Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 12 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 29 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
Comments
@RafaelBernard
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 @"Alex Divine" 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.
@"Alex Divine" yeah the point about money is a big one too. I believe, if I read right, that Yale has the best repayment program in the U.S. That was also part of the appeal. Do you know if Harvard offers good repayment programs? I find it hard to believe it is as good otherwise I wouldn't hear so much about Harvard Law grads feeling forced to take corporate jobs to pay off their debts.
I agree it is hard to say which school is "superior". I meant it more for me personally, and also that I think Yale is widely respected in the legal field.
It definitely is a bit like relationship advice.
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?
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
@"Alex Divine"
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!
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.
@"Rigid Designator"
yup sounds about right!
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.
@uhinberg
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!
Hey @uhinberg could you give a link to their website where they say that? Just curious.
https://www.law.utoronto.ca/admissions/jd-admissions/admissions-policies
End of paragraph titled Standards for Admission 2016-17
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.
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.
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.
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.
@"Alex Divine" 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.]
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.
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).
@"Rigid Designator"
No idea what your comment just said. I might be reading too many LR passages
@uhinberg
I'll definitely check out the study. interesting convo for sure
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.