Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I know a young kid who recently graduated from college, summa cum laude from a top 50 university. The kid recently took the LSAT's and got a 170. Coupled with his 3.95 gpa in his undergrad, it appears that he could gain entrance into any of the top 10 programs.
The question is this, when faced with a choice of a significant scholarship at a lesser school or no scholarship money from a top 10 school, which would you recommend?
Take the $. Better that than be in the hole and spend your first ten years digging out. Lawyers I know rarely make big dollars.
I am with Midnighter on this. For lawyers, even 40 years after graduating, the first thing they ask is "where did you go to school?" If the person can do the Ivy League, done deal/whatever it takes. I'd borrow the money at 15% if I had to. Add to the Ivy League; Stanford, Chicago, NYU, UVa, NW, UC-Berkley, Michigan, Duke, Georgetown, UCLA, UT, USC, Vandy, ND, and Case. On these, I'd borrow at 5%.Best. School. You. Get. Into. IMO.
Down the road it won't matter as much, but for your first job, your school matters (not to mention the inherited network). I'm not a lawyer, but my wife is. Here's a bit of what I'm talking about - A friend of ours decided a bit after undergrad (Berkeley) to go to law school. So, they went part time to American University. For their final year, they transferred to Michigan and before taking one class had several requests for interviews from big time firms. Also, check out this transcript of SC Justice Antonin Scalia speaking at American University's Washington School of Law. It's tough to take, but true (from Malcolm Gladwell's Revisionist History Podcast transcript):
The students are all dressed up for the occasion, C-SPAN is recording, there's a big stage hung with blue polyester drapes. Scalia holds forth, his black hair swept back from his forehead, glasses on his nose, strong and square, all intellectual heft and force, gripping the podium like it's a slab of beef.
AS
Administrative Law is not for sissies. It is a very difficult course to teach, and I assume - it certainly was in my day - a hard course to master.
MG
00:58
It's vintage Scalia. The audience hangs on his every word. He finishes triumphantly then hands shoot in the air.
CS
01:09
Good afternoon. My name is Christina Stutt, I'm a 1L student here at WCL.
MG
01:12
Christina Stutt, first year student.
CS
01:15
I have a more general question and that is that part of the American ethos is that our society is a meritocracy where hard work and talent lead to success, but there are other important factors like connections and elite degrees and I'm wondering, other than grades and journal, what do smart, hardworking WCL students with strong writing skills need to do to be sick outrageously successful in the law?
MG
01:36
"What does it take to be outrageously successful in the law."
AS
01:45
Hahaha. Just work hard and be very good. Now, I'll tell you a story...
MG
01:53
My name is Malcolm Gladwell. You're listening to Revisionist History, my podcast about things overlooked and misunderstood. This episode is part two of my examination of the bizarre things the legal profession does to pick its best and brightest.
MG
02:15
In part one, which if you haven't listened to, you probably should, I took the law school admissions test along with my assistant, Camille, and couldn't understand why they made me rush through all the questions. But now, in part two, we have bigger fish to fry. I'm going to serve up Malcolm Gladwell's grand unified theory of how to fix American legal education. No, make that my grand unified theory for fixing all American higher education.
MG
02:47
And what is our text for this discussion of Gladwell's grand unified theory? It's the answer Justice Scalia gave to the unfortunate Christina Stutt.
AS
02:58
You know, by and large, and unless I have a professor on the faculty who's a good friend, and preferably a former law clerk of mine whose judgment I can trust, I'm going to be picking for Supreme Court law clerks, I can't afford a miss. I just can't. So I'm going to be picking from the law schools that, basically, are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest and they may not teach very well, but you can't make a sow's ear out of a silk purse. And if they come in the best and the brightest, they're probably going to leave the best and the brightest.
MG
03:39
Let's pretend to be fine legal minds for a moment and closely parse the meaning and implication of Scalia's statement. A student at American University's Washington College of Law, a law school that US News and World Report ranked 77 among all American law schools, is asking a question of a sitting justice of the US Supreme Court who graduated from Harvard Law School. She's basically asking him would it be possible to be one of his clerks, and he answers, "You go to American University's Washington College of Law. You have no chance of becoming one of my clerks. I only hire people who went to Harvard like I did."
So I'm going to be picking from the law schools that, basically, are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest and they may not teach very well, but you can't make a sow's ear out of a silk purse.
So the law schools that are the hardest to get into aren't teaching very well? But to get anywhere in law, you need to go to those schools that don't teach very well? That explains a lot right there about our justice system right now.
LOL...great observation.So the law schools that are the hardest to get into aren't teaching very well? But to get anywhere in law, you need to go to those schools that don't teach very well? That explains a lot right there about our justice system right now.
Law School would be my choice. Why?FWIW, the kid has two BS degrees in bio and environmental science. He took the GRE's for a possible Phd in enviro science. He scored even higher on the GRE. He is at a crossroads as many recent grads are. He really doesn't know what to do. My comment to him was simply his phenomenal test scores aren't going to make his decisions any easier but they are going to provide him with lots of opportunity. Opportunities that most of us never had.
To address kijanacat; His older sister pulled the same thing; Ivy league scores but got 100% schol to Temple. Personally, my gut feeling is to go for the best school possible.
It's an interesting problem that I never would have had to consider.
Some great points...I've got an acquaintance that got into a high-end dental school when his sister, with much better credentials, didn't get in three years ago. Why? No foreign students expected this fall. (Dad is a dentist with several stores). Also, leave no stone unturned. My wife applied and called. Found out they were sitting down on Monday to begin the process. They have three piles: In, Out, maybe. They then spent several weeks pouring over the maybes. Out was due to several factors, one being an incomplete application. She called first thing Monday morning and found out her transcripts were not included. She got in the car, drove the 45 minutes to the university. She found her transcripts sitting on an admin's desk. She grabbed them and marched into the meeting room. They took her application out of the "out" pile and into the "maybe" pile. When she got accepted, she was told she got in because they admired her spunk and work ethic. She's one of those people that excels at everything except taking tests.Like any other lawyerly answer, "it depends." What does the student want to do, and what are their career goals? For example, if the student has strong connections to a certain city or region and has no desire to really practice elsewhere, it might very well be worth taking a free ride at a lower-ranked school. If an applicant knows that they want to practice in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, or Philadelphia, there's absolutely merit in taking full-ride scholarship opportunities at schools like Case Western, Pitt, Temple, and Villanova. Or, if you come from a family of attorneys who have a small law practice in central Pennsylvania, and you know you're going to take over the family business one day, there's certainly merit in taking a full ride at somewhere like Dickinson or Penn State. Want to practice in Texas? UT's law school often beats out the Yales and Harvards for placement in Texas. Same with UCLA/USC in LA. So it really does depend.
On the other hand, there are a lot of applicants out there who either (a) don't really know what they want to do or where they want to do it; (b) want to work in a large, high-profile legal market like NYC, DC, or San Francisco/Silicon Valley; or (c) have a strong desire at one of the "unicorn" legal jobs like clerking on the Supreme Court, working in international human rights law, the Natural Resources Defense Council, or the ACLU, or in one of the high-profile federal government agencies. If your applicant fits into one of those general categories, there is absolutely merit to going to the best school that you can get into. Especially for those "unicorn" jobs, it's very, very, very difficult to have those types of doors opened for you if you don't have the right kind of school on your resume. Chances are, if you attend one of those schools, you'll end up landing a job as an associate at a large law firm in one of the major legal markets, billing crazy hours but making almost $200,000 in your first year. Even if that isn't necessarily what your applicant wants to do, it's an awfully comfortable living to carve out for yourself while you figure it out.
Overall though, I'd prefer to have the option to go to one of the top schools in the country than to not have that option, so the student is on the right track so far. A 170 LSAT and a 3.95 GPA will make this applicant not only competitive at those top schools, but also competitive for scholarship money at some of the schools on the lower end of the T14 like Michigan, Duke, Cornell, or Georgetown.
My suggestion would be, on the first day that applications open this fall, to submit applications to all of the "top 14" schools (yes, including Yale, Harvard, and Stanford - a 170/3.95 is slightly on the low end for those schools, but you never know), and then apply to the best schools in some of the regions where the applicant thinks that he/she might want to practice in. But (and I can't stress this enough) apply early - especially with the virus lingering into the fall, it wouldn't be surprising to see a whole lot of potential applicants think about law school as a way to ride things out for a few years, like what happened during the recession.
I know a young kid who recently graduated from college, magna cum laude from a top 50 university. The kid recently took the LSAT's and got a 170. Coupled with his 3.95 gpa in his undergrad, it appears that he could gain entrance into any of the top 10 programs.
The question is this, when faced with a choice of a significant scholarship at a lesser school or no scholarship money from a top 10 school, which would you recommend?
Go Landcrabs.I personally suggest UAS — University of American Samoa. Top notch.
Agree with this 100%. You want big law, and to work at a place like Cravath or Debevoise you go to the top 10 law school, as they recruit almost exclusively from these schools. They are starting associates at nearly 200k and partners earn outrageous money. Of course you will sell your soul and work ungodly hours, but that’s what it takes.The bigger question is what the kid wants to do when he gets out of law school. If he wants to work for a top firm in a big city where he can some day earn a seven figure salary, then he should go for the best law school he can get into. If he wants to be a warrior for social justice, then he should go for the best law school offering scholarships.
I know a young kid who recently graduated from college, magna cum laude from a top 50 university. The kid recently took the LSAT's and got a 170. Coupled with his 3.95 gpa in his undergrad, it appears that he could gain entrance into any of the top 10 programs.
The question is this, when faced with a choice of a significant scholarship at a lesser school or no scholarship money from a top 10 school, which would you recommend?
Law School would be my choice. Why?
- There is no topping out once you get your law degree. If you get your PhD, that is a heck of an achievement but where can you go from there?
- When you have your law degree, people don't F with you. My wife has a PhD. in her middle age, she went to law school. She has become a kickass MFer and nobody messes with her. Ever.
- There are so many career paths you can take with your law degree. Lets say he/she wants to stay in the sciences. You can prosecute, defend and/or write contracts.
FWIW, the kid has two BS degrees in bio and environmental science. He took the GRE's for a possible Phd in enviro science. He scored even higher on the GRE. He is at a crossroads as many recent grads are. He really doesn't know what to do. My comment to him was simply that his phenomenal test scores aren't going to make his decisions any easier but they are going to provide him with lots of opportunities. Opportunities that most people never have.
To address kijanacat; His older sister pulled the same thing; Ivy league scores but got 100% schol to Temple. Personally, my gut feeling is to go for the best school possible.
It's an interesting problem that I never would have had to consider.
Yet those who are the must successful - in almost all fields - are those with the highest EQ ( Emotional Intelligence) - not IQ.LOL...great observation.
Here are the facts....colleges only teach you how to learn and process. the actual information is secondary and, today, available on the WWW in a second. Once you learn hard work, how to learn and how to process...it is a matter of credentials.
I went to a good school that nobody has ever heard of. As a result my starting line, if the 100 meter dash was a career, was about 17 meters behind those that graduated name brand schools. I wasn't mature enough, at that time, and didn't have the resources. Regardless, I've seen tons of people get ahead very quickly based on their college credentials alone. (many others, to be fair, are simply superior)
Your second point simply isn’t true. We’re all lawyers here, and we f*ck with each other all the time.
FWIW, the kid has two BS degrees in bio and environmental science. He took the GRE's for a possible Phd in enviro science. He scored even higher on the GRE. He is at a crossroads as many recent grads are. He really doesn't know what to do. My comment to him was simply that his phenomenal test scores aren't going to make his decisions any easier but they are going to provide him with lots of opportunities. Opportunities that most people never have.
To address kijanacat; His older sister pulled the same thing; Ivy league scores but got 100% schol to Temple. Personally, my gut feeling is to go for the best school possible.
It's an interesting problem that I never would have had to consider.
I know a young kid who recently graduated from college, magna cum laude from a top 50 university. The kid recently took the LSAT's and got a 170. Coupled with his 3.95 gpa in his undergrad, it appears that he could gain entrance into any of the top 10 programs.
The question is this, when faced with a choice of a significant scholarship at a lesser school or no scholarship money from a top 10 school, which would you recommend?
If, as many “smart” kids, he’s inclined toward the technical aspects of big law, by all means go to the ranked school. Smaller schools will generally constrain your choice of geography. The sad reality is that big law firms interview out of best schools, with some exceptions for their home turf schools.I know a young kid who recently graduated from college, magna cum laude from a top 50 university. The kid recently took the LSAT's and got a 170. Coupled with his 3.95 gpa in his undergrad, it appears that he could gain entrance into any of the top 10 programs.
The question is this, when faced with a choice of a significant scholarship at a lesser school or no scholarship money from a top 10 school, which would you recommend?
Correct. Lots of “law and the (insert policy)” courses.So the law schools that are the hardest to get into aren't teaching very well? But to get anywhere in law, you need to go to those schools that don't teach very well? That explains a lot right there about our justice system right now.
Take the $. Better that than be in the hole and spend your first ten years digging out. Lawyers I know rarely make big dollars.
Is the young person happy working at a stellar regional firm and making a few hundred g’s? Go to the lesser school, take the money, graduate in the upper half of the class or so and no worries. He/She may even have something that resembles a life outside of work as well.
So the law schools that are the hardest to get into aren't teaching very well? But to get anywhere in law, you need to go to those schools that don't teach very well? That explains a lot right there about our justice system right now.
To be fair, none of them are teaching well. It's pretty shocking how little 3 years of education prepares you to actually practice law. It'd be like if you went to a trade school for plumbing and all they taught you for 3 years was the history of pipes and how to google plumbing issues.
There is another view which would hold that law school teaches you how to "think like a lawyer" while exposing you to substantive law. On graduation day you know more law than you will ever know again.
Those two results provide the foundation from which to learn how to actually practice law.
A lot of this is self-selection, too. At my school, outside of the first year, the only required courses were evidence, professional responsibility (or a similar substitute), and a one-credit upper level legal research class. Outside of that? It's up to you. I filled my second and third years with various trial advocacy classes, legal writing for transactional lawyers (contract drafting!), and then a bunch of extracurriculars (internships, law review, moot court, TAing first-year legal writing classes, etc.) that gave course credit. There were a handful of the fluffy "X and the law" type of classes, sure, but I would estimate that 50% or more of my second and third year classes were more experiential than doctrinal. Schools are pushing that path for upper-level students in a big way now, especially at schools outside of the T14.I think what you’re saying is valid for year 1 of law school: contracts, property, constitution, procedure, legal research and writing, etc, all good. But then doing the same process with just additional topics for 2 years? Well now that’s silly. Those second two years should be spent walking through the actual process of drafting and editing contracts, bringing in a case, following the procedure, drafting discovery, deposition and witness outlines, taking depositions and examining witnesses, objecting to and responding to objection, etc etc. That’s the law. Instead you get 1 trial advocacy course, moot court, and 12 classes on obscure areas of law you’ll never deal with again in your life.
They run a great softball tournament at UVA as wellI went to UVa for law school. I loved UVa and would have gone there again. I would go to a top 10 law school and pay. After a top 10 school. I would consider taking a scholarship. I got offered full scholarships at Florida and Arizona. I got into Duke, Michigan, UCLA and Cornell. Only did not get into Yale and Cal.
Nobody asks me what my GPA was now. Just that I went to UVa. I wanted to go to a law school with big time sports. I also wanted to see if I could get into Yale which only accepts 7% of applicants. I did not.
Nobody can take a top 10 law school degree from you regardless of what you do for a living in the future.
Also by going to a top law school you are surrounding yourself with successful friends for the rest of your life. Also in law school you learn as much if not more from your fellow students than you do from the professors.
At UVa, one of my professors was Pamela Karlan and she almost got nominated by Obama to the Surpreme court. She testified in front of Congress as well. She is now a professor at Stanford that specializes in Voting rights. I had two classes with her. Another professor, Michael Klareman, taught 4 classes that I took on constitutional law and is now at Harvard. You get professors like that at the top schools
Aim high
They run a great softball tournament at UVA as well