How much helpful is work experience before law school? Forum

[I<3ScholarlySweets!]

You really think you can compare MBA programs (and outcomes) to Law Schools (and outcomes)?

[sparty99]

You really think you can compare MBA programs (and outcomes) to Law Schools (and outcomes)?

You are just really annoying me with your questions...

[I<3ScholarlySweets!]

I'm not trying to annoy you.

You compare two things are substantially different.

[sparty99]

I'm not trying to annoy you.

You compare two things are substantially different.

JUST STFU. I'M THE 30 YEAR OLD LAWYER AND YOU ARE THE UNDERGRAD THAT KNOWS NOTHING! YOU UNGRATEFUL BRAT.

[I<3ScholarlySweets!]

you seem un-hinged.

[mist4bison]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Now, explain why you think those who are 40+ are at a disadvantage? Couldn't you use the same premise that they have SIGNIFICANT work experience and how it will benefit them after law school?

People who are 30 are young. People who are 40 are older and have worked for 18+ years. A big law firm will not want to hire someone who is 40 and is going to be a first year associate and won't make partner until their 47. The 40 year old will also be taking directions from people who are younger than him.

Additionally, by the time you are 40, people will wonder why you decided to go to law school in the first place. At the age of 40 to 45, you start to experience age discrimination as well. You also might have kids and a mortgage at this time period as well.

People who are 28-30 usually graduate from MBA programs. Thus, while 28-30 is older for law school, it is still not considered too old to graduate from a law school. They are still young where a law firm will want to grow them. Still young where they have time to grow with a government agency, etc.

I don't think people in their 40s face significant problems getting a job, either, actually (again assuming you meet grade requirements and so on). Though admittedly somewhat more than people in their 30s, perhaps. Still not a death sentence.

[TheSpanishMain]

wow. this board is pretty mean.

You start threads asking for advice, then start interrogating established, knowledgeable people who answer your questions. This is one time when I think sparty's nuclear response is completely justified.

[Radioheader]

Nevermind

[I<3ScholarlySweets!]

mist4bison; I said in my OP that WE can be beneficial before law school, but being in the REAL WORLD for too long may have drawbacks. For one, according to LSAC, older applicants score lower than young applicants on the LSAT. Being in the REAL WORLD can distract you from studying. There is no point in attending law school with a low LSAT and thus, a low chance of getting into the top ten schools. I wouldn't want to attend trap schools like UCLA or WUSTL.

Two, if 4-8 years is the sweet spot, why is the average time taken off before law school 2-3 years at the top ten schools?

[TheSpanishMain]

A better question is why do you keep writing THE REAL WORLD in all caps?

[I<3ScholarlySweets!]

to emphasize

[withoutapaddle]

Why would LSAT be part of your rankings? The only thing you should care about is career outcome.

Also, what if you don't score a 170+ on the LSAT? You'll have paralegal experience.

Unfortantely our work experience brands us. It is very hard for our generation to move from say finance --> marketing or paralegal --> finance.

[I<3ScholarlySweets!]

You'd want a 170+ LSAT because, in addition to being admitted to a top ten school, you'll likely get scholarship money. It's unreasonable to pay sticker in this day and age for law school (except, perhaps, YHS). Why? Because even if you get biglaw, you'll be living in a high COL area, with soul-crushing non-dischargeable student loans. What would happen if you get Latham'd? What if you burn out? How would you pay for all that debt?

An even if I did accept my job offer, and got paralegal WE, it will not overcome a middling (i.e. non-170+) LSAT score.

[A. Nony Mouse]

mist4bison; I said in my OP that WE can be beneficial before law school, but being in the REAL WORLD for too long may have drawbacks. For one, according to LSAC, older applicants score lower than young applicants on the LSAT. Being in the REAL WORLD can distract you from studying. There is no point in attending law school with a low LSAT and thus, a low chance of getting into the top ten schools. I wouldn't want to attend trap schools like UCLA or WUSTL.

Two, if 4-8 years is the sweet spot, why is the average time taken off before law school 2-3 years at the top ten schools?

Because an average is an average. She didn't claim the average person who takes time off off 4-8 years, just that that's the "sweet spot" (also, that's for getting a job once in law school, not getting into law school).

Why do you keep asking people questions and then arguing when they don't give the answers you want?

[I<3ScholarlySweets!]

I'm just probing them further, to get more clarity. I think this thread is going through an in-depth analysis.

[chuckbass]

You'd want a 170+ LSAT because, in addition to being admitted to a top ten school, you'll likely get scholarship money. It's unreasonable to pay sticker in this day and age for law school (except, perhaps, YHS). Why? Because even if you get biglaw, you'll be living in a high COL area, with soul-crushing non-dischargeable student loans. What would happen if you get Latham'd? What if you burn out? How would you pay for all that debt?

An even if I did accept my job offer, and got paralegal WE, it will not overcome a middling (i.e. non-170+) LSAT score.

Withoutapaddle was not asking about LSAT scores in general, he was referring to why you care what LSAT medians schools have (in response to your post about Berkeley having a middling LSAT median in your mind). Your internal rankings don't make sense either, considering Cornell has better placement than a preftigious T10 law school like Michigan for instance.

[mist4bison]

.

[I<3ScholarlySweets!]

Yes that's what I said: most incoming students at top ten schools have 2-3 years of WE. I think that suggests that 2-3 years of WE is the sweet spot

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yes that's what I said: most incoming students at top ten schools have 2-3 years of WE. I think that suggests that 2-3 years of WE is the sweet spot

No, the average doesn't necessarily mean that most students have 2-3 years (that's likely, but it's not required). Also, keep in mind that "most applicants have these characteristics" is not the same as "this is the optimal way to go." Again, people are talking about WE giving an advantage in hiring once admitted, not in getting admitted in the first place. The demographics of the admitted class doesn't say anything about success in getting a legal job once admitted.

[I<3ScholarlySweets!]

It matters w/r/t getting into the right schools--I.e top ten.

The lower ranked schools usually have older incoming students

[mist4bison]

.

[I<3ScholarlySweets!]

I've never said WE is helpful for admittance to LS. ( It's all about UGpA and LSAT)

I'm just saying that being in the real world for too long my be bad because you get caught up with things that prevent you from studying for the LSAT or maybe even going to law school (say you grt pregnant ) and yes people with kids can do LS but it'd be another hassle and why would u want that

[kalvano]

I didn't even start law school until I was almost 30. OP's weird assertions in this thread are all news to me.

[chuckbass]

I didn't even start law school until I was almost 30. OP's weird assertions in this thread are all news to me.

OP knows all, clearly