Top Law Schools

.

Your WE will be your soft

Ave wrote:Your WE will be your soft

this. work = softs, and a better one than stupid shit like undergrad clubs

I know people distinguish them, but there are only 2 parts to an application. Numbers and softs. You have softs.

LOL at softs.

Softs are useless.

"Hey man, you got softs?????"

Never happens.

Check out this humble brag.

I don't even go to church?

.

Local TTT: Oh look at this asshole, he isn't even in adult piano clubs, and has organized no blood drives. DING

How important are softs if you have a good amount of work experience? I'm 26 and will have about 8 years work experience (majority of it at the management and executive level) by the time I apply later this year. Good GPA, and anticipating a decent LSAT score for where I want to apply. Problem is I don't have any traditional softs. None. I don't even go to church. I also don't have time to add any at this point, between juggling work, school, and family. Given that most applicants won't have the amount of work experience I have, should I be worried? Or will my work resume make up for the lack of softs?

I'd be more worried about the fact that you don't seem to know what "softs" ARE.
- Work Experience IS A SOFT. In fact, it's the bread-and-butter of softs. Nobody gives a shit about a college club/fraternity you joined simply to fluff your resume/get wasted.
- How is it that you think 8 years of mostly executive/management experience won't be looked on as favorably as "going to church?" What church would be best? Catholic? Baptist? Is Lutheran best? As someone with years of "executive" experience, you should know better than this.
- Your work experience will make you STAND OUT IN A GOOD WAY vs. all the K-JD children who are only going to law school because daddy is paying and they don't wan't to face the real world just yet.

Don't worry dude, just ace your LSAT and you're set. You have solid softs. Also, make sure you demonstrate why law in your PS. With your current career success, I find myself wondering why law for you already.

bro you're 26 and have spent most of your career at the executive level? what does that even mean?

why are you even thinking about going to law school if that is the truth? just bored and flaming?

bcandybc wrote:bro you're 26 and have spent most of your career at the executive level? what does that even mean?

why are you even thinking about going to law school if that is the truth? just bored and flaming?

Student loans are a great way to build credit.

jselson wrote:Check out this humble brag.

What are you talking about?

PRgradBYU wrote:

jselson wrote:Check out this humble brag.

What are you talking about?

Probably that 8 years of we in management and executive level is a way better soft than 99% of applicants.

Micdiddy wrote:

PRgradBYU wrote:

jselson wrote:Check out this humble brag.

What are you talking about?

Probably that 8 years of we in management and executive level is a way better soft than 99% of applicants.

Yup

I'm soft just thinking about your softs.

.

first thing I saw after reading the title was "lay off the viagra"

LMAO! This is a great thread thanks.

Don't have time? Lol. Most of us juggle those same things and figure out to get a soft. Work Experience is probably the only "soft" admissions will care about.

What executive level are you working at for the past 8 years? 18 year old executive without a UG?

VegasLaw702 wrote:My question pertained to "traditional" softs (although the title of the post is a bit more general). While I would consider WE a soft, I wouldn't consider it a traditional soft in the same category as things like volunteering, extra curriculars, church participation (I know a bunch of people who have listed this on their apps, which is why I mentioned it) etc. I'm aware that WE would be looked at as a soft. I was more concerned with my lack of TRADITIONAL softs and how it might look on my application, since I'm sure many applicants will have at least some work experience, and traditional softs like the ones mentioned above would probably help distinguish an applicant just little bit more.

As for why I'm now considering law? I've been considering law the whole time, I just put my UG on hold for a while to cash in on the opportunity I had to move up in the ranks.

Work experience IS a traditional soft: the majority of incoming classes for LS has had at least 1-2 years of WE (30-40% 2+ years). Sure, you've worked for 8 years (there are other LS applicants with longer WE) but that doesn't mean that WE is a "non-traditional" soft, whatever that means.

Ave wrote:

VegasLaw702 wrote:My question pertained to "traditional" softs (although the title of the post is a bit more general). While I would consider WE a soft, I wouldn't consider it a traditional soft in the same category as things like volunteering, extra curriculars, church participation (I know a bunch of people who have listed this on their apps, which is why I mentioned it) etc. I'm aware that WE would be looked at as a soft. I was more concerned with my lack of TRADITIONAL softs and how it might look on my application, since I'm sure many applicants will have at least some work experience, and traditional softs like the ones mentioned above would probably help distinguish an applicant just little bit more.

As for why I'm now considering law? I've been considering law the whole time, I just put my UG on hold for a while to cash in on the opportunity I had to move up in the ranks.

Work experience IS a traditional soft: the majority of incoming classes for LS has had at least 1-2 years of WE (30-40% 2+ years). Sure, you've worked for 8 years (there are other LS applicants with longer WE) but that doesn't mean that WE is a "non-traditional" soft, whatever that means.

Majority? Only at Northwestern is that true. For example I asked UT's career office, 70% of the kids are traditionally K-JD's with no work experience.

Yeah, I've been specifically told by career services what a special snowflake I am because of my work experience.

StylinNProfilin wrote:Majority? Only at Northwestern is that true. For example I asked UT's career office, 70% of the kids are traditionally K-JD's with no work experience.

YLS: 19% K-JD
HLS: 24% K-JD
SLS: <25% K-JD
CLS: 38% K-JD
Chicago: <40% K-JD
NYU: 30% K-JD
UPenn: 36% K-JD
UVA: 24-35% K-JD
Michigan: 28% K-JD
NU: 10% K-JD
Cornell: I couldn't find it during a cursory research
Georgetown: I couldn't find it during a cursory research but you get the idea

Note: Sure, a part of these percentages went for advanced degrees rather than work but even then, WE is NOT some unique soft (this also depends on the type of WE, of course).

What about the other 150 law schools? I'd venture a guess that the elite law schools skew toward a much higher percentage of their class having WE.

Danger Zone wrote:What about the other 150 law schools? I'd venture a guess that the elite law schools skew toward a much higher percentage of their class having WE.

I just assumed he was looking at T-14 but then I guess

VegasLaw702 wrote:Good GPA, and anticipating a decent LSAT score for where I want to apply.

could mean he's looking at the other 150 schools