Top Law Schools

Hi all, I'm new, but I've been reading for a while.

I think I have a fairly unique background that has made it hard for me to determine what my chances are...wondering what people have to say and if applying is worth my time and emotions with my goals.

LSAT:

179

Degrees:

BA from unknown private school (history & philosophy): 3.17 GPA

MA from a top European philosophy program (KU Leuven): seems to translate to a 3.0, but I graduated with honours in the 75th percentile, so I'm getting screwed here. I think it should be more like 3.5 GPA. My GPA qualifies for direct entry to the PhD program there...

Grad certificate in education (who cares): 3.9

Nearly done with Religion MA: 3.8

It seems that grad GPA is hardly given weight, but I'd judge mine at 3.7 overall (if the foreign degree is evaluated correctly).

Softs(?):

Adjunct professor at three institutions--one CC, two mediocre universities--having taught twelve courses, six of which are unique. Eleven were philosophy (inlc. Logic) and one religion.

2 years+, Product Manager at tech company

1 year, Founder/CEO at EdTech/LMS company. Only just released last month, and I have two contracts at universities in Pakistan with 20,000+ students.

Some minor academic talks and other academic-type stuff

Founder/Editor of academic journal at CC

Written and filed two technology patents currently in prosecution

........

Anyway, what do you all think?

I want to go to a top tier law school in hopes of an academic career in law. If it's not an Ivy/Chicago/Stanford, I'm not that interested. I obviously suffer from sub-par undergrad GPA, not hugely famous institutions, and the question mark of my foreign GPA. I tend to be a better leader than a follower (which reflects in my career as a student). I'm four years out of undergrad and 26 years old.

Q- Is grad GPA really so irrelevant? Because my grad work is strong, and I've completed more than 90 units.

Q- Are "softs" not able to overcome a low undergrad GPA? Surely my work and academic experience has me in the top percentile, especially with how much grad work I've completed simultaneously.

.

Drewcat7 wrote:Hi all, I'm new, but I've been reading for a while.

I think I have a fairly unique background that has made it hard for me to determine what my chances are...wondering what people have to say and if applying is worth my time and emotions with my goals.

LSAT:

179

Degrees:

BA from unknown private school (history & philosophy): 3.17 GPA

MA from a top European philosophy program (KU Leuven): seems to translate to a 3.0, but I graduated with honours in the 75th percentile, so I'm getting screwed here. I think it should be more like 3.5 GPA. My GPA qualifies for direct entry to the PhD program there...

Grad certificate in education (who cares): 3.9

Nearly done with Religion MA: 3.8

It seems that grad GPA is hardly given weight, but I'd judge mine at 3.7 overall (if the foreign degree is evaluated correctly).

Softs(?):

Adjunct professor at three institutions--one CC, two mediocre universities--having taught twelve courses, six of which are unique. Eleven were philosophy (inlc. Logic) and one religion.

2 years+, Product Manager at tech company

1 year, Founder/CEO at EdTech/LMS company. Only just released last month, and I have two contracts at universities in Pakistan with 20,000+ students.

Some minor academic talks and other academic-type stuff

Founder/Editor of academic journal at CC

Written and filed two technology patents currently in prosecution

........

Anyway, what do you all think?

I want to go to a top tier law school in hopes of an academic career in law. If it's not an Ivy/Chicago/Stanford, I'm not that interested. I obviously suffer from sub-par undergrad GPA, not hugely famous institutions, and the question mark of my foreign GPA. I tend to be a better leader than a follower (which reflects in my career as a student). I'm four years out of undergrad and 26 years old.

Q- Is grad GPA really so irrelevant? Because my grad work is strong, and I've completed more than 90 units.

Q- Are "softs" not able to overcome a low undergrad GPA? Surely my work and academic experience has me in the top percentile, especially with how grad work I've completed simultaneously.

You are very unique. I'd blanket the T-14. You've clearly demonstrated academic aptitude that I think will transcend your undergrad GPA and you have a 179 LSAT which is phenomenal, plus some pretty intriguing softs on top of 4 years of WE. Make sure you present yourself in your applications in a way that captures the full breadth of your accomplishments and I think you'll be fine. Can't predict what will happen for you, but I'm sure you'll have some great results.

Good luck!

zeglo wrote:Well, Cornell is an Ivy, and they're much easier to attend (unless you meant the other Ivies: Penn, Columbia, Yale, Harvard!

Also, with 179 LSAT, I am pretty sure you're bound to get in somewhere good. You are a super-splitter, but lucky for you, LSAT is the most important factor!

As for your goals, I can't evaluate them objectively. Seems fine to me as long as you're okay with some debt.

I agree with this whole-heartedly.

I think you will break into the T14 no problem.

I really appreciate the input. But I'd love to read others' thoughts, especially if they're critical. I just keep seeing everything being about numbers / softs don't matter much / undergrad GPA is everything. Does anyone think I'm screwed?

Drewcat7 wrote:I really appreciate the input. But I'd love to read others' thoughts, especially if they're critical. I just keep seeing everything being about numbers / softs don't matter much / undergrad GPA is everything. Does anyone think I'm screwed?

Did you check mylsn?

You're pretty much in the classic splitter situation, and so your cycle will be unpredictable. Your UGPA is very low (for top schools) and your LSAT is very high, so you need to apply broadly to find the schools that need a really high LSAT more than they need a really high UGPA. You should have some good options, but again, it's difficult to predict which ones they will be.

I think your softs are pretty decent, if handled correctly. But yes, law school admissions is heavily numbers-based. When you're looking at the very top schools, softs come into play a bit more, because schools are already picking from people with top numbers, so they can afford to pick and choose on other factors. UGPA and LSAT matter most because they're what schools have to report to USNWR for the rankings - no one gets ranked on students with advanced degrees or work experience or so on, so there's only so much that softs can do to "make up" for a lower UGPA. (The upside to this, for many people, is that pedigree of your undergrad doesn't tend to matter, either, since that doesn't go into USNWR either.)

Law school admissions are really different from other grad admissions. Academic admissions are all about specialization and identifying yourself with a particular field/approach/research agenda, and in law school admissions that's just not the case. It's a generalist, professional degree requiring no exposure to/experience in law, and so admissions are based on kind of overall raw talent rather than on the more specialized stuff you see in MA/PhD programs.

This doesn't mean that how you sell yourself in the application doesn't matter - it especially matters for splitters. It's more that in academia I think successful applicants tend to look way more alike in terms of qualifications/experiences than they do in law school.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Ivy" schools - it's not that meaningful a descriptor for law schools because plenty of top schools (that aren't Chicago/Stanford) also aren't Ivies (NYU, Virginia, Duke, Michigan, Berkeley etc). Admittedly if you're looking at legal academia you want as top a school as possible (I was going to say you would have an excellent chance at Northwestern, but I suspect you're not interested).

In any case, no, I don't think you can assume that your work and academic experience have you in the top percentile. I think they will help you, but how much will depend on 1) how you put your application together and 2) how much a given school wants your 179.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:You're pretty much in the classic splitter situation, and so your cycle will be unpredictable. Your UGPA is very low (for top schools) and your LSAT is very high, so you need to apply broadly to find the schools that need a really high LSAT more than they need a really high UGPA. You should have some good options, but again, it's difficult to predict which ones they will be.

I think your softs are pretty decent, if handled correctly. But yes, law school admissions is heavily numbers-based. When you're looking at the very top schools, softs come into play a bit more, because schools are already picking from people with top numbers, so they can afford to pick and choose on other factors. UGPA and LSAT matter most because they're what schools have to report to USNWR for the rankings - no one gets ranked on students with advanced degrees or work experience or so on, so there's only so much that softs can do to "make up" for a lower UGPA. (The upside to this, for many people, is that pedigree of your undergrad doesn't tend to matter, either, since that doesn't go into USNWR either.)

Law school admissions are really different from other grad admissions. Academic admissions are all about specialization and identifying yourself with a particular field/approach/research agenda, and in law school admissions that's just not the case. It's a generalist, professional degree requiring no exposure to/experience in law, and so admissions are based on kind of overall raw talent rather than on the more specialized stuff you see in MA/PhD programs.

This doesn't mean that how you sell yourself in the application doesn't matter - it especially matters for splitters. It's more that in academia I think successful applicants tend to look way more alike in terms of qualifications/experiences than they do in law school.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Ivy" schools - it's not that meaningful a descriptor for law schools because plenty of top schools (that aren't Chicago/Stanford) also aren't Ivies (NYU, Virginia, Duke, Michigan, Berkeley etc). Admittedly if you're looking at legal academia you want as top a school as possible (I was going to say you would have an excellent chance at Northwestern, but I suspect you're not interested).

In any case, no, I don't think you can assume that your work and academic experience have you in the top percentile. I think they will help you, but how much will depend on 1) how you put your application together and 2) how much a given school wants your 179.

Yeah, I didn't mean top percentile in terms of overall applicants, or I wouldn't be asking about how I stand. I meant that the work experience and overall academics (if grad is considered) must be top percentile. And I said Ivy/Standord/Chicago simply to refer to some of the top schools that I'm interested in. But thanks for the rest of the info.

lymenheimer wrote:

Drewcat7 wrote:I really appreciate the input. But I'd love to read others' thoughts, especially if they're critical. I just keep seeing everything being about numbers / softs don't matter much / undergrad GPA is everything. Does anyone think I'm screwed?

Did you check mylsn?

Yes, but the difference between including grad GPA and not is obviously huge, so I was looking for more clarity on its complete exclusion and how the softs came into play.

Drewcat7 wrote:

lymenheimer wrote:

Drewcat7 wrote:I really appreciate the input. But I'd love to read others' thoughts, especially if they're critical. I just keep seeing everything being about numbers / softs don't matter much / undergrad GPA is everything. Does anyone think I'm screwed?

Did you check mylsn?

Yes, but the difference between including grad GPA and not is obviously huge, so I was looking for more clarity on its complete exclusion and how the softs came into play.

Don't include your graduate GPA(s) when calculating your GPA on MyLSN. They are not factored in at all by LSAC or the school.

The fact that you have multiple graduate degrees will help you out, and the farther away from your undergrad you are, the less weight it carries. That's not to say that you'll have a shot at HYS (you won't), but the T14 isn't totally out of the question. Your cycle will just be fairly unpredictable.

It sounds like you should be going for a PhD, not a JD. Why would you give up an academic career to go back to square 1 to try to pursue an academic career?

Kinky John wrote:It sounds like you should be going for a PhD, not a JD. Why would you give up an academic career to go back to square 1 to try to pursue an academic career?

T-14 JD has better fallback options than a philosophy PhD; it's way easier to get into a top law school than it is to get into a good Ph.D program; it will almost certainly take OP fewer years to get his JD than his PhD; and law profs get paid moar.

philepistemer wrote:

Kinky John wrote:It sounds like you should be going for a PhD, not a JD. Why would you give up an academic career to go back to square 1 to try to pursue an academic career?

T-14 JD has better fallback options than a philosophy PhD; it's way easier to get into a top law school than it is to get into a good Ph.D program; it will almost certainly take OP fewer years to get his JD than his PhD; and law profs get paid moar.

I understand that there are reasons, but I wasn't asking you

Not really much data to show but just blanket the T14 and see what you get. No one can really predict your outcomes given that you're a splitter.

philepistemer wrote:

Kinky John wrote:It sounds like you should be going for a PhD, not a JD. Why would you give up an academic career to go back to square 1 to try to pursue an academic career?

T-14 JD has better fallback options than a philosophy PhD; it's way easier to get into a top law school than it is to get into a good Ph.D program; it will almost certainly take OP fewer years to get his JD than his PhD; and law profs get paid moar.

This is 100% my thinking. Not too many JDs graduate with teaching experience or a desire to teach. I'll have several degrees and lots of teaching experience when done; law profs make more; I'll have a lot more to fall back on; it should be easier to get into a top school; and it would be quicker.

Kinky John wrote:

philepistemer wrote:

Kinky John wrote:It sounds like you should be going for a PhD, not a JD. Why would you give up an academic career to go back to square 1 to try to pursue an academic career?

T-14 JD has better fallback options than a philosophy PhD; it's way easier to get into a top law school than it is to get into a good Ph.D program; it will almost certainly take OP fewer years to get his JD than his PhD; and law profs get paid moar.

I understand that there are reasons, but I wasn't asking you

Their reasons are spot on.

Drewcat7 wrote:

philepistemer wrote:

Kinky John wrote:It sounds like you should be going for a PhD, not a JD. Why would you give up an academic career to go back to square 1 to try to pursue an academic career?

T-14 JD has better fallback options than a philosophy PhD; it's way easier to get into a top law school than it is to get into a good Ph.D program; it will almost certainly take OP fewer years to get his JD than his PhD; and law profs get paid moar.

This is 100% my thinking. Not too any JDs graduate with teaching experience or a desire to teach. I'll have several degrees and lots of teaching experience when done; law profs make more; I'll have a lot more to fall back on; it should be easier to get into a top school; and it would be quicker.

I think there are a lot of JDs who would like to teach, actually, especially since legal academia pays so much better than regular academia. And there are quite a few PhDs with teaching experience who go to law school, too.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Drewcat7 wrote:

philepistemer wrote:

Kinky John wrote:It sounds like you should be going for a PhD, not a JD. Why would you give up an academic career to go back to square 1 to try to pursue an academic career?

T-14 JD has better fallback options than a philosophy PhD; it's way easier to get into a top law school than it is to get into a good Ph.D program; it will almost certainly take OP fewer years to get his JD than his PhD; and law profs get paid moar.

This is 100% my thinking. Not too any JDs graduate with teaching experience or a desire to teach. I'll have several degrees and lots of teaching experience when done; law profs make more; I'll have a lot more to fall back on; it should be easier to get into a top school; and it would be quicker.

I think there are a lot of JDs who would like to teach, actually, especially since legal academia pays so much better than regular academia. And there are quite a few PhDs with teaching experience who go to law school, too.

Yeah but you're missing it: 100% of Philosophy PhDs are trying to teach. Yale tops all law schools with JDs that go into academia and I think it's like 3%? I'd have to find the chart.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Drewcat7 wrote:

philepistemer wrote:

Kinky John wrote:It sounds like you should be going for a PhD, not a JD. Why would you give up an academic career to go back to square 1 to try to pursue an academic career?

T-14 JD has better fallback options than a philosophy PhD; it's way easier to get into a top law school than it is to get into a good Ph.D program; it will almost certainly take OP fewer years to get his JD than his PhD; and law profs get paid moar.

This is 100% my thinking. Not too any JDs graduate with teaching experience or a desire to teach. I'll have several degrees and lots of teaching experience when done; law profs make more; I'll have a lot more to fall back on; it should be easier to get into a top school; and it would be quicker.

I think there are a lot of JDs who would like to teach, actually, especially since legal academia pays so much better than regular academia. And there are quite a few PhDs with teaching experience who go to law school, too.

My question for you would be what other JD programs are best for a career in academia.

It's true that not everyone doing a JD wants to teach the way that most (but not all) people doing a philosophy PhD want to teach, but 3% of Yale JDs going into academia =/= 3% of Yale JDs want to go into academia (also it's kind of hard to gauge these kinds of numbers because I think it's still fairly common not to go into academia straight from law school, although that's less the case as VAPs and teaching fellowships are becoming standard. There are still a fair number of academics who clerk first, too). The other issue is that there are a lot fewer law schools hiring faculty than there are colleges/universities hiring philosophers. The hiring numbers for law faculty may be better than for philosophers (I don't know), but they're still not great at all.

If you're going to aim for legal academia of course HYS are the best (with Y at the top). My point is more that it still very difficult to get legal academia, especially given declining enrollments in law schools. It's also very much like non-legal academia - you need to publish, in highly-ranked law reviews (law reviews are also a VERY different beast from humanities journals and run very differently). There's a really strong correlation between being at HYS and getting work published, for a whole lot of reasons (resources/support to students, pedigree value, self-selection, etc.), but it's not impossible to get academia from outside the holy trinity. Much of it will be on you to develop and follow through on a research agenda. It's also more and more common for law faculty to have JD/PhDs.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Drewcat7 wrote:

philepistemer wrote:

Kinky John wrote:It sounds like you should be going for a PhD, not a JD. Why would you give up an academic career to go back to square 1 to try to pursue an academic career?

T-14 JD has better fallback options than a philosophy PhD; it's way easier to get into a top law school than it is to get into a good Ph.D program; it will almost certainly take OP fewer years to get his JD than his PhD; and law profs get paid moar.

This is 100% my thinking. Not too any JDs graduate with teaching experience or a desire to teach. I'll have several degrees and lots of teaching experience when done; law profs make more; I'll have a lot more to fall back on; it should be easier to get into a top school; and it would be quicker.

I think there are a lot of JDs who would like to teach, actually, especially since legal academia pays so much better than regular academia. And there are quite a few PhDs with teaching experience who go to law school, too.

Btw, "not too many" does not contradict "there are a lot". It seems you just want to argue, but you don't know how.

Drewcat7 wrote:Btw, "not too many" does not contradict "there are a lot". It seems you just want to argue, but you don't know how.

How does "not too many" not mean "not a lot"? In any case, I was responding because as someone with a PhD who left non-legal academia for law school I think you're somewhat overestimating the ease of transitioning to legal academia. But hey, you do you, and I won't bother you again.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:It's true that not everyone doing a JD wants to teach the way that most (but not all) people doing a philosophy PhD want to teach, but 3% of Yale JDs going into academia =/= 3% of Yale JDs want to go into academia (also it's kind of hard to gauge these kinds of numbers because I think it's still fairly common not to go into academia straight from law school, although that's less the case as VAPs and teaching fellowships are becoming standard. There are still a fair number of academics who clerk first, too). The other issue is that there are a lot fewer law schools hiring faculty than there are colleges/universities hiring philosophers. The hiring numbers for law faculty may be better than for philosophers (I don't know), but they're still not great at all.

If you're going to aim for legal academia of course HYS are the best (with Y at the top). My point is more that it still very difficult to get legal academia, especially given declining enrollments in law schools. It's also very much like non-legal academia - you need to publish, in highly-ranked law reviews (law reviews are also a VERY different beast from humanities journals and run very differently). There's a really strong correlation between being at HYS and getting work published, for a whole lot of reasons (resources/support to students, pedigree value, self-selection, etc.), but it's not impossible to get academia from outside the holy trinity. Much of it will be on you to develop and follow through on a research agenda. It's also more and more common for law faculty to have JD/PhDs.

You're not thinking about this logically. You said it yourself: a JD is a professional degree. A philosophy PhD is not. If nearly 100% (I'd guess 99.9%) of philosophy PhDs are trying to get into academia and and a significantly lower number of JD graduates are trying (let's be friendly and put it at 3x, or 10%, of the HIGHEST percentage of any law school), then the odds are insanely better with a JD. Further, the number of jobs available is directly proportional to the number of students, so you can deduce that a job as a law prof with JD is quite a bit easier than Phil prof with PhD.

And I think you're severely misinformed about the academic job market. Jobs in professional disciplines are the easiest to obtain.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Drewcat7 wrote:Btw, "not too many" does not contradict "there are a lot". It seems you just want to argue, but you don't know how.

How does "not too many" not mean "not a lot"? In any case, I was responding because as someone with a PhD who left non-legal academia for law school I think you're somewhat overestimating the ease of transitioning to legal academia. But hey, you do you, and I won't bother you again.

I'm not at all. I'm very hesitant about it; hence, the post. You're reading things that aren't there, which is why your arguments don't make sense.

Drewcat7 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:It's true that not everyone doing a JD wants to teach the way that most (but not all) people doing a philosophy PhD want to teach, but 3% of Yale JDs going into academia =/= 3% of Yale JDs want to go into academia (also it's kind of hard to gauge these kinds of numbers because I think it's still fairly common not to go into academia straight from law school, although that's less the case as VAPs and teaching fellowships are becoming standard. There are still a fair number of academics who clerk first, too). The other issue is that there are a lot fewer law schools hiring faculty than there are colleges/universities hiring philosophers. The hiring numbers for law faculty may be better than for philosophers (I don't know), but they're still not great at all.

If you're going to aim for legal academia of course HYS are the best (with Y at the top). My point is more that it still very difficult to get legal academia, especially given declining enrollments in law schools. It's also very much like non-legal academia - you need to publish, in highly-ranked law reviews (law reviews are also a VERY different beast from humanities journals and run very differently). There's a really strong correlation between being at HYS and getting work published, for a whole lot of reasons (resources/support to students, pedigree value, self-selection, etc.), but it's not impossible to get academia from outside the holy trinity. Much of it will be on you to develop and follow through on a research agenda. It's also more and more common for law faculty to have JD/PhDs.

You're not thinking about this logically. You said it yourself: a JD is a professional degree. A philosophy PhD is not. If nearly 100% (I'd guess 99.9%) of philosophy PhDs are trying to get into academia and and a significantly lower number of JD graduates are trying (let's be friendly and put it at 3x, or 10%, of the HIGHEST percentage of any law school), then the odds are insanely better with a JD. Further, the number of jobs available is directly proportional to the number of students, so you can deduce that a job as a law prof with JD is quite a bit easier than Phil prof with PhD.

And I think you're severely misinformed about the academic job market. Jobs in professional disciplines are the easiest to obtain.

Of course far fewer people go to law school to teach than go to a PhD program to do so. That doesn't mean the number of people who go to teach magically match the demand. Because the odds are better with a JD than with a philosophy PhD doesn't make them good odds. Each year ~45000 JDs graduate. Even though most probably aren't interested in/qualified for academia, there are still a LOT of grads. One report on last year's hiring shows that 55 schools hired 83 entry-level tenure-track faculty. As in non-legal academia, that hiring is going to include people from a number of graduating classes, not just one year's crop at HYS. In last 5 years, the percentage of applicants applying for legal academic jobs who got them ranged from 14-23%. That's not far off many humanities hiring rates.

And the proportionality doesn't work in your favor - there are far fewer JD students than there are undergraduate and graduate students, which is who philosophy PhDs get hired to teach.

Academic jobs in other professional disciplines may be easy to obtain. That doesn't make them easy to get in law. Have you researched legal academic hiring in the last few years? Check out the Faculty Lounge blog or Leiter for the numbers - the Faculty Lounge is where I got the above.