Should I cancel? or w/ Criminal Rec. does it matter..MORE?s2 Forum

[MegR]

So I have been studying for the LSAT for 3 months now and am barely making a 160 (although my original score was a 150, and Ive been out of school living as a ski bum for 3 years.)

I have invested about 20 hours a week this month, and with 2 wks left, about 10 hours a day. I Just completed my last assignment in the Kaplan class, and am now fearing it was not enough.

Here is my dilemma. With a few exceptions I would prefer to go to school in either Colorado or California, and am hoping to pursue a joint degree (JD/MA-Psychology, or perhaps a JD/PhD if Im lucky.) I do not have a documented Psychology background, but hope to apply to a school that offers this program and transfer in after my first very successful year in law school. I have a BS in Chemistry, a BBA in Finance, and a 3.78. However I also have 2 felony "burglary tools" charges, reduced to misdemeanor theft (the officer was just trying to get me back in the state, so pulled charges out of his ass) as well as a Wreckless Endangerment (My first DUI reduced,) DUI (received 3 months after the first) and simple possession. I was indestructible with no conscience for a few years. I was in a sorority and partying was the only thing that held my attention. I took between 21-24 hours each semester, and worked a full time job, yet nothing was challenging enough to keep me out of trouble. Fortunately, I escaped with only a couple of misdemeanors, 28 days in rehab, and experience that has led me to my interest in psychology and law. My diagnosis of ADD really began to clear things up with my behavioral problems. I hope to spin this in my favor with the admission process as well. Is this idea even feasible?

That is my background, in a nutshell. Thus, with that being said, is it even possible to get into somewhere like Stanford? Duke? Pepperdine? UC-Boulder? UC-Denver? Arizona?

What score do I need for acceptance and what score will get me a significant scholarship to a decent school? Is this even possible? I would even consider attending a less than top notch school if I could get a full ride and still have opportunities and doors opened to me. My ultimate goal is not to practice law, but rather be a professor. Perhaps a law professor, but ideally at an undergraduate institution. Thus what would be my best option in regards to choosing where to apply?

Lastly, I had the test date change deadline wrong. I thought I had until Monday to do so. If you guys think I should cancel, is it better to show up absent or take it and cancel?

[thatsnotmyname]

My ultimate goal is not to practice law, but rather be a professor. Perhaps a law professor, but ideally at an undergraduate institution. Thus what would be my best option in regards to choosing where to apply?

Best option = do not go to law school. I don't understand why your are applying to law school if your ultimate goal is to not to practice law but to be an undergrad professor.

[merichard87]

The law degree will do nothing for you if you are interested in teaching at an UG level. Are you thinking of teaching UG pre-law classes?

[Azmatt]

I'm really trying not to be that random jerk who replies only to flame....

But, reading that was just painful. Don't put anything about ADD in there. Granted, I'm just some schmuck. But, if I read that, I'd think that this girl has no clue about real adversity. I don't know you or your situation, but if I was in admissions, that would hurt your chances. Maybe it's just that I've been creeping these forums for a while, seeing stories of adversity, but I don't really feel bad for you.

Try spinning it to where you don't appear to be making excuses, but applying life lessons from your experiences.

Of course, why the hell do you want to go to law school? Cause it sounds like a good idea? It seems like a complete waste of a spot by someone who doesn't really seem to have a passion for law.

Anyway, good luck with your choices. I'm going to go cringe at the thought of you taking the spot in place of someone who actually wants to practice law...

[blue5385]

OP, if you want to get into legal academia, you would most likely need to be at the top of your class at a school like Yale or Harvard. Not sure if you're a URM, but if you're not, you don't have much of a chance at being accepted to those schools with a ~160 LSAT unless you have an extremely unusual, positive soft.

If you want to teach at the undergrad level, you might be better served by earning a Ph.D. in the subject you want to teach (not sure why you would need a J.D. as opposed to a Ph.D. to do that, even if the field was criminal justice or something similar). Based on the experiences of people I know who have gotten into top Ph.D. programs, your criminal background would not be nearly as important a negative factor if you went the Ph.D. route (and you also wouldn't have to consider C&F, which might be an issue in your case).

[honestabe84]

OP, if you want to get into legal academia, you would most likely need to be at the top of your class at a school like Yale or Harvard. Not sure if you're a URM, but if you're not, you don't have much of a chance at being accepted to those schools with a ~160 LSAT unless you have an extremely unusual, positive soft.

If you want to teach at the undergrad level, you might be better served by earning a Ph.D. in the subject you want to teach (not sure why you would need a J.D. as opposed to a Ph.D. to do that, even if the field was criminal justice or something similar). Based on the experiences of people I know who have gotten into top Ph.D. programs, your criminal background would not be nearly as important a negative factor if you went the Ph.D. route (and you also wouldn't have to consider C&F, which might be an issue in your case).

Huh? So pretty much the only schools law professors have graduated from are either Yale or Harvard?

[Jacktone]

OP, if you want to get into legal academia, you would most likely need to be at the top of your class at a school like Yale or Harvard. Not sure if you're a URM, but if you're not, you don't have much of a chance at being accepted to those schools with a ~160 LSAT unless you have an extremely unusual, positive soft.

If you want to teach at the undergrad level, you might be better served by earning a Ph.D. in the subject you want to teach (not sure why you would need a J.D. as opposed to a Ph.D. to do that, even if the field was criminal justice or something similar). Based on the experiences of people I know who have gotten into top Ph.D. programs, your criminal background would not be nearly as important a negative factor if you went the Ph.D. route (and you also wouldn't have to consider C&F, which might be an issue in your case).

Huh? So pretty much the only schools law professors have graduated from are either Yale or Harvard?

Not true. You can go to a lower ranked school than Harvard or Yale. I once met a law prof who had attended STTTanford. However, the prof was teaching at a Tier 3...

[Kilpatrick]

You want to be an undergrad professor teaching political sciences classes or something? You don't need a JD for that, you need a PHD. If you really want to get into teaching after law school but aren't going to upper T-14 the best you can hope for is maybe teaching paralegal classes at community college. I know a couple people who have done this. But I don't think any of them are particularly happy about taking out six figures of debt to teach at community college.

[blue5385]

OP, if you want to get into legal academia, you would most likely need to be at the top of your class at a school like Yale or Harvard. Not sure if you're a URM, but if you're not, you don't have much of a chance at being accepted to those schools with a ~160 LSAT unless you have an extremely unusual, positive soft.

If you want to teach at the undergrad level, you might be better served by earning a Ph.D. in the subject you want to teach (not sure why you would need a J.D. as opposed to a Ph.D. to do that, even if the field was criminal justice or something similar). Based on the experiences of people I know who have gotten into top Ph.D. programs, your criminal background would not be nearly as important a negative factor if you went the Ph.D. route (and you also wouldn't have to consider C&F, which might be an issue in your case).

Huh? So pretty much the only schools law professors have graduated from are either Yale or Harvard?

Not true. You can go to a lower ranked school than Harvard or Yale. I once met a law prof who had attended STTTanford. However, the prof was teaching at a Tier 3...

tbf, Stanford is on a similar level as Harvard & Yale. I was looking into legal academia and got the impression it would be difficult to get even from CLS, where I'm headed. I don't know how possible it would be from a lower T1/T2 school, which is where a 160 LSAT would realistically end up (barring mitigating circumstances, of course), but even if it were possible it would be extremely difficult & not really something to plan on.

[romothesavior]

My ultimate goal is not to practice law, but rather be a professor. Perhaps a law professor, but ideally at an undergraduate institution. Thus what would be my best option in regards to choosing where to apply?

Best option = do not go to law school. I don't understand why your are applying to law school if your ultimate goal is to not to practice law but to be an undergrad professor.

FWIW, the best professor at my undergrad (and also my favorite... he was my mentor and advisor for four years) did exactly this. He is the philosophy chair at my school, teaches a few poly sci classes (con law, philosophy of law, appellate legal reasoning, etc.) and is in charge of the pre-law track. He got tenure within a few years of being there and became the chair of a very vibrant department just a few years later. I asked him why he got the JD if he knew he wasn't going to practice law, and he said it was because he knew he wanted to be a college prof and he thought getting a JD would distinguish him from the pack. I'd say it most definitely did (well, than and the fact that he's the best teacher I've ever seen at any level). So yeah... getting a JD is not a bad idea if you want to be an undergrad professor.

But to OP: With that record, your odds of getting into a good LS are slim to none. Sorry.

[romothesavior]

Also your poll makes zero sense. The responses to "Should I..." are questions.

[CanadianWolf]

You are focusing on the wrong issues, in my opinion. Your primary concern should be on getting admitted to law school. To teach at the undergraduate level with a JD degree probably requires real world legal experience, such as as a trial attorney, public defender or prosecutor, securities or tax work, etc., all of which require bar membership which may be difficult in your case. Other than using your future law degree to teach a writing course, I think that university level academia is a long-shot career option for you. Many, if not most, community colleges require a PhD in order to be realistically eligible to teach at that level.

[Kilpatrick]

Also your poll makes zero sense. The responses to "Should I..." are questions.

I voted that she should how much of an effect will my criminal record have. I really think that's what she should do.

[romothesavior]

You are focusing on the wrong issues, in my opinion. Your primary concern should be on getting admitted to law school. To teach at the undergraduate level with a JD degree probably requires real world legal experience, such as as a trial attorney, public defender or prosecutor, securities or tax work, etc., all of which require bar membership which may be difficult in your case. Other than using your future law degree to teach a writing course, I think that university level academia is a long-shot career option for you. Many, if not most, community colleges require a PhD in order to be realistically eligible to teach at that level.

Again, this is not true. I know of two college professors who have no practicing experience who have JDs. Both went from undergrad--->law school--->PhD and both say that their JDs greatly helped their teaching careers.

[icydash]

Thus, with that being said, is it even possible to get into somewhere like Stanford? Duke? Pepperdine? UC-Boulder? UC-Denver? Arizona? What score do I need for acceptance and what score will get me a significant scholarship to a decent school? Is this even possible?

According to lawschoolpredictor, to be considered in the T6, you'd probably need a 172+. To be considered in the T14, you'd probably need a 170+.

...of course, this all assumes that they overlook your multiple legal offenses, you can write a reasonable personal statement, and (for yale, harvard or stanford) you have some kind of decent softs (other than partying in a sorority).

My ultimate goal is not to practice law, but rather be a professor. Perhaps a law professor, but ideally at an undergraduate institution. Thus what would be my best option in regards to choosing where to apply?

If you just want to teach undergrad, you'd be better off with a PhD....there's really no reason to get a JD for this. If you want to teach law school, you really need to come from Yale, Harvard or Stanford (these are the schools in which a majority of law professors come from).


EDIT: echoing someone else: your poll makes 0 sense. What are you trying to ask?

[CanadianWolf]

@romothesavior: But those two individuals obtained PhD degrees. They may have taught while in a PhD program.
To the Original Poster: Your criminal convictions (four in total?) are likely to be a huge barrier in getting admitted to law school & substantial concerns for admittance to any state's bar.
Currently there is an interesting case concerning a senior undergraduate student at Dartmouth College who was accepted to the Univ. of Virginia School of Law for next fall. Last week this Dartmouth College senior was charged with two felonies--possession of cocaine & intimidation of the witness (a fellow fraternity brother at SAE who, after several warnings, turned him in to campus security for repeatedly snorting cocaine with other frat members in the common areas of the fraternity house). Many are waiting to see if his acceptance to the Univ. of Virginia School of Law will be rescinded based upon the charges alone (i.e. prior to any final verdict). The citations & precedents argued in this case may prove helpful to better understanding your status. In your position, it might be helpful to make a few phone calls to less selective law school admissions offices for advice & guidance.

[icydash]

You are focusing on the wrong issues, in my opinion. Your primary concern should be on getting admitted to law school. To teach at the undergraduate level with a JD degree probably requires real world legal experience, such as as a trial attorney, public defender or prosecutor, securities or tax work, etc., all of which require bar membership which may be difficult in your case. Other than using your future law degree to teach a writing course, I think that university level academia is a long-shot career option for you. Many, if not most, community colleges require a PhD in order to be realistically eligible to teach at that level.

Again, this is not true. I know of two college professors who have no practicing experience who have JDs. Both went from undergrad--->law school--->PhD and both say that their JDs greatly helped their teaching careers.

It probably did -help- their careers; but it was also probably unnecessary. They probably could have saved themselves a lot of time and money (and still ended up being good professors at a university) just going straight to PhD.

[romothesavior]

@romothesavior: But those two individuals obtained PhD degrees. They may have taught while in a PhD program.

Right. I'm not saying that you could teach in college without a PhD. I'm just saying that a JD can be very beneficial for someone going into undergraduate teaching.

[romothesavior]

It probably did -help- their careers; but it was also probably unnecessary. They probably could have saved themselves a lot of time and money (and still ended up being good professors at a university) just going straight to PhD.

I disagree. The prof at my school, for example, teaches a wide range of pre-law classes and I doubt he would be qualified to teach them without his JD (like I said, his PhD is in philosophy). Even if he was allowed to teach them, he wouldn't be nearly the teacher he is today without the JD background. His pre-law classes are tailored to look like a law school class, with a lot of reading and the Socratic method. His former students who are now in law school are all doing very well grade-wise, and they say a lot of it is because they felt well prepared by this prof. Furthermore, he has been an outstanding resource for me throughout the law school application process, and a lot of that is the fact that he knows what it's like.

The world of academia is very flooded right now, and anything you can do to distinguish yourself can help. I'm not saying a JD trumps teaching/researching ability, but I do think it could be a very nice thing to have.

[icydash]

It probably did -help- their careers; but it was also probably unnecessary. They probably could have saved themselves a lot of time and money (and still ended up being good professors at a university) just going straight to PhD.

I disagree. The prof at my school, for example, teaches a wide range of pre-law classes and I doubt he would be qualified to teach them without his JD (like I said, his PhD is in philosophy). Even if he was allowed to teach them, he wouldn't be nearly the teacher he is today without the JD background. His pre-law classes are tailored to look like a law school class, with a lot of reading and the Socratic method. His former students who are now in law school are all doing very well grade-wise, and they say a lot of it is because they felt well prepared by this prof. Furthermore, he has been an outstanding resource for me throughout the law school application process, and a lot of that is the fact that he knows what it's like.

The world of academia is very flooded right now, and anything you can do to distinguish yourself can help. I'm not saying a JD trumps teaching/researching ability, but I do think it could be a very nice thing to have.

It sounds like his JD has been very helpful in modeling his classes similar to those in law school. No doubt, it helps him answer a lot of practical questions his students probably have. I'm sure it's not -bad- to have, and probably even pretty helpful; but it's definitely not necessary was all i was trying to say.

However, every pre-law class I've taken (not many, I'm an EE major) and my roommate took ( a poly-sci major; he took many more) were modeled after the Socratic method and had a "lot of reading." This isn't really an innovative teaching process, and a lot of professors (PhDs) use it when teaching pre-law classes. Furthermore, you don't need take 3 years of your life and spend 150k to give kids a lot of reading homework, have essay exams and use the Socratic method.

But a large part of my reasoning revolves around the fact that for a lot of universities, being a "good professor" is second to research. Grants and research is really why professors are hired in a large portion of universities, with teaching almost as a side-gig. While being a great professor is good, knowing how to research and bring in grants is -key- to keeping your job.

EDIT: Also, since the PhD is usually -necessary- for teaching, I would say going straight from undergrad to a PhD is the way to go. If later on, you want to hone your skills in your particular area of interest (or have the time and money) you can always go to law school... but this should be thought of as a perk on top of the necessary PhD...not the other way around.