Work Experience is proving to not matter this cycle. Forum

[reasonabledoubt]

[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.

You're ignorance is still showing.

[jmaan]

i love the crossout edit + add in funny comment...it makes me laugh everytime

[TTTennis]

i love the crossout edit + add in funny comment...it makes me laugh everytime

+1000000000

[09042014]

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.

Exactly. If you read my resume it would look very impressive. But in reality I'm spending 2 hours a day doing it then trolling the internet for 6 hours. Sure I'm doing something 99% of people can't do, but that doesn't make it hard.

[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.

You're ignorance is still showing.

To be fair, I think I've only made one point during this thread.

1. You are a douche.

I stand by that.

[finalaspects]

i read the last 6 pages and there seems to be some sort of minor consensus that WE should make up for GPA and not LSAT if anything at all?

Am i correct in assuming that LSAT is not replaceable in any other format except other then to retake it?

And as much if WE can replace GPA, it probably doesn't because all the law schools are gaming the rankings which is solely based on LSAT/GPA?

If a law school accepts a higher LSAT/GPA and this person ends up being a C student... that will still boost their rankings more then a under 25% student in both LSAT/GPA who will get straight A's?

i know that business schools completely take into consideration WE to replace GPA's much more than law schools in orders of magnitude. but nothing replaces GMATs? is that right?

[reasonabledoubt]

[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.

You're ignorance is still showing.

To be fair, I'm a douche.

I can tell that about you.

[Kobe_Teeth]

This thread is riveting.

I know how pointless it is to keep coming back but I can't stop.

Super-entertained by this guy.

Anyway, most people here (myself included) have WE to some degree. I can not stress this enough. A lot of people here have your (or similar) credentials but have the LSAT to back it up.

Look dude, if you are as talented as you say you are and have the connections then you will be fine.

However, coming on a board full of future law students and making blatant logic fails such as "work experience is proving to not matter this cycle" just because it isn't working for YOU is asking for ridicule.

Your lack of self-awareness is comical. And it will probably inhibit your ability as a lawyer and probably affected your LSAT score to a degree. You seem to have an inability to understand the other side of an argument which is the very difference between a businessman and a lawyer.

[ughOSU]

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.

It probably will matter a lot when you destroy the OCI interviews and the kids for whom this is their first job hunt are left drowning... However, you should accept the fact that WE will not give your admissions chances much of a bump. Also, from what I hear a lot of the time people who have WE tend to do a bit better in law school because they understand that you should really be doing something law-related from 9-5 instead of still being in undergraduate mode.

That said, nothing has been proven re: WE this cycle. I got into a school I didn't think I had a good shot at, probably largely because of WE (I have lower GPA/higher LSAT though).

[jmaan]

To be fair, I'm a douche.

I can tell that about you.[/quote]

doesnt work without the crossout

[reasonabledoubt]

This thread is riveting.

I know how pointless it is to keep coming back but I can't stop.

Super-entertained by this guy.

Anyway, most people here (myself included) have WE to some degree. I can not stress this enough. A lot of people here have your (or similar) credentials but have the LSAT to back it up.

Look dude, if you are as talented as you say you are and have the connections then you will be fine.

However, coming on a board full of future law students and making blatant logic fails such as "work experience is proving to not matter this cycle" just because it isn't working for YOU is asking for ridicule.

Your lack of self-awareness is comical. And it will probably inhibit your ability as a lawyer and probably affected your LSAT score to a degree. You seem to have an inability to understand the other side of an argument which is the very difference between a businessman and a lawyer.

Irony above! I completely understand all sides to this argument. I've relayed that over and over. My only point is that I think a relevant work experience is worth more than a single lsat point. That's my point, everyone seems to be ignoring it, and instead expanding on some tangent predicated on an assumption I didn't make. I'm no psychologist, but it's pretty obvious that everyon seems to be defending their own personal circumstance. I get it. Listen, it's ok to question and even challenge the status quo.... that's how development, progress, etc, is made. I'm introducing an idea that W/E should weigh more into the decision making process than it does, that's all. Feel free to disagree, but try to also understand that this is just an idea. I understand the reality of the admissions process as well. I did convey that, but for some reason it's being ignored.

[finalaspects]

Irony above! I completely understand all sides to this argument. I've relayed that over and over. My only point is that I think a relevant work experience is worth more than a single lsat point. That's my point, everyone seems to be ignoring it, and instead expanding on some tangent predicated on an assumption I didn't make. I'm no psychologist, but it's pretty obvious that everyon seems to be defending their own personal circumstance. I get it. Listen, it's ok to question and even challenge the status quo.... that's how development, progress, etc, is made. I'm introducing an idea that W/E should weigh more into the decision making process than it does, that's all. Feel free to disagree, but try to also understand that this is just an idea. I understand the reality of the admissions process as well. I did convey that, but for some reason it's being ignored.

i would agree with you if you said that WE is worth more than a .1 in GPA. but LSAT doesn't have to do anything with work experience it seems. if anything it has to do with work ethics as someone mentioned before which equates to WE/GPA. hell even if 7 years WE = .7 + in GPA that makes much more sense than any amount of work experience making up for LSAT...

and you can retake the LSAT.

[hopin10]

I think relevant work experience can be hugely influential--both for admissions decisions and for scholarship awards. It resulted in my being awarded a full ride to Columbia for public interest work and being considered for Penn's Toll Public Interest scholarship, too. None of this, I presume, would have happened if I hadn't been working in non-profit sector for the past few years.

My guess is that my past work signaled strongly my desire to work in the non-profit/public sector, and my being successful in the past signaled my ability to do so in the future.

[Kobe_Teeth]

We did disagree.

And then you acted incredulously.

7 thread pages later...your attitude hasn't changed. And its still entertaining.

BTW...anyone else unable to picture him jumping on a couch as he's flipping out about all of this? I'm finding it hard to separate him from his avatar. Mainly because i could believe the real Tom Cruise acting like this upon not getting into his law school of choice.

[S de Garmeaux]

Irony above! I completely understand all sides to this argument. I've relayed that over and over. My only point is that I think a relevant work experience is worth more than a single lsat point. That's my point, everyone seems to be ignoring it, and instead expanding on some tangent predicated on an assumption I didn't make. I'm no psychologist, but it's pretty obvious that everyon seems to be defending their own personal circumstance. I get it. Listen, it's ok to question and even challenge the status quo.... that's how development, progress, etc, is made. I'm introducing an idea that W/E should weigh more into the decision making process than it does, that's all. Feel free to disagree, but try to also understand that this is just an idea. I understand the reality of the admissions process as well. I did convey that, but for some reason it's being ignored.

This is an extremely underwhelming point to argue at length about.

[hmlee]

You want your meaningful work experience to give you a leg up over other candidates with better raw numbers than you? Apply to Northwestern.

That's it.

Should it be different at other schools? Yeah, maybe. We could argue about this night and day and still never come to a definitive answer. But the way things stand now, work experience is just one of a handful of extra factors that can count for a little bit or a very little bit, depending on where you're applying. Except Northwestern.

[td6624]

I hope this sort of tension doesn't exist at actual law schools. I'm going straight from undergrad, and I hope that I don't have to go out of my way to prove myself to the people who didn't. And I also hope the straight-from-undergrads don't have some sort of sense of entitlement.

I did not research the law school admissions process much at all until I'd already submitted all my applications, but even I knew that this is essentially a numbers game. My perception is that schools take the numbers they like and then pick the acceptances from that pool. LORS, PSs, and WE only help if you are able to find yourself in that pool.

Obviously there are exceptions to this, but I think most of us can agree that that is the rule. And it's something that wouldn't be hard to find out.

Also, what hmlee said.

[zenithtonadir]

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?)

Here's the problem: the admissions criteria isn't, "Who will make the best lawyer?" Instead (and appropriately), it's, "Who will do the best in law school?" You know, not everybody who goes to law school will even end up practicing law in the traditional sense, so admissions really shouldn't be about who will succeed in a theoretical post-JD career path.

As far as how WE can demonstrate ability to succeed in law school, I agree with many others that it should/does only help mitigate the effects of a less-than-stellar GPA, and I further agree that it should have no relationship to the LSAT (not one point, that's right). WE should of course be considered when viewing an applicant holistically, but I don't think anybody would disagree there.

...then again, most of this has been said many times, which should tell you something.

[autarkh]

reasonabledoubt,

I think that if an adcomm were weighing two applicants with comparable GPA, one with an LSAT score 1pt higher, the other with significant work experience, it might well take applicant with the lower LSAT score with WE. Provided, of course, the lower score is above their target median. They have that discretion, and that's the whole point of "soft" factors. I'll venture to say that this probably happens often. But it will always be a subjective judgment, never a formulaic calculation.

BTW, out of curiosity, what are your numbers?

[clevinger33]

a considerable and relevant body of quantifiable achievement

You are in love with this phrase, aren't you?

[stratocophic]

We did disagree.

And then you acted incredulously.

7 thread pages later...your attitude hasn't changed. And its still entertaining.

BTW...anyone else unable to picture him jumping on a couch as he's flipping out about all of this? I'm finding it hard to separate him from his avatar. Mainly because i could believe the real Tom Cruise acting like this upon not getting into his law school of choice.

After viewing Tropic Thunder, this scene is the only thing I can see when I think of Tom Cruise in any circumstance.

--LinkRemoved--

[autarkh]

a considerable and relevant body of quantifiable achievement

You are in love with this phrase, aren't you?

It's probably in his PS.

[hmlee]

I hope this sort of tension doesn't exist at actual law schools. I'm going straight from undergrad, and I hope that I don't have to go out of my way to prove myself to the people who didn't. And I also hope the straight-from-undergrads don't have some sort of sense of entitlement.

I did not research the law school admissions process much at all until I'd already submitted all my applications, but even I knew that this is essentially a numbers game. My perception is that schools take the numbers they like and then pick the acceptances from that pool. LORS, PSs, and WE only help if you are able to find yourself in that pool.

Obviously there are exceptions to this, but I think most of us can agree that that is the rule. And it's something that wouldn't be hard to find out.

Also, what hmlee said.

As you can probably tell, I'm at Northwestern right now. My experience while being here is that it is exceedingly difficult to tell how much work experience someone has. I mean, everyone knows that the majority of people in this place have 2+ years after school, some considerably more. We also know that there's a handful of 1+ year people and a small number of straight out of undergrads. But can you tell the difference? Not really. Everyone except for the obviously older people looks just about the same. There are some people who are married, and that can help with a guess, but I also know some people here who are married and are only one year older than I am or the same age. I attribute a lot of this to the fact that Northwestern also requires an interview for nearly everyone who they admit. Thus, you don't find a lot of immaturity, even amongst the younger folks.

[d-cannon]

This thread is so refreshing and entertaining!

Thanks to the OP for starting it. However, some of your replies and your avatar do tend to portray you negatively.

Without attempting to insult the OP (even though this may sound like it), his/her application may have a flaw or "turn off" for one particular adcomm... An applicant with a 1-point higher LSAT got in before you. How do you know your total application package was better in every aspect except that LSAT point? Could it be this adcomm got a negative vibe from your file? Or maybe the other applicant had stellar softs AND a higher LSAT. Your data is incomplete, so no assumption should be credited or discredited completely.

FWIW, I am a weak splitter (#s in profile) with 10 years WE (making over $200K/year for 5 years before the crisis in late 2007) and I believe my WE made up for my GPA in one of my admissions. I also believe I have a great PS (I have overcome crazy adversity through HS and UG), a believable "why Law?" essay and sterling LORs. In my mind, these factors probably allowed my file to be considered similarly to an applicant having a GPA right at the 25% level. I do not believe any of these factors would make up for a lower LSAT.

[big_blue79]

LSAT/GPA are easily quantified and compared. LoRs are letters of recommendation, not letters of unbiased, objective, and qualified analysis of the applicant's ability to succeed in law school. They're generally fluff pieces, and should be treated as such.