LSAT not required Forum

[lawat43]

I'm applying to Massachusetts School of Law and they do not require the LSAT. They are accredited by other agencies like NEASC, but not ABA. You are eligible to take the bar after graduating. Will this be worth my time? I'm 43 and this is a career change so I do not want to go for 3 years and then have no job prospects. Thanks in advance.

[lymenheimer]

What do you want to do with a JD? Regardless, an un-ABA-accredited school is not one that you want to attend.

[TheRealSantaClaus]

.

[joeycxxxx09]

I'd turn back if I were you

[lymenheimer]

I don't know of many scenarios where attending a non-ABA accredited law school would be worthwhile. Maybe if you already had a job where they were offering you a bonus or promotion to obtain a J.D.?

For most people, TCR would be not to attend.

"career change" so I'm assuming not the bolded

[lawat43]

Thanks for the responses. Additional note: they do require you take an entrance exam. The example they have looks very similar to LSAT questions I've seen. I do have an MBA and had my own business which I recently sold. Not interested in another business, thus the career change. They have a term that starts in January so if accepted I would be able to start then. My other option is to take the Feb 2016 LSAT and start applying for next fall.

[Sweetneers]

Thanks for the responses. Additional note: they do require you take an entrance exam. The example they have looks very similar to LSAT questions I've seen. I do have an MBA and had my own business which I recently sold. Not interested in another business, thus the career change. They have a term that starts in January so if accepted I would be able to start then. My other option is to take the Feb 2016 LSAT and start applying for next fall.

Study hard for Feb LSAT and apply to good schools.

[Clearly]

you need to 100% stop everything you're doing and do a LOT more research on this decision. You need to consider costs, job placement lots of things. A JD is a worthless degree if it doesn't lead to employment, especially if you are paying for law school with loans. There's very few cases where going to a not good law school is a wise decision. I'd recommend you start here:
http://www.lstscorereports.com/national/

[seagan823]

You definitely want to do more research. There are essentially two ways to go about law school that make sense if you are looking at practice outside of public interest work.

1. Go to a top law school with the goal of working in big law. The higher ranked the school, the less risky for job placement and the more debt you could be comfortable taking on. Almost all on this forum would agree that you should not take on any substantial debt outside of the top 25 or so law schools, and most people would suggest not attending any top school without a substantial scholarship. The cost of paying down loans covering 100% of tuition are too high even for big law.

2. Go to the best regional law school in the place you want to practice. Do this for free by crushing the LSAT. You may not have a shot at big law, but if you want to be an attorney and don't mind making 40-60 k with the hopes of working toward a solid living, this is the path to go. Smaller law firms tend to hire locally from regionally important schools.

In either case, what you need to do is crush the LSAT. That school trying to entice you is a scam. Almost all schools that fall outside of the above criteria are bad choices.

[lawat43]

Your answers are what I suspected. I won't be attending that school and will be taking the Feb 2016 LSAT. I'm interested in constitutional and first amendment law, not sure if that is considered "big law" though.

[deant286]

if thats the area of law you're interested in its probably best you pursue a Public Interest career as jobs in "constitutional law" aren't really a thing, i think people on here will usually tell you something like: "if you want to do constitutional law you should have gone to Harvard Law in the 1960s."

here is the TLS definition for big law:

Although the term “biglaw” is prone to some variance in usage, the most commonly accepted definitions would stipulate that a biglaw job involves working in a large firm (the definition of “large” can also vary; the minimum would be 101 attorneys or more) that pays attorneys the market rate for large firms (currently starting at $160,000 a year), demands long hours, and tends to represent large corporations rather than individuals.

whatever you do your primary concern right now should be to prepare for the LSAT (the single most important factor in law school admissions) in order to score high enough to get into a school that can realistically help you find employment:

-in the area of law you wish to practice
-in your desired geographical area (non-t14 schools are regional = you can only realistically expect to find employment where they are located)
-with as little debt as possible

[ihenry]

Yes, that's bona fide biglaw. Can you think of a law that's bigger than the constitution and first amendment? I can't.

On a serious note, though, please don't be interested in constitutional and first amendment law.

[Alive97]

The cost of paying down loans covering 100% of tuition are too high even for big law.

Keep in mind a fair number of TLS advice-givers are prone to overstating their point. If at a 160k salary your monthly net income is somewhere around 8k, you've got yourself a lot of money and I don't want to hear anyone say they "feel poor" on that salary, because they are being dramatic.

If you have the money, one could argue you could go to law school if you feel like it. Just be aware of what working as a lawyer is like.

The reasoning of TLS advice-givers is basically based entirely on money. For example when someone comes on here and says they currently make 100k and are considering law school part time, TLS says "OMG opportunity cost money money don't go". But in the end, assuming that person knows what they're getting into, they're going to be fine.

One could argue that you don't need to have a cow over maximizing money over the course of your career.

[AReasonableMan]

You would not have good job prospects. Even if you're the 1 in a 100 who could make that a good investment, you won't realize a net positive by the time you retire. At 43 even a top school would be a big risk because your odds of getting sick increase each year, and this profession only amplifies those odds. At a school like this where you need to independently make a name for yourself to get the same opportunity, it's crazy.

[Traynor Brah]

Your answers are what I suspected. I won't be attending that school and will be taking the Feb 2016 LSAT. I'm interested in constitutional and first amendment law, not sure if that is considered "big law" though.

Sorry to burst your bubble but this very likely never going to happen for you. The attorneys who meaningfully touch this kind of work are the elite of the elite. Even if you're intelligent and skilled enough to be an elite appellate litigator, and would have the statistics to go to a top-flight school (which is a necessary condition for this kind of work), the number of hoops you have to jump through to get there, at your age, are too numerous to really make it seem worth it (financially and otherwise). Based on everything you've said, I think law school would be an all-around poor decision, if not terrible one. Don't do this to yourself; enjoy life.

[deant286]

alive97, you are misrepresenting the position that is so often taken on TLS.

It is irresponsible and irrational to advise anyone to go to law school and take on any amount of debt (let alone 100% of the COA, which is like $300k) if they have the opportunity ahead of time, generally through a retake, to reduce that debt before they ever have to tie themselves to it.

Why leave, lets say, $50k in scholarship on the table (because you didnt prepare well enough for an infinitely learnable test) and force yourself to have to get through law school, land a big law job, and then work enough big law hours to pay off that $50k before having to address the rest of your debt - however much it is?

This is the rational and basis for the advice that is so often given on here. People are rarely, if ever, told not to go if they have maximized their opportunity for scholarship and are not setting themselves up to leave law school with life-crippling debt and no realistic chance of finding employment that can ever address it.

[Alive97]

I agree he should optimize his application process, and should not go to law school if it will not result in a career he desires.

I do not agree that he should necessarily not go because it "won't be profitable", because he's "too old", or because he won't "enjoy life". Granted I am talking about fairly limited circumstances, wherein the money you already have reduces or eliminates the need for significant profit. So that's why the examples I'm talking about are someone who sold their business or someone making a pretty good salary and going part time. But basically I think people overstate their point when they say "do not go", which they do.

[Clearly]

I agree he should optimize his application process, and should not go to law school if it will not result in a career he desires.

I do not agree that he should necessarily not go because it won't be profitable, because he's too old, or because he won't enjoy life. Granted I am talking about fairly limited circumstances, wherein the money you already have reduces or eliminates the need for significant profit. So that's why the examples I'm talking about are someone who sold their business or someone making a pretty good salary and going part time. But basically I think people overstate their point when they say "do not go", which they do.

You go to law school yet?

[Alive97]

I agree he should optimize his application process, and should not go to law school if it will not result in a career he desires.

I do not agree that he should necessarily not go because it won't be profitable, because he's too old, or because he won't enjoy life. Granted I am talking about fairly limited circumstances, wherein the money you already have reduces or eliminates the need for significant profit. So that's why the examples I'm talking about are someone who sold their business or someone making a pretty good salary and going part time. But basically I think people overstate their point when they say "do not go", which they do.

You go to law school yet?

To be clear, I'm talking about a situation where he knows what he's getting into. I am in fact talking about limited circumstances where certain factors are mitigated. If it's impossible to know what you're getting into without going to law school, and every law student knows the factors can't be mitigated because there are no jobs and it gives you depression, well then that sucks. But aren't there exceptions where those statements are not true? I just think those exceptions should be accounted for.

[Alive97]

And I should add that to reach an acceptable level of risk you need to go to a good school, for purposes of getting a job. Being able to get a job does entail going to a "good" school, where exactly you draw the line, it probably shouldn't be above the top 50.

[lawat43]

I like all of the advice given, especially about not going to law school at my age. I got a good laugh out of that. One thing is for sure, I'm taking the LSAT in February and will be attending law school somewhere. In my OP I was curious about attending a school where the LSAT was not required. Seemed fishy to me and you all have convinced me not to do it. One thing I have noticed in my research is that law schools look at more than numbers. Life experience is just as, if not more important. The extra twenty years I have on some of you can be seen as a benefit. I have an MBA and have managed and owned businesses. Schools look for this kind of diversity and there are even scholarships available for older students and/or those making a career change.

[deant286]

I agree he should optimize his application process, and should not go to law school if it will not result in a career he desires.

I do not agree that he should necessarily not go because it "won't be profitable", because he's "too old", or because he won't "enjoy life". Granted I am talking about fairly limited circumstances, wherein the money you already have reduces or eliminates the need for significant profit. So that's why the examples I'm talking about are someone who sold their business or someone making a pretty good salary and going part time. But basically I think people overstate their point when they say "do not go", which they do.

Its just easier to take the "don't go" position and spit out various TLS tag lines, by default, when the overwhelming majority of people in the U.S (including many of the one-off posters who are not familiar with the common knowledge on here) think that law school, as a rule, is a path to lucrative and prestigious employment and are unaware of the actual reality that they are more likely than not to end up moderately-to-heavily indebted, working unpleasant hours, making $60k a year - if they even find a job.

OP, like many before him, came on here asking for advice on how to pursue a career that isn't realistically worth pursuing, because its probably as difficult to land as a career playing in the NFL (just a guess, idk). Thats fine, TLS exists to clarify these sorts of things, but its a good example of the unrealistic expectations so many people have. The reality of a career in law is far enough off from what the average person expects that it probably is wise for them not to pursue it for all the reasons you said TLS advice-givers respond with - not profitable, low quality of life, maybe too old, etc. - because their belief otherwise is the motivating force for going in the first place.

People with an understanding of the realities of legal employment, realistic expectations for themselves, and good enough credentials to justify attending are 1) few and far between and 2) not told "don't go."

[deant286]

I like all of the advice given, especially about not going to law school at my age. I got a good laugh out of that. One thing is for sure, I'm taking the LSAT in February and will be attending law school somewhere. In my OP I was curious about attending a school where the LSAT was not required. Seemed fishy to me and you all have convinced me not to do it. One thing I have noticed in my research is that law schools look at more than numbers. Life experience is just as, if not more important. The extra twenty years I have on some of you can be seen as a benefit. I have an MBA and have managed and owned businesses. Schools look for this kind of diversity and there are even scholarships available for older students and/or those making a career change.

Its pretty common knowledge that the bolded is false, OP.

I am not trying to be difficult or contrarian. The reality is that, for law school admissions, the following (and in this order) is what matters: 1) LSAT, 2) GPA, 3) everything else (and in a very very distant third) - all of the evidence points to this being true.

Take a look at lawschoolnumbers.com and see for yourself. You may be given a slight boost in your admission chances based on your work experience, MBA, etc. but not enough that it will move the needle to an appreciable degree. There is evidence of this all over that website: people are generally accepted or rejected based entirely off of their numbers, despite whatever other soft factors they may have. Seriously, take a look.

Don't neuter your chances of admission at a good school because you didn't prepare well enough for the LSAT thinking you would make up for it with soft factors.

[Clearly]

I like all of the advice given, especially about not going to law school at my age. I got a good laugh out of that. One thing is for sure, I'm taking the LSAT in February and will be attending law school somewhere. In my OP I was curious about attending a school where the LSAT was not required. Seemed fishy to me and you all have convinced me not to do it. One thing I have noticed in my research is that law schools look at more than numbers. Life experience is just as, if not more important. The extra twenty years I have on some of you can be seen as a benefit. I have an MBA and have managed and owned businesses. Schools look for this kind of diversity and there are even scholarships available for older students and/or those making a career change.

Haha please do post this research that supports that schools aren't just about numbers. I'd like you to check out a website called law school numbers. It has charts that show you people who applied and the result. What you'll find is uniformly that people with numbers get in, and people without them don't. You would expect things to be much more scattered if they cared about things beyond numbers, surely some people below medians would have had experience, and surely some people above medians would have none..but nope, all numbers.

Listen, people can be a little obtuse around here, but we're mostly law students, lawyers, or well informed applicants. Trust that we're telling you that no one is going to pay you to defend their first amendment rights after you graduate from some t100 school. Those jobs to the extent that they exist for new graduates at all are reserved for basically the top one or two schools.

Also, don't convince yourself we're all young, or otherwise not up to your experience, it appears we have some things in common in fact.

[Traynor Brah]

I like all of the advice given, especially about not going to law school at my age. I got a good laugh out of that. One thing is for sure, I'm taking the LSAT in February and will be attending law school somewhere. In my OP I was curious about attending a school where the LSAT was not required. Seemed fishy to me and you all have convinced me not to do it. One thing I have noticed in my research is that law schools look at more than numbers. Life experience is just as, if not more important. The extra twenty years I have on some of you can be seen as a benefit. I have an MBA and have managed and owned businesses. Schools look for this kind of diversity and there are even scholarships available for older students and/or those making a career change.

Where are you getting this from? There is no evidence that this is the case in any meaningful way; in fact, we have over a decade of hard data that support the exact opposite proposition (that school care literally only about LSAT/GPA).

You clearly have done essentially no research on law schools or legal employment, and it's very scary that you've adamantly decided you're going to spend four years and a truckload of money/opportunity cost on a profession you know nothing about and have little to no reason to think you'd enjoy. ~45% of graduates nationally don't end up with a job as an attorney ten months after graduating, and the average graduate takes like 140K in debt, and the median salary for the 55% who do get a job is less than 60K. It's your life, guy; knock yourself out.