Ask a law student questions about things he's not qualified or interested to answer

[Zelig]

What is a white shoe law firm? Are there certain firms in which people exclusively wear white shoes? Is it some kind of hypnotic technique to bedazzle other parties?

I have not heard this term before.

I second Arwon's confusion. I assume the 'law' Zelig is referring to is a JD? I know the US has LLMs (because that's what people do when they go to study in the US), and that's a Masters.

LLMs in the US don't qualify you to practice law in the US, that's an actual postgrad degree.

 

[Arwon]

A post-grad degree is a master's or phd, which builds on top of an undergraduate education. Professional degrees are generally not research-heavy and don't require an undergrad degree. If they do require an undergrad degree, it's just a filtering mechanism. (ie. Make law students have biology degrees so you can bin all the applicants without degrees vs. make biology phds have biology degrees so they know WTH is going on.)

Right, ok. That's quite different to universities here. Engineering, medicine and law are just ordinary bachelors degrees at regular universities like any other degree (though medicine has extra entrance processes). Mostly people don't study law by itself, an LLB usually is has to be combined with another Bachelors.

I'm pretty sure to practice law you need to pass the bar exam to be come a barrister and presumably some equivalent to be a solicitor. Getting a masters or phd probably wouldn't qualify you.

 

[Quackers]

Did you wear a diaper during revision sessions and exams to keep you at your seat for longer?
(veteran members will know what i'm referring too )

 

[Camikaze]

LLMs in the US don't qualify you to practice law in the US, that's an actual postgrad degree.

So I consulted wikipedia on this, and it seems that it is accepted in most states? I mean, that's what Australians do if they want to go practice in the US. The LLB apparently doesn't cut it (which is a bit odd, seeing as it's essentially the same as JD, as far as I can tell, just done concurrently with your other undergrad degree, rather than after it; all my classes have JD students in them (usually people not good enough to get into law as an undergrad, or who didn't want to get into law as an undergrad, or mature age students), though sometimes they have different assessments), so they get an LLM and that's enough. I'd have thought it'd be the same for Canadians working in the US (though I think I read somewhere that Canada is slowly moving towards JDs to replace LLB and BCL too?).

 

[Terxpahseyton]

This all seems strange from a German perspective. We have 5 years of consecutive studies on an ordinary university, then the first "Staatsexamen" (a major test at the end, the only test so far of which the grade counts), then two years of practice and finally the second "Staatsexamen".
It is like just another university course, but using its very own way of organization.

 

[ace99]

Did you wear a diaper during revision sessions and exams to keep you at your seat for longer?
(veteran members will know what i'm referring too )

I took a shot before going in like normal people.

 

[downtown]

My company has been kind of encouraging me to go actually. If this whole writing thing doens't really work out next year, and I can convince them to help pay the bills, I may very well go this time. I already have a good LSAT score.

 

[ace99]

My company has been kind of encouraging me to go actually. If this whole writing thing doens't really work out next year, and I can convince them to help pay the bills, I may very well go this time. I already have a good LSAT score.

That's incredibly rare in this economy. Hey if your company is going to pay all or most of it then why not I suppose? If you're ready to go back to being a student again. It does take some adjustment but it's always easier for people who have work to go into law school then it is for kids coming straight out of a college. I really don't think law schools should take kids coming straight out of undergrad.

If you LSAT score is in the 165+ and you're a URM (underrepresented minority: black, latino, native american and to a lesser extent gay or female) then you should be able to crack most tier 1's and probably a lot of T-14's. If you're white/asian try to aim higher, 170+ You're a Mormon right? Or you could just go to that law school in Provo, it's damn near free for Mormons.

BTW if anyone wants Kaplan practices tests + the LG Bible and LR Bible I can send you that stuff. Upload it somewhere. I'm always opposed to paying those damn companies their blood money.

 

[downtown]

I got a 170, am a Latino, and did Teach for America, so I know I'm going to be a pretty competitive applicant, although my undergrad wasn't at a hugely impressive institution (Ohio State) and my college GPA sucked. The last time I applied to law schools, I got into Texas, Ohio State and Case Western, and I figure I could probably comfortably go to somewhere at least that caliber if I end up going. I might be able to get my company to pay for 25-50% if I go to Wisconsin. They've already offered to help pay for an MBA.

BYU is almost free, but their law school is crazy, and it isn't looked particularly highly upon outside of the west. I have less than zero desire to ever live in Utah/Idaho/Arizona, so I wouldn't get a lot of utility out of that degree. My wife did her undergrad at BYU and it's probably worked against her in Chicago.

 

[ace99]

I got a 170, am a Latino, and did Teach for America, so I know I'm going to be a pretty competitive applicant. The last time I applied to law schools, I got into Texas, Ohio State and Case Western, and I figure I could probably comfortably go to somewhere at least that caliber if I end up going.

Apply to Yale, Harvard and Standford. I'm not kidding. I'll bet money you'll get into one of them. You have a really solid shot at most if not all the T-14's. Throw apps out the HYS, Columbia, Chicago, NYU and maybe Georgetown as a safety.

Enjoy your $160,000 job after graduation.

 

[downtown]

I had a 2.9 GPA at an average state school. None of those are a sure thing.

 

[ace99]

That might knock you down a little, but not much. Being Latino with that kind of LSAT score is the equivalent of rising 10+ points in the test. The LSAT is like 60% and being a URM with a good LSAT kind of dwarfs everything.

Check this out:

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=14

http://www.hourumd.com/?lsat=170&gpa=2.9&money=no&urm=yes&waitlist=no&range=no

http://www.lawschoolpredictor.com/wp-content/uploads/Law-School-Predictor-Matcher.htm

But yeah, HYS probably isn't in the cards with a 2.9. Maybe CCN. But the bottom rung of the T-14, Cornell, Georgetown, Texas, Vanderbilt I think you could manage.

 

[downtown]

Yeah, that's about what I thought. I'd be totally uncompetitive at the very top, would be a reach for a place like Northwestern (they both said Texas was a reach, and I got in there before), but I'd be very competitive for the "good big-school" type places, like Wisconsin, Maryland, UCLA, Illinois, etc.

I feel like even if I got into a place like Yale, I'd hate it so much I'd be a drop out risk. In order to get help with paying for school, I'd probably have to stay in the great lakes area.

 

[ace99]

If you want to stay in the region make Chicago and Michigan your reach school. Aim for Northwestern (they like work experience), University of Minnesota, University of Iowa, University of Indiana Bloomingdale/ton?, University of Washington at St. Louis, Wisconsin-Madison, University of Illinois Chamange. Ohio State and Michigan State as safeties.

 

[luiz]

That might knock you down a little, but not much. Being Latino with that kind of LSAT score is the equivalent of rising 10+ points in the test. The LSAT is like 60% and being a URM with a good LSAT kind of dwarfs everything.

How do you feel about the fact that a privileged latino needs a substantially lower grade than you to be accepted?

(Personally, as a privileged latino, I feel insulted).

 

[LamaGT]

Yeah, seems like overreaction to racism. Equal rights are named that way because they're equal, not because they give advantages to minorities

 

[ace99]

I think its an attempt to correct what's a serious problem, very few minorities with professional degrees. This is true of law, medicine and business. Even fewer minorities working in law firms, courts, government and working in corporations and even fewer in any kind of leadership position.

I think though if they would benefit by adopting a more holistic admission approach like undergrad university's do. Placing less emphasis on the LSAT/GPA combo and taking into account work experience, background, educational and family background, economic status, cultural and racial diversity and using race and economics as a plus factor would probably result in better admissions for minorities and make what they currently do seem less "unfair".

Check out this article, bolded parts explain how it works:

Though frequently discussed on the Top-Law-Schools.com discussion forums, the URM (Under Represented Minority) admissions process remains relatively unclear and poorly understood. Among the varied admissions literature, there is little comprehensive information available to minority applicants. The information that can be found is often scattered, vague, and contradictory. This article is meant to clarify and streamline application information to assist current and future law school applicants.

Before venturing too far into the discussion, I would like to make a couple of disclaimers:

1. This article is not an endorsement of “Affirmative Action”. Furthermore, this article makes no attempt to address the ills or benefits of this policy. Politics and personal opinions aside, the facts demonstrate that affirmative action definitely exists in the law school application process and has a quantifiable effect on minority applicants.

2. Much of this information is speculative or based on anecdotal evidence. Neither I nor any other contributors to this article have served on a law school admission committee. Due to the secrecy of the law school admissions process (and specifically minority admissions), there is simply not very much “hard” information on this subject.

That being said, let’s continue with our discussion of URM Admissions.

What is a URM?

As noted earlier, URM is an acronym for the phrase Under Represented Minority. Much confusion surrounds the “underrepresented” portion of the acronym, thus frequently rendering the entire term unclear. A URM is, quite simply, a minority group whose percentage of the population at a given law school is lower than their percentage of the population in the country. This also means that at some schools URM applicants may be treated differently than at others.

For example, if School A has an African American population of 8% and School B has an African American population of 25%, an African American will likely receive a URM boost at School A while not at School B. For the most part, however, the URM designation is relatively consistent among schools, with exceptions arising when dealing with HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities).

Which groups are considered URMs?

American Indians/Alaskan Natives, African Americans/Blacks, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans are typically considered URM’s. Please note that there is a difference between Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and other types of Hispanics in the admissions process. Additionally, I would like to offer a small caveat to international students, who fall into a separate category of their own.

Why are these groups (rather than others) considered URM’s?

There seems to be several reasons this distinction exists (cue speculation):

One of the primary reasons we believe applicants of the above races are considered URM’s is because they are the only groups for which the LSAC (Law School Admissions Council) regularly publishes data. When the minority enrollment for a particular group is unknown, law schools have little incentive to admit students from that specific group. (The following link contains the data published most recently). http://www.lsac.org/SpecialInterests/minorities-in-legal-education-min-enroll.asp
The two groups listed on the LSAC published data that aren’t (generally) considered minorities are Asian Americans and members of Hispanic groups not listed above. The reason for this is clear when we look again at the definition for an Underrepresented Minority. Both groups’ presence in the legal field and in law schools in general are close to or exceed their numbers in the general population. For example, Asians make up just 4.4% of the U.S. population, but according to LSAC’s estimates, they make up approximately 10% of legal students. By contrast, those groups who are considered URM’s have a much lower law school representation relative to their status in the U.S. population.
Law schools (perhaps at the ABA’s prodding) have generally expressed that they would like their student body to be at least as diverse as the general population.

How do I (a mere applicant) know who is considered URM?

Aside from anecdotal evidence, we have very few resources to outline who is and is not considered a URM. However, one powerful resource we have of understanding the URM process is Grutter v. Bollinger, a recent case that questioned the validity of race-based admissions. In this case, Grutter – a Caucasian Michigan resident – argued that the four groups considered URM’s (American Indians/Alaskan Natives, African Americans/Blacks, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans) were reviewed under more favorable admissions standards, resulting in her denial of admission at the University of Michigan. From this case we are able to deduce the four groups outlined did in fact receive (at least some) “boost” at Michigan and, most likely, other law schools as well. “What about me? I was born in Laos! Law schools can’t have that many Laotians!”

You are probably correct in your assertion that there are few Laotians at XYZ Law School. However, the categories in which law schools report their admissions numbers are wide ranging, fair or not. On the LSAC’s website, the Asian category is not broken down into individual countries. So, while your dream school may not have many Laotians, they may have a large number of Asians and that is the category that (for the purpose of admission) Laotians are grouped with. Your story may make for a compelling diversity statement, but it doesn’t necessarily make you a URM.

Should I check the box for “URM” on my application?

This question (in various forms) plagues the URM forum and is a difficult one to address. In most cases, if you have to ask this question, the answer is probably no. Two general rules pertaining to this topic are (subject to disagreement):

The generally accepted threshold for claiming a race is ¼ (does not include Native Americans, which are a more grey area). Beyond that, claims of minority status tend to become a bit more dubious.
If you have never checked the box before, don’t check it now. If you have never identified as a minority, why start now? While very few educational institutes will attempt to confirm that your race is indeed your race, the Character and Fitness portion of the bar will certainly raise some questions about how you were not listed as [insert applicable minority status here] on LSAC/or undergraduate applications, but (conveniently) chose to do so for the URM-sensitive law school application process.

There are, of course, occasions where this question is legitimate. Most commonly, it comes from those applicants who are either mixed-raced persons who are concerned about checking one box and limiting themselves, or URM applicants from wealthy backgrounds who feel unjustified in checking a box and receiving an unfair boost.

There is really no right or wrong answer here; ultimately, you must choose the option that makes you most comfortable. For the former applicants, we (the authors) recommend checking the box(es) you feel most comfortable checking and expounding on any additional information in a “diversity statement”. For the latter applicant, we emphasize that you are not forced to check any box. In fact, on most applications there is an “I choose not to answer” box.

Wait! Is there any more information specific to Native American Admissions?

As I mentioned earlier, there is limited information on Native American applicant outcomes. The few things that we do know I have listed below:

Native Americans who provide a tribal affiliation number or who “are card carrying” members seem to have a more significant bump. This evidence is largely anecdotal from myself (an African-American/Native American re-applicant who neglected to fill in my tribal affiliation the first time I applied to schools) and various other applicants on many law school admission discussion boards.
Checking the box and failing to elaborate in a diversity statement seems to have a negative effect on the expected weight of the Native American boost. I contend that this is due in part to a larger number of applicants checking the boxes and schools, in turn, needing a way to differentiate between those who have close tribal ties or are closely affiliated with the tribe and those who are checking the box just to “get the boost.”
Finally, we do know that demonstrating current activity within the Native American community also has a positive effect on the “level” of a boost that one receives. This information was extrapolated from reviewing the LSN data of sub-160 LSAT score Native American applicants and their cycle outcomes. Those listed specific details about their URM affiliations fared far better than their counterparts who listed limited information.

Is there more to being considered as a URM than just “checking the box”?

This is a difficult question to answer because the information seems to be so convoluted. Lets start with the “no” portion of our answer. Think back to the beginning of this article where we outlined why some minorities are URM’s while others are not. We discussed that when XYZ Law School compiles its applicant data, they want it to be as simplified as possible. On a practical level, this would mean that if you checked white on you application, the admissions committee would most likely consider you “white”.

The “yes” portion of the question signals the difficulty of this subject. While the above applicant might have “checked” white on his applicant; his/her compelling (we presume) personal statement about their connection with their grandmother’s tribe might gain a boostof another sort. Many schools –Yale, for example – are known for a holistic application evaluation and willingness to look beyond numbers for remarkable applicants. With this in mind, there is only so much that applicants can come to understand about URM admissions at law schools.

What are “softs” and what role do they play in URM Admissions?

“Soft” factors, with regard to the law school admissions process, apply to those compelling components of an applicant’s package that fall outside of the objective LSAT/GPA formula. Soft factors permit admissions committees to look beyond the numbers of an applicant to get a more definitive and complete picture. Additionally, in the case of someone who has overcome socioeconomic, physical, or personal hardship, softs can put the rest of the applicant’s application in context. For example, a student who battled cancer during their undergraduate career is likely to have missed a few classes during that time which might have affected their GPA. If that student chooses to share that in a personal statement or addendum, the lowered GPA would be viewed in a more complete context.

“Softs” seem to play an even more important role for URM applicants, perhaps because their previous experiences allow URM’s to stand out among from others with similar numbers. Additionally, within the URM forum on TLS, many have contended that law schools look for not only racial diversity in URM applicants but also experiential diversity.

What are some examples of “softs?”

In looking over various law school admissions thread, I found ten commonly cited softs:

Being a current of past member of the military
Overcoming significant economic/educational barriers
Having a background with extensive community service
Participating in Teach for American, AmeriCorps, United Way, etc.
Authoring a book, magazine, manuscript, play, movie, article etc. that was published
Truman/Marshall/Rhodes Scholars
Having unique and/or significant work experience
Founding a charity or business
Overcoming physical limitations
Winning an Olympic medal

What kind of boost should I expect?

There is (with rare exception) no specific number of points that can be paired with an applicant based solely on race. I am generally unwilling to engage in any sort of conjecture on this matter but for the sake of answering the question, I turned to Anna Ivey’s “The Ivey Guide to Law School Admissions: Straight Advice on Essays, Resumes, Interviews, and More”. In it, Ivey (a former admissions Dean at University of Chicago Law School) contends that schools may give as much as a ten point boost in the LSAT score to URMs. Unfortunately, she does not elaborate on this number and fails to differentiate between the various URMs. However, before counting up your LSAT points with a boost, I have to admonish that, universally, there is limited empirical data regarding a general boost.

For more expansive numbers based answers I suggest visiting http://lawschoolnumbers.com/ (though the data is self-reported), and http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchResults/ShowAllSchools.aspx (click on the school you choose ‘law school data’ and scroll to the bottom of the page).

What law schools should I apply to if I am a URM?

Like most candidates, it can be difficult for URMs to decide where to apply to law school. A commonly cited concern is that law schools vary in their commitment to recruiting URMs, and also vary in terms of which students are underrepresented at their school. Generally speaking though, the variations are so subtle from one school to another that such variations should not be a deciding factor in where you choose to apply.

Realistically, the most important factors cited in determining the best school for any applicant include that person’s personal and professional goals, chances of admissions, and geographical location (particularly for schools with a regional reputation). Like others, URMs should apply to a wide range of schools. However, because URM cycles are so unpredictable, the need to cast a wide net becomes even more important. In this year’s URM forum, applicants on average applied to 4-5 reaches, 4 targets, and 3-4 safeties.

Are their some schools that are “more receptive to minorities”?

With so little empirical evidence to base an answer to this question on, I turned to the two resources that we do have – http://lawschoolnumbers.com and http://top-law-schools.com. The T-14 schools that seem to show the most willingness to accept exception minority applicants with lower numbers (within a certain range) are: Harvard, NYU, UVA, and Cornell.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/urm-applicant-faq.html

 

[downtown]

Oh, the idea that URMs are only those of Mexican or PR-decent is new to me, that wasn't really how things worked in undergrad. I'm a Brazilian, not a Mexican, and it would be pretty hard to argue that Brazilian-Americans have faced the kind of systemic discrimination/oppression that Mexicans, Caribbeans or Central American immigrants have.

 

[luiz]

I think its an attempt to correct what's a serious problem, very few minorities with professional degrees. This is true of law, medicine and business. Even fewer minorities working in law firms, courts, government and working in corporations and even fewer in any kind of leadership position.

I think though if they would benefit by adopting a more holistic admission approach like undergrad university's do. Placing less emphasis on the LSAT/GPA combo and taking into account work experience, background, educational and family background, economic status, cultural and racial diversity and using race and economics as a plus factor would probably result in better admissions for minorities and make what they currently do seem less "unfair".

Check out this article, bolded parts explain how it works:



http://www.top-law-schools.com/urm-applicant-faq.html

Their explanation sounds like nonsense to me.

So Mexican Americans receive bonuses but, say, Guatemalan Americans apparently do not. How's that fair? Are we to suppose that Mexicans face more racism and discrimination than Guatemalans (who are essentially white/indian mestizos, just like the Mexicans, and poorer)?

Lets be real for a moment. If URMs are performing worse than other groups, chances are they are worse candidates. The way to fix this is not to give them unfair bonuses in an obviously flawed attempt at replicating in the university their share of the overall population. The way to fix this is look at the economic and cultural factors that holding them back.

But I do feel less insulted knowing that my category of Hispanic does not receive any special bonus, meaning they don't consider me inferior. I would still check "white", though, because the risk of getting some bonus because of my "race" annoys me enormously.

 

[ace99]

Oh, the idea that URMs are only those of Mexican or PR-decent is new to me, that wasn't really how things worked in undergrad. I'm a Brazilian, not a Mexican, and it would be pretty hard to argue that Brazilian-Americans have faced the kind of systemic discrimination/oppression that Mexicans, Caribbeans or Central American immigrants have.

In that case my advice is different. The GPA unfortunately will ding you at schools you would otherwise have a good shot at. It's not a horrible GPA I've seen worse but if you had at least a 3.3 or 3.5 it would be better. If you feel yourself capable and willing then maybe retake the LSAT and try to score +5 points higher.

On the other hand you could apply with what you have +your soft factor of TFA, Brazillian-American and Mormon, if your company will pay for law school you don't really have to worry about scholarships. I'd say make Northwestern the school you really want to get into. It has a good brand name, good regional links and its known to have solid students with work experience. Plus no grades so less pressure to top the class.

Their explanation sounds like nonsense to me.

So Mexican Americans receive bonuses but, say, Guatemalan Americans apparently do not. How's that fair? Are we to suppose that Mexicans face more racism and discrimination than Guatemalans (who are essentially white/indian mestizos, just like the Mexicans, and poorer)?

Lets be real for a moment. If URMs are performing worse than other groups, chances are they are worse candidates. The way to fix this is not to give them unfair bonuses in an obviously flawed attempt at replicating in the university their share of the overall population. The way to fix this is look at the economic and cultural factors that holding them back.

But I do feel less insulted knowing that my category of Hispanic does not receive any special bonus, meaning they don't consider me inferior. I would still check "white", though, because the risk of getting some bonus because of my "race" annoys me enormously.

Well I agree it's a ham handed way of solving a problem, but these are universities so they're not really in a position to implement a costly and wide reaching government program that will fix all these problems.