The first step for any law student, except perhaps for the decision part, though even this can often come first, is the LSAT. I cannot stress enough how important the LSAT is as it can be even more determinative than your GPA, and definitely more so than any other part of your application. A good LSAT can not only get you into the best school possible with your GPA, but every point you get can have huge returns in terms of financial aid. A poster on top-law-schools.com pointed out that the time he invested into LSAT preparation (~250 hours) and the merit scholarship that it earned him, yielded a value to time ratio of $600 per hour at Cardozo, and $300 per hour at UVA (calculated at scholarship over time spent). Of course, he perhaps would have been offered some money regardless of LSAT prep, but the point is you don't even make that much money during your first 10 years of being a lawyer. There really is no justification for passing such an opportunity up.
There is of course an innate ability required to excel at the LSAT, but everyone, and I mean everyone, can improve by preparation. There is no real memorization required, no intrinsic knowledge, or reliance on math/science. It is pure logic and reading. The more you practice, the more comfortable you'll be with it, and come test day you'll already be ahead of the many other test takers who failed at this vital step. I must have practice for at least 250 hours, as I took 6 months and at least 12 hours a week, taking prep tests and reading books. I strongly suggest the PowerScore series, as will many others. Classes are less important, unless you really need a strong push before you start preparing on your own. I also suggest finding a study buddy, to keep you motivated to take tests. It's too easy to negotiate with yourself an excuse to do it "later." Of course, make sure this study buddy is equally set on studying hard, and not a distraction.
Once you read the necessary books (mostly for logic games, and logic reasoning), it becomes a matter of prep test, prep test, prep test. I took pretty much every practice test available, and while it was miserable at times, I do not regret it. I had a pretty low GPA compared to other students applying to similar schools, but my LSAT score made me competitive enough to get a few scholarships from schools where my GPA would otherwise place me below the 25th percentile range.
A good estimate for how much time you should spend preparing: I'd say 4-6 months. Of course you can cram it into less, but the worst thing you can do, other than not study, is burn yourself out. You want to sit in on test day confident and ready, not absolutely sick of seeing the LSAT. Also, push yourself to take the practice tests under as close to test-day circumstances as possible. That means 9 am, no breaks (except between the 3rd and 4th part), and perhaps even add some background noise to exercise your concentration. Whatever you think it will be like when the final day comes.
And finally, use up all three attempts! Unless of course you are sure that you cannot do better than your first or second attempt. There is no reason not to use them all up, now that schools generally only take the highest score. Many will claim to average, but in my experience, they are too preoccupied with their USNews rank, that finding the applicants with the highest score is more important to them than really "looking" at the whole package.
So please, anyone even considering law school, do not pass up on this opportunity. You can never be "too" prepared for the LSAT, and to emphasize this point, let me make one final observation.
PowerScore conducted a survey, analyzing the correlation between LSAT score and future salary. Of course the theory rests on the idea that LSAT determines what school you get into, and what school you get into determines your likely salary. For every SINGLE point higher a student gets, all things else equal, her predicted salary will be $3,000 per year more for the duration of her career. A single point can be as little as 1 question, and no more than 2. If you're planning on working for 30 years, that's $90,000 (without taking into account net present value) resting on a single question. Add that to the scholarship money that is offered to students with higher LSAT scores, and every point has huge financial implications. Again, do not miss on this opportunity to get in while the money's almost free.
First Post
It seems to me that two things are apparent. First, more and more students are applying to law school. Perhaps it's a defensive response to a poor economy--a way to "hide" for the next three years--who knows. Second, and most important, law school is a process, one that begins long before your first day. In fact, the most important part of your legal career may very well be the months before you even take the LSAT; but this discussion will come later. The point of this blog is that there are many things I wish I had known beforehand, and more to come as I will undoubtedly learn the hard way during my first year this coming fall, and perhaps I can pass such knowledge to those in the position to better use it.
For now, I wish to address those who are still deciding on whether or not to apply at all.
Do not apply to law school simply because you can't find a job after college. You're either costing your parents upwards of two hundred thousand dollars (after living expenses), or putting yourself in that much debt. Think about that. If you wish to pay of your loans in, say, 10 years, you'll be paying upwards of $25,000 per year (assuming 8% annual interest). If I made a math goof, forgive me--this is why I'm becoming a lawyer--but the point is you'll be paying a lot. You'll have to earn an extra 40-50k per year more than a job you'd have without law school after taxes just to break even. And none of this counts the opportunity cost of attending law school for three years.
On that note, while some would count the opportunity cost of those three years as the salary you would earn elsewhere, I take an alternative approach. The opportunity cost is the salary you would have earned during your last three years of working. Let's say you plan on retiring by the age of 65. Three years of not working (during law school) would cut not into your first three years (which will happen inevitably) but your last three years. Arguments and flaws (on my side) aside, my point is that the cost of going to law school is undermined by the already steep price of tuition.
And on a final note, law school is a competition. One where you'll compete with many other students, assumed to be similarly qualified (similar LSAT/GPA), and one that is very much sink or swim. You either place high in your class, or you sink with the median. This sounds a little extreme, but from what I've read and from the way law firms are slowing down their hiring practices, this is becoming more and more true. What once promised a rather high return for your investment is slowly (or quickly) returning back to equilibrium, and most important to consider, if you had a hard time finding a job after college (for those going to law school because of this reason), what makes you think you'll compete better in an arguably more competitive environment?
For now, I wish to address those who are still deciding on whether or not to apply at all.
Do not apply to law school simply because you can't find a job after college. You're either costing your parents upwards of two hundred thousand dollars (after living expenses), or putting yourself in that much debt. Think about that. If you wish to pay of your loans in, say, 10 years, you'll be paying upwards of $25,000 per year (assuming 8% annual interest). If I made a math goof, forgive me--this is why I'm becoming a lawyer--but the point is you'll be paying a lot. You'll have to earn an extra 40-50k per year more than a job you'd have without law school after taxes just to break even. And none of this counts the opportunity cost of attending law school for three years.
On that note, while some would count the opportunity cost of those three years as the salary you would earn elsewhere, I take an alternative approach. The opportunity cost is the salary you would have earned during your last three years of working. Let's say you plan on retiring by the age of 65. Three years of not working (during law school) would cut not into your first three years (which will happen inevitably) but your last three years. Arguments and flaws (on my side) aside, my point is that the cost of going to law school is undermined by the already steep price of tuition.
And on a final note, law school is a competition. One where you'll compete with many other students, assumed to be similarly qualified (similar LSAT/GPA), and one that is very much sink or swim. You either place high in your class, or you sink with the median. This sounds a little extreme, but from what I've read and from the way law firms are slowing down their hiring practices, this is becoming more and more true. What once promised a rather high return for your investment is slowly (or quickly) returning back to equilibrium, and most important to consider, if you had a hard time finding a job after college (for those going to law school because of this reason), what makes you think you'll compete better in an arguably more competitive environment?
