Graduating in three years at age 20 Forum

[mastermonkey45]

I was wondering whether graduating a year early as part of an accelerated program would be a boon to my transcript or overall competitiveness as an applicant. I'm getting a three-year (accredited and not a bad program don't worry) econ BBA from a relatively obscure business school. I'm doing 19 units this semester alongside some extracurriculars. Does finishing early or at a younger age help or hinder my profile? Does it ameliorate some of the concerns over lower grades during heavy semesters (e.g. I get a B+ in calculus this semester and all others are 4.0, like my first)? I chose this in part because I had 18 units done with a 4.0 before starting in the fall.

[dvlthndr]

Schools care about your GPA and your LSAT score. Whether you finished early is irrelevant, and they aren't going to cut you any slack if you have bad grades on your transcript.

Schools tend to prefer candidates who have a year or two of work experience. It is not strictly required, but it makes you are more interesting candidate and is a positive "soft" factor. Food for thought.

[AJordan]

Nope. Doing this will in no way help you. It's just GPA and LSAT. You also are going to want a reason why you are going to law school so young. If you don't have one, that could actually hurt you in the eyes of admissions.

Do whatever you have to do to get that 3.9+/170. Also think about going to work for a few years before law school. It helps immensely, not just in admissions, but in interviewing and general comportment in law school.

[decimalsanddollars]

Agreed with the above responses, which I'll sum up with: won't help, might hurt, adcomms don't care. The things that matter most in your application are your two numbers (LSAT and GPA), followed by work experience and diversity, followed by other soft factors. In theory, you graduating early could be considered a positive "soft factor" if you've shown yourself to be precocious/some kind of prodigy/very gifted in a specific field that does not generally require well-rounded formal education. Generally, though, maturity and work experience help non-KJD law students in many ways---application strength, writing skills, work ethic, connections, etc. So to the extent you're planning on graduating early and going straight through into law school, I would generally recommend against it, at least to the extent that you have a mediocre application at that point that you could improve by delaying law school, retaking the LSAT, and gaining work experience.

[mastermonkey45]

Agreed with the above responses, which I'll sum up with: won't help, might hurt, adcomms don't care. The things that matter most in your application are your two numbers (LSAT and GPA), followed by work experience and diversity, followed by other soft factors. In theory, you graduating early could be considered a positive "soft factor" if you've shown yourself to be precocious/some kind of prodigy/very gifted in a specific field that does not generally require well-rounded formal education. Generally, though, maturity and work experience help non-KJD law students in many ways---application strength, writing skills, work ethic, connections, etc. So to the extent you're planning on graduating early and going straight through into law school, I would generally recommend against it, at least to the extent that you have a mediocre application at that point that you could improve by delaying law school, retaking the LSAT, and gaining work experience.

I'm not precocious in any particular field that can be exemplified by an actual, tangible thing like a robot that cleans the ocean when I graduate MIT at 16 if that's what you're getting at. I'm strongly leaning toward taking 2 years to do TFA or some sort of consulting work after graduating, at which point I'll be 22 and have the experience (as well as additional time to get a 173+ throughout that period, which I'm pretty sure I'm capable of getting insofar as my intellectual capability is concerned). Does that make more sense? My backup is to go to Berkeley Law and get a gig in the SFBA since that market doesn't discriminate as heavily based on grades, rank, etc, and I'm from Norcal and have always wanted to live in the Bay. I would do that if I don't get higher than a 170 and in that case will have my JD by 23. Yes, I think about this stuff a lot, probably too much.

[LBJ's Hair]

Agreed with the above responses, which I'll sum up with: won't help, might hurt, adcomms don't care. The things that matter most in your application are your two numbers (LSAT and GPA), followed by work experience and diversity, followed by other soft factors. In theory, you graduating early could be considered a positive "soft factor" if you've shown yourself to be precocious/some kind of prodigy/very gifted in a specific field that does not generally require well-rounded formal education. Generally, though, maturity and work experience help non-KJD law students in many ways---application strength, writing skills, work ethic, connections, etc. So to the extent you're planning on graduating early and going straight through into law school, I would generally recommend against it, at least to the extent that you have a mediocre application at that point that you could improve by delaying law school, retaking the LSAT, and gaining work experience.

I'm not precocious in any particular field that can be exemplified by an actual, tangible thing like a robot that cleans the ocean when I graduate MIT at 16 if that's what you're getting at. I'm strongly leaning toward taking 2 years to do TFA or some sort of consulting work after graduating, at which point I'll be 22 and have the experience (as well as additional time to get a 173+ throughout that period, which I'm pretty sure I'm capable of getting insofar as my intellectual capability is concerned). Does that make more sense? My backup is to go to Berkeley Law and get a gig in the SFBA since that market doesn't discriminate as heavily based on grades, rank, etc, and I'm from Norcal and have always wanted to live in the Bay. I would do that if I don't get higher than a 170 and in that case will have my JD by 23. Yes, I think about this stuff a lot, probably too much.

I think your plan makes sense, insofar as the the "perfect" law school applicant isn't a 20 year-old K-JD from a blah undergrad who skipped a grade and got B+s in calculus to graduate early. It's a 25 year-old with a 4.0 from Yale who spent a few years doing postgraduate work at OxBridge, maybe even took a gap year before starting college.

The point being, there's no reason to "rush" to law school. Experience will help, not hurt, your application.

And importantly, partners at law firms, judges, etc prefer to hire people with maturity, life experience, whatever. Same with your classmates -- and your relationships with them matter more than you think.

[QContinuum]

My backup is to go to Berkeley Law and get a gig in the SFBA since that market doesn't discriminate as heavily based on grades, rank, etc, and I'm from Norcal and have always wanted to live in the Bay.

I don't understand the quoted part above at all. Berkeley Law is idiosyncratically snobby about undergrad GPA (i.e., snobbier about GPA than its peer T13s). And the SF legal market is one of the most grades-selective markets in the country (along with D.C.) when it comes to law school grades. Finally, it's not at all necessary to attend Berkeley Law to land a legal job in NorCal.

[mastermonkey45]

My backup is to go to Berkeley Law and get a gig in the SFBA since that market doesn't discriminate as heavily based on grades, rank, etc, and I'm from Norcal and have always wanted to live in the Bay.

I don't understand the quoted part above at all. Berkeley Law is idiosyncratically snobby about undergrad GPA (i.e., snobbier about GPA than its peer T13s). And the SF legal market is one of the most grades-selective markets in the country (along with D.C.) when it comes to law school grades. Finally, it's not at all necessary to attend Berkeley Law to land a legal job in NorCal.

Perhaps my understanding isn't accurate, then. I thought that the competition by region goes DC>NYC>SV>SF>others. And Berkeley's LSN seems to be just as lenient as the T6 schools when it comes to UGPA, and seems to be more lenient with LSAT scores than T6. Isn't MTO the only relatively selective firm in SFBA? Are MOFO and WSGR nearly as selective as most NYC V30 firms? I'm genuinely curious because I could easily be wrong about this.

[decimalsanddollars]

Perhaps my understanding isn't accurate, then. I thought that the competition by region goes DC>NYC>SV>SF>others. And Berkeley's LSN seems to be just as lenient as the T6 schools when it comes to UGPA, and seems to be more lenient with LSAT scores than T6. Isn't MTO the only relatively selective firm in SFBA? Are MOFO and WSGR nearly as selective as most NYC V30 firms? I'm genuinely curious because I could easily be wrong about this.

Okay so it sounds like your understanding is inaccurate because it's focused on the top of the top for any given option, which you can't assume will be an option for you coming from any school, let alone Berkeley, unless you perform very well in law school, which you shouldn't count on. When choosing schools based on employment outcomes, you should focus on employment outcomes for median students of those schools. If you focus on median, the options aren't MTO or Cravath; it's more like options among V50 in your desired practice area for HYSCCN and options among V100 in your desired practice area for Berkeley (with stronger placement in California, and stronger still for IP in SFBA). My take is that you're a sophomore or junior in college and can't forecast ideal outcomes for the next five or so years; if you want to make justifiable choices based on forecasting, you need to be more realistic.