Second chance after dropout? Forum

[ihenry]

0L here. Recently I've been lurking in current student and legal employment forums, and found that when a poster, especially those from less than elite schools, reports to fall under the median after first semester grades, virtually everybody advises him or her to drop out from law school. Frankly, dropping out is a terrible thing to happen from my cultural upbringing; to drop out you must have done something atrociously wrong. It also begs the question: since statistically there are always half students below median, if everybody follows TLS' advice, after the first semester only a half stay, and after 1L only a quarter. And at that time, the admirable, original 75th percentile become the bottom of the class.

I don't want to dispute the credibility of this advice knowing legal markets can be dismal. Just out of curiosity, if one really drops out but is dead set in becoming a lawyer and eager to be given a second chance, can he reapply to the same or another law school again? Immediately? Later in life? Maybe after retake? Even if when you apply you are obligated to provide the transcript that caused you to drop out, which is not an attractive thing, but isn't law school admission an LSAT and UNDERGRAD GPA driven game? So would that those law school grades act as little as a normal graduate school's (master's)? If so, that person really has little to lose if he is on a substantial scholarship in the original school doesn't him?

[banjo]

The decision to drop out depends on your school, grades, goals, and alternatives. There's no hard and fast rule. To answer your question, dropping out and reapplying (which I think you can do if you complete less than a year?) seems like a terrible idea unless there were serious health/personal issues that you could explain to a future school or employer. It's better to go to a school where landing below median won't hold you back as much.

[TheSpanishMain]

I think you're misunderstanding what people are saying. The whole point of going to a good school at a reasonable cost is that 1L is unpredictable as hell. If you're at a decent school and not drowning yourself in debt, being below median (assuming you're not at the very bottom) is not necessarily the end of the world. As you move into the shit tier, then yeah, a lot of their classes should probably drop out.

There's no hard and fast rule, obviously. For example, a Columbia student aiming for NYC BigLaw is almost certainly fine even with very underwhelming grades. A Touro student below the top, say, 10% of the class should almost certainly drop out (or better yet, never attend at all)

[ihenry]

I think you're misunderstanding what people are saying. The whole point of going to a good school at a reasonable cost is that 1L is unpredictable as hell. If you're at a decent school and not drowning yourself in debt, being below median (assuming you're not at the very bottom) is not necessarily the end of the world. As you move into the shit tier, then yeah, a lot of their classes should probably drop out.

There's no hard and fast rule, obviously. For example, a Columbia student aiming for NYC BigLaw is almost certainly fine even with very underwhelming grades. A Touro student below the top, say, 10% of the class should almost certainly drop out (or better yet, never attend at all)

I admit I'm not used to, what I call, the GPA obsession here (not intending to invite a war). In my culture, all else being equal, the bottom of a T5 school is almost always better off than the top student in a T50 school; the reason why one is in T5 but the other is in T50 itself is telling, in a fair manner (unless, of course, they are applying to U.S. graduate programs). I'm surprised, not pleasantly, by the fact that a 3.7 almost always do better than 3.5 in admissions, and I feel relieved that we internationals do not have to undergo this same weird process. I love overloading my courses across a huge range of disciplines. People's course schedules, interest and commitments vary dramatically, needless to say the difference in grading across eccentric profs and course offerings ACROSS SCHOOLS. My dad is a college prof and he thinks this is strange too. IMHO this is not a terribly responsible way to select people, either you choose aptitude or work ethic as your base (even a kindergarten kid knows 3.7 > 3.5; what takes insight is evaluating candidates behind the numbers). I'm actually a strong supporter that judging students based on small difference in grades is nearly ridiculous.

Yeah, I was probably exaggerating the frequency of "drop out". But oftentimes when I see someone posts a GPA like 3.1/3.2, no matter followed by what schools (excluding HYSCCN prolly), people begin to falter and at the very least advises OP to apply broad and prepare interview thoroughly as if they are hard to land a good job. This scares me again. Based on my LSAT I can probably attend a decent school, but who knows what's gonna happen thereafter. I hear, though, many of 1L courses are fixed, which makes the comparison makes a little more sense. Your post is reassuring to me actually, and it reminds me of the importance of risk-aversion. So, thanks.

[pancakes3]

The jobs to graduates ratio is 2:1 and the legal market and its hiring practices don't really care about one's cultural upbringing, one's burning desire to practice law, or what one's dad thinks.

The drop out advice is just taking the inevitable conclusion of graduating with a JD but not being able to find a job and executing it 2 years in advanced so as to minimize cost - both actual and opportunity.

[ihenry]

The jobs to graduates ratio is 2:1 and the legal market and its hiring practices don't really care about one's cultural upbringing, one's burning desire to practice law, or what one's dad thinks.

The drop out advice is just taking the inevitable conclusion of graduating with a JD but not being able to find a job and executing it 2 years in advanced so as to minimize cost - both actual and opportunity.

I repeat I'm not inviting a debate on different value perspectives and propositions, nor am I interested in persuading Americans to stop being obsessed with the letters students happen to get in the course of schooling. You may say I am trying to find a balance between school prestige and GPA, the weight of each is apparently different from my cultural background. I would like to call this branch of discussion a halt.

My question is still what happens when one drops out and reapplies. I thought this is a "Law School FAQ" forum so mere curiosity in a relevant and practical topic sufficiently justifies the question being here..

[landshoes]

The jobs to graduates ratio is 2:1 and the legal market and its hiring practices don't really care about one's cultural upbringing, one's burning desire to practice law, or what one's dad thinks.

The drop out advice is just taking the inevitable conclusion of graduating with a JD but not being able to find a job and executing it 2 years in advanced so as to minimize cost - both actual and opportunity.

I repeat I'm not inviting a debate on different value perspectives and propositions, nor am I interested in persuading Americans to stop being obsessed with the letters students happen to get in the course of schooling. You may say I am trying to find a balance between school prestige and GPA, the weight of each is apparently different from my cultural background. I would like to call this branch of discussion a halt.

Now anyone cares to further satisfy my curiosity as to what happens when one drops out and reapplies? I thought this is a "Law School FAQ" forum so curiosity in a relevant and practical topic sufficiently justifies the question being here?

If you don't want to debate them then why did you bring them up?

Anyway, I'm glad that your local university system cements class differences sooner than the US system. That must be nice.

GPA in law school is not quite as important as class rank because different schools have different systems of grading, especially top schools. Class rank is not always calculated at every school, but there are decent proxies that you can use to determine a given's students rank relative to other students.

The relative balance between GPA and school prestige is difficult to generalize about because it's highly contextual. At Yale you can probably get away with doing pretty meh with great opportunities. For every other school, why not go to Law School Numbers and look at their big law employment plus their clerkships as a proxy for how many in the class will succeed, and assume that that's how much grades matter there (with higher scores meaning they matter less).

[A. Nony Mouse]

Wrt to the 3.1/3.2 questions you see asked - keep in mind that your actual law school GPA is usually less important than your rank. Given some of the curves in the schools in question, 3.1 can be near the bottom of the class. So people are obsessed with numbers, but more the rank number than the absolute GPA, and only because it helps determine your job opportunities. (scooped by landshoes)

Also keep in mind that dropping out in this context doesn't mean the person couldn't hack law school; it means the person looked at their employment prospects in relation to debt and decided that the investment was no longer worth it. It's more like choosing to do something else than failing.

It is possible to drop out of one school and later in life reapply or apply to a different school, but it may not be easy/worth it. Plenty of schools would probably be fine accepting a warm body who pays tuition, but many may not be worth the degree. You would likely have to have a good reason for having left school and now wanting to start over again. If you reapply to the same school they may want to keep your previous grades and just have you start as a 2L, which would defeat the purpose of starting over. (I'm sure at some point those grades would basically expire, but I don't know when.) But yes, it can be done.

[ihenry]

I repeat I'm not inviting a debate on different value perspectives and propositions, nor am I interested in persuading Americans to stop being obsessed with the letters students happen to get in the course of schooling. You may say I am trying to find a balance between school prestige and GPA, the weight of each is apparently different from my cultural background. I would like to call this branch of discussion a halt.

Now anyone cares to further satisfy my curiosity as to what happens when one drops out and reapplies? I thought this is a "Law School FAQ" forum so curiosity in a relevant and practical topic sufficiently justifies the question being here?

If you don't want to debate them then why did you bring them up?

Anyway, I'm glad that your local university system cements class differences sooner than the US system. That must be nice.

GPA in law school is not quite as important as class rank because different schools have different systems of grading, especially top schools. Class rank is not always calculated at every school, but there are decent proxies that you can use to determine a given's students rank relative to other students.

The relative balance between GPA and school prestige is difficult to generalize about because it's highly contextual. At Yale you can probably get away with doing pretty meh with great opportunities. For every other school, why not go to Law School Numbers and look at their big law employment plus their clerkships as a proxy for how many in the class will succeed, and assume that that's how much grades matter there (with higher scores meaning they matter less).

I started this thread out of pure curiosity of what happens when one drops out due to less than satisfactory grades and decides to reapply, because I see many people on TLS just throw out the advice to "drop out" -- and I wonder what's next. Dropping out because of perfectly passing yet just not among x% grades surprises me as well. And I have a decent technical degree so myself is not dead set on law, at least at the current stage. A poster above breaks down the grade differences and inspired me to post this comment.

I have almost given up with my original question.

[ihenry]

Wrt to the 3.1/3.2 questions you see asked - keep in mind that your actual law school GPA is usually less important than your rank. Given some of the curves in the schools in question, 3.1 can be near the bottom of the class. So people are obsessed with numbers, but more the rank number than the absolute GPA, and only because it helps determine your job opportunities. (scooped by landshoes)

Also keep in mind that dropping out in this context doesn't mean the person couldn't hack law school; it means the person looked at their employment prospects in relation to debt and decided that the investment was no longer worth it. It's more like choosing to do something else than failing.

It is possible to drop out of one school and later in life reapply or apply to a different school, but it may not be easy/worth it. Plenty of schools would probably be fine accepting a warm body who pays tuition, but many may not be worth the degree. You would likely have to have a good reason for having left school and now wanting to start over again. If you reapply to the same school they may want to keep your previous grades and just have you start as a 2L, which would defeat the purpose of starting over. (I'm sure at some point those grades would basically expire, but I don't know when.) But yes, it can be done.

[pancakes3]

All of your questions are answered by "there are more law school graduates than jobs" - even the one about if it's possible for students who drop out and want back in.

[Mack.Hambleton]

Dropping out usually implies pursuing a different career.

[AReasonableMan]

What you seem to be getting at is the disparity between the previous generation and our generation. For those born before 1980, American society was such that as long as you never quit and gave it your all, your odds of success were really high. Hard work was never and still isn't a necessary condition to success, but it was once sufficient. There was just so much pie that everyone could get a slice. In today's world everything is so much more competitive and specialized that hard work is inadequate in and of itself.

Your culture interprets dropping out as requiring some mental shortcoming - too dumb, too unstable, etc. to finish. What your culture hasn't realized is that education is an investment no different from investing in a stock - you don't ride the stock out, and believe the power of prayer and persistence will turn it around. You sell it unless you have some basis on which to assume it will come back up.

Most people with lousy grades don't drop out because of the above, and an assortment of cognitive psychological biases that are innate to the human condition. There is confirmation bias. When a person invests a lot in something they are predisposed to believe it was a good decision. For example, the amount that somebody devotes to a relationship has been shown to have a causal impact on how satisfied they are with their relationship (this has been found to be more accurate than the vice versa), and people are less likely to return clothing once the cost exceeds a certain price point. Law school is the ultimate version of this, because in addition to the heavy loans, people are (1) moving to attend the law school, (2) leaving their prior social circles and developing new social circles and (3) investing a lot of time into studying.

Further, people like convenience and making the easier decision. While law school may be a lot of work, moving back home, coming to terms with an abandoned dream and a lost cost in addition to the shame of dropping out are very difficult to do. It is just easier to stay in law school. The ability to look at your grades, and apply it to data requires a lot of psychological maturity. Those who view law school as analogous with college or high school are less able to think in these terms and prioritize statistical chances of their desired outcome over their current social circle. This is amplified by the perception of people who have not yet been in the world to view the real world as frightening when the reality is that American society is far more welcoming and prosocial than many law schools. I am not aware of any study on the issue, but I'd wager my entire salary while giving anyone 3:1 odds that the drop out rate of those with prelaw work experience dwarfs (>10% greater) that of those without such experience.

Lastly, people believe the statistics don't apply to them, and that they are particularly charming. We're all more likely to complement someone than we are to insult them so people get more positive feedback than negative feedback (because offending someone posits at least some level of risk to the offender, and most of us are subconsciously hardwired to avoid such risk), which leads to an unrealistic self perception. Further, psychologically healthy people like to feel good, and in turn will surround themselves with people who make them good. It's likelier these people will think more highly of them than would the average person. Finally, parenting and education in our society has changed so profoundly from previous generations such that the worst possible comment in most PTA conferences will be that one's child is good. The result of this is everyone thinks they are incredibly charming, but most aren't. However, recognizing that one is part of the majority requires the sort of self awareness you're unlikely to find in someone with a deluded self-concept.