Top Law Schools

K so Northwestern likes people with work experience

what length of time does this usually mean (1 yr-5 yrs?)

also the nature of the work...by work experience do they mean something substantial like working for some big accounting firm for several years..or can it also span to being an assistant at a boutique law firm...or even volunteering for a year?

I could conceivably include any activities, for pay or for free, outside of school that are completed for any organization, or on your own. Then, it's just a matter of who's experience is more rare and impressive, and even then it's only a speck of significance relative to LSAT/GPA.

Right now work experience at NU is generally seen as anything that is postgraduate and full time. It is also counted up until matriculation. I have seen people with significant amount undergrad WE help them as well. It generally doesn't matter what it is whether it is waiting tables or teaching astrophysics but of course the better WE is more helpful than being at Starbucks. Most people seem to think that splitters or reverse splitters with at least 1 year can get in via ED, but I am questioning that considering how small the amount of people in their class is with less than 2 years. I think, if you don't have stellar numbers, it is going to take being at the 2 year mark to feel more on the safe side.

Off the top of my head, rough estimates of their most recent class:

5% - No WE (these people usually have insanely high GPA/LSAT)
15% - 1 year WE
40% - 2 years WE
40% - 3+ years WE

They are aiming for having 2 years being an almost absolute requirement.

What NU seems to be aiming for is a student body that has already lived in the real world as "grownups" for a while, not K-JD perpetural students still living off mom and dad.

There's no firm guideline on what kind of work 'counts', and it definitely doesn't have to be law-related. Obviously designing bridges or working as a CPA is going to look better on an app than a year of working at Starbucks, but someone who has supported themselves as a barista and demonstrates maturity in their interview probably still has a decent chance.

I disagree with the above poster who said it's "only a speck of significance relative to LSAT/GPA" because WE can pretty much be a deal-killer for NU. Most admits without WE have pretty extraordinary numbers, and even then, a lot of them are offered big $$ to defer for a year to get some WE. The 2010 class profile says 97% of the class has 1+ years, 88% has 2+ years.

From NU's website: "Long-term, our goal is that all entering students will have at least two years of post-college work experience—another factor that helps us determine their motivation and ability to thrive in law school and beyond."

Edited to add another quote from the website:
"Northwestern Law is unique in placing strong emphasis in selecting students who also demonstrate...at least two years of post-undergraduate, full-time work experience (although we will admit a small number of students with less)"

rinkrat19 wrote:I disagree with the above poster who said it's "only a speck of significance relative to LSAT/GPA" because WE can pretty much be a deal-killer for NU. Most admits without WE have pretty extraordinary numbers, and even then, a lot of them are offered big $$ to defer for a year to get some WE. The 2010 class profile says 97% of the class has 1+ years, 88% has 2+ years.

It's almost necessary, but definitely not sufficient, and definitely not as important as LSAT/GPA. Almost everyone getting accepted to NU has some impressive WE, and lots of applicants with very impressive WE don't get in because of the numbers. Meanwhile, sub-2.5/175+ splitters with average WE are getting in. In my eyes, unless it's something incredibly awesome (e.g., being a U.S. ambassador), it's just a formality to make sure you're not wasting your time doing nothing after UG, and to make sure you're "mature" enough for their class. But it's nowhere near as important as LSAT/GPA.

Verity wrote:It's almost necessary, but definitely not sufficient

I would agree with this.

1 year waitering with auto admit numbers is fine.

If it's a reach 2 years is probably necessary. I dunno if waitering is acceptable, I doubt it.

Desert Fox wrote:1 year waitering with auto admit numbers is fine.

If it's a reach 2 years is probably necessary. I dunno if waitering is acceptable, I doubt it.

I could have sworn people said the opposite about waitering (assuming full time). Though what you said makes more sense.

What do you mean if it's a reach? Like supersplitting?

Those at this year's Diversity ASW were working as paralegals, employed by banks, and some did political work. Someone worked for the USPTO for a year or two. I also recall a few were teachers, and a few worked for nonprofits. So, a variety of mainly entry-level professional work.

Nobody there from what I know was running a Fortune 500 or did anything out of the ordinary for most young professionals--nothing to be intimidated by at all.

Working a street corner for your 'Daddy' counts.

bk187 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:1 year waitering with auto admit numbers is fine.

If it's a reach 2 years is probably necessary. I dunno if waitering is acceptable, I doubt it.

I could have sworn people said the opposite about waitering (assuming full time). Though what you said makes more sense.

What do you mean if it's a reach? Like supersplitting?

I think any splitting means reach. Although NU is famous for regular splitters, a lot of the class is reverse splitter too.

I know one waiter. He had good numbers. But only 1 year, and he was only employed a year.

So...Big splitter 2.8/166 (aiming for 170+ after retake), two years marketing director for a small finance company, worth a shot ED? Any money? (probably not...)

alexonfyre wrote:So...Big splitter 2.8/166 (aiming for 170+ after retake), two years marketing director for a small finance company, worth a shot ED? Any money? (probably not...)

No. You'll need at least a 172, but probably a 175+ to be on the safe side, even with ED. Are you a URM?

Verity wrote:

alexonfyre wrote:So...Big splitter 2.8/166 (aiming for 170+ after retake), two years marketing director for a small finance company, worth a shot ED? Any money? (probably not...)

No. You'll need at least a 172, but probably a 175+ to be on the safe side, even with ED. Are you a URM?

Absolute min is 170 and an ED is probably needed. With a 2.8 you won't get a dime, even with a 180.

Desert Fox wrote:

Verity wrote:

alexonfyre wrote:So...Big splitter 2.8/166 (aiming for 170+ after retake), two years marketing director for a small finance company, worth a shot ED? Any money? (probably not...)

No. You'll need at least a 172, but probably a 175+ to be on the safe side, even with ED. Are you a URM?

Absolute min is 170 and an ED is probably needed. With a 2.8 you won't get a dime, even with a 180.

Figured, good thing I am backed by family, and yes I am URM (MA.)

alexonfyre wrote:Figured, good thing I am backed by family, and yes I am URM (MA.)

A URM with similar numbers to yours got in ED this cycle who had pretty good w/e (http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Flustercluck/jd).

I'd say with your w/e and a 170+ LSAT you will be golden at NU ED.

alexonfyre wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

Verity wrote:

alexonfyre wrote:So...Big splitter 2.8/166 (aiming for 170+ after retake), two years marketing director for a small finance company, worth a shot ED? Any money? (probably not...)

No. You'll need at least a 172, but probably a 175+ to be on the safe side, even with ED. Are you a URM?

Absolute min is 170 and an ED is probably needed. With a 2.8 you won't get a dime, even with a 180.

Figured, good thing I am backed by family, and yes I am URM (MA.)

Okay, then try for a 170, write a stellar addendum for the GPA, interview on campus, apply ED, and pray. You should do well.

Also, apply widely anyway. Blanket UVA through the T30, and see what comes up, because with those numbers you could be looking at serious dollars at a great school, as opposed to NU at sticker.

You could prolly get some good lookin cash at WUSTL

dr123 wrote:You could prolly get some good lookin cash at WUSTL

I know I'm WUSTLin'.......

Verity wrote:

dr123 wrote:You could prolly get some good lookin cash at WUSTL

I know I'm WUSTLin'.......

every day I'm WUSTLin'

WUSTL real hard
WUSTL WUSTL...

Sorry, couldn't help it.

I got in this year with 5+ years working as a supervisor at Starbucks, 2 years postgraduate full-time. In my interview, with Dean Johann Lee, he seemed to think it was legitimate and useful work experience.

adamdroog wrote:I got in this year with 5+ years working as a supervisor at Starbucks, 2 years postgraduate full-time. In my interview, with Dean Johann Lee, he seemed to think it was legitimate and useful work experience.

And your 174 adds evidence to my argument. A friend of mine got dinged with a 169/3.3 (numbers fudged slightly) but had seven years of entrepreneurial experience, and is a self-made millionaire (age 26). That last point can't really be outwardly indicated on a resume, but the point is that he is a smart guy that has proven he can succeed in the real world. Not good enough for NU, I guess.

Verity wrote:

adamdroog wrote:I got in this year with 5+ years working as a supervisor at Starbucks, 2 years postgraduate full-time. In my interview, with Dean Johann Lee, he seemed to think it was legitimate and useful work experience.

And your 174 adds evidence to my argument. A friend of mine got dinged with a 169/3.3 (numbers fudged slightly) but had seven years of entrepreneurial experience, and is a self-made millionaire (age 26). That last point can't really be outwardly indicated on a resume, but the point is that he is a smart guy that has proven he can succeed in the real world. Not good enough for NU, I guess.

Nah, there is something else that torpedoed him. Probably got cocky and wrote an arrogant sounding PS. Also, LORs or some sort of skeleton in the closet could have sunk that ship.

alexonfyre wrote:Nah, there is something else that torpedoed him. Probably got cocky and wrote an arrogant sounding PS. Also, LORs or some sort of skeleton in the closet could have sunk that ship.

I doubt it. The way I see it, NU generally admits people who have at least 2 of the following:

1. Above Median LSAT
2. Above Median GPA
3. 2+ Years Full Time Work Exp

I think that Verity's friend only had one of them (#3) and that's what got him dinged.

bk187 wrote:splitters or reverse splitters

What is the difference?