should I drop out? Forum

[cantaboot]

i heard a partner who graduated magna from harvard saying that law school exams do not reflect lawyering skills or thoughtfulness - which is particularly valued in appellate practice. I thought given that he did so well in school he would have strong prejudices against those who do less well.

[JusticeHarlan]

Since you've never been a lawyer, I'm not sure what makes you think that practice will be easier than exam-taking. You probably thought you'd be good at law school exams before you became a law student too. You should at least consider the possibility that, however well you may understand the material, you aren't any good at communicating that understanding, acting on it, or applying what you supposedly understand of the law to facts. In which case you shouldn't be a lawyer.

How many years have you spent practicing? Did you even do an SA?

Apparently not.

[seatown12]

I went to law school with the intention of not doing the traditional OCI route. My concern is that since law is such a credential-driven field, won't grades as poor as mine hurt me even if I look through a job through networking and personal connections? I don't believe that my grades reflect my understanding of the material and my potential to be a good lawyer and produce quality work, but should I be concerned that employers will not agree?

Well I'm assuming you're not going to put "95%ile" on your resume. Your grades won't be your selling point any more but, that will only make your job search difficult not impossible. Also, don't listen to the douche who thinks your exam skills are indicative of your ability to practice law.

[Anonymous User]

Since you've never been a lawyer, I'm not sure what makes you think that practice will be easier than exam-taking. You probably thought you'd be good at law school exams before you became a law student too. You should at least consider the possibility that, however well you may understand the material, you aren't any good at communicating that understanding, acting on it, or applying what you supposedly understand of the law to facts. In which case you shouldn't be a lawyer.

I am able to communicate my understanding and apply the material to facts very well through conversation. My roommate and 2L/3L law school friends with whom I've reviewed concepts and who have had the opportunity to evaluate my ability to communicate my understanding of the material are stunned by my low grades.

[Anonymous User]

Also, my school did not post our first semester grades until well into the 2nd semester, past when full or partial-refunds for 2nd semester tuition were available. Is this common practice?

[cantaboot]

well this is not the first time he or she made such a remark....

[cantaboot]

someone is right about seeking an internship in a non biglaw type of firm in an area that you like.
I know someone with bad/mediocre grades doing this - he interned with a small firm from his first summer through his 3L year. though it was a very small firm he got a position upon graduation.

or you can push up your GPA - but if it is really in the bottom 5% then it'd be extremely difficult to push it up to, say, top 40% or cum laude cut-off.

[MrAnon]

See if you can go back to your job and just do school part time. It is not hard to pass through a T1 with little or no work as an upper classman. Maybe you'll find the degree handy eventually.

[Brassica7]

I think you should consider dropping and going back to your old job. There is a decent chance you will never get a real legal job, and getting a JD will often hurt your chances at other careers. On the other hand, if you think you can go back to your old employer or one like it after graduation and the JD would enhance your career prospects, then it might be worth it.

Even if you do not have to take on much/any debt for law school, there is still the lost income/career advancement you would have gained over the 3 years, and your family is spending money to cover your living expenses. I think grades matter a lot less for non-biglaw jobs, but still, any employer who asks for a transcript is not going to like what they see.

I am not trying to be a jerk, but I think you need to do a cost/benefit analysis here. How much did your old job pay? How secure was it? Was there room for advancement? How much do you want to be a lawyer? Did you like working at your old job? If you could go back to it now, would you still be able to do so in 3 years if you cannot get a legal job after graduation? If you could go back now, but maybe not in three years, could you go back this summer if you were to finish out the year and then decide to drop out?

[seatown12]

getting a JD will often hurt your chances at other careers.

Do you have any support for this statement whatsoever?

[20130312]

getting a JD will often hurt your chances at other careers.

Do you have any support for this statement whatsoever?

Yes.

[seatown12]

getting a JD will often hurt your chances at other careers.

Do you have any support for this statement whatsoever?

Yes.

Prove it

edit: dude you're a 0L, gtfo

[r6_philly]

getting a JD will often hurt your chances at other careers.

Do you have any support for this statement whatsoever?

Yes.

How do they know if you don't put it on the resume?

[20130312]

getting a JD will often hurt your chances at other careers.

Do you have any support for this statement whatsoever?

Yes.

How do they know if you don't put it on the resume?

They'll ask you about the 3 year hole in employment. Unless you want to lie (or at the very least skew the truth), they will find out.

[20130312]

getting a JD will often hurt your chances at other careers.

Do you have any support for this statement whatsoever?

Yes.

Prove it

edit: dude you're a 0L, gtfo

A 0L with a real job, which you seem to be clueless about...

[r6_philly]

They'll ask you about the 3 year hole in employment. Unless you want to lie (or at the very least skew the truth), they will find out.

If you get past the screener and into the interview, you can focus on selling your qualities. If they like you already, they will look for reasons to hire you. If you have substantive experience in other fields, they would focus on that. If you are otherwise qualified and likely to get a position, saying that you tried your hand at a JD but ultimately deciding not to practice law is not going to not get you the job.

[seatown12]

Still waiting for the proof, 0L with a real job.

[20130312]

They'll say you're over qualified, worry that they are going to have to overpay you, and generally have a stigma that you will jump ship the first time a legal opportunity comes up.

[seatown12]

They'll say you're over qualified, worry that they are going to have to overpay you, and generally have a stigma that you will jump ship the first time a legal opportunity comes up.

Until you can give some basis for this statement it's just your opinion, which is worthless no matter how many others on the internet also buy into it.

[r6_philly]

They'll say you're over qualified, worry that they are going to have to overpay you, and generally have a stigma that you will jump ship the first time a legal opportunity comes up.

That's only if you suck at marketing yourself properly. Overpay: not if you are upfront about your requirements and sound positive about your decision. Jump ship: don't give the impression that you are only going back to the other field because law has been a failure for you. If you are applying and interviewing for the job, you have already jumped ship.

[vanwinkle]

i heard a partner who graduated magna from harvard saying that law school exams do not reflect lawyering skills or thoughtfulness - which is particularly valued in appellate practice. I thought given that he did so well in school he would have strong prejudices against those who do less well.

I don't understand this comment. Are you saying law school grades and skills are irrelevant to appellate practice? If anything, appellate practice is the one place where you are mostly doing the things you learned to do in law school.

[09042014]

i heard a partner who graduated magna from harvard saying that law school exams do not reflect lawyering skills or thoughtfulness - which is particularly valued in appellate practice. I thought given that he did so well in school he would have strong prejudices against those who do less well.

I don't understand this comment. Are you saying law school grades and skills are irrelevant to appellate practice? If anything, appellate practice is the one place where you are mostly doing the things you learned to do in law school.

Except nobody does appellate litigation by reading a case book and writing a sloppy memo in 3 hours. And like Candi said, it doesn't have the thoughtfulness required. I imagine it is the difference between long distance running and sprinting. Sure they both involve running, but it's a different ballgame.

[cantaboot]

things you learned in law school may be important - but first-year grades do not reflect much thoughtfulness.

say, I got a B+ average on law school exams but consistently earned A-/A in legal research classes (which simulate law firm assignments except that you ask partners or senior associates at law firms but we were not allowed to consult anyone when doing the legal research exercises). There are people who got an B+/A- average in their first year, but did not do exceptionally well in legal research.

You probably would agree that people with a B+/A- average in their first year are smarter, but those who do well in legal research exercises can also become fairly competent lawyers.

OP might do well at a different setting.

[truevines]

things you learned in law school may be important - but first-year grades do not reflect much thoughtfulness.

say, I got a B+ average on law school exams but consistently earned A-/A in legal research classes (which simulate law firm assignments except that you ask partners or senior associates at law firms but we were not allowed to consult anyone when doing the legal research exercises). There are people who got an B+/A- average in their first year, but did not do exceptionally well in legal research.

You probably would agree that people with a B+/A- average in their first year are smarter, but those who do well in legal research exercises can also become fairly competent lawyers.

OP might do well at a different setting.

Unfortunately, we can't verify your proposition on this earth.

OP can't relive his 1st semester. Nor is he able to relive his first three years of associate and try other careers if he finds he is not good at or hates law later.

It's a gamble. No one knows the result.