Top Law Schools

Is it possible? I know folks around here say its essentially required, but surely some are admitted every year without any. To be one of those few, what must one possess?

It is required.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/admissions/profile/

In their 2010 class of 273 students...

8 students had no WE (3%)
25 students had 1 yr WE (9%)
240 students had 2+ yrs WE (88%)


I'm gona go with...internships/amazing extracurriculars in u-grad, maturity during interview, and stellar GPA+LSAT

glewz wrote:http://www.law.northwestern.edu/admissions/profile/

In their 2010 class of 273 students...

8 students had no WE (3%)
25 students had 1 yr WE (9%)
240 students had 2+ yrs WE (88%)


I'm gona go with...internships/amazing extracurriculars in u-grad, maturity during interview, and stellar GPA+LSAT

They could just be non-trad UGs with decent pre-UG WE.
(assuming the data only counts post-grad WE as implied)

no w/e here. got accepted into chicago but denied at NW

rman1201 wrote:

glewz wrote:http://www.law.northwestern.edu/admissions/profile/

In their 2010 class of 273 students...

8 students had no WE (3%)
25 students had 1 yr WE (9%)
240 students had 2+ yrs WE (88%)


I'm gona go with...internships/amazing extracurriculars in u-grad, maturity during interview, and stellar GPA+LSAT

They could just be non-trad UGs with decent pre-UG WE.
(assuming the data only counts post-grad WE as implied)

"at least two years of post-undergraduate, full-time work experience (although we will admit a small number of students with less)"

will give those 8 (and OP )the benefit of the doubt

gbpackerbacker wrote:no w/e here. got accepted into chicago but denied at NW

YP?

From the TLS interview with Assistant Dean of Admissions & FinAid Johann Lee:

TLS: Northwestern has established itself as THE top school that loves quality work experience between undergrad and law school. Does the law school have a certain philosophy which has led to this reputation, and how disadvantaged is someone right out of undergrad?

We do have a certain philosophy and it comes from sort of how we do business here at Northwestern. We definitely talk to employers and the legal community to see what they wish out of law school graduates, and where they see legal education going. Based on our strategic plan, we wanted to build a collegial, team-oriented learning environment where 360 degree learning will occur.

By 360 degree learning, we mean students would learn from faculty, which is the traditional sense, students would learn from other students, which definitely does occur, and also where faculty would learn from students. So with this 360 approach, we found that those with substantial work and life experience had the most to bring to the table for the conversation, and we felt that those were the types that would benefit the most from this type of learning model.

As to how disadvantaged is someone right from undergrad, yeah, there is a slight disadvantage. However, if you are applying straight from undergrad, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of doing the evaluative interview as part of the application process. When we discuss work experience, what we are looking for are the things that work experience brings: maturity, strong career focus, good interpersonal skills, and the ability to work in groups in a professional setting. The interview process helps us answer those questions from those who are applying straight from undergrad.

TLS: What about someone applying from undergrad who had really ample internship experience or work experience during her college years?

I think the general overarching theme is that not all work experiences are created equally. For us at Northwestern, getting to know an applicant is really important — especially if an applicant thinks they do not have strong post-graduate work experience — I strongly suggest that all undergrad applicants do the interview, because that’s a way for the applicant to demonstrate to the admissions committee that they have the types of intangible qualities that we’re looking for out of our students.

Basically, in NU's eyes, WE=maturity, and the only other way you can demonstrate maturity to NU is to rock the interview.

glewz wrote:

gbpackerbacker wrote:no w/e here. got accepted into chicago but denied at NW

YP?

Numbers not good enough to warrant a YP

rman1201 wrote:

glewz wrote:http://www.law.northwestern.edu/admissions/profile/

In their 2010 class of 273 students...

8 students had no WE (3%)
25 students had 1 yr WE (9%)
240 students had 2+ yrs WE (88%)


I'm gona go with...internships/amazing extracurriculars in u-grad, maturity during interview, and stellar GPA+LSAT

They could just be non-trad UGs with decent pre-UG WE.
(assuming the data only counts post-grad WE as implied)

There are a number of people here with no work experience. However, the usual policy is to make people go off and do something else for a year. Not sure why they do this in some cases but not all. You should probably not state things as fact when you don't know what you are talking about.

I take it P/T WE doesn't amount to much either in NW eyes?

tome wrote:

rman1201 wrote:

glewz wrote:http://www.law.northwestern.edu/admissions/profile/

In their 2010 class of 273 students...

8 students had no WE (3%)
25 students had 1 yr WE (9%)
240 students had 2+ yrs WE (88%)


I'm gona go with...internships/amazing extracurriculars in u-grad, maturity during interview, and stellar GPA+LSAT

They could just be non-trad UGs with decent pre-UG WE.
(assuming the data only counts post-grad WE as implied)

There are a number of people here with no work experience. However, the usual policy is to make people go off and do something else for a year. Not sure why they do this in some cases but not all. You should probably not state things as fact when you don't know what you are talking about.

3%? I think its pretty safe to assume work experience is required seeing as 97% have it and they explicitly state its a requirement. You know as much about the exceptions as I do, they could have extensive pre-ug WE, they could be big names/legacies, they could be UG entrepreneurs, etc.

There seems to be more transfer admitted w/o work experience. They don't say this, but I think the rational obvious. NU knows that the students who are at the bottom of the class (at any law school) and have no work experience have the hardest time getting a job. All law schools will always have a bottom of the class, but they can improve their placement significantly by ensuring that those at the bottom have work experience. Transfers (who have always proven themselves) will rarely be at the bottom of the class, so they are willing give that rule a bit more slack.

But I would not want to be here at NU and have to interview against students who are 2-10 years older and have significant work experience they can differentiate themselves with.

To comments.

1) It would seem to me that if you can get into NU without W/E then you could likely get into a better law school anyways (w/ your great stats, URM status, etc).

2) I'm not yet a lawyer or even a law school student, but it seems to me that having work experience before studying to become a lawyer would be a huge asset... particularly if you want to go into corporate law work with sophisticated players like PE firms and banks. Note to self: If I ever run a law school, I'm going to go NU style and require W/E just like a business school.

I've had lawyers (junior ones) working at top firms really annoy me when I'm working with them (I'm a junior associate in PE, so I have to sit in all kinds of meetings with lawyers and go over details before my bosses look at contracts, agreements, etc) because they have no idea WHY the contract needs to be one way or the other. They obviously know the law, having gone to top schools and being at a legit big law firm, but they literally just don't get some "banker stuff" that's really not that complicated... it's not even "banker stuff", it's just business stuff - relating to the basic principles or risk, return etc...

I was trying to explain to one lawyer chick recently why we needed to keep the preferential distribution structure a certain way on a deal and she had no understanding of why it might be better to get paid more at the front end of the buyout then at the back end... like as if there was not a variable range of outcomes for the investment... she was clueless. She didn't understand the concept of preferred equity (beyond the definition, which I'm sure she had memorized).

Everyone I've met without w/e was a legacy or had major connections.

glewz wrote:

gbpackerbacker wrote:no w/e here. got accepted into chicago but denied at NW

YP?

So you made a thread about wondering how hard it is to get into NU without work experience and people told you it was hard. gb just told you he(she?) got in to UChi but not NU with no work experience, and you wonder if it's YP............

no, it wasn't YP

wait, you didn't make the thread, but you are still here posting in it

rman1201 wrote: 3%? I think its pretty safe to assume work experience is required seeing as 97% have it and they explicitly state its a requirement. You know as much about the exceptions as I do, they could have extensive pre-ug WE, they could be big names/legacies, they could be UG entrepreneurs, etc.

No, I know these people personally, so I have more information than you. The people I know are none of these things. They were just admitted because the school wanted them. (I myself technically have no full time work experience, but I am sort of like the exceptions you list above.)

.

FWIW I know someone who got into NU this cycle with a 4.0/155 non-urm, lots of undergrad softs and im sure a good interview and whatnot

for WE working a part time job throughout undergrad doesnt count? I would assume she had none then

parsi wrote:FWIW I know someone who got into NU this cycle with a 4.0/155 non-urm, lots of undergrad softs and im sure a good interview and whatnot

for WE working a part time job throughout undergrad doesnt count? I would assume she had none then

My understanding is that they say explicitly full-time w/e.