- she would go over the my UG's past stats for admission for schools I asked about, told me if I had a realistic shot, and encouraged me to study more for the LSAT every time I passed her in the hall (though fat lot of good that did me).

But I imagine I go to a better school than most of you, so it makes sense our advising is better than average.

Arbiter213 wrote:My pre-law advisor was actually quite helpful- she would go over the my UG's past stats for admission for schools I asked about, told me if I had a realistic shot, and encouraged me to study more for the LSAT every time I passed her in the hall (though fat lot of good that did me).

But I imagine I go to a better school than most of you, so it makes sense our advising is better than average.

Arbiter213 wrote:My pre-law advisor was actually quite helpful- she would go over the my UG's past stats for admission for schools I asked about, told me if I had a realistic shot, and encouraged me to study more for the LSAT every time I passed her in the hall (though fat lot of good that did me).

But I imagine I go to a better school than most of you, so it makes sense our advising is better than average.

So how good does your school have to be to say this?

I pretty much am the pre-law advisor for my school.

And I have learned just about everything from TLS - I recommend the site to anyone who tells me they are interested in law school.

Arbiter213 wrote:My pre-law advisor was actually quite helpful- she would go over the my UG's past stats for admission for schools I asked about, told me if I had a realistic shot, and encouraged me to study more for the LSAT every time I passed her in the hall (though fat lot of good that did me).

But I imagine I go to a better school than most of you, so it makes sense our advising is better than average.

I really just... laughed out loud. It's kind of bad, I'm in a conference room with a bunch of people working on something.

I call troll. High quality though. You have to reference a meaningless pseudo-stat ("UG's past stats for admission for schools") to realize he's putting you on.