3.5 GPA, 149 LSAT, White/Caucasian female Forum

[ewj]

Your comments are not falling on deaf ears. Djjf39's comment was really eye-opening. I don't want to wait around another year to get on with my life. Working on an MA while I'm studying for the LSAT would allow me to progress and help me avoid heading down the wrong path. Getting a job as a paralegal would allow me to do that, as well.

These two comments in particular have been extremely eye-opening. Thank you.

I feel as if the advice/snarky comments on this thread are going in one ear and out the other.

These people are not going to tell you what you want to hear, but they are telling the truth. Tell us what you want to hear, and we can tell you if that sounds realistic.

I have a friend from college who had a 3.5 and a 152, and she was rejected to every school they applied to, including several T4's. With her relatively high GPA (as is yours) she was able to land a paralegal position in a nice city and they are now loving life. They will be taking the LSAT more seriously this time and applying next year (she took 2 years off).

No matter how you look at it, the truth is that with that score, even if you are accepted to a T4 school, you will not get any scholarship money. Only graduates from T4 insitutions in the top half of their class even have a chance at practicing law, and unless you are in the top 10%, you will not get any job that pays more than 50K. The students in the top 1/2 minus the top 10% will be looking at jobs around 30K-40K (the salary distribution for all lawyers is bi-modal, with very few making 100K+ and most making 30-60K). Also, a lot of those top 10% students will have an LSAT score much higher than you and have made the decision to attend a less rigorous school in exchange for a full scholarship. That makes your chances at being in the top 10% substantially less than 10%.

This is your life, the debt doesn't sound real right now, but it will be when you graduate. There are millions of lawyers out there who regret every day their decision to go to law school, as they graduated and went right back to the jobs they had before, or they are stuck in a low paying profession they hate. Just go to http://www.jdundergroud.com to see for yourself.

The math isn't too hard. Basically you have to ask yourself, do I want to bet 100K+ on (20 to 1)- odds, or am I comfortable working in an arduous and loveless profession for 40K a year in order to pay off 100K in student loans (that's almost a thousand dollars out of pocket a month on a 10 year payment plan), or do I want to stay out of debt and play the cards that are in my hand right now. And don't say,"but I'm a unique and special snowflake who will beat the odds" because odds are you're not.

Again, I feel this will fall on deaf ears, but what people are sayin is the truth.

[ran12]

Don't get a masters unless you seriously intend to make use of it via a career related to that masters. All that will do is increase your debt and take away time where you could be earning money in anticipation for law school. It will add nothing to your law school credentials b/c most masters programs have ridiculous grade inflation, which law schools know.

If a legal career is what you truly want, work a couple years and retake the LSAT. Previous posters are correct when they say your earning potential will be low out of a T4. Go to payscale.com for example and look at the average attorney salary. It's pretty bad and it includes all the 6 figure salaries.

[Adjudicator]

It has been said, but it bears repeating that the legal world and the job market are vastly different now than at any point in the past; lawyers in their 40s and 50s (even in their 30s, perhaps) have no clue what it is like for people coming out of law school today. None whatsoever, unless they are actively involved with hiring. So don't put too much stock in their advice about the job market.

And, I don't even need to tell you that admissions counselors are a poor source of information.

The reality is that right now jobs are scarce, hiring is way down, and yet there are more lawyers coming out of school than ever before. This affects every area of the profession, not just "big law." There will be people who go to better schools than you and I and get better grades than you and I, and still fail to get a big law job, and consequently they will be competing with you for the more modest jobs that you desire.

People on this forum are not being harsh when they say that going to law school is usually a bad investment f you can't get in to at least Tier 1. Even many people in good Tier 1 schools will fail to find jobs and be saddled with a crushing debt and nothing to show for it.

You shouldn't be thinking about law school right now if you're not willing to give it everything you've got, and you should know that even then, it is not a sure thing.

[DrackedaryMaster]

Concerning your LSAT, 149 kills your prospects. Sure, some people are just crappy test takers, but if you wanted to, I highly doubt 160 would be impossible. .

OP, I went from 148>149>163. There's no way around not studying for the LSAT properly. Go buy the LRB, LGB, every PT you can get your hands on and practice, practice, practice. Take notes, study your mistakes, learn the types of questions asked and be able to identify them quickly based on the stimulus/Q-stem. Be prepared to spend at least 3 months. Honestly, if you started now, I think February would be cutting it close in terms of mastering the material and getting through everything you would need to do to see quality improvement. It might be best to sit the cycle out and take in June 2011. That would give you plenty of time to digest the information in the Bibles, go through other useful resources on the web, and take as many PT's as possible.

I would NOT apply with a 149. There is nowhere worth going to with that score which will almost certainly require paying near-sticker. Listen to the people here. Take a time out, learn how to study right, come back with confidence knowing you'll hit 160+ and a attend a decent school with some optional funding thrown in.

Good luck, though, which ever way you chose.

[$1.99]

a 149 means you are near mentally handicapped. any school that takes you will be full of other nearly mentally handicapped kids. do you really want to go there?

[djjf39]

Don't get a masters unless you seriously intend to make use of it via a career related to that masters. All that will do is increase your debt and take away time where you could be earning money in anticipation for law school. It will add nothing to your law school credentials b/c most masters programs have ridiculous grade inflation, which law schools know.

Uncredited. Don't listen to this moron. If he ever pursued a terminal MA he would know most programs are designed as stepping stones. I went philosophy to law. Two years in a Master's program has given me better than decent softs, more maturity, plus VE. Most MA programs will be flexible enough in their offerings to allow a part-time job, but I volunteered at a free law clinic, which I got through asking around. Also, I have taught courses during the program that drastically decrease, if not wipe out, tuition costs. I will more or less break even during this process, most of my peers are going for free if not getting stipends. If you are a decent to good candidate that will work hard these programs can be rewarding and important experience, given the person has a desire to succeed. Barely anything in life is attained through laziness.

[maxm2764]

a 149 means you are near mentally handicapped.

That's a little much.

[djjf39]

a 149 means you are near mentally handicapped.

That's a little much.

+1, but elitism is going to crop up around TLS no matter what (i.e. the name ain't exactly humble).

[FuManChusco]

Don't get a masters unless you seriously intend to make use of it via a career related to that masters. All that will do is increase your debt and take away time where you could be earning money in anticipation for law school. It will add nothing to your law school credentials b/c most masters programs have ridiculous grade inflation, which law schools know.

Uncredited. Don't listen to this moron. If he ever pursued a terminal MA he would know most programs are designed as stepping stones. I went philosophy to law. Two years in a Master's program has given me better than decent softs, more maturity, plus VE. Most MA programs will be flexible enough in their offerings to allow a part-time job, but I volunteered at a free law clinic, which I got through asking around. Also, I have taught courses during the program that drastically decrease, if not wipe out, tuition costs. I will more or less break even during this process, most of my peers are going for free if not getting stipends. If you are a decent to good candidate that will work hard these programs can be rewarding and important experience, given the person has a desire to succeed. Barely anything in life is attained through laziness.

awful response. an MA gets you nowhere in regards to LS or a career. an MA is not a better than decent soft and more maturity is hardly worth the time commitment. even if it's free you're better off working full time and putting money in the bank.

[ran12]

Don't get a masters unless you seriously intend to make use of it via a career related to that masters. All that will do is increase your debt and take away time where you could be earning money in anticipation for law school. It will add nothing to your law school credentials b/c most masters programs have ridiculous grade inflation, which law schools know.

Uncredited. Don't listen to this moron. If he ever pursued a terminal MA he would know most programs are designed as stepping stones. I went philosophy to law. Two years in a Master's program has given me better than decent softs, more maturity, plus VE. Most MA programs will be flexible enough in their offerings to allow a part-time job, but I volunteered at a free law clinic, which I got through asking around. Also, I have taught courses during the program that drastically decrease, if not wipe out, tuition costs. I will more or less break even during this process, most of my peers are going for free if not getting stipends. If you are a decent to good candidate that will work hard these programs can be rewarding and important experience, given the person has a desire to succeed. Barely anything in life is attained through laziness.

I'm not a moron, douchebag. A masters can be a stepping stone at some schools but what I wrote about grade inflation is true. Most law schools don't really care about grad GPAs. Plus, what I was trying to say is that there's no point in pursuing a masters if the end game is law school. I'm not trying to offend you but the positive consequences of a masters (softs, maturity, etc.) can be attained through work experience. Even if you break even, I don't see why anyone would choose to pursue a masters that they prob don't really want/need over work experience.

[whymeohgodno]

I'd rather have work experience than a masters for law school. Work experience can make or break you at schools like Northwestern. Masters is just another soft. Also I've heard work experience can help you outperform your grades at OCI.

[ran12]

I'd rather have work experience than a masters for law school. Work experience can make or break you at schools like Northwestern. Masters is just another soft. Also I've heard work experience can help you outperform your grades at OCI.

Yea that's def true for a place like Northwestern and increasingly so for a lot of schools. Work experience matters because it teaches you how to work in a team, with different personalities, learn how to meet deadlines, and learn how to interact with clients. Law firms are businesses when it all comes down to it and people who have experience in the real world will have an edge in luring new clients and keeping them happy.

[TheOcho]

Thank you for your reply. The lawyers I've talked to have pretty well established careers - they're in their 40s-50s. Two of these lawyers that I spoke to went to the same tier one school and they're making really good money. Another lawyer I talked to went to a tier three school (Willamette University) and hes making about 110,000 a year which is where I'd like to be when I'm 40-50.

What their prospects were when entering the legal market are markedly different than yours. Just because someone you know went to some TTT twenty years ago and is successful does not mean it is a good bet for you.

Retake or don't go to law school.

[quetzal_bird]

I'd like to echo the comment on an MA not furthering your end goal of law school. I'd also caution, as a fellow History major, of getting a Master's in the field. History MAs are a dime a dozen, so to speak. You really need a PHD to have weight in the field, and if you choose to enter a PHD program with a terminal MA, most of those PHD programs still require you start fresh. So, if you decide to change your career goals and work in History after you get that MA, you may have set yourself back in History too.

I guess its obvious I've had this debate about law vs history myself, and I think I've learned you can't split the difference. Commit to History if you love it and pursue it as a career, but don't get the MA to make yourself feel better about not knowing what to do with a gap year before law school. Everyone here is asking you to make an informed decision about law school. Make an informed decision about that MA too

[ewj]

I want to practice law and eventually teach an American history/religion/law combination, preferably at a law school or a history graduate program.

I'd like to echo the comment on an MA not furthering your end goal of law school. I'd also caution, as a fellow History major, of getting a Master's in the field. History MAs are a dime a dozen, so to speak. You really need a PHD to have weight in the field, and if you choose to enter a PHD program with a terminal MA, most of those PHD programs still require you start fresh. So, if you decide to change your career goals and work in History after you get that MA, you may have set yourself back in History too.

I guess its obvious I've had this debate about law vs history myself, and I think I've learned you can't split the difference. Commit to History if you love it and pursue it as a career, but don't get the MA to make yourself feel better about not knowing what to do with a gap year before law school. Everyone here is asking you to make an informed decision about law school. Make an informed decision about that MA too

[ran12]

[quote="ewj"]I want to practice law and eventually teach an American history/religion/law combination, preferably at a law school or a history graduate program.

In that case you should forego the MA and try to get into a good law school, practice law for a while, become formidable to a degree, then teach. You don't need a MA to teach if you're considered a respectable figure in the area. Sounds like you want to end up being an adjunct.

[FuManChusco]

I want to practice law and eventually teach an American history/religion/law combination, preferably at a law school or a history graduate program.

I'd like to echo the comment on an MA not furthering your end goal of law school. I'd also caution, as a fellow History major, of getting a Master's in the field. History MAs are a dime a dozen, so to speak. You really need a PHD to have weight in the field, and if you choose to enter a PHD program with a terminal MA, most of those PHD programs still require you start fresh. So, if you decide to change your career goals and work in History after you get that MA, you may have set yourself back in History too.

I guess its obvious I've had this debate about law vs history myself, and I think I've learned you can't split the difference. Commit to History if you love it and pursue it as a career, but don't get the MA to make yourself feel better about not knowing what to do with a gap year before law school. Everyone here is asking you to make an informed decision about law school. Make an informed decision about that MA too

ugh, now OP wants to go into law academia? you better up that LSAT to a 175 and go to HYS.

[ewj]

Man, again with the snide comments... People were being nice to me there for a while so I think I got a little too comfortable with the forum. My mistake!

I want to practice law and eventually teach an American history/religion/law combination, preferably at a law school or a history graduate program.

I'd like to echo the comment on an MA not furthering your end goal of law school. I'd also caution, as a fellow History major, of getting a Master's in the field. History MAs are a dime a dozen, so to speak. You really need a PHD to have weight in the field, and if you choose to enter a PHD program with a terminal MA, most of those PHD programs still require you start fresh. So, if you decide to change your career goals and work in History after you get that MA, you may have set yourself back in History too.

I guess its obvious I've had this debate about law vs history myself, and I think I've learned you can't split the difference. Commit to History if you love it and pursue it as a career, but don't get the MA to make yourself feel better about not knowing what to do with a gap year before law school. Everyone here is asking you to make an informed decision about law school. Make an informed decision about that MA too

ugh, now OP wants to go into law academia? you better up that LSAT to a 175 and go to HYS.

[99.9luft]

.

[FuManChusco]

Man, again with the snide comments... People were being nice to me there for a while so I think I got a little too comfortable with the forum. My mistake!

I want to practice law and eventually teach an American history/religion/law combination, preferably at a law school or a history graduate program.

I'd like to echo the comment on an MA not furthering your end goal of law school. I'd also caution, as a fellow History major, of getting a Master's in the field. History MAs are a dime a dozen, so to speak. You really need a PHD to have weight in the field, and if you choose to enter a PHD program with a terminal MA, most of those PHD programs still require you start fresh. So, if you decide to change your career goals and work in History after you get that MA, you may have set yourself back in History too.

I guess its obvious I've had this debate about law vs history myself, and I think I've learned you can't split the difference. Commit to History if you love it and pursue it as a career, but don't get the MA to make yourself feel better about not knowing what to do with a gap year before law school. Everyone here is asking you to make an informed decision about law school. Make an informed decision about that MA too

ugh, now OP wants to go into law academia? you better up that LSAT to a 175 and go to HYS.

you have a 149 and you're talking about law academia. that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I feel like I'm getting trolled so hard right now.

[quetzal_bird]

If you want to be an academic, an MA in History won't cut it. PHDs pay for themselves. MA's you pay for. I think you should take a year off, study for the LSAT, study for the GRE (this is a test that also requires prep work) and research both fields before you COMMIT to one or the other. Don't do both half-way, pick one track and stick to it, and if you plan on getting a PHD in History do not get a terminal MA

[Grizz]

If you want to be an academic, an MA in History won't cut it. PHDs pay for themselves. MA's you pay for. I think you should take a year off, study for the LSAT, study for the GRE (this is a test that also requires prep work) and research both fields before you COMMIT to one or the other. Don't do both half-way, pick one track and stick to it, and if you plan on getting a PHD in History do not get a terminal MA

Market for PhDss is bad, market for MAs is bad, market for lawyers is bad.

Become an HVAC technician.

[ewj]

Haha, I think many people have asserted that the LSAT is a learnable test. If you invest a lot of time and effort into studying for the test, there is a decent chance that you can greatly improve your score and get into a good school. Unfortunately, I did not invest very much time into studying for the LSAT but I've learned my lesson (via this forum) that I need to buckle down and study hard.

[FuManChusco]

If you want to be an academic, an MA in History won't cut it. PHDs pay for themselves. MA's you pay for. I think you should take a year off, study for the LSAT, study for the GRE (this is a test that also requires prep work) and research both fields before you COMMIT to one or the other. Don't do both half-way, pick one track and stick to it, and if you plan on getting a PHD in History do not get a terminal MA

Market for PhDss is bad, market for MAs is bad, market for lawyers is bad.

Become an HVAC technician.

I don't know. with all these markets in the shitter, plumbing might be the best route to take.

[beachbum]

Haha, I think many people have asserted that the LSAT is a learnable test. If you invest a lot of time and effort into studying for the test, there is a decent chance that you can greatly improve your score and get into a good school. Unfortunately, I did not invest very much time into studying for the LSAT but I've learned my lesson (via this forum) that I need to buckle down and study hard.

Sounds good. Go study. TTYL.