31 year old Phd; 3.74 UGPA; 4.0 grad gpa; taking LSAT in Jun Forum

[snichols16]

Instead of just taking the word of random people on the internet, I want to show you at least one data point in favor of NO IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT YOU HAVE A PHD

Here are two people on LSN, same exact stats (170, 3.7 so similar to you if you got a 170). Yes yes, I know it's self-reported and whatnot, but at least look at them and keep it in mind.

PhD: http://lawschoolnumbers.com/masochist
UVA: WL
Duke: In

No PhD: http://lawschoolnumbers.com/irishlark
UVA:In
Duke:In


Yes, there applications were probably different, they probably applied at different times, etc. But please don't think a PhD makes up for numbers. Numbers are the bottom line.

True. But I will say with my usual caveat that prestige matters with PhD. A PhD from University of Phoenix means nothing. A PhD from a good school means a lot. Not saying masochist has a PhD from Phoenix, but a PhD is a strong soft that can and does make up for numbers.

Prestige matters for UG too, but I don't think you will find any poster on here that will tell you that you can rely on the rank of your other school to get in to a law school. In general, they don't care as long as it's not an internet school. PhD school prestige cannot be quanitified and considered in rankings.

Again, based on my experience talking with adcoms and my experience with talking with people on TLS I know that you are wrong. This whole anti-PhD thing is just something people on TLS like to continue.

[AntipodeanPhil]

PhD school prestige cannot be quanitified and considered in rankings.

The number of PhDs a law school admits can affect its rankings, indirectly.

These days, PhD/JD combos are much more likely to get hired as academics than straight JDs - PhDs are almost required in some areas of the law. How many academics a law school produces indirectly affects the impression other academics have of that school in some fairly obvious ways. The following is a blatant example:

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2 ... eport.html

Peer assessment is worth 25% of the US News ranking - twice as much as LSAT median.

[Muenchen]

PhD school prestige cannot be quanitified and considered in rankings.

The number of PhDs a law school admits can affect its rankings, indirectly.

These days, PhD/JD combos are much more likely to get hired as academics than straight JDs - PhDs are almost required in some areas of the law. How many academics a law school produces indirectly affects the impression other academics have of that school in some fairly obvious ways. The following is a blatant example:

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2 ... eport.html

Peer assessment is worth 25% of the US News ranking - twice as much as LSAT median.

This point has nothing to do with what we are talking about: ADMISSIONS. Not employment prospects. And I promise you that not only do peer assessments look at the number of PhDs in the classes, but Adcomms don't care to think that far ahead.

But excuse me, I thought this thread was about helping OP get into UVA or Duke. Apparently one risks being "anti-PhD" (which I don't understand, I didn't say PhDs were bad) by trying to tell you that an advanced degree does not, in fact, make you a special little snowflake in the admissions process. Apparently I missed the real purpose of this thread as a place for law school appicants with PhDs to participate in mutual masturbation and rationalize their choices while giving themselves an inflated sense of worth for their law school resumes. Please continue.

Edit: No, I'm not mad. I foresee that meme coming. I'm more just full of

[snichols16]

PhD school prestige cannot be quanitified and considered in rankings.

The number of PhDs a law school admits can affect its rankings, indirectly.

These days, PhD/JD combos are much more likely to get hired as academics than straight JDs - PhDs are almost required in some areas of the law. How many academics a law school produces indirectly affects the impression other academics have of that school in some fairly obvious ways. The following is a blatant example:

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2 ... eport.html

Peer assessment is worth 25% of the US News ranking - twice as much as LSAT median.

This point has nothing to do with what we are talking about: ADMISSIONS. Not employment prospects. And I promise you that not only do peer assessments look at the number of PhDs in the classes, but Adcomms don't care to think that far ahead.

But excuse me, I thought this thread was about helping OP get into UVA or Duke. Apparently one risks being "anti-PhD" (which I don't understand, I didn't say PhDs were bad) by trying to tell you that an advanced degree does not, in fact, make you a special little snowflake in the admissions process. Apparently I missed the real purpose of this thread as a place for law school appicants with PhDs to participate in mutual masturbation and rationalize their choices while giving themselves an inflated sense of worth for their law school resumes. Please continue.

Edit: No, I'm not mad. I foresee that meme coming. I'm more just full of

I don't care enough to respond. Original discussion can continue.

[Lisi]

private practice

thanks for the responses. I figure that with my profile I will have an excellent chance for UNC (and I'm in-state so it is cheap), but I really want to go to Duke or UVA.

so basically, it sounds like my profile of 3.74/LSAT score (162-168 most likely) is virtually identical to the profile of a 21 one year old with the same profile and no additional education/teaching experience/etc.?

Okay, I was a very similar candidate. I had a 3.75 GPA undergrad (adjusted to a 3.78 by LSAC) from at T10 school. (BTW, LSAC and law schools don't adjust for grade inflation, which kind of sucks but is out of our hands.) I had a 3.96 GPA grad. I did my PhD at a very good school (an ivy) and had great recommendations. I had taught many semesters, at first within my department, and later as a course in the University's core, which is a prestigious appointment. I had published one article in a peer-review journal that was quite sizable (~50 pages, which is long for my discipline). So, my profile may be very similar to yours. I studied a little for the LSAT (but I could have studied a *lot* more) and got a 170. My understanding is that, law school really is a numbers game. As silly as it may seem that an undergrad with very little accomplishments but an LSAT score 3 points higher than yours may be a better candidate, I've found that that is actually often the case. The PhD helps by putting you in a pile of "non-traditional" candidates (schools like to fill that quota), and, at some (read: very few) schools, they may actually have a quota they like to report for incoming students with graduate degrees. Most of these schools, however, don't tend to distinguish between Masters and PhDs.

At any rate, yes, I think you can bring up your LSAT score with preparation. A PhD develops different sets of skills than the types that facilitate great LSAT performance. So, you are probably a bit out of practice with the generic problem-solving quick-answer skills that are in demand on the LSAT. Doing preparation can probably help you out - get you back into the swing of things (especially if you have past record of performing well on standardized tests).

I also think that you're aiming at very reasonable schools, given your profile. I don't see why Duke and UVA would be out of reach if you present yourself well and brush up for the LSAT. Applying early decision makes a big difference. I wish I had considered that. In fact, applying early in general (i.e. getting your apps in early) makes a big difference -- all the difference, where some schools are concerned.

Good luck!!!