Work Experience is proving to not matter this cycle. Forum

[reasonabledoubt]

[strike]Voice of reason above... well said. I feel that many who haven't actually worked though a challenging market have no idea what it's really like. They think if they obsess over the LSAT, spend three years in school, pass the bar, they'll have a great job waiting. What a joke.... my 7 years+ experience[/strike](where I worked my ass off to make the 120K+/year) [strike]has made me a realist, if anything. You LSAT trolls will soon see how the world really works.... give it, i'd say, 3+ years[/strike].

Well, good choice going to law school.

+1. Why go to law school when you want to do essentially the same work on the legal side that you are doing on the business side? Furthermore, why don't you go only part-time?

Legal side? Business side? Do you know what you're talking about when you use these terms? You do realize they can't mean just one thing, right? Also, were/how did you deduce that I'd "want to do essentially the same work.....?"


Here's where it's obvious my experience (as my recommender suggested) will help after law school. I know how things actually work IRL (especially business) and not theoretical-land.

[reasonabledoubt]

[strike]Voice of reason above... well said. I feel that many who haven't actually worked though a challenging market have no idea what it's really like. They think if they obsess over the LSAT, spend three years in school, pass the bar, they'll have a great job waiting. What a joke.... my 7 years+ experience[/strike](where I worked my ass off to make the 120K+/year) [strike]has made me a realist, if anything. You LSAT trolls will soon see how the world really works.... give it, i'd say, 3+ years[/strike].

Well, good choice going to law school.

You're too fucking stupid to respond to at this point. Learn how the world works.

You're embarrassing yourself with your anger.

Haha... i'm actually lol'ing... but using an angry tone for effect. At least it's not in all caps, RIGHT?

[09042014]

ITT we find a laid off IBanker who is shocked people don't think it is AMAZING work experience.

[D. H2Oman]

[strike]Legal side? Business side? Do you know what you're talking about when you use these terms? You do realize they can't mean just one thing, right? Also, were/how did you deduce that I'd "want to do essentially the same work.....?"


Here's where it's obvious my experience (as my recommender suggested) will help after law school. I know how things actually work IRL (especially business) and not theoretical-land.[/strike] I'M OLD

[thisguy456]

[strike]Legal side? Business side? Do you know what you're talking about when you use these terms? You do realize they can't mean just one thing, right? Also, were/how did you deduce that I'd "want to do essentially the same work.....?"


Here's where it's obvious my experience (as my recommender suggested) will help after law school. I know how things actually work IRL (especially business) and not theoretical-land.[/strike] I'M OLD

It's a shame a guy with 7+ years W/E at the executive level doing all sorts of big time transactional work with amazing LORs can't be the bigger man and stop having an online pissing contest about this stuff.

[jmaan]

ITT we find a laid off IBanker who is shocked people don't think it is AMAZING work experience.

lol

[reasonabledoubt]

[strike]Legal side? Business side? Do you know what you're talking about when you use these terms? You do realize they can't mean just one thing, right? Also, were/how did you deduce that I'd "want to do essentially the same work.....?"


Here's where it's obvious my experience (as my recommender suggested) will help after law school. I know how things actually work IRL (especially business) and not theoretical-land.[/strike] I'M OLD

Your ignorance is showing.

[reasonabledoubt]

ITT we find a laid off IBanker who is shocked people don't think it is AMAZING work experience.

Wrong DFox... way off.

[Rawlsian]

Haha... i'm actually lol'ing... but using an angry tone for effect. At least it's not in all caps, RIGHT?

Yea, I understand the absurdity of this kind of medium. But communication requires an investment that's too easily frustrated by tone. I apologize, not trying to be paternalistic...

[TTTennis]

[strike]Voice of reason above... well said. I feel that many who haven't actually worked though a challenging market have no idea what it's really like. They think if they obsess over the LSAT, spend three years in school, pass the bar, they'll have a great job waiting. What a joke.... my 7 years+ experience[/strike](where I worked my ass off to make the 120K+/year) [strike]has made me a realist, if anything. You LSAT trolls will soon see how the world really works.... give it, i'd say, 3+ years[/strike].

Well, good choice going to law school.

You're too fucking stupid to respond to at this point. Learn how the world works.

reasonabledoubt, you should probably calm down. I think what H20man was trying to imply is...why would you leave a 120k+/year job only to go to school and have to "work your ass off" all over again just to make that salary, again? Maybe I'm wrong though!

[reasonabledoubt]

[strike]Legal side? Business side? Do you know what you're talking about when you use these terms? You do realize they can't mean just one thing, right? Also, were/how did you deduce that I'd "want to do essentially the same work.....?"


Here's where it's obvious my experience (as my recommender suggested) will help after law school. I know how things actually work IRL (especially business) and not theoretical-land.[/strike] I'M OLD

It's a shame a guy with 7+ years W/E at the executive level doing all sorts of big time transactional work with amazing LORs can't be the bigger man and stop having an online pissing contest about this stuff.

Just having a little fun with it to see how many immature perspectives emerge from it all which further solidifies my original point.... at the same time I'm participated in this shitstorm so I'll have to stop soon. Loggin off, friends.

[09042014]

ITT we find a laid off IBanker who is shocked people don't think it is AMAZING work experience.

Wrong DFox... way off.

You've got to stop taking this so personally. Law school admissions is a numbers game. Schools are ranked based on GPA and LSAT. If you don't hit at least one of the two medians (GPA or LSAT) you have no shot at a school.

This may be unfair, but it is how it works. The LSAT means more because there are only so many 170's and schools are competing for them.

There is no metric for work experience.

You can complain all you want, but you better study the LSAT.

Also IUB does pretty terrible in Chicago. Look at UIUC instead.

[BenJ]

<snip>

You guys are seriously fucking morons. I have a close friend who has managed a group of 20+ high tech IT sales reps who was making around 160K prior to our little global crisis while also doing a part-time MBA at Northwestern. Guess how long it took him to secure just a 2-month trial-run/internship at an investment bank this summer in NYC? About 6 months of HEAVY networking... meetings, etc. GMAT doesn't fucking matter in the real world... neither does the LSAT. Grow up. It matters for admissions, yes, but I still claim (if schools want to produce good lawyers) they should weigh work experience into this equation more than it currently is.

The LSAT predicts performance in law school. Performance in law school predicts--and indeed in many ways determines, since it determines your starting level--performance in the legal market. Jobs you held before law school are totally and completely irrelevant to any and all legal employers. They just don't care. And so law schools don't, either, except insofar as it might indicate that you've matured from having a poor GPA in undergrad.

[reasonabledoubt]

[strike]Voice of reason above... well said. I feel that many who haven't actually worked though a challenging market have no idea what it's really like. They think if they obsess over the LSAT, spend three years in school, pass the bar, they'll have a great job waiting. What a joke.... my 7 years+ experience[/strike](where I worked my ass off to make the 120K+/year) [strike]has made me a realist, if anything. You LSAT trolls will soon see how the world really works.... give it, i'd say, 3+ years[/strike].

Well, good choice going to law school.

You're too fucking stupid to respond to at this point. Learn how the world works.

reasonabledoubt, you should probably calm down. I think what H20man was trying to imply is...why would you leave a 120k+/year job only to go to school and have to "work your ass off" all over again just to make that salary, again? Maybe I'm wrong though!

Again, you might not understand how the real world works. 120k+ a year isn't just a salary that you get no matter what, year after year. Like most jobs, it's essentially sales.... almost everything is, at it's core, sales. Even if it's finance related, it's sales. I don't want to do sales for the rest of my life and I'm captivated by law. I want to work within the system of law for reasons beyond the scope of this thread. So I don't think you get it.... yes, I was making six figures for over 5 years, but that's not guaranteed. I didn't just "leave" it. I'm pursuing a career that I think I'm better suited for.

[TTTennis]

<snip>

The LSAT predicts performance in law school. Performance in law school predicts--and indeed in many ways determines, since it determines your starting level--performance in the legal market. Jobs you held before law school are totally and completely irrelevant to any and all legal employers. They just don't care. And so law schools don't, either, except insofar as it might indicate that you've matured from having a poor GPA in undergrad.

I'm going with this

Except maybe there are a few instances where legal employers may value WE previous to law school. But, honestly, what do I know?

[reasonabledoubt]

ITT we find a laid off IBanker who is shocked people don't think it is AMAZING work experience.

Wrong DFox... way off.

You've got to stop taking this so personally. Law school admissions is a numbers game. Schools are ranked based on GPA and LSAT. If you don't hit at least one of the two medians (GPA or LSAT) you have no shot at a school.

This may be unfair, but it is how it works. The LSAT means more because there are only so many 170's and schools are competing for them.

There is no metric for work experience.

You can complain all you want, but you better study the LSAT.

Also IUB does pretty terrible in Chicago. Look at UIUC instead.

I might... or Northwestern, actually. But, for the latter I'll need that 172+. I know how pro-W/E they seem to be. We'll see.

[MDPSteve]

[strike]Voice of reason above... well said. I feel that many who haven't actually worked though a challenging market have no idea what it's really like. They think if they obsess over the LSAT, spend three years in school, pass the bar, they'll have a great job waiting. What a joke.... my 7 years+ experience[/strike](where I worked my ass off to make the 120K+/year) [strike]has made me a realist, if anything. You LSAT trolls will soon see how the world really works.... give it, i'd say, 3+ years[/strike].

Well, good choice going to law school.

You're too XXXX stupid to respond to at this point. Learn how the world works.

Looks like Tom Cruise has lost it again...

Edited to remove profanity.

[wired]

reasonabledoubt, you should probably calm down. I think what H20man was trying to imply is...why would you leave a 120k+/year job only to go to school and have to "work your ass off" all over again just to make that salary, again? Maybe I'm wrong though!

Again, you might not understand how the real world works. 120k+ a year isn't just a salary that you get no matter what, year after year. Like most jobs, it's essentially sales.... almost everything is, at it's core, sales. Even if it's finance related, it's sales. I don't want to do sales for the rest of my life and I'm captivated by law. I want to work within the system of law for reasons beyond the scope of this thread. So I don't think you get it.... yes, I was making six figures for over 5 years, but that's not guaranteed. I didn't just "leave" it. I'm pursuing a career that I think I'm better suited for.

Well that's not fair. You said you were logging off. And at this point, I think you're bluffing on how much you make, etc. You've just represented yourself as someone I doubt makes that much. And I will preemptively say that I don't care if you don't care that I don't believe you.

[savagecheater]

in b4 lock

Why do you think this will be locked?

It doesn't look like anyone in this thread is getting convinced either way, and responses are getting a little too personal for the Acceptances, Denials and WL forum? I'm not a moderator, so I have no idea. I just wanted in on the fun

I think this thread took a strange direction b/c they're taking it all way too personally.... which is ironic b/c I agree with most of the comments, aside from the more extreme ones.

Listen UG to Law people.... I'm not saying I'm "better" because of my experience. I also am not making excuses for my lsat score. It's actually quite fine... just not spectacular. I take full responsibility for this and if you read all my posts, admitted to not putting as much emphasis on prep as I should have.

Anyways... my ONLY firm point was that I simply disagree that 1 LSAT point should trump 7 years of experience, especially (subjective/my opinion, I know) it's relevant to both the study and subsequent practice of law.

This thread hit a nerve apparently.

Alright - here's a question, whose work is more valuable, and demonstrates best the ability of the applicant to excel in law school?

1. Age 26. Grew up working on a farm, put in 6+ hours of work every day performing manual labor that gradually gave the applicant a very specific skillset. Had to defer applying because of his family's needs.

2. Age 22. Applying to law school straight out of undergrad. Out of four summers spent undergrad, one spent working at a coffeeshop, another spent interning with an investment group, and the final two working as a document clerk for a large law firm, where the applicant was obliged to put in 7-7 hours due to the firm's largest case in a decade going to trial.

3. Age 31. Has 10 years of work experience - 2 years in entry level retail, 3 years working in customer service, 4 years working as an entry level banker, and 1 year as a senior project manager.

Can you please quantify the best answer and transform it into a statistic for a law school ranking?

[TTTennis]

Again, you might not understand how the real world works. 120k+ a year isn't just a salary that you get no matter what, year after year. Like most jobs, it's essentially sales.... almost everything is, at it's core, sales. Even if it's finance related, it's sales. I don't want to do sales for the rest of my life and I'm captivated by law. I want to work within the system of law for reasons beyond the scope of this thread. So I don't think you get it.... yes, I was making six figures for over 5 years, but that's not guaranteed. I didn't just "leave" it. I'm pursuing a career that I think I'm better suited for.

I "get it" just fine. In fact, I wasn't the one who said it, H20man was. I'm not really sure why you keep telling me i don't get it either. Maybe you don't get it. Everyone is telling you their reason as to why they THINK work experience plays a tiny role in admissions. No need to get defensive.

[D. H2Oman]

[strike]Again, you might not understand how the real world works. 120k+ a year isn't just a salary that you get no matter what, year after year. Like most jobs, it's essentially sales.... almost everything is, at it's core, sales. Even if it's finance related, it's sales. I don't want to do sales for the rest of my life and I'm captivated by law. I want to work within the system of law for reasons beyond the scope of this thread. So I don't think you get it.... yes, I was making six figures for over 5 years, but that's not guaranteed. I didn't just "leave" it. I'm pursuing a career that I think I'm better suited for[/strike]. I lie about my income.

[stratocophic]

[strike]Legal side? Business side? Do you know what you're talking about when you use these terms? You do realize they can't mean just one thing, right? Also, were/how did you deduce that I'd "want to do essentially the same work.....?"


Here's where it's obvious my experience (as my recommender suggested) will help after law school. I know how things actually work IRL (especially business) and not theoretical-land.[/strike] I'M OLD

It's a shame a guy with 7+ years W/E at the executive level doing all sorts of big time transactional work with amazing LORs can't be the bigger man and stop having an online pissing contest about this stuff.

Just having a little fun with it to see how many immature perspectives emerge from it all which further solidifies my original point.... at the same time I'm participated in this shitstorm so I'll have to stop soon. Loggin off, friends.

--LinkRemoved--

hth

[TTTennis]

Alright - here's a question, whose work is more valuable, and demonstrates best the ability of the applicant to excel in law school?

1. Age 26. Grew up working on a farm, put in 6+ hours of work every day performing manual labor that gradually gave the applicant a very specific skillset. Had to defer applying because of his family's needs.

2. Age 22. Applying to law school straight out of undergrad. Out of four summers spent undergrad, one spent working at a coffeeshop, another spent interning with an investment group, and the final two working as a document clerk for a large law firm, where the applicant was obliged to put in 7-7 hours due to the firm's largest case in a decade going to trial.

3. Age 31. Has 10 years of work experience - 2 years in entry level retail, 3 years working in customer service, 4 years working as an entry level banker, and 1 year as a senior project manager.

Can you please quantify the best answer and transform it into a statistic for a law school ranking?

Wait a minute, is this a rhetorical question? I'm no mathematician, but I don't think you can put that into a ranking system. However, I would pick "2." to get into law school and would hire him at my biglaw firm as well. His/her one summer experience working at a coffee shop will prove invaluable when the partners at the firm ask him/her to go get their coffee

[reasonabledoubt]

Again, you might not understand how the real world works. 120k+ a year isn't just a salary that you get no matter what, year after year. Like most jobs, it's essentially sales.... almost everything is, at it's core, sales. Even if it's finance related, it's sales. I don't want to do sales for the rest of my life and I'm captivated by law. I want to work within the system of law for reasons beyond the scope of this thread. So I don't think you get it.... yes, I was making six figures for over 5 years, but that's not guaranteed. I didn't just "leave" it. I'm pursuing a career that I think I'm better suited for.

I "get it" just fine. In fact, I wasn't the one who said it, H20man was. I'm not really sure why you keep telling me i don't get it either. Maybe you don't get it. Everyone is telling you their reason as to why they THINK work experience plays a tiny role in admissions. No need to get defensive.

ITT, I think people with little to no work experience are shouting that work experience shouldn't matter because they don't want it to matter. I'm completely aware that it does and to a remarkable degree, but my original gripe was that it shouldn't trump a considerable and relevant body of quantifiable achievement, especially one that relates to law.

I know, I know... LSAT "accurately predicts one's success during 1L" + all the fancy supporting stats/algorithms, etc, but if we care at all about the real world where real attorneys deal with real problems.... I have some pretty useful experience. Why shouldn't that matter? I think it should and my argument is that it should to a degree that is more than a SINGLE lsat point. That's all.... feel free to disagree.

[MDPSteve]

I can see work experience being hard to measure, but what about graduate degrees. As long as USNWR doesn't give a school any credit for the number of students with them they will be of minor relevance.

Edit: And why do UG courses taken after the first degree is awarded not count towards the LSAC GPA... can't quite wrap my head around the reasoning on that one.