GRE-only current cycle applicant - take March LSAT? Forum

[RealCoolHand]

I applied with GRE to mostly T10 schools. I think I have a fighting chance with my scores, but given that GRE is still largely an unknown, hard to say, so am taking the March LSAT (Jan test not available where I am) just in case I need to reapply next cycle. In the even that I am waitlisted somewhere I actually want to go and the LSAT comes in solid (172+), would it be considered at all by adcom at that point (assuming I am on waitlist in April-May) or just too late? Thanks.

[QContinuum]

That's a lot of ifs. The first big if is your LSAT score. No one should simply assume a 172+, which is top 1.5% nationwide. The second big if is whether you'll be on a waitlist at the time March LSAT scores come out.

That said, IF you score a 172+ and IF you are indeed on a waitlist when March LSAT scores come out, then yes, a 172+ could certainly move you to the top of the waitlist. But you'd almost certainly be out of the running for any scholarship money. If you actually get a 172+ on the March LSAT, you'd be much better served reapplying early in the next cycle. Depending on your GPA, with a 172+ LSAT you'd be in the running for substantial scholarship money at the lower T13 at least.

[Npret]

I applied with GRE to mostly T10 schools. I think I have a fighting chance with my scores, but given that GRE is still largely an unknown, hard to say, so am taking the March LSAT (Jan test not available where I am) just in case I need to reapply next cycle. In the even that I am waitlisted somewhere I actually want to go and the LSAT comes in solid (172+), would it be considered at all by adcom at that point (assuming I am on waitlist in April-May) or just too late? Thanks.

Remember that any LSAT score will be reported to the school. You might actually harm your chances if you don’t do well.
Are you waitlisted anywhere now? Or is this a “what if” scenario?

[RealCoolHand]

Thanks for the quick replies! I am not waitlisted anywhere, but my thought is that I will either go to a top 5 school or not at all. I think I have a shot at T5 on my stats and work experience, but not a slam dunk, hence sort of a fingers crossed scenario. Hence, if it comes down to being waitlisted at a T5 and accepted to lower T13 (I think I have >50% probabilities down here), I would either reapply next cycle or (if the LSAT is strong) try to move up in the waitlist in T5 schools. If the LSAT is 170-172 it probably wouldn't move the needle relative to where I am with my GRE scores and if <170 I'm done anyway. Mainly just wondering if they would even look at it if it came in after March 30 (prob more like late April by the time it was scored?). So the previous poster seems to think they will consider it, which is probably a good thing.

[QContinuum]

Thanks for the quick replies! I am not waitlisted anywhere, but my thought is that I will either go to a top 5 school or not at all.

Why are you "top 5 or bust"? What are your goals out of law school? I don't think there's anything a Columbia student could get that a Cornell student would be foreclosed from.

[RealCoolHand]

Yes, I totally understand the point and agree that, substantively, there probably isn't much difference. I am coming at this from a slightly different angle: 20 years' work experience and a good career in finance, but I want to take things to the next level, which I think will require T5 street cred and connections. Plus, there is the opportunity cost of 3 years mostly out of my profession (finance). That, and basically every review of law school these days advises one to either shoot for the moon or find a more practical way to advance in a non-law career.

[QContinuum]

Yes, I totally understand the point and agree that, substantively, there probably isn't much difference. I am coming at this from a slightly different angle: 20 years' work experience and a good career in finance, but I want to take things to the next level, which I think will require T5 street cred and connections. Plus, there is the opportunity cost of 3 years mostly out of my profession (finance). That, and basically every review of law school these days advises one to either shoot for the moon or find a more practical way to advance in a non-law career.

No offense but it is apparent that you don't understand the way prestige works in the legal market. The "T5" is not a thing in the legal world. There is no dropoff in prestige or placement power between Columbia (#5) and NYU (#6). I know that to someone new to the field, it seems weird that the legal world has this thing called the "Top 13" schools. It doesn't sound intuitive. Usually people have top 5, top 10, etc. But it's just the way the legal world is.

Also, you didn't answer my other question, which is what you want out of law school.

[Npret]

Yes, I totally understand the point and agree that, substantively, there probably isn't much difference. I am coming at this from a slightly different angle: 20 years' work experience and a good career in finance, but I want to take things to the next level, which I think will require T5 street cred and connections. Plus, there is the opportunity cost of 3 years mostly out of my profession (finance). That, and basically every review of law school these days advises one to either shoot for the moon or find a more practical way to advance in a non-law career.

With your application I would wait and see the results before you take the LSAT. You may be one type of candidate that schools are hoping to attract with the GRE option.

This is just a guess - but if you have a top GRE score, another career and an excellent GPA - the LSAT may not add that much. If you’re open to applying next year anyway, why not see what happens?

I’m mostly concerned that a less than top LSAT will hurt you at this point.

I’m also not sure what you expect 3 years of law school will do to help your career if you want to stay in business and not practice law.

[QContinuum]

I’m also not sure what you expect 3 years of law school will do to help your career if you want to stay in business and not practice law.

This is a good point. My previous posts ITT have been predicated on the (perhaps mistaken) assumption that OP wants to practice law. If OP's desire is to use the J.D. - from a "Top 5" school no less - to somehow boost their finance career, I'd strongly advise against attending law school. OP would be much better served getting an MBA from a top b-school instead. Having a J.D. may even harm OP's finance career, because managers will see OP leaving a 20-year finance career to go to law school and will naturally assume that OP did so because they really want to practice law. They will assume OP is applying to finance roles as a fallback because OP wasn't able to secure a desirable legal job, and will deem OP a flight risk.

[RealCoolHand]

That's interesting and I admittedly do not really understand how the market works for legal talent, so that's good to know. As for what I want to get out of a legal education, I am looking to 1) get more involved in private equity/distressed investing vs. public equities--hence wish to develop tax, bankruptcy, antritrust, M&A legal knowledge; 2) move from Asia back to the US (where I am originally from) and find a good way to make the transition--from a skills standpoint; 3) will probably still work in finance after law degree, though I'm not married to that outcome, just given my age, seems practical. Experienced guy sensing stagnation, want to make a change, want new skills, current area is challenged and probably not improving anytime soon. That, and some other things...

[Npret]

That's interesting and I admittedly do not really understand how the market works for legal talent, so that's good to know. As for what I want to get out of a legal education, I am looking to 1) get more involved in private equity/distressed investing vs. public equities--hence wish to develop tax, bankruptcy, antritrust, M&A legal knowledge; 2) move from Asia back to the US (where I am originally from) and find a good way to make the transition--from a skills standpoint; 3) will probably still work in finance after law degree, though I'm not married to that outcome, just given my age, seems practical. Experienced guy sensing stagnation, want to make a change, want new skills, current area is challenged and probably not improving anytime soon. That, and some other things...

If you want to work in finance you don’t need a law degree. If anything, a law degree will take time and money you could put into your finance career.
Maybe investigate what other paths will help you reach your goals.

[QContinuum]

That's interesting and I admittedly do not really understand how the market works for legal talent, so that's good to know. As for what I want to get out of a legal education, I am looking to 1) get more involved in private equity/distressed investing vs. public equities--hence wish to develop tax, bankruptcy, antritrust, M&A legal knowledge; 2) move from Asia back to the US (where I am originally from) and find a good way to make the transition--from a skills standpoint; 3) will probably still work in finance after law degree, though I'm not married to that outcome, just given my age, seems practical. Experienced guy sensing stagnation, want to make a change, want new skills, current area is challenged and probably not improving anytime soon. That, and some other things...

Given the above, I would reiterate the recommendation in my previous post to pursue an MBA at a top b-school instead of a J.D. A MBA from, say, Harvard Business School will do far more to advance your goals and boost your finance cred than a J.D. from Harvard Law School, which (as explained in my previous post) may actually hurt.

[RealCoolHand]

Well, gentlemen, thanks for the advice. Seems pretty clear cut.

[QContinuum]

Well, gentlemen, thanks for the advice. Seems pretty clear cut.

Glad to help and good luck with your career!