LSAT Score on Resume (0L)? Forum

[abcde12345]

I didn't know where to put this, so I put it here (the "Legal Employment" seems like it's for legit jobs/law students). Also, I used search; I just thought I had a specific circumstance that was worth asking about.

I'm a 0L with good numbers (4.0 from a T5/173) who has had a bad cycle so far (and I don't expect it to get better). Part of this has to do with my lack of WE/internships in college. So I'm on Plan B now: employment. I want to work as a paralegal for 2 years before law school. I've heard that any kind of employment/break from school is helpful, and I suspect this kind of employment will be especially helpful (even if I am doing bitch work 14 hours a day).

Since I have no real WE, should I list my LSAT on my resume? I figure this will show potential employers that I am serious about law--serious enough to devote hours to studying for the LSAT and doing well on it. Thoughts?

[cinephile]

No, it won't come off well.

[abcde12345]

No, it won't come off well.

Why's that?

[TheThriller]

No, it won't come off well.

Why's that?

It's incredibly douchey and self-centered.

Plus, it's not even a 180.

[Crowing]

What do you mean by "bad cycle?" I don't think a couple of years of middling WE is gonna make much difference for your app.

[ManOfTheMinute]

What do you mean by "bad cycle?" I don't think a couple of years of middling WE is gonna make much difference for your app.

Sadly, I agree. Unless you think the worst part of your app was that it came off without any answer to the question, "why law school?"

Otherwise, you should make sure to do some interesting things in your time off - to add some depth to your application.

But fuck it, I would add the LSAT score personally ... at least on half of the apps and see how it goes

[20141023]

.

[abcde12345]

What do you mean by "bad cycle?" I don't think a couple of years of middling WE is gonna make much difference for your app.

I've talked to people who were in my situation 2 years ago, and they all spoke highly of the benefits of WE. And if it doesn't make an app difference, I have heard from virtually everyone that it makes a good deal of personal difference. This recommendation hasn't only been from peers. My friend's parents both graduated CLS and went on to have successful careers; both said they wish they had WE before going in. They thought that having that experience would have let them get more out of their education (in terms of focus).

That being said, I am a highly competent person who has not really had the chance to demonstrate this competence outside of school (even in extracurriculars/internships). This is largely because I'm a junior transfer, and spending 2 years at 2 places, mostly fulfilling school requirements (liberal arts colleges have a ton, as you probably know) hasn't exactly allowed me to build strong relationships with teachers or develop solid softs (also, I transferred WAY up; virtually no one at my old school was able to get a good summer internship; so by the time I got to my current school, I didn't really have a chance competing with all the other kids).

What I mean by bad cycle is this: I applied early December. I've only heard back from Yale and Berkeley--both rejects. Even with NYU auto-admit numbers, I haven't heard back--something about my app obviously concerns them. Maybe it's not my lack of WE. But all the other scenarios are not that plausible (I doubt that my professors, who are professionals, would lie and write bad recs). It could be my PS--but that would simply tie in to lack of WE; my PS would look a lot different if I had something really tangible to talk about.

What do you mean by "bad cycle?" I don't think a couple of years of middling WE is gonna make much difference for your app.

+1

And, as others have said, don't put your LSAT score on your résumé because it is douchey. If you do decide to include it anyway, make sure to put your ACT and SAT scores too, as these are all equally as helpful to employers.

Yeah, I get it. But the point wasn't to show off my LSAT. Like I said in my OP, the point is to show that I'm not applying as a paralegal as some knee-jerk thing.

[fruitoftheloom]

If I were an employer and saw your LSAT score, I would be less likely to hire you because I would assume you were using me as a stepping stone to law school. When I applied for jobs 5 years ago, I had my first interview with HR and told them I thought law school was in my future. He told me to nix that for my interview with the big bosses because nobody wants to feel used.

Also, the 4.0 should show them your intellect.

[abcde12345]

If I were an employer and saw your LSAT score, I would be less likely to hire you because I would assume you were using me as a stepping stone to law school. When I applied for jobs 5 years ago, I had my first interview with HR and told them I thought law school was in my future. He told me to nix that for my interview with the big bosses because nobody wants to feel used.

Also, the 4.0 should show them your intellect.

That makes sense. Thanks.
I guess this brings me to a second question: I know some paralegal job listings specifically advertise themselves as 2 year "pre-professional" programs. Should I not mention that I applied to law schools when/if I interview? Or should I use this as an opportunity to explain myself (applied first, thought I could get more out of it, etc.).

What do you mean by "bad cycle?" I don't think a couple of years of middling WE is gonna make much difference for your app.

Sadly, I agree. Unless you think the worst part of your app was that it came off without any answer to the question, "why law school?"

Otherwise, you should make sure to do some interesting things in your time off - to add some depth to your application.

But fuck it, I would add the LSAT score personally ... at least on half of the apps and see how it goes

Well, I think being a paralegal would be interesting (in the sense of being informative). It could be really boring, but still interesting. I do think I answered the question "why law school" well, and I do think I have a good reason for law school.

[Crowing]

What do you mean by "bad cycle?" I don't think a couple of years of middling WE is gonna make much difference for your app.

I've talked to people who were in my situation 2 years ago, and they all spoke highly of the benefits of WE. And if it doesn't make an app difference, I have heard from virtually everyone that it makes a good deal of personal difference. This recommendation hasn't only been from peers. My friend's parents both graduated CLS and went on to have successful careers; both said they wish they had WE before going in. They thought that having that experience would have let them get more out of their education (in terms of focus).

That being said, I am a highly competent person who has not really had the chance to demonstrate this competence outside of school (even in extracurriculars/internships). This is largely because I'm a junior transfer, and spending 2 years at 2 places, mostly fulfilling school requirements (liberal arts colleges have a ton, as you probably know) hasn't exactly allowed me to build strong relationships with teachers or develop solid softs (also, I transferred WAY up; virtually no one at my old school was able to get a good summer internship; so by the time I got to my current school, I didn't really have a chance competing with all the other kids).

What I mean by bad cycle is this: I applied early December. I've only heard back from Yale and Berkeley--both rejects. Even with NYU auto-admit numbers, something about my app concerns them. Maybe it's not my lack of WE. But all the other scenarios are not that plausible (I doubt that my professors, who are professionals, would lie and write bad recs). It could be my PS--but that would simply tie in to lack of WE; my PS would look a lot different if I had something really tangible to talk about.

Alright that's cool. I agree that WE is great from a personal perspective; I also decided to take a year off after UG and although I was working a pretty stupid job the overall experience of being a full-time worker has definitely been valuable.

I asked what you meant by "bad" because depending on your personal interpretation of that your response should differ. If by bad you mean you didn't get into Yale, then you're going to need to get out there and do some really interesting things rather than just work a desk job for a couple of years. If by bad you mean you struck out of the T6, then there are probably some problems with your app (like a negative LoR, off-putting PS, etc.)

Still it seems too early to give up on this cycle. It sounds like you could still get H, or money @ CCN.

tl;dr: getting even bland WE for personal reasons is great - just don't expect it to help you get into schools you don't get into this time around

[wannabelawstudent]

If I were an employer and saw your LSAT score, I would be less likely to hire you because I would assume you were using me as a stepping stone to law school. When I applied for jobs 5 years ago, I had my first interview with HR and told them I thought law school was in my future. He told me to nix that for my interview with the big bosses because nobody wants to feel used.

Also, the 4.0 should show them your intellect.

That makes sense. Thanks.
I guess this brings me to a second question: I know some paralegal job listings specifically advertise themselves as 2 year "pre-professional" programs. Should I not mention that I applied to law schools when/if I interview? Or should I use this as an opportunity to explain myself (applied first, thought I could get more out of it, etc.).

Ehh...."pre-professional" could mean a lot of things. Don't tell a company that you're leaving in 2 years, unless you're in a temp situation. For example my contract ends in a few months and I was told before I interviewed that this position wouldn't exist afterwards, so they all know I'm going.

[20141023]

.

[abcde12345]

Alright that's cool. I agree that WE is great from a personal perspective; I also decided to take a year off after UG and although I was working a pretty stupid job the overall experience of being a full-time worker has definitely been valuable.

I asked what you meant by "bad" because depending on your personal interpretation of that your response should differ. If by bad you mean you didn't get into Yale, then you're going to need to get out there and do some really interesting things rather than just work a desk job for a couple of years. If by bad you mean you struck out of the T6, then there are probably some problems with your app (like a negative LoR, off-putting PS, etc.)

Still it seems too early to give up on this cycle. It sounds like you could still get H, or money @ CCN.

tl;dr: getting even bland WE for personal reasons is great - just don't expect it to help you get into schools you don't get into this time around

Thanks for your advice. As for your last comment, I agree--I don't really expect just my WE to do the trick. I'm really considering retaking. Also, I think it'll be more of a "combo" thing: I suspect that (if I can get it) strong WE will give me a stronger PS, a strong rec. etc., thus increasing my overall appeal as an applicant.

Ehh...."pre-professional" could mean a lot of things. Don't tell a company that you're leaving in 2 years, unless you're in a temp situation. For example my contract ends in a few months and I was told before I interviewed that this position wouldn't exist afterwards, so they all know I'm going.

Alright, thanks. So there are some conditions in which I should mention it, but mostly avoid it?

Anyway, I'd wait and see how the rest of your cycle plays out. It hasn't gone that badly yet, as Yale is the hardest school to get into in the country and Berkeley is fucking random with the people they admit because they want "diversity." With your numbers, you're bound to get in someplace worthwhile this cycle.

Thanks ! But even if I do get in, I might think about working anyway if I have a decent opportunity. It would be nice, I suppose, to get out of school for once in my life!

[wannabelawstudent]

I wouldn't mention it b/c ya never know what might happen. For example a year you might change hour mind and decide not to go to law school, and the company might eliminate you for consideration for a promotion b/c they think you're leaving soon anyways....

[abcde12345]

I wouldn't mention it b/c ya never know what might happen. For example a year you might change hour mind and decide not to go to law school, and the company might eliminate you for consideration for a promotion b/c they think you're leaving soon anyways....

Never thought of that. Thanks again.

[doing_it_in_a_car]

I listed my >170 LSAT score on my resume and I believe it largely helped to secure my current paralegal position - as well as an offer for a paralegal from a v100 firm that I didn't accept. The people I interviewed with were impressed by the score - and the fact of the matter is, most law firms hire paralegals fresh out of college and expect them to only stick around for 1 to 2 years anyway. They know you're headed to law school. Thus, I would recommend putting your LSAT score on your resume.

[jvsj]

I agree. I interviewed several people at my firm right now, and it is expected that most only stay for a few years before moving on to law school. Candidates who had high LSAT scores on their resumes also proved to be worthy hires.

Although, I must say that I am quite surprised that you got rejected from Boalt with those stats.

[northwood]

do not list the LSAT on the resume. If you are asked " why paralegal job?" you can respond "I am considering a career as a lawyer, but I wanted to get some years of experience to get a better perspective of the career before deciding whether to apply to law school, and I also want to save some money." Or something like that.

[WhiskeynCoke]

For all you people saying don't include your 170+ LSAT score on your resume, on what are you basing this assessment? Is it from a knowledge of law firm hiring or out of a an uninformed personal opinion that it "seems douchey." How is including your LSAT score any more douchey and/or less appropriate than including your 4.0 GPA on your resume when applying for a legal job (before LS matriculation/graduation)?

I've been told by two people who interviewed me (big law firm associates, admissions interviews w/ alumni for G-town & Vandy) that I should include my 170+ LSAT score on my resume as big firm interviewers find it impressive and revealing about the candidate (they know you're not a complete tard).

Just because YOU PERSONALLY FEEL that putting a relevant high test score on a resume is "douchey" doesn't mean it's a bad move in an over-saturated prestige-obsessed profession.

So to reiterate my question.... On what do you base your assessments: Ignorant opinion, or informed experience?

[ms9]

I actually would put it on if you are applying for BigLaw through OCI. For every person it annoys, an elitist will love it. And having met hundreds of hiring partners from said firms, I would say that many are elitist. Just put it next to your undergraduate gpa and it will not look out of place.

In this environment, you really have to differentiate. In my considered opinion (by considered I mean as a former Dean of Career Services I thought about this 24/7) that the risk/reward of alienating some versus attracting others is well worth it.

Obviously just my 2 cents. You should probably expect change from that.

[northwood]

perhaps, but OP is a 0L, so he has no access to OCI, since hes not in law school yet. Thus, Op is looking for work before going to law school ( if OP does decide to go that is).

If OP is worried about being a flight risk,then indicating that OP has taken the LSAt, which usually indicates a chance of attending law school, which wouldthen mean that OP will not be there for a long time, may hurt his canidacy. Putting UG GPA is fine, because OP left Undergrad, and that has no indication of OP's possible intent to go to law school in the near future.

Just my 2cents, but I would not drop any hints about going to law school before getting an interview.( and only if asked)

[JDizzle2015]

While I never included my LSAT score on my resume when I was applying for 0L jobs, I did include "LSAT: 99%tile" because it was easier for people to relate to and became a talking point for a lot of my interviews since my resume was very finance heavy and I was looking for experiences/jobs related to the law.

I was definitely upfront with the fact that I was eventually going to apply for law school. I think being honest during the interview process is extremely valuable because although it might be tougher to get a position (since some biglaw firms require a 2 year commitment for legal assistants), when you do get a job that is a good fit there won't be any surprises later when you ask for letters of rec from your boss and when you finally leave the firm to go to school. (I think the fact that I tried to be genuine every step of the process, plus producing good work, is now helping me since they offered me a position back at the firm without even looking at my law school grades.)

With a 4.0 from a top 5 school, you should be able to get hiring personnel to bite while being honest about your intentions to go to law school.

[dingbat]

I actually would put it on if you are applying for BigLaw through OCI. For every person it annoys, an elitist will love it. And having met hundreds of hiring partners from said firms, I would say that many are elitist. Just put it next to your undergraduate gpa and it will not look out of place.

In this environment, you really have to differentiate. In my considered opinion (by considered I mean as a former Dean of Career Services I thought about this 24/7) that the risk/reward of alienating some versus attracting others is well worth it.

Obviously just my 2 cents. You should probably expect change from that.

Normally, I'd recommend everyone listen to you, but in this case, I think this is horrible advice

The way to impress hiring partners through OCI is by having good grades + law review (and a resume if you have it). A high LSAT score might provide a small bump for those who are impressed, or a quick ding from people who think it's a stupid thing to put on, so that you're basically getting rid of some options to only have a marginally better chance at the remaining options.

Look at it this way. If you get great grades in law school, that's impressive, and stating that you had a high LSAT doesn't add much (considering you've already proven your intellectual prowess).
If you get less than stellar grades, reporting that you have a high LSAT will make them wonder why your grades don't match your potential (Lazy? Sloppy? Bad writing skills?)

just my 2 cents

[ms9]

I actually would put it on if you are applying for BigLaw through OCI. For every person it annoys, an elitist will love it. And having met hundreds of hiring partners from said firms, I would say that many are elitist. Just put it next to your undergraduate gpa and it will not look out of place.

In this environment, you really have to differentiate. In my considered opinion (by considered I mean as a former Dean of Career Services I thought about this 24/7) that the risk/reward of alienating some versus attracting others is well worth it.

Obviously just my 2 cents. You should probably expect change from that.

Normally, I'd recommend everyone listen to you, but in this case, I think this is horrible advice

The way to impress hiring partners through OCI is by having good grades + law review (and a resume if you have it). A high LSAT score might provide a small bump for those who are impressed, or a quick ding from people who think it's a stupid thing to put on, so that you're basically getting rid of some options to only have a marginally better chance at the remaining options.

Look at it this way. If you get great grades in law school, that's impressive, and stating that you had a high LSAT doesn't add much (considering you've already proven your intellectual prowess).
If you get less than stellar grades, reporting that you have a high LSAT will make them wonder why your grades don't match your potential (Lazy? Sloppy? Bad writing skills?)

just my 2 cents

It's certainly debatable. I just went hiking with a former colleague/CSO Director who held your position--which is certainly logical. Clearly far and away the best thing you can do it place as high as possible in your 1L class. I am not disputing that in the least.

But I also know that you are familiar with the data too, Dingbat, and this environment is hyper-competitive. I have seen first-hand people with their LSAT percentile listed on resumes turn heads positively for having a high percentile. BigLaw values the very best law schools because of a certain stigma that those law schools have more than any other reason, and BigLaw hiring partners often cite "intellectual firepower" as a sine qua non for working at their firm. Let's pretend you go to a T-50 but not T-20 school...you would have to differentiate from all of the T20 students who already have a leg up. In this case, and in others, I think it is worth the risk. there has to be more differentiation at certain firms than just gpa because these firms are getting thousands of applications for 5-10 summer externships.

Again, there are many things in applying for a job and applying to law school that you definitively should and should not do. this is not one of them and I can easily see both sides of the debate.