Top Law Schools

.

I have no experience in the matter, but I've read in these fora that experience at a top consulting firm is a HYS-worthy soft.

Perdevise wrote:I have no experience in the matter, but I've read in these fora that experience at a top consulting firm is a HYS-worthy soft.

I heard that applies only to MBB though.

Perdevise wrote:I have no experience in the matter, but I've read in these fora that experience at a top consulting firm is a HYS-worthy soft.

This is a chicken and egg thing though because big three consulting is full of Ivy League grads with great GPAs.

OP work experience is never a bad idea. At worst, you don't like it much and you apply two years from now with some cash and something to talk about at OCI.

.

SYoshi11 wrote:Thanks for the responses.

With regards to it being a viable soft, I have a friend who had 4.0 168, went to Deloitte out of UG, and is now at Stanford Law....take from that what you will.

To be honest, I'm less concerned with whether it will help my law school chances, than I am with the question of whether its something people would recommend doing. I think postponing anything for two years of your life is a pretty big decision.

Two years is no time at all really. Any work experience will make you a more desirable OCI candidate than a K-JD. That said, most Deloitte folks I know are miserable and overworked doing menial scutwork so it sounds like a decent preview of biglaw.

In regards to law school:
- Assuming you get into a top-ranked school (T14, T10, T6 - however you personally want to define it), perhaps it will be a smaller factor in the job hunt - since your chances of getting a job are already pretty good from that range.
- BUT in the lower-ranked schools, the consulting (and any comparable, respectable work) experience will help you stand out. Hopefully, the client and team interaction will also better prepare you for interviews.

Bigger picture:
- Work experience is just great. If you have the chance, do it, learn more, mature a bit . . . and rack up some Starwood points on your (soon to be tiring) client visits.

It is actually very good for the job hunt (OCI) ... I would highly recommend it.

Do it for 1-2 years, two is probably the sweet spot. MBB and Wyman are clearly a cut above Deloitte, so go to one of them if you have a choice.

Also, if you have an idea that you'd like to do transactional law you might be better served by going into a finance position. Firms recruiting for transactional stuff seem to like bankers more than consultants. If you want to do something else, then consulting is probably better because of the breadth of experience.

.

.

SYoshi11 wrote:To explain a bit further, I am doing a summer internship at Wyman/Deloitte/Monitor (don't want to out myself too hard, just in case). For law school, my numbers project (god, this will make me sound like a miserable douche-bag) at YHS (179, 3.92-3.94). Regarding banking, I applied for two positions and got dinged. I just don't think I have the raw finance gene in me.

NO idea what kind of law I'd like to do, though litigation seems appealing. But, hey, I know literally nothing about how I'd like the work in litigation or transactional law, so I'm completely open to seeing how things go.

How does consulting help you in recruitment? If you want to go into litigation, does it matter?

Also, generally, a lot of people say that work experience is great...but maybe, could someone provide more depth? Why is it better? What have you felt that you've gained (besides maturity, I guess) that was unique?

Thank you all for the wonderful responses so far. Its things like this that really make me love the people on this site.

Consulting is a good background for litigation because it gives you general exposure to business issues and management. Commercial litigation, which is a huge part of big firm litigation groups, pairs legal process with business issues. Firms want people who 1) understand the business problems caused by or solved by litigation 2) can relate to their counterparts at a company and "speak their language."

The other reason that firms prefer people with high level WE generally is that it shows that they know what its like to work in a demanding position. Firms are worried that you will be in the subset of law students who have no idea what a 60+ hr work week is like and will jump ship at the first opportunity. If you can demonstrate that you worked in a similar environment and did well, they will have more comfort hiring you.

Deloitte still has a reputation as a big 4 accounting firm, Monitor is not as well known (esp. in the legal world), Wyman has the most recognition out of that group because of the type of work that they tend to do and way they recruit. I wouldn't discourage you from going to Deloitte or Monitor, but it might be worth leaving earlier if your employer doesn't have the name cache of an MBB (or arguably Wyman).

bdubs wrote:

SYoshi11 wrote:To explain a bit further, I am doing a summer internship at Wyman/Deloitte/Monitor (don't want to out myself too hard, just in case). For law school, my numbers project (god, this will make me sound like a miserable douche-bag) at YHS (179, 3.92-3.94). Regarding banking, I applied for two positions and got dinged. I just don't think I have the raw finance gene in me.

NO idea what kind of law I'd like to do, though litigation seems appealing. But, hey, I know literally nothing about how I'd like the work in litigation or transactional law, so I'm completely open to seeing how things go.

How does consulting help you in recruitment? If you want to go into litigation, does it matter?

Also, generally, a lot of people say that work experience is great...but maybe, could someone provide more depth? Why is it better? What have you felt that you've gained (besides maturity, I guess) that was unique?

Thank you all for the wonderful responses so far. Its things like this that really make me love the people on this site.

Consulting is a good background for litigation because it gives you general exposure to business issues and management. Commercial litigation, which is a huge part of big firm litigation groups, pairs legal process with business issues. Firms want people who 1) understand the business problems caused by or solved by litigation 2) can relate to their counterparts at a company and "speak their language."

The other reason that firms prefer people with high level WE generally is that it shows that they know what its like to work in a demanding position. Firms are worried that you will be in the subset of law students who have no idea what a 60+ hr work week is like and will jump ship at the first opportunity. If you can demonstrate that you worked in a similar environment and did well, they will have more comfort hiring you.

Deloitte still has a reputation as a big 4 accounting firm, Monitor is not as well known (esp. in the legal world), Wyman has the most recognition out of that group because of the type of work that they tend to do and way they recruit. I wouldn't discourage you from going to Deloitte or Monitor, but it might be worth leaving earlier if your employer doesn't have the name cache of an MBB (or arguably Wyman).

Also, the projects that Wyman and Monitor get are different from ones that Deloitte gets. Wyman and Monitor get to work on a lot of strategic issues. On the other hand, although Deloitte is the only big 4 that has a legit consulting arm, the projects it gets tilt towards operational stuff.

Do these big consulting firms only hire from prestigious undergrads + insane GPA's? How does one go about getting hired at a top consulting firm outside this realm?

boosk wrote:Do these big consulting firms only hire from prestigious undergrads + insane GPA's? How does one go about getting hired at a top consulting firm outside this realm?

Mainly, although a few might go for insane GPA from a less prestigious school (big state U usually), but you usually need to have a super difficult major if you're not from an ivy or equivalent ranked school.

bdubs wrote:

boosk wrote:Do these big consulting firms only hire from prestigious undergrads + insane GPA's? How does one go about getting hired at a top consulting firm outside this realm?

Mainly, although a few might go for insane GPA from a less prestigious school (big state U usually), but you usually need to have a super difficult major if you're not from an ivy or equivalent ranked school.

Once you get an interview, whether or not you get a job depends mostly on how well you do on the cases.

icpb wrote:

bdubs wrote:

boosk wrote:Do these big consulting firms only hire from prestigious undergrads + insane GPA's? How does one go about getting hired at a top consulting firm outside this realm?

Mainly, although a few might go for insane GPA from a less prestigious school (big state U usually), but you usually need to have a super difficult major if you're not from an ivy or equivalent ranked school.

Once you get an interview, whether or not you get a job depends mostly on how well you do on the cases.

Yes, but MBB and Wyman don't recruit at a lot of lower ranked schools.

.

SYoshi11 wrote:Thanks for all the great responses guys.

From what it sounds like, consulting (or work experience in general) helps with becoming more mature and maybe insightful. But, is it fair to say, that consulting helps you perform better in law school?

Also, since we've got a few people who know about consulting, can anyone talk about Wyman's quantitative bent (fact or fiction)?

Bain is known for its quantitative bent. From what I've seen, Wyman's strong in financial consulting, but it doesn't rely on quantitative methods more than McK or BCG. If the company is Wyman, then definitely do it for a year or two before law school.

SYoshi11 wrote:is it fair to say, that consulting helps you perform better in law school?

No, that's probably not an accurate assessment, especially for someone who doesn't work for more than a few years. I think people who are good consultants also tend to be good law students, but I don't think it has much to do with what you learn on the job.

SYoshi11 wrote:Also, since we've got a few people who know about consulting, can anyone talk about Wyman's quantitative bent (fact or fiction)?

Consulting gigs tend not to be very quantitatively rigorous in general, but I guess it depends on what your reference point is. I can't speak much to the relative level of quant. work that you would get at one shop or another, and most other people who may give comparisons probably can't do so without a lot of conjecture.