Subscription pricing
I had a general question I was hoping some people here might have some views or insights on.
I'm Canadian and have done a ton of research on different law schools. University of Toronto is our #1 law school here, and I'd be totally happy to get in (average LSAT is 167, which I think is totally doable for me based on my current prep tests and my soft credentials). Although we have some other great law schools here in Canada, I don't really have a desire to move anywhere else in Canada, and UofT is the best, so I'm aiming high.
My absolute dream school, though, is Yale. It's mostly because of my more academic bent and I love their small class sizes and 6:1 student teacher ratio. They also really support people to take non-traditional paths with their law degree and I also feel I'd meet some exceptional people. I also realize getting into Yale is a bit of a lottery, so I'm speaking in hypotheticals if I can score a 170 or higher I'll at least apply (I have a book published with New York University Press and a few other creds that I think might make me at least worth looking at if my LSAT is high enough).
I'm considered also applying to Harvard. I'll be honest that Harvard doesn't entice me as much as Yale. Harvard seems much more geared towards streaming people into corporate law (nothing wrong with that if that is what you want to do, but not sure if it is for me). That said, it is still a great school and brand obviously, but it seems to me that Yale has a much better repayment program that adjusts to whatever work you decide to do after...
Anyways, that all said, I guess my larger question is whether it is worth going to either Yale or Harvard if one got in as a Canadian. That is, do people think the cost is worth the trade off of the prestige? For Yale I feel it could be because the program feels so up my alley of interest and is really unique, but even then I wonder if the price tag is worth it. A law degree at UofToronto is $32,000 a year, compared to 60K at Yale or Harvard.
I imagine that a degree from Yale or Harvard would be pretty transferable back to Canada if I decide to return after my degree? But I don't really know. I don't really have a strong desire to stay in the U.S after I graduate.
I realize I'm jumping the gun a bit, but it would be useful to get some feedback on this because it will help determine how many schools I apply to (each application is a lot of work and I want to put my best into them).
Thanks!
2
79 comments
@vanessadfisher628 said:
@nikoswright351
No idea what your comment just said. I might be reading too many LR passages ;)
I meant to say that the LSAT might be a good predictor of law school success, just not for the reason the LSAC offers. The falsity of the LSAC's claim that it's a good predictor because it's a good aptitude test is not sufficient to conclude the LSAT isn't a good predictor of law school success - it might just be that the LSAT weeds out those who aren't dedicated enough for law school.
@nikoswright351
No idea what your comment just said. I might be reading too many LR passages ;)
@uhinberg359
I'll definitely check out the study. interesting convo for sure
@uhinberg359 said:
I'd venture to say that the best predictive value of the LSAT would be from a cold diagnostic. Hard to see how getting a good score on LSAT b/c of intensive prep, for example foo-proofing games, would be indicative of aptitude. I mean, the fact that most people can get close to perfect on games with enough practice casts a great deal of doubt on the claim that success in games is indicative of anything other than the willingness to put in a lot of work toward a goal. [That itself might help one succeed, but I don't think that's what LSAC claims it is testing for.]
Although the LSAC does not claim that the LSAT predicts law school success because it measures dedication to mastering the test, there's a non-zero number of people who state that this is precisely why the LSAT is a good predictor of law school success (where lots of dedication is necessary).
The article I provided a link to was particularly interesting to me in that it claims that LSAT has a particularly lousy correlation to L1 success for splitters. Not that law schools care about that. They'll take the high LSAT score of splitters to boost their stats, regardless of whether they truly believe that splitters have a good chance of succeeding.
@uhinberg359 Take a look at this: http://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1651&context=articles
This is perhaps some of what U of T is referring to when they say that recent research has caused them to put more weight on GPA.
I'd venture to say that the best predictive value of the LSAT would be from a cold diagnostic. Hard to see how getting a good score on LSAT b/c of intensive prep, for example foo-proofing games, would be indicative of aptitude. I mean, the fact that most people can get close to perfect on games with enough practice casts a great deal of doubt on the claim that success in games is indicative of anything other than the willingness to put in a lot of work toward a goal. [That itself might help one succeed, but I don't think that's what LSAC claims it is testing for.]
@vanessadfisher628 said:
Oh wow, that's interesting. I've actually read the opposite—that the LSAT score is usually a better indicator of how well a student does in law school than GPA or other factors. I wonder where their data is from.
LSAT is a bit of a better predictor than GPA for 1L success. Though the correlation isn't super great.
The reason is because GPA isn't any real standard. A 3.3 at Princeton (known for glade deflation) isn't the same as a 3.8 at Columbia College known for super-grade inflation. However, with the LSAT, the test is standardized. Thus, it matters more to admissions officers.
The other interesting thing is that they take into account the rigorousness of the undergrad program, which makes a lot of sense, except in the warped world of US law schools who care little about anything other than the US News reports, for which all that matters is a high GPA, regardless of the difficulty of the major.
I also wonder. But the data about LSAT being a better indicator is from LSAC, who might, just might, have a vested interest in the LSAT being a valid predictor.
Oh wow, that's interesting. I've actually read the opposite—that the LSAT score is usually a better indicator of how well a student does in law school than GPA or other factors. I wonder where their data is from.
https://www.law.utoronto.ca/admissions/jd-admissions/admissions-policies
End of paragraph titled Standards for Admission 2016-17
Hey @uhinberg359 could you give a link to their website where they say that? Just curious.
@uhinberg359
that's interesting. I wonder though for someone like me who has been out of school nearly 10 years, if LSAT will matter more. My guess is yes (as well as what I've been doing the last 9 years, which will probably weight a lot too).
I do thing the U.S in general is more tied to the LSAT rankings. Good to keep in perspective for us Canadians!
All this discussion got me curious, so I looked at U of T's website. I think you can see a little glimpse of the kind of thinking that would become more prevalent if only US law schools were not the prisoners of US News rankings. U of T says that **in light of recent studies, they put more weight on GPA than on LSAT scores.
@nikoswright351
yup sounds about right!
@vanessadfisher628 said:
Agree with previous comments.
Also just to add that I think that while it is true that all of law is competitive, I don't think we can actually say other law jobs are equally difficult to get as a professorship. Getting a job in legal academia is way harder than securing a job as a civil litigator or a series of other jobs that have higher demand. It is still competitive to get a good job of course, but I don't think comparable to trying to make it as an academic.
Also, this field is really changing, as I mentioned. I've also known a couple tenured professors (in philosophy, not law) that left because of how bad the politics were in academic culture. Just saying, it's worth keeping other options open :)
I can vouch for this. Philosophy hiring is a nightmare at the moment. I was told by one professor that if I wanted to get tenure in Philosophy in the US I'd need to go to a top 10 US school or bust. He said he wouldn't even bother with Oxford, LOL.
@vanessadfisher628 said:
@uhinberg359
Couldn't agree more. Always shoot for your dreams, but also have a back up plan :)
Imagine if no one ever went for those unicorn dreams!? Someone's got to be getting them, might as well try if you want one. I don't ever want to come off as discouraging to anyone on this forum, rather just the opposite! :)
@uhinberg359
Couldn't agree more. Always shoot for your dreams, but also have a back up plan :)
@vanessadfisher628 said:
Agree with previous comments.
Also just to add that I think that while it is true that all of law is competitive, I don't think we can actually say other law jobs are equally difficult to get as a professorship. Getting a job in legal academia is way harder than securing a job as a civil litigator or a series of other jobs that have higher demand. It is still competitive to get a good job of course, but I don't think comparable to trying to make it as an academic.
Also, this field is really changing, as I mentioned. I've also known a couple tenured professors (in philosophy, not law) that left because of how bad the politics were in academic culture. Just saying, it's worth keeping other options open :)
Yeah, exactly. I mean the numbers dictate those jobs in legal academia are going to be the hardest to get compared to most other legal jobs. There are just so few openings, professor tend to stay until their 80, and you need to be a the top of your class, usually at a HYS. They also pay well and require way less work than a traditional, say, M&A associate at a firm.
There's really few comparisons to how hard it is to get these jobs. The data almost makes it seem impossible. I'm always going for your dreams though -- I just would have a plan B you're okay with, lol.
Agree with previous comments.
Also just to add that I think that while it is true that all of law is competitive, I don't think we can actually say other law jobs are equally difficult to get as a professorship. Getting a job in legal academia is way harder than securing a job as a civil litigator or a series of other jobs that have higher demand. It is still competitive to get a good job of course, but I don't think comparable to trying to make it as an academic.
Also, this field is really changing, as I mentioned. I've also known a couple tenured professors (in philosophy, not law) that left because of how bad the politics were in academic culture. Just saying, it's worth keeping other options open :)
@atanasdimitrov322 said:
Someone mind shedding some light on the "unicorn" thing? I haven't been keeping a close tab on legal academia related jobs, but have a personal interest in academia and was personally thinking of that as an option to pursue, in case I didn't find myself fitting within a law firm/organization.
Legal academia jobs are what would be considered "unicorn" jobs. Or jobs that are extremely competitive or hard to get. Those who think they will go from JDs to Management consulting a MBB are also unicorn type jobs. But even more so, becoming a law professor is probably highest up on the list with few exceptions.
@atanasdimitrov322 said:
Someone mind shedding some light on the "unicorn" thing? I haven't been keeping a close tab on legal academia related jobs, but have a personal interest in academia and was personally thinking of that as an option to pursue, in case I didn't find myself fitting within a law firm/organization.
I think from the phrase unicorn they just mean highly competitive and thus unattainable for the vast majority of people. Also, it may seem like a cushy job but I don't think it is. It's hard to get a job as a law professor. These days and in the future it will probably be really hard to keep it. Most law profs come from the top 10 law schools in the United States. I read a statistic somewhere a while back that mentioned that 11% of all law faculty got their JDs at Yale. There is lots of information out there on how to structure your career if becoming a law prof is what you. A good place to start is here: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/careerservices/pathstolawteaching
It's also good practice to go to faculty pages and read their bios. Unicorn yes but lots of things in the legal industry are unicorn jobs. You have to believe in yourself and do lots of research. :)
Someone mind shedding some light on the "unicorn" thing? I haven't been keeping a close tab on legal academia related jobs, but have a personal interest in academia and was personally thinking of that as an option to pursue, in case I didn't find myself fitting within a law firm/organization.
@ryancoulter96219 said:
@uhinberg359 said:
@ryancoulter96219 said:
@vanessadfisher628 said:
@ryancoulter96219
Yeah what you mentioned about academia is what I was mostly meaning. The prof I talked to at UofOttawa also just mentioned less freedom in research and more loops to jump through.
And as @uhinberg359 pointed out, getting a professor job is a unicorn thing, which I agree, but I think the trends are pointing for this to become even more so, even in Canada. It will potentially get as bad as trying to be a professor in the humanities. Pretty much the same problems affecting the rest of academia, and loss of tenure track jobs to adjunct faculty etc. But at least with a law degree (as opposed to a PhD in history or art) you have a few other options if teaching doesn't work out!
I don't really know if I want to pursue an academic career, as the politics of academic culture can be even more fraught than a law firm :) It is more that I like Yale because it has more of the philosophical bent (as well as great opportunities for practical experience). I think for me the classes would be more interesting because of my own bent. And if I wanted to teach a class or two down the road it would be a good thing on my resume.
More loops to jump through, I see. Yeah, the politics of it can be quite fraught. Yeah, I think that is what attracts a lot of people to Yale. Best of both worlds. Definitely a dream school. Good luck!
Thanks HYS or bust!!! ;)
Good luck to you as well!
I am confident in your ability to get what you want. :)
Awww. Well thank you! I think you can as well, just gotta go get it ;)
@uhinberg359 said:
@ryancoulter96219 said:
@vanessadfisher628 said:
@ryancoulter96219
Yeah what you mentioned about academia is what I was mostly meaning. The prof I talked to at UofOttawa also just mentioned less freedom in research and more loops to jump through.
And as @uhinberg359 pointed out, getting a professor job is a unicorn thing, which I agree, but I think the trends are pointing for this to become even more so, even in Canada. It will potentially get as bad as trying to be a professor in the humanities. Pretty much the same problems affecting the rest of academia, and loss of tenure track jobs to adjunct faculty etc. But at least with a law degree (as opposed to a PhD in history or art) you have a few other options if teaching doesn't work out!
I don't really know if I want to pursue an academic career, as the politics of academic culture can be even more fraught than a law firm :) It is more that I like Yale because it has more of the philosophical bent (as well as great opportunities for practical experience). I think for me the classes would be more interesting because of my own bent. And if I wanted to teach a class or two down the road it would be a good thing on my resume.
More loops to jump through, I see. Yeah, the politics of it can be quite fraught. Yeah, I think that is what attracts a lot of people to Yale. Best of both worlds. Definitely a dream school. Good luck!
Thanks HYS or bust!!! ;)
Good luck to you as well!
I am confident in your ability to get what you want. :)
@vanessadfisher628 said:
One other question for you guys. I don't know as much about Stanford but wondered if you guys think it is worth considering more deeply? My sense was that it was more specialized in IP law and business. Am I wrong?
It isn't that it is more specialized per say, however, because of its proximity to Silicon Valley and the Tech part of the country sends more grads into start ups and the tech business, which includes IP law as well.
It's a great school and ranked above HLS by US new Rankings some years. Less students and therefore increased chances at elite firms and clerkships.