A question about law school admissions

Factual Questions
21

That’s certainly been my experience too. Part-time, mature-age students are generally much more motivated and much more efficient in their studies than younger, full-time students straight out of school. The additional years’ work experience helps immensely too.

I’m in fourth year of my (part-time) law degree. Gaining admission to the university wasn’t difficult. If you’re a graduate with a history of reasonable academic results, then you’re in. We don’t have to sit any additional test like the LSAT.

22

I have seen answers like this before in similar threads but have never seen them explained. Time consuming I can understand. But what is it with the “a lot of studying”? Isn’t studying in law school mainly reading old cases and learning precedent? IANAL nor have I ever been in law school, but I have read many court transcripts and find them fascinating. A heck of a lot more interesting than doing partial derivatives on flow fields. What is it about the studying that you didn’t like?

Why is the Socratic method annoying?

23

This may be controversial, but I really think there is a bit of a martyrs’ myth regarding law school perpetuated by lawyers, who want to feel like they’ve gone through the toughest experience known to man. There are a lot of people, much like in college (most are still going right after college or a year or so after), who do not treat it like a job. They go to class in the morning, sit in the coffee shop babbling for a few hours, go home and watch Springer and fall asleep for 2-3 hours. Then, for amazing reasons, they find themselves up until past midnight studying. Of course they do not remember all of the time they wasted, they only talk about how they had to stay up past midnight studying again.

I actually found law school easier than college. There was less reading, less studying, and the material was generally speaking less difficult. It was also a more boring experience generally.

Of course, just because law school is boring doesn’t mean doing partial derivatives on flow fields isn’t also boring. :slight_smile:

24

Law school generally teaches by the “case method,” which is where you read a case that illustrates the point of law that you’re supposed to be understanding and absorbing. Learning how to read through the cases, extract the relevant law, and avoid the detritus is a very useful tool for a lawyer to be, but it’s very time consuming, and they pile the cases on you pretty heavily (especially in the first year) and expect you to be able to discuss them intelligently every class period. They don’t really tell you how to do this, either. It’s been described as teaching someone how to drive by plopping them down in rush hour traffic with no instructions. A lot of times in the first couple of weeks you have no real idea what you’re supposed to be learning or doing, and mostly feel kind of disoriented.

The Socratic method can be irritating because many instructors use it as a metaphor for “learning by humiliation.” Fall behind on reading and get called out, and suffer a withering humiliation as your instructor asks you question after question about something you don’t know a goddamn thing about. This can be anywhere from mildly embarrassing to the psychological equivalent of being depantsed in public while you have a boner.

The heck of it is, reading all those cases really only prepares you for class, not really for exams. Exam studying involves starting all over and poring over all those extracted rules of law, memorizing them, poring over them again, memorizing them again, memorizing some crap you never even heard of in class, differentiating between two similar fact situations that lead to wildly different conclusions, doing multistate after multistate, on and on ad nauseum. The volume you’re expected to commit to memory can be intimidating.

25

I think that there’s a lot of reasons people go to law school, some of which have no real relevance to the study of law itself (desire for a high paying or high status career, for example). For people who enter law school with this goal in mind, the experience is probably going to be tortuous – as would any advanced degree for which you are only going through the motions with no interest in the subject matter.

I’ve enjoyed studying case law in the limited way that I’ve done so up till now – I did mentored moot court in high school, our mentor firm was Cravath, Swain, Moore so I suppose I’ve been exposed to the world of high-powered law firms* – and am looking forward to law school. Honestly, it sounds like fun (people give me dumbfounded looks when I say that). Law seems to me to combine two of my favorite hobbies: filling my head with minutae and being right. :slight_smile:

*The only good part of that seems to be how the other lawyers shake in their boots when they hear where you work. LOL .

26

I concur with others that LSAT score matters more than undergraduate performance. I flunked out of college twice and ended up graduating from an extremely unheralded institution, but with a decent LSAT score (and some advice from people on this board, when I started a GQ thread myself around 5 years ago!) I ended up getting into Georgetown, Virginia, and Michigan.

27

First, you might wanna read this book.

Second, I’d advise you to think about it some more. Law school, and a subsequent legal career, is a pain in the ass. Go to law school because you want to be a lawyer, not because law is something you tumbled into. That’s the only way you’ll be happy. If you go just because it’s something to do, or because you think “hey, law school might be neat,” you’re going to be miserable.

Finally, I’ll give you this, which I wrote in my LJ after finishing my last law school class:

28

Max, I agree with almost everything you said there. I found the experience of studying law to be fun, but I rarely interacted with my classmates, because, well, frankly, I didn’t like them. And I didn’t do well in the large law firm world, because, frankly, I didn’t like those people either. I’m in a job now for which my legal training is relevant, but pays a lot less – those law school loan payments really hurt. If I had known in advance what it was going to be like, I would have seriously considered going to the cheapest law school that I got admitted to rather than the most prestigious.

Another thing I always tell people about studying law – There is no series of relevance in the program that prepares you from one step to another. At every turn you find yourself starting from scratch –

  1. Studying for the LSAT will in no way help you prepare to participate in a law school classroom

  2. Studying so that you can participate in a law school classroom will in no way prepare you to take the exam at the end of the term

  3. Studying for law school exams will in no way prepare you to take the bar exam

  4. Studying for the bar exam will in no way prepare you to practice law

And, yeah, in the end the best-paying jobs are handed out on the most superficial of judgments – your first-year GPA, your ability to look good in a suit and schmooze.

And, really, it’s your first year grades that count the most, because those will secure you that all-important summer clerkship and law review position, which is really what leads to high paying jobs.

And, yes, you can go to law school even if you’re not interested in a high-paying law firm job, but your considerations have to be different.

29

By the way, Max’s post may well be accurate for full-timers, but if you at night you’ll get none of that petty shit. The evening program is collegial where the day program is, I’m told, competitive.

Oh, and I think participating in class is actually a good preparation for taking the class exams. And while law school doesn’t teach you to pass the Bar, I don’t think intelligent, thoughtful people with access to appropriate study materials would be able to pass the Bar at nearly the rates that law-school graduates do. Law school gives you the scaffold, and you’ve got to fill that in when studying for the Bar, but you couldn’t do it without the scaffold. I mean, how many educated people who have’nt gone to law school know what res ipsa loquitor means, or the collateral source rule, or the difference between damages and specific performance, or even what a life estate is?

In the same way, while law school doesn’t really teach you how to be a lawyer, you can’t be a lawyer wothout having gone to law school so you can understand what the hell the issues are.

–Cliffy

30

Jesus that’s a lot of typoes.

–Cliffy

31

This is a special interest of mine. It seems that some fields (law, medicine, sports) are “romanticized” to some degree. In my case, as a veterinarian I hear it all the time. “Oh, your a veterinarian, how cool”. Nope, it aint cool, it’s what I do to pay the mortgage. If tomorrow I was told I would not be paid, I would not go to work.

My daughter (now 14 years old) has been spending time at my office since she was 3 or 4 years old. She is a natural. She often helps out and answers the receptionist’s questions with total authority; if she is not sure she checks with me. Do I want her to follow in my shoes? No way. She could make more $$ in other fields with less work.

Before I give the wrong impression, I do like what I do. But it aint all puppies and kittens, and even if it were, those puppies and kittens are often presented by owners who are penniless scumbags. :smiley:

32

Pravnik (especially), Max Torque and ascenray already gave out good reasons about how frustrating law school and the study of law can be. I’ll just add one last thing: yes, while all that type of studying is true: nothing builds on the other, objectively, somehow, it makes people able to pass the bar and become lawyers, even really great ones, as Cliffy somewhat alluded to, i.e. super-bright people with all the BarBri aids will most likely not pass the bar if they did not go to law school.

The study of law, and the super-annoying Socratic method, sometimes boils me over in anger and rage is because simply knowing the answer to the question or issue is not the best answer. Simply knowing how a court decided on an issue is not going to make you a good lawyer or get you a good grade.

As an analogy, in Calculus I, your professor asks you to find the derivative of SIN (i.e. d/dx sin x = ?) . If you answer d/dx sin x = cos x, then you should get full credit (assuming this is not advanced calc where you don’t have to show proofs). In law school, a C answer is to simply say cos x. Showing the proof will get you a B+/A-, depending on your professor’s mood. Using fact scenario examples, in addition to demonstrating the proof in actual usage is what finally gets you the A.

The Socratic method is also known as “hiding the ball,” as my classmates and I referred to it. I had the distinct displeasure of having the same professor twice (torts and remedies) who is classically known for humiliating students to the point of crying, and letting you know an exam question but not actually telling you the answer, ever (this involves split court decisions, making you argue fact versus law – fun :rolleyes: ).

At least his grading (another thing I forgot to mention that I hated) was somewhat on par with the rest of the school :confused: : chicken-scratch notations along with what can be best described as ancient Summerian symbols somehow translate into a 200 point scale, with an arithmetic mean of 100; oh, and 3-5% A, 7-10% A-, 12% B+, 15% B, 18% B-, everyone else can fight for the rest (100 student class size) :eek: .

Exams are three hours long, and yes, you will need more time, and yes, you will also have to study how he grades an exam. And, pray that some jackass didn’t steal the copy from the library.

And, as it was stated before, no one tells you how to do any of this.

33

I’ll aslo say that, while none of my professors were as dickish aboutht e Socratic method as the horror stories you hear, I know a hell of a lot about torts and contracts because I did all the work, being scared shitless that I’d get called on in class and make a fool of myself.

–Cliffy

34

I’ve seen lots of things like Max’s journal entry before, and I do think that there are a number of people who are unhappy with their legal education and their legal careers. There are some pretty infamous flame-out emails that get circulated when some associate with more creative writing skills than good judgment sends around a farewell email.

My experience in law school was radically different from some of the descriptions above. I really liked it, and I never felt like I was surrounded by a bunch of shallow gossips. Of course, I had worked for several years before I went to law school, and in the group that I hung out with, only one person had come to law school directly out of college. Because our perspectives on life and the world in general were colored by that experience, I think that (much like Cliffy’s example of the night students) we didn’t behave as has been described. I did have one professor who was a nightmare; the other professors said they were grateful to him, because he instilled good habits in us. And, frankly, some of those habits are still with me.

What follows is me, painting with a broad brush:

I will agree that there are many people who go into the law for the wrong reasons. (Hello Again’s description of the mentoring lawyers made me smile; at every firm, there are a group of lawyers who like to think of themselves as being at a place that makes other lawyers tremble in fear when they hear the firm name. It generally isn’t true, but for some lawyers, it makes them happier to be at a place where they can self-describe that way.) Some people go into law school for the money, power or prestige; almost inevitably, the money won’t be enough (because they’ll find out someone else’s bonus was $1,000 more), the power is non-existant for the first few years or decade, and the only one impressed with the prestige is their mom.

Other people go into law school because they don’t know what else to do – they don’t have a career in mind, law seems okay (no math, lots of reading, I could do that), and it delays the need to plan for the future for another three years. Some of these people will discover a love for the law, and will be very happy. Others won’t.

Other people go into law school because they understand what lawyers do, and they want to do that. These people are, of course, the most likely to enjoy the practice of law. Me? I went to law school because I didn’t know what else to do, and it seemed interesting. And I love being a lawyer; I love practicing law. I’m good at it, too, which is a bonus. It suits me and how I think. So I’m glad I fell into it.

But if I had gone to law school directly out of college, I don’t know that I’d be as happy with it. I saw a bit of the world and grew into myself in the intervening years, and, consequently, I’m a bit more pragmatic now than I was at 22.

zev, most law schools will appreciate your work experience. Not because of what you did, but because you committed to a career and worked hard at it for several years. That indicates a valuable level of maturity. In addition, that added maturity may indicate a better ability to do well in law school than your college grades would otherwise indicate.

And study for the LSAT. Try to take it only once (they used to average your LSAT scores, don’t know if they still do), so study ahead of time. That’s pretty much the only thing I would suggest you do to improve your chances of admission.

The other thing to think about is the part-time thing. Take a look at the schools near you (I presume you wouldn’t move), to see how the graduates of their night program do in getting jobs. Here in LA, there are several part time programs, but one of them is considered head and shoulders above the rest (as Cliffy said, the night students can do better than the day students). So consider that, as well as the cost of your student loans, as others have said. Because if you get out of law school and begin the practice of law and hate it, you don’t want to be handcuffed to your new career because of your loan payments.

Best of luck.

35

I think I want to shoot myself in the face after rereading this thread.

36

If you do, the gun is inherently dangerous. If it doesn’t go off, it’s defective. Either way, here’s my card.

37

I have my card too (as a lawyer). What a waste of money and paper.

38

Okay, here’s at least a quick answer.

I think a lot of people who choose law as a second-career choice do so because they’ve figured out they really don’t want to do what they’ve been doing, and law seems like a “career” in a box. You go to school, you get hired with some firm, and voila, you are a professional with a career.

However, at least on the transactional side (where I’ve done most of my work), and also to a great degree on the litigation side, law is boring. The bulk of most people’s work is spent shifting through papers. You’re often not looking through the documents for the “smoking gun.” You are instead researching your 50th case, that doesn’t really say what you want it to, and trying to figure out how to get it to apply on an argument that is the 3rd best argument on an issue that is a tertiary issue for the case the 1st chair partner is arguing.

Or you are going through the effort of putting together your 80th Buy/Sell Agreement. They no longer pose a true intellectual challenge. But you still need to spend hour upon hour on it, because it looks really bad to have typos or provisions that don’t quite match up. And more importantly, because they actually do pose an intellectual challenge, but you are simply too bored with them to care anymore. When you do try to put in the mental effort, it is futile. Relatively few people can make themselves get excited over realizing that if Section 8.3 is read literally, X’s estate could possibly get 1.3 times the payout he is supposed to get if you don’t adjust for the tax consequences of his being allocated losses over the past 5 years.

But not only is it boring stuff; it’s boring stuff that you pay through the nose, and spend three money losing years (because you’re not just paying tuition during law school, you’re affirmatively making less or no money during those three years). So you start three years older than you are now. And you start fairly late in life. And you realize that the people who have work, good work, did not get it by being a relatively young and inexperienced associate in their late 30s or early 40s. They got it by having a deep network of contacts by that point in their life because they’ve already been practicing law for 10-15 years by the time you’re starting.

A lot of this is colored by what I am doing right now. Maybe you would be a successful small town solo practitioner, and some of this wouldn’t apply. Who knows.

But if I really had to boil it down to a gut feeling, I think a lot of people think law would be a great second career without really knowing what it is about, and how much tedium it entails. It seems like a convient “career in a box,” where else (medicine I suppose), can you get a degree, and sort of “plug in” to a specific job type in a profession that has a monopoly on right to practice? Unfortunately, it generally isn’t something you can just try out for a year to see if you like it. Once you go to law school, to some degree you are in for a penny, in for a pound.

39

To continue to vent.

In addition, a lot of people do not understand a couple of aspect of the actual practice of law that have a huge impact on your life. Again, this is law in a lawfirm setting.

First, the “billable hour.” Yes, it doesn’t necessarily matter how long you are actually in the office. It’s all about how many hours you bill. Of course some people have face time issues, and you need to be around for longer than normal working hours just to keep their paternalistic rage in check. However, at most firms, you must meet a certain number of “billed hours” a year. This number is not small. Furthermore, for some people it turns a job where you should be thinking about creative solutions to problems and helping people, into a never ending concern as to whether you are billing to little over all (and where the hours are going to come from, as you see, these billable hours are not just necessarily given to you), and whether you are spending too much time on a given file, thus creating an unhappy client (although this last one in particular, I’m sure, applies to more service areas than just law).

Second is the concept of developing a “book of business.” At most law firms, you do not make partner without a book of business, or at least the appearance of great potential to develop one. Bear in mind that this is your own business, from your own contacts that you have sold who give work to you personally so that you can bill them. This does not consist of work you do for partners; in fact, that work gets slowly pulled away from you over time as your billing rate increases and younger associates come in behind you who can do the work for less money (and who are less of a threat to steal the work from the partner who is currently billing it).

The second was basically explained very well to me by a partner (the age, etc. does not apply to me, just the process generally): “Everyone loves you, because you’re 28. You do not cost much (in terms of hourly rate) to use on files. You’re good enough to get the work done, but too young/clumsy/naive to actually steal the client for yourself. But as you get older, you’ll find less and less of that work. Suddenly, your billable rate is coming closer to the partners who actually assign the work. You’re sophisticated, you’ve done transactions, the client starts to maybe like you a little too much. If you haven’t found your own client base, you wake up at 40 with no work of your own, and no work coming from anyone else in the firm. You do not make money for the firm, and you are politely shown the door.”

Another way of saying it is that a lot of people who go to law school do not realize that the job is not even close to merely practicing law. It’s about 50% being a sales representative; kissing ass, trying to land clients (yes, you are taking these people out to lunch, and depending on the type of person you are, telling them anything just to get them to give you the work that is presently going to another law firm). I don’t know about you, but I did not sign up to practice law part time and be the equivalent of a car salesman for the rest of the time. But that is effectively what I have become.

Finally, this is one of the better articles I’ve stumbled across regarding being a young associate in a law firm, and just many of the general pressures and ethical issues that arise. It was written by a guy who actually was a partner in a large law firm (though he is now in academia), which makes me respect it far more than most academic articles on the subject (often written by people who practiced in a firm for 6 weeks, and have no idea what they are talking about).

Article

40

You must not be a very good lawyer.

Zev, it sounds like a good choice for you. You are an extremely bright, intellectual man and I think you would do well. IANAL (but I do sleep with one!) but here is my advice-

  1. Go to the best school you can get into.

  2. Study your ass off for the LSAT. Take a good prep course (Princeton Review, etc). Don’t let anyone tell you it’s a waste of time and money, because it’s not.

  3. Enjoy the experience, the writing, the critical thinking-workouts!

You can get out of the law whatever you put into it. Several of the above posters sound as if they thought a JD would magically change them into different people, or maybe they watched too much LA Law in the 80’s! :wink: