Legal research job Forum

[anonymousphilia]

Hi Y'all,

First post. I just got a job doing legal research and writing at a small practice (I have significant research experience in a different field) and I was wondering how much, if at all, it will help my application.

Thanks!

[hiltopp01]

Not by much.

It'll count as a soft, but softs matter little in the law school admissions process. What's your GPA/LSAT?

[anonymousphilia]

3.5 GPA and I haven't taken the LSAT yet but I just did my first timed practice to see where I am and got 178. It was one of the official LSATs from 1993. Are those still a good indicator of the actual LSAT?

[jselson]

3.5 GPA and I haven't taken the LSAT yet but I just did my first timed practice to see where I am and got 178. It was one of the official LSATs from 1993. Are those still a good indicator of the actual LSAT?

What on earth ... ?!

[anonymousphilia]

3.5 GPA and I haven't taken the LSAT yet but I just did my first timed practice to see where I am and got 178. It was one of the official LSATs from 1993. Are those still a good indicator of the actual LSAT?

What on earth ... ?!

I'm dropping out of a PhD program in philosophy and there's a significant overlap in the skills needed for graduate work in philosophy and those needed to do the LSAT... I guess. Having taken a bunch of logic courses probably helped.

Edit: Seriously though, are the 1993 tests still reliable indicators of current LSAT performance, or are they sufficiently dated as to not be trusted?

[UnderrateOverachieve]

3.5 GPA and I haven't taken the LSAT yet but I just did my first timed practice to see where I am and got 178. It was one of the official LSATs from 1993. Are those still a good indicator of the actual LSAT?

What on earth ... ?!

I'm dropping out of a PhD program in philosophy and there's a significant overlap in the skills needed for graduate work in philosophy and those needed to do the LSAT... I guess. Having taken a bunch of logic courses probably helped.

Edit: Seriously though, are the 1993 tests still reliable indicators of current LSAT performance, or are they sufficiently dated as to not be trusted?

Well if you are serious I would be worried of messing up your mojo trying to study for the LSAT. Maybe try another timed test from the more recent years and if you are still that high... just take it?

[anonymousphilia]

I was originally planning on spending a significant part of the summer studying. Now I'm gonna take a test every other weekend just to make sure I don't have any time issues and endurance isn't a problem. I was definitely pushing it on logic games and had to speed up at the end of reading comp.

[hiltopp01]

3.5 GPA and I haven't taken the LSAT yet but I just did my first timed practice to see where I am and got 178. It was one of the official LSATs from 1993. Are those still a good indicator of the actual LSAT?

Unless you're an URM, you're out at HYS because of your GPA, but if you can get 175+ on your LSAT, you have a good shot at CCN and down. The legal job won't change this, regardless.

[anonymousphilia]

What are my odds at Berkeley? It and Columbia are my top (realistic) choices. I gather that Columbia cares more about LSAT but I have no idea what's going on at Cal.

[jselson]

What are my odds at Berkeley? It and Columbia are my top (realistic) choices. I gather that Columbia cares more about LSAT but I have no idea what's going on at Cal.

Boalt favors gpa, so don't count on it. CLS gpa dips, so you have an outside shot, better than at Boalt. I think you'd definitely get at least 1 lower T14, possibly with money, and NYU seems very possible.

[anonymousphilia]

Alright, well I'd be very happy with UCLA or USC. Are those in my future?

And thanks for taking the time to do this!

[Tekrul]

3.5 GPA and I haven't taken the LSAT yet but I just did my first timed practice to see where I am and got 178. It was one of the official LSATs from 1993. Are those still a good indicator of the actual LSAT?

What on earth ... ?!

Plug your hypothetical stats on mylsn.info. it'll give you a breakdown on admissions percentages. Give the range some give to get a broader sample. Like 3.4-3.6 174-178. That score without study is unreal.

[UnderrateOverachieve]

Prepare your applications. Get a 180 on your LSAT. Apply to everything in the Top 14. Apply to UCLA and USC. Win?

[anonymousphilia]

Assuming I want to end up in California, would it be better to go to USC/UCLA or a non-Cal T14 that I have a chance at?

[Micdiddy]

Assuming I want to end up in California, would it be better to go to USC/UCLA or a non-Cal T14 that I have a chance at?

It's very unlikely you will go to UCLA/USC if you get a score anywhere near your first practice test. You can apply there, and possibly consider them at Full ride, but you should be getting decent money at multiple t14s.
Just study for the test. Even with a diagnostic like that don't really half-ass it. Maybe 3/4 ass it, idk, but just get that sweet sweet LSAT, write those apps, send them out. Then worry about your school when you start hearing back.

[UnderrateOverachieve]

Assuming I want to end up in California, would it be better to go to USC/UCLA or a non-Cal T14 that I have a chance at?

It's very unlikely you will go to UCLA/USC if you get a score anywhere near your first practice test. You can apply there, and possibly consider them at Full ride, but you should be getting decent money at multiple t14s.
Just study for the test. Even with a diagnostic like that don't really half-ass it. Maybe 3/4 ass it, idk, but just get that sweet sweet LSAT, write those apps, send them out. Then worry about your school when you start hearing back.

[jbagelboy]

3.5 GPA and I haven't taken the LSAT yet but I just did my first timed practice to see where I am and got 178. It was one of the official LSATs from 1993. Are those still a good indicator of the actual LSAT?

What on earth ... ?!

I'm dropping out of a PhD program in philosophy and there's a significant overlap in the skills needed for graduate work in philosophy and those needed to do the LSAT... I guess. Having taken a bunch of logic courses probably helped.

Edit: Seriously though, are the 1993 tests still reliable indicators of current LSAT performance, or are they sufficiently dated as to not be trusted?

conventional wisdom from my LSAT prep class and other resources is that the most recent tests will be most accurate. I worked my way from 2011 down, but saved a couple from 2008-2010 to take last. 1993 are still legit exams, but the types of logic games and reading comp passages changes over time, so I would try taking the October 2011 exam as your first recent PT and see how it goes.

[anonymousphilia]

Thanks for the advice--I'll take the October 2011 test on Saturday.

People here seem very T14 heavy. I really hate competitive environments though, so I'm not sure I am that gung-ho about it, ceteris paribus with respect to job prospects (or at least close to it).

To give you an example, Yale is my dream school, I would probably take Harvard over Berkeley, but then nothing else save Stanford. Berkeley over Columbia any day of the week.

And so I'm wondering, are the job prospects *in California* really so much better at a non-Harvard/non-California T14 that I should prefer to go to one of them if I were to get in? Keeping in mind also that my girlfriend's family members--and my own for that matter--are all in California and it would make her happy to be near them.

[UnderrateOverachieve]

Thanks for the advice--I'll take the October 2011 test on Saturday.

People here seem very T14 heavy. I really hate competitive environments though, so I'm not sure I am that gung-ho about it, ceteris paribus with respect to job prospects (or at least close to it).

To give you an example, Yale is my dream school, I would probably take Harvard over Berkeley, but then nothing else save Stanford. Berkeley over Columbia any day of the week.

And so I'm wondering, are the job prospects *in California* really so much better at a non-Harvard/non-California T14 that I should prefer to go to one of them if I were to get in? Keeping in mind also that my girlfriend's family members--and my own for that matter--are all in California and it would make her happy to be near them.

Just get a full ride at USC/UCLA. No one will knock you for making that choice

[Vincent]

Thanks for the advice--I'll take the October 2011 test on Saturday.

People here seem very T14 heavy. I really hate competitive environments though, so I'm not sure I am that gung-ho about it, ceteris paribus with respect to job prospects (or at least close to it).

To give you an example, Yale is my dream school, I would probably take Harvard over Berkeley, but then nothing else save Stanford. Berkeley over Columbia any day of the week.

And so I'm wondering, are the job prospects *in California* really so much better at a non-Harvard/non-California T14 that I should prefer to go to one of them if I were to get in? Keeping in mind also that my girlfriend's family members--and my own for that matter--are all in California and it would make her happy to be near them.

Just get a full ride at USC/UCLA. No one will knock you for making that choice

I had this exact question in mind as I visited East Coast Schools. LST will give you nice information on alumni placement in California, but won't tell you the % of people who tried to come to California and failed. Neither will the schools. From the SF side, it seems like the higher ranked your school is, the easier it is to "come back" (who knew?). Berkeley and Stanford are kings of California, for sure. Personally, I would go to most T14's over USC/UCLA unless it was sticker vs near/full-ride, but it depends on how you value debt vs job placement location.