Top Law Schools

I've combed through the commentary I can find about the GRE's impact on this cycle, but can't find anything specifically on this question -- I have a 4.0 from top university (undergrad) and am in a masters at an ivy league (for lack of better general descriptor). Applying to law school w/ the GRE is right for me because I am applying to do joint JD/PhD. My GRE is going to be average. I am not going to get better at math (sigh). Because I know people split hairs over LSAT scores and for good reason as they're given such weight in the admissions process...I am worried that an average GRE is going to make applying pointless. Does anyone have any thoughts / intel? The apps are expensive so all input is welcome!

milliemouse wrote:I've combed through the commentary I can find about the GRE's impact on this cycle, but can't find anything specifically on this question -- I have a 4.0 from top university (undergrad) and am in a masters at an ivy league (for lack of better general descriptor). Applying to law school w/ the GRE is right for me because I am applying to do joint JD/PhD. My GRE is going to be average. I am not going to get better at math (sigh). Because I know people split hairs over LSAT scores and for good reason as they're given such weight in the admissions process...I am worried that an average GRE is going to make applying pointless. Does anyone have any thoughts / intel? The apps are expensive so all input is welcome!

Without any data on GRE scores it's hard to tell. With absolutely no factual backing for this, it wouldn't surprise me if Law Schools care less about the Math sections? I remember when I was applying to undergrad I was in that time frame when the SAT writing section was a thing, and schools paid less attention to that (which was annoying for me because I got way better on the writing than the other two sections). Could be a similar situation.

milliemouse wrote:I am applying to do joint JD/PhD.

Oh god why

I would look into how USNews weighs GRE scores. I suspect that is your most useful measure while we don't have more data points.

That said, while it may seem like the GRE is your best option, realistically that's still probably not true. It is probablhin your best interest to study for the LSAT as well--especially if you're convinced your GRE will be average.

ETA: also (and if you're at an ivy then you know this probably, but it bears reminding: a JD/PhD nowadays would only be useful from tippy top schools. Be careful--that's a lot of work to make yourself potentially less marketable (just like how a JD signals that you want to be a lawyer, a PhD signals that you want to be an academic--and anything less than a t10 double major would be, in my view, more risk than is wise.

Rigo wrote:

milliemouse wrote:I am applying to do joint JD/PhD.

Oh god why

hahahh i know right

milliemouse wrote:

Rigo wrote:

milliemouse wrote:I am applying to do joint JD/PhD.

Oh god why

hahahh i know right

so... don't?

mwells56 wrote:

milliemouse wrote:I've combed through the commentary I can find about the GRE's impact on this cycle, but can't find anything specifically on this question -- I have a 4.0 from top university (undergrad) and am in a masters at an ivy league (for lack of better general descriptor). Applying to law school w/ the GRE is right for me because I am applying to do joint JD/PhD. My GRE is going to be average. I am not going to get better at math (sigh). Because I know people split hairs over LSAT scores and for good reason as they're given such weight in the admissions process...I am worried that an average GRE is going to make applying pointless. Does anyone have any thoughts / intel? The apps are expensive so all input is welcome!

Without any data on GRE scores it's hard to tell. With absolutely no factual backing for this, it wouldn't surprise me if Law Schools care less about the Math sections? I remember when I was applying to undergrad I was in that time frame when the SAT writing section was a thing, and schools paid less attention to that (which was annoying for me because I got way better on the writing than the other two sections). Could be a similar situation.

Thank you! Yeah it's not clear to me what competency they're looking to measure. If they really believe that tests are a predictor of success in law school, maybe my not knowing math (or not taking the time to learn it) will actually be a problem as an aspiring attorney. I'm not even being facetious, who knows!

I really doubt that law schools are going to give less weight to the Quant portion of the GRE, because that's the closest analogue to the logical reasoning parts of the LSAT (just with numbers). But as mentioned, there's no way to know this. If you're sure you're going to suck at half the GRE, then maybe just take the LSAT.

pancakes3 wrote:

milliemouse wrote:

Rigo wrote:

milliemouse wrote:I am applying to do joint JD/PhD.

Oh god why

hahahh i know right

so... don't?

Oh, I didn't realize you were seriously asking. Because I am equally passionate about two complimentary disciplines. Why?

What's the career expectation for a joint PhD/JD? Legit curious.

zhenders wrote:I would look into how USNews weighs GRE scores. I suspect that is your most useful measure while we don't have more data points.

That said, while it may seem like the GRE is your best option, realistically that's still probably not true. It is probablhin your best interest to study for the LSAT as well--especially if you're convinced your GRE will be average.

ETA: also (and if you're at an ivy then you know this probably, but it bears reminding: a JD/PhD nowadays would only be useful from tippy top schools. Be careful--that's a lot of work to make yourself potentially less marketable (just like how a JD signals that you want to be a lawyer, a PhD signals that you want to be an academic--and anything less than a t10 double major would be, in my view, more risk than is wise.

Thank you very much! I appreciate all of this input

AJordan wrote:What's the career expectation for a joint PhD/JD? Legit curious.

Legal academia (there is no other rational purpose).

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

AJordan wrote:What's the career expectation for a joint PhD/JD? Legit curious.

Legal academia (there is no other rational purpose).

I personally would not say there is no other "rational" purpose. I think the integration of many disciplines of practice with more academia-oriented PhDs is actually fairly common - like law, medicine, social work, etc. complimenting things like and policy, social sciences eg sociology/anthropology...and so forth. I don't know if that helps clarify my perspective, and I certainly make no claim to know what choices are best for others as far as education is concerned. I maybe am an idealist but I really admire people who follow their intellectual curiosity, wherever it takes them!

milliemouse wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

AJordan wrote:What's the career expectation for a joint PhD/JD? Legit curious.

Legal academia (there is no other rational purpose).

I personally would not say there is no other "rational" purpose. I think the integration of many disciplines of practice with more academia-oriented PhDs is actually fairly common - like law, medicine, social work, etc. complimenting things like and policy, social sciences eg sociology/anthropology...and so forth. I don't know if that helps clarify my perspective, and I certainly make no claim to know what choices are best for others as far as education is concerned. I maybe am an idealist but I really admire people who follow their intellectual curiosity, wherever it takes them!

Law school isn't where you go to satisfy intellectual curiosity; a JD is a professional degree. For that matter, doctorates have very little to do with satisfying broad intellectual curiosity.

But Nony is absolutely right. On a practical level, the only use for a JD/PhD is to try and get a job in legal academia. It's got nothing to do with idealism; the two degrees are only useful in that context. A doctorate is not helpful for the practice of law, and a JD is not helpful for academia outside of law school. And no, it's not common at all.

cavalier1138 wrote:

milliemouse wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

AJordan wrote:What's the career expectation for a joint PhD/JD? Legit curious.

Legal academia (there is no other rational purpose).

I personally would not say there is no other "rational" purpose. I think the integration of many disciplines of practice with more academia-oriented PhDs is actually fairly common - like law, medicine, social work, etc. complimenting things like and policy, social sciences eg sociology/anthropology...and so forth. I don't know if that helps clarify my perspective, and I certainly make no claim to know what choices are best for others as far as education is concerned. I maybe am an idealist but I really admire people who follow their intellectual curiosity, wherever it takes them!

Law school isn't where you go to satisfy intellectual curiosity; a JD is a professional degree. For that matter, doctorates have very little to do with satisfying broad intellectual curiosity.

But Nony is absolutely right. On a practical level, the only use for a JD/PhD is to try and get a job in legal academia. It's got nothing to do with idealism; the two degrees are only useful in that context. A doctorate is not helpful for the practice of law, and a JD is not helpful for academia outside of law school. And no, it's not common at all.

I respect your judgment, and respectfully disagree.

Oh sure, ordinary non-legal academia as well as legal academia.

Mayyyyyybe industry if the PhD is something with actual job opportunities (like some STEM disciplines or ed tech or the like).

Otherwise no rational purpose.

.

I read it as the other way around, wanting to bring the practice stuff into an academic career based out of a related PhD field. There are a few fields where this might be okay, if it doesn’t cost more or add too much more time. I think just taking some JD classes as part of the PhD would make more sense though.

.

milliemouse wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:

milliemouse wrote:

Rigo wrote:

milliemouse wrote:I am applying to do joint JD/PhD.

Oh god why

hahahh i know right

so... don't?

Oh, I didn't realize you were seriously asking. Because I am equally passionate about two complimentary disciplines. Why?

what do you want to do with your degrees, and why? you seem to acknowledge that facially it's a bad idea, so there should be something compelling that's driving you to do this. being "equally passionate about two complimentary disciplines" is nonresponsive. it's not even accurate.

Gray wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I read it as the other way around, wanting to bring the practice stuff into an academic career based out of a related PhD field. There are a few fields where this might be okay, if it doesn’t cost more or add too much more time. I think just taking some JD classes as part of the PhD would make more sense though.

Yeah true, but only to the extent that a non-stem PhD can ever really make sense.

Oh, yeah, that’s a VERY SMALL extent, absolutely.

OP, I'm sure some posters have already put you on the defensive, so apologies for also piling on here.

JDs and PhDs are very, very different in terms of the experience and what you would get out of it. People are emphasizing it's a professional degree because JD classes actually aren't very "academic," and arguably not very intellectual. It's very mechanical. Understand how the law is applied, learn the law, then apply it on exam. Repeat ad infinitum until your head explodes.

A classmate of mine who was K-JD actually complained about this several times over our three years of law school. He was disappointed at how class time was generally not devoted to really talking about the contours of a given legal issue and larger implications in the world. And when professors did this, students often hated it, because it took away from learning the basic building blocks to pass the exam. He didn't. He loved when we got to read cases where the judge got flowery and intellectual and waxed poetic about a given set of issues. But those aren't really as common in modern jurisprudence (except Kennedy's ops).

If intellectual curiosity is what you're seeking more than anything else, I would bet money that you would find your intellectual curiosity bludgeoned to death by the law school machine. Hence why everyone here asks you "what's your career goal with this." Because it's not worth killing something you enjoy if you don't have a way to make money afterward.

pancakes3 wrote:

milliemouse wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:

milliemouse wrote:

Rigo wrote:

milliemouse wrote:I am applying to do joint JD/PhD.

Oh god why

hahahh i know right

so... don't?

Oh, I didn't realize you were seriously asking. Because I am equally passionate about two complimentary disciplines. Why?

what do you want to do with your degrees, and why? you seem to acknowledge that facially it's a bad idea, so there should be something compelling that's driving you to do this. being "equally passionate about two complimentary disciplines" is nonresponsive. it's not even accurate.

First, I mistakenly thought you were alluding to it being a difficult undertaking, which I should not have assumed nor engaged with. I absolutely do not believe it is "facially a bad idea." Second, my response is responsive, lol, and you are not the arbiter of whether or not my stated passions are accurate. I was being vague, yes, because I am not obligated to provide more information about myself. I am trying to keep this discussion within the parameters of the question I asked. I do not need advice on whether or not it's a good idea to pursue a joint JD/PhD. And if one chooses to provide unsolicited advice, I appreciate it respectfully stated - not in the form of unnecessarily combative questions.

mcmand wrote:People are emphasizing it's a professional degree because JD classes actually aren't very "academic," and arguably not very intellectual. It's very mechanical. Understand how the law is applied, learn the law, then apply it on exam. Repeat ad infinitum until your head explodes.

You could change a few words in this and describe most STEM disciplines. The navel gazing you are equating with "intellectualism" is mostly contained within the humanities. Anyway, not trying to bust your balls, but I think that the reason law feels unintellectual has less to do with the mechanical nature of the learning and more to do with the fact that most of the rigor comes from professors playing hide the ball.

Regarding the OP, the only time a JD/PhD makes sense is when the PhD is in BioChem and the JD is accompanied with a USPTO reg. number. Beyond that, either you're either extremely naive about your job prospects or you're hiding from the real world on on your parents' dime.

Rigo wrote:

milliemouse wrote:I am applying to do joint JD/PhD.

Oh god why

It's actually quite fun (so far)