Value of a PhD? Forum

[carlmazurek]

So this is my situation: I've got a 3.8 GPA and a 171 LSAT. I'm not especially interested in either Yale or Stanford (not that I'd get into Yale with those numbers anyway), but my top 3 are Harvard, Columbia, and NYU (not necessarily in that order). Now, I know the median scores for all of them, so I know basically where I stand numerically, but I have also just completed a humanities PhD at the University of Cambridge, and have references from two very prominent professors who know my work very, very well. My question, then – does anyone have any idea how much of a bump this will provide? I'd like to think a fair bit, but it also means that I've spent quite a bit of time doing stuff that, while I think it will make me a much better lawyer, is not actually directly related to the law in any way.

I'm not looking for anyone to give a school-by-school prediction, since that's unlikely to tell me anything I couldn't get from one of the many available calculators, but it would be much appreciated if anyone can shed any light on how these things are viewed.

n.b. I did a search and didn't find anything helpful, but apologies if I've missed anything!

[A. Nony Mouse]

A PhD is a good soft, but it doesn't generally lead applicants to significantly outperform their numbers. Maybe a small bump? It's probably more a function of how it plays into your whole application - and even then, numbers still carry by far the greatest weight.

[carlmazurek]

A PhD is a good soft, but it doesn't generally lead applicants to significantly outperform their numbers. Maybe a small bump? It's probably more a function of how it plays into your whole application - and even then, numbers still carry by far the greatest weight.

Ok, yeah, that's basically what I figured. Thanks for the reply!

[lawschool2014hopeful]

ull get in at least 1 of HYS, all of CCN.

Not that the PhD is super highly valued, but if you have a PhD from Cambridge in humanities, one would assume you will write a half decent statement and not make any stupid mistakes.

[carlmazurek]

ull get in at least 1 of HYS, all of CCN.

Not that the PhD is super highly valued, but if you have a PhD from Cambridge in humanities, one would assume you will write a half decent statement and not make any stupid mistakes.

Cheers, hope you're right .

[CanadianWolf]

Research each law schools' joint-degree offerings to determine whether or not your law school PS can be enhanced & whether or not any key prof. in your area of specialization at the target schools can write a "recommendation" on your behalf. (Maybe someone who is familiar with, or interested in, your published work & research.) In short, be resourceful & creative with your. PhD. Might help because it's from UCambridge.

P.S. Not sure as to whether or not anyone can comment on the value of a PhD in the law school admissions process since so few PhDs apply. The concern, however, is that you do not want to be viewed as a professional student delaying entrance into the real world. Therefore, your law school personal statement may take on additional importance as an admissions factor. Any PhD applicant should explain "Why law school" in his or her personal statement.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Not sure as to whether or not anyone can comment on the value of a PhD in the law school admissions process since so few PhDs apply.

I don't disagree with the rest, but I'm not sure this is really true. My sense is that most law school classes have a few PhDs in them; it's not really uncommon to have PhDs apply. Also, the anecdotal evidence here all tends to suggest that it's a strong soft but not a complete game changer. (The people with PhDs who've especially excelled have also had tip top numbers.) I would say it can tip the balance if you're borderline, but you need to be in shooting distance to begin with. (In that respect it may help the OP.)

[banjo]

Just say you want to become a law professor specializing in [Your Field] and Law. That's (obviously) been your plan all along. Admissions officers are suckers for stories about ambition, focus, and passion, even if your goals are basically delusional (int'l law, academia, federal judge). Plus, with your numbers and a degree from Oxbridge, you will actually sound credible.

[carlmazurek]

I would say it can tip the balance if you're borderline, but you need to be in shooting distance to begin with

This is basically what I figured – that it wouldn't get me into any school for which I wasn't already in the mix, but that it would hopefully provide a bit of a boost. The potential down side, as someone mentioned, is being viewed as a professional student, but hopefully that's not the view they take.

In any case, thanks to all for your input.

[AntipodeanPhil]

Not sure as to whether or not anyone can comment on the value of a PhD in the law school admissions process since so few PhDs apply.

I don't disagree with the rest, but I'm not sure this is really true. My sense is that most law school classes have a few PhDs in them; it's not really uncommon to have PhDs apply. Also, the anecdotal evidence here all tends to suggest that it's a strong soft but not a complete game changer. (The people with PhDs who've especially excelled have also had tip top numbers.) I would say it can tip the balance if you're borderline, but you need to be in shooting distance to begin with. (In that respect it may help the OP.)

I have a PhD and did a lot of research on this topic a couple of years ago. In the t14, PhDs really aren't that uncommon. A lot of t14 schools admit 10+ each year. Yale admits 20+ per year. If you want some evidence, Berkeley - which has a fairly average incoming class size - admitted 9 last year:

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/37.htm

The t14 schools give PhD students a bump because they very much want to produce academics, and PhDs are much more likely to be academics. Producing academics is one of the best ways for a school to maintain or improve its prestige. After all, the biggest single component of the U.S. News rankings is the peer assessment scores - i.e., prestige as evaluated by academics. Academics evaluate prestige based on where the big figures in their field are teaching, but also based on where those figures got their JDs.

Of course, the only data supporting this is anecdotal, but I came across a lot of anecdotal data. As a more extreme example: a close friend of mine with a PhD got into a top 6 school, despite being below both of the school's 25% percentiles (well below, in one case) and having nothing else significant counting in his favor. I did come across cases in which people didn't seem to get a bump from having a PhD, but generally those people either got their PhDs from very bad or unknown programs, or else didn't have the numbers to even be competitive at t14 schools. Outside the t14, schools seem to care less about PhDs, since they're not producing many/any academics.

[carlmazurek]

Not sure as to whether or not anyone can comment on the value of a PhD in the law school admissions process since so few PhDs apply.

I don't disagree with the rest, but I'm not sure this is really true. My sense is that most law school classes have a few PhDs in them; it's not really uncommon to have PhDs apply. Also, the anecdotal evidence here all tends to suggest that it's a strong soft but not a complete game changer. (The people with PhDs who've especially excelled have also had tip top numbers.) I would say it can tip the balance if you're borderline, but you need to be in shooting distance to begin with. (In that respect it may help the OP.)

I have a PhD and did a lot of research on this topic a couple of years ago. In the t14, PhDs really aren't that uncommon. A lot of t14 schools admit 10+ each year. Yale admits 20+ per year. If you want some evidence, Berkeley - which has a fairly average incoming class size - admitted 9 last year:

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/37.htm

The t14 schools give PhD students a bump because they very much want to produce academics, and PhDs are much more likely to be academics. Producing academics is one of the best ways for a school to maintain or improve its prestige. After all, the biggest single component of the U.S. News rankings is the peer assessment scores - i.e., prestige as evaluated by academics. Academics evaluate prestige based on where the big figures in their field are teaching, but also based on where those figures got their JDs.

Of course, the only data supporting this is anecdotal, but I came across a lot of anecdotal data. As a more extreme example: a close friend of mine with a PhD got into a top 6 school, despite being below both of the school's 25% percentiles (well below, in one case) and having nothing else significant counting in his favor. I did come across cases in which people didn't seem to get a bump from having a PhD, but generally those people either got their PhDs from very bad or unknown programs, or else didn't have the numbers to even be competitive at t14 schools. Outside the t14, schools seem to care less about PhDs, since they're not producing many/any academics.

Sorry for taking a while to reply, been an intense week of teaching. In any case, thanks for sharing your experience, anecdotal though it may be (and really, it couldn't possibly be anything else). Contribution much appreciated!

[Sam_Spade]

hopefully you got a full scholarship plus a stipend as a phd in humanities is totally worthless in today's economy.

So this is my situation: I've got a 3.8 GPA and a 171 LSAT. I'm not especially interested in either Yale or Stanford (not that I'd get into Yale with those numbers anyway), but my top 3 are Harvard, Columbia, and NYU (not necessarily in that order). Now, I know the median scores for all of them, so I know basically where I stand numerically, but I have also just completed a humanities PhD at the University of Cambridge, and have references from two very prominent professors who know my work very, very well. My question, then – does anyone have any idea how much of a bump this will provide? I'd like to think a fair bit, but it also means that I've spent quite a bit of time doing stuff that, while I think it will make me a much better lawyer, is not actually directly related to the law in any way.

I'm not looking for anyone to give a school-by-school prediction, since that's unlikely to tell me anything I couldn't get from one of the many available calculators, but it would be much appreciated if anyone can shed any light on how these things are viewed.

n.b. I did a search and didn't find anything helpful, but apologies if I've missed anything!

[carlmazurek]

EDIT: Deleted, as a bit of searching revealed that I was responding to a troll. Thanks again to all who submitted real answers.

[Mack.Hambleton]

ull get in at least 1 of HYS, all of CCN.

Not that the PhD is super highly valued, but if you have a PhD from Cambridge in humanities, one would assume you will write a half decent statement and not make any stupid mistakes.

don't know if I would go that far, but I would say in at most of CCN.

[jbagelboy]

Just want to point out, at a school like Berkeley especially, a lot of those PhD's are not going to be targeting academia, they are in the physical sciences and the candidates will be targeting IP/patent work. I know two PhD's in my class decently well (there are more, I just don't know their goals), neither of them are in the humanities and both will go work at either at boutiques doing patent prosecution or large firms.

Schools like these technical PhD candidates across the board because they are highly employable, and even when they land in a murky below median range they can still often snag high paying associate positions.