Top Law Schools

I have yet to hear about good advice from a pre-law adviser. Most of the time, kids stumble onto this board and post about their adviser telling them how the local TTTT with a 25% scholly is amazing.

Hell, the pre-law adviser at my school told kids not to study for the LSAT, because "it's all logic-based, and you can't study for that."

Why are these people in the positions they are? How do you get to be so absolutely shitty at your job?

Not telling kids to study for the LSAT is terrible, but I'd imagine a lot of these advisers would get fired if they spent their time telling all the kids with sub 160 scores to retake and reapply.

I think many of them don't believe that "don't go to law school" is appropriate advice from a pre-law advisor, so they end up trying the best they can, even though they probably know intellectually that even the best outcome for a particular student isn't going to be very good.

I also think their thought processes have been beaten down by dealing with mediocre students year after year. Mine originally recommended against retaking a 167, but I found out later that 167 was the highest score she'd seen out of my undergrad in 2-3 years, so she might not have had much faith in me improving it.

SteelPenguin wrote:Not telling kids to study for the LSAT is terrible, but I'd imagine a lot of these advisers would get fired if they spent their time telling all the kids with sub 160 scores to retake and reapply.

Ours was a tenured professor in the CJ department. Wasn't going anywhere.

ScottRiqui wrote: I also think their thought processes have been beaten down by dealing with mediocre students year after year. Mine originally recommended against retaking a 167, but I found out later that 167 was the highest score she'd seen out of my undergrad in 2-3 years, so she might not have had much faith in me improving it.

I can see this. Apparently the average LSAT score of kids at my undergrad is 146. I can't help but wonder if that shitty adviser had any part in that, though.

I think there are a few factors that play into this.

One is that many people (including those choosing a pre-law adviser?) tend to believe that if you've gotten into a top law school, you know how to do it. As a person who was accepted to more than one with crappy applications back in my day, I know that's not true. But, students and, perhaps, hiring bodies inexperienced with the law school admissions process, tend to assume that if you've done it successfully, you can tell other people how to do it.

Another is that it's not always easy to get people to take on these roles. They have classes to teach and publications to worry about and finding someone willing to serve in a role like this can be a challenge--which often results in taking what you can get.

I also think that many pre-law advisers make the same kinds of assumptions that students and hiring bodies do and simply don't know what they don't know. Some, perhaps many, would undoubtedly be willing to put in the work to educate themselves if they realized how far wrong they were steering their students, but that lightbulb never goes off.

Just look at the number of useless letters of recommendation applicants gather from lawyers and professors who think they know how to write a good letter of recommendation simply because they've been doing it for years.

Ricky-Bobby wrote:Ours was a tenured professor in the CJ department. Wasn't going anywhere.

I think this is one of the problems - a lot of schools (small schools especially) don't hire people specifically for the position, they just dragoon whatever faculty member they can find who's in a field that looks close (CJ, polisci). Since they're profs in whatever field it is, they've probably never applied/gone to law school, so they don't have any idea what they're talking about, and they don't have any incentive to learn, as TLSanders points out (they're judged on teaching/research, not advising). I also think people who've gone through PhD programs tend to assume all grad admissions work the same way (which they don't).

I think this dragooning-of-the-unqualified is especially the case if you're at a college/university without a law school, but even if there is a law school, it doesn't seem like the law school plays any significant role in advising the undergrads. I think this is at least in part because at bigger schools, advising is often done more by major than by what you actually want to do when you graduate. Or there's a general "career services" center, but they have to be able to handle everything that comes in the door, so they may not be very well informed about law school, either.

I never used the pre-law advising at my undergrad, but I had friends who were premed. The advisors were relatively harsh and not afraid to crush dreams, even though I don't think any of them were MDs themselves. They would tell students if they needed to focus on DO schools only or retake orgo or maybe consider PA school. Pre-law advisers don't have to do it because everyone can get into SOME law school, so their job is easily accomplished.

TLSanders wrote:I think there are a few factors that play into this.

One is that many people (including those choosing a pre-law adviser?) tend to believe that if you've gotten into a top law school, you know how to do it. As a person who was accepted to more than one with crappy applications back in my day, I know that's not true. But, students and, perhaps, hiring bodies inexperienced with the law school admissions process, tend to assume that if you've done it successfully, you can tell other people how to do it.

Another is that it's not always easy to get people to take on these roles. They have classes to teach and publications to worry about and finding someone willing to serve in a role like this can be a challenge--which often results in taking what you can get.

I also think that many pre-law advisers make the same kinds of assumptions that students and hiring bodies do and simply don't know what they don't know. Some, perhaps many, would undoubtedly be willing to put in the work to educate themselves if they realized how far wrong they were steering their students, but that lightbulb never goes off.

Just look at the number of useless letters of recommendation applicants gather from lawyers and professors who think they know how to write a good letter of recommendation simply because they've been doing it for years.

I think you nailed it.

It's like asking that really ripped guy at the gym how he works out.

Often they give terrible advice because their own good fortune/genetics gave them good outcomes. It's all correlation/causation

But they can sometimes be really great too, just no guarantee.

I get all of the "they're unqualified" explanations, but to me this is almost as bad as shitty law schools charging what they charge. How can an undergrad institution look at employment rates for new lawyers and say "lol fuck it, this rando polisci PhD will do"?

Mine basically told us not to go if it wasn't our state regional powerhouse or a T-14 or a full ride. She was a sharp lady and really sold my college to me on her prelaw advising abilities. Bragged about getting students into every law school except for Yale. I ended up attending that college but found out really quick that her whole strategy was just writing letters of recommendation, and that she wasn't properly accounting for the LSAT.

Mine tried to sell me on the local TTT ("You know, you might be able to get a scholarship") and Northeastern (because of their innovative curriculum), among other questionable options. Also didn't realize that Duke is in North Carolina.

I thought mine was pretty good. He actually warned us about debt and suggested us to apply broadly for scholarship negotiations. But like others have said, I think he saw his job as helping students get into the best schools they can/make the best choice among their options as opposed to telling them whether or not their decision to go to law school is actually a good one.

Ricky-Bobby wrote:I get all of the "they're unqualified" explanations, but to me this is almost as bad as shitty law schools charging what they charge. How can an undergrad institution look at employment rates for new lawyers and say "lol fuck it, this rando polisci PhD will do"?

Probably because they figure getting a job/going on to grad school is on the student, not the undergrad college.

I talked to mine like once for maybe 5 minutes and he said "idk" to basically every question I had. I guess this makes him an above average pre-law advisor since at least he didn't give me any bad/wrong advice.

I had a "Intro to Law" class first semester of my freshman year with my pre-law advisor. That class made me take the advice to never see her again

HAHAHAHAHA my pre-law advisor looked at my GPA and told me i would be lucky to get into ANY law school. Had major freak out until i discovered TLS.

A pre-law advisor at Princeton told my friend's friend (who is URM) that GULC would be a huge reach for her. She applied to HYSCCN because my friend begged her too, and now she is going to HYS.

Seriously these pre-law advisors suck so much.

I think I'd be a pretty amazing pre-law advisor TBH.

Where do I sign up? Do you really need a PhD? If you work at Big State U that can't be the case, right?

Are these jobs PSLF eligible if they are at a public school? I'm guessing not but if so...

My meeting with our pre'law advisor started out good, she actually does something in the law school and so undergrad appointments are limited but I got one last semester. She told me I need to ask for LOR now instead of waiting and went on about how importance GPA is then the conversation turned to me. After I told her I had high goals and probably was setting myself up for failure making Berkekly my dream school she asked what my GPA was3.8x at the time and which point she said "So as long as you get about a 160 or more you should be good!" I then had to explain to her that Berk was a amazing school and she looked up rankings and just turned to me and said "Oh" My undergrad is the state flagship our law program is usually in the low 50's and yet in her mind anything over a 160 is auto admits everywhere!

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Ricky-Bobby wrote:I get all of the "they're unqualified" explanations, but to me this is almost as bad as shitty law schools charging what they charge. How can an undergrad institution look at employment rates for new lawyers and say "lol fuck it, this rando polisci PhD will do"?

Probably because they figure getting a job/going on to grad school is on the student, not the undergrad college.

I actually agree with that mentality. I do think the adviser should then point that out, given that's their job. It should be the student's responsibility to find employment, but an institution meant to educate should at least say "hey we may suck at giving advice."

In a tangentially-related matter, I found out that 'adviser' and 'advisor' are interchangeable. I had a bit of an existential crisis when typing the OP because my phone red-lined 'advisor'. I thought I'd been spelling it wrong all my life.

The pre-law adviser at my school was pretty non-existent. Soooo I guess thats a good thing?

My advisor told me that he started studying in the middle of january for a test in February, got a 167, and then went to UA little rock. Serious.

My pre-law advisor totally dismissed rankings and the idea of a T-14. I had a 17x LSAT and she told me to look into William and Mary because "students seem to have such a good experience there." Thank god for TLS.

Mine was awful. I had a 163 LSAT because i hadn't studied at all, and a 3.96 gpa. When I said I'd decided to retake he went all "you should think about why you want to go to law school, and if you wanted it FOR THE RIGHT REASONS you wouldn't care about rankings." Thank goodness i had other, better advice, and now I'm going to Yale.

Ricky-Bobby wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Ricky-Bobby wrote:I get all of the "they're unqualified" explanations, but to me this is almost as bad as shitty law schools charging what they charge. How can an undergrad institution look at employment rates for new lawyers and say "lol fuck it, this rando polisci PhD will do"?

Probably because they figure getting a job/going on to grad school is on the student, not the undergrad college.

I actually agree with that mentality. I do think the adviser should then point that out, given that's their job. It should be the student's responsibility to find employment, but an institution meant to educate should at least say "hey we may suck at giving advice."

Frankly, college advisers should be telling the vast majority of college students that graduate school of almost any kind is the wrong call. Too many mentors on college campuses push their students to apply to grad school. This was huge in my college's history and English departments. Getting a job may be on the student, but colleges have a responsibility to be cognizant of the job market and not encourage their students to go into failing career models. The odds of getting a tenure track academia position for someone at a humanities grad school are now lower than 10%. It's ruinous to tell all these people in college who look up to you that they can just follow in the same shoes you wore 20 years ago and end up just like you.

so to be one you have to give bad advice or no advice without worry about losing your job and you work for a university... where do I sign up??