← Advisory Opinions
Loading summary
Transcript155 lines
- [00:01]
A
You ready?
- [00:02]
B
I was born ready. Welcome to Advisory Opinions. I'm Sarah Isger. That's David French. And do we have an exciting podcast for you? We've got not one, but two special guests. That's right. We're talking law school admissions with the deans from Yale and Harvard.
- [00:35]
A
We'll be right back.
- [00:37]
B
I want to talk to my fellow attorneys for a moment. Do you really want to spend time on the technical side of briefing blue booking tables, appendix assembly, bait stamping, or would you rather focus on your argument type Law can take your draft and exhibits and transform them into a court ready, rule compliant, E brief and appendix Overnight. They've helped prepare over 10,000 filings in courts across the country, even SCOTUS. Learn more@typelaw.com and use referral code advisory to save 10% on your first order. That's typelaw.com Mama Papa, mi cuurpo. Crece yun rinmo alarm. Amazon gasta menos sonrimas.
- [01:23]
C
Mike and Alyssa are always trying to outdo each other. When Alyssa got a small water bottle, Mike showed up with a 4 liter jug. When Mike started gardening, Alyssa started beekeeping. They called a truce for their holiday and used Expedia trip planner to collaborate on all the details of their trip. Once there, Mike still did more laps around the pool.
- [01:45]
A
Whatever.
- [01:46]
C
You were made to outdo your holidays. We were made to help organize the competition. Expedia made to travel.
- [01:56]
B
David. We have the Dean of admissions and financial Aid, Miriam Ingber from Yale Law School. And we have the Dean of admission from Harvard Law School, Christy Jobson. Hello, ladies. Hello.
- [02:09]
D
Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello.
- [02:11]
B
Now y' all have your own podcast. Will you just tell us about that?
- [02:15]
A
Sure. So back in 2020, the two of us looked at each other and we said, well, we can't travel all around the country to meet law students, so what are we going to do? And somehow we batted around the idea of a podcast, bought microphones off Amazon.com, i think, and then five years later, now have this podcast that has over a half a million listens across all its episodes. It's navigating law school admissions with Miriam and Kristi, and you can find it on Apple or SoundCloud or wherever you enjoy your podcasts.
- [02:44]
B
All right. I mean, there's been a lot of changes in the law school admissions process. Kristy, do you want to just kick us off with like, a march through the process?
- [02:54]
A
Sure. Okay. So you submit your application through the LSAC portal, and you, as an applicant, might wonder what happens next. I'VE taken the LSAT or the gre. I've got my letters of recommendation in there. What happens? So, usually your application is processed by some number of processors that can take a couple of business days, and from there it goes to a reader. But pretty much every law school admissions office reads applications roughly in the order that they're received. So, for example, my team has a drop each week on Thursday morning, and all of the applications are due the next Thursday, and we kind of read everything we've received in the last week. When you are reading applications, you are thinking up of a couple really key questions for yourself. You're asking, is this person an academic fit for my law school? You're asking, does this person have a good reason for going to law school? Is this someone who has a sense of direction and is genuinely interested in going to law school? And you're also wondering, how will this person engage within our community? From there can be very different from school to school. So, for example, at hls, we have a first reader, second reader model, and then we have a required interview before somebody is considered for admission. At other schools, it can be a completely different approach. Most law schools at this point have tried to be pretty transparent about how their processes work. Um, but you can find all of that and more on our podcast.
- [04:17]
E
So when I was. When I was teaching at Cornell Law School, this is a long time ago, so 20 years ago, I was on the admissions committee. And so what I want to ask is the role of these admissions committees. So here was the role. When I was there, if there was somebody who was definitely not getting in, we never saw that application. If somebody was definitely getting in. In other words, this was a, you know, all star application. We did not see that application. But the faculty committee only saw the edge cases, the people that were the judgment, the really tough calls, and we would have sort of the final say on that. I mean, subject to the dean, what is the. Who are the decision makers here at each point? Do you have a faculty committee that weighs in on specific applicants? Is that old school? What are the decision points now for.
- [05:08]
A
A lot of law schools, it's exactly how you described. There's a number of law schools that have some members of the faculty who take a look at cases that are maybe on the bubble or. I think you just described them as edge cases. At hls, I talked about that interview inflection point. So the staff committee is going through all of the applications, and we are what I described as sort of the first readers and the second readers. The Second, readers push what they view as the strongest applications for interview consideration. We usually interview about 1200-1400 candidates for 560 spots each year. So getting an interview is a really good sign. If you get an interview, it shows that we're serious about the application. Everybody who is interviewed goes to a member of the faculty committee. So it's give or take about a dozen members of the HLS faculty representing a wide range of interest areas, subject areas, clinical podium faculty, and they read the files and score them and recommend them for admission, or they don't recommend them for admission, or they maybe say, I kind of leave it to your discretion, staff committee. You have a better sense of the pool. I'm kind of kicking this one back to you. Here's what I see as the pros and cons and then the five people who interview. So me and four of my teammates take a look at everything that comes back from the faculty and. And we basically greenlight anything that the faculty is super enthusiastic about. If the faculty is actively unenthusiastic, we're not going to move forward on those cases, then we have a lot of discussion about those cases in the middle as we shape the incoming class. Miriam, what would you add?
- [06:42]
D
I would say that I think I had the same thought when you were describing the process. I think that there's a lot of stuff within law school admissions that's very school specific. So even the way we both have interviews, our interview program is very new, but it's run very differently from the way Christy does it. Her interview is much more flexible and open and applicant specific. Whereas we have worked to have a very rigidly structured program with a rubric so that we can kind of compare apples to oranges. Neither is better or worse. It's just like different sort of policy choices. And I think the role of faculty can change, can be very different school to school. And even we've had some changes to the way faculty engage with our process, even in my time. And I think that another important role for faculty can be in a policy role. So. So, for example, when we were creating our interview program, that was something that was initiated or ideated by my then faculty chair, faculty committee chair. And it was something that we went through various levels of faculty review to discuss the questions and the process and the way we were thinking about it. So I think faculty can sometimes shape things from the top down as well, in ways that are really meaningful.
- [07:44]
B
I mean, let's drill in on this interview process because it seems to me that at both of These schools, if you don't get an interview, you weren't really that close to begin with. So, you know, don't worry about it if you don't get an interview. If you do get an interview, though, this is kind of make or break. I mean, Christy, what I'm hearing for you is like, you've now got a 50, 50 shot of getting into Harvard Law School, basically. I mean, a little under 40% or so.
- [08:07]
A
Well, actually it's 560 spots, but we admit more than that to fill 560. The admit rate off interviews from year to year is somewhere between 60% to just under 70%. It can depend a lot on the pool.
- [08:20]
D
For us, it's actually a lot lower.
- [08:22]
B
Oh, yours is lower, Miriam, give me those numbers.
- [08:24]
D
Yeah, we interview seven to 800, and we, for a class of 200, usually have between 220 to 240 spots. So if you think we're interviewing 750 and we're giving less than 250 offers, it's just under one in three. I don't think it's make or break. I'm going to tell you my hot take on what it is. There are some people where you interview them and it's like theirs to lose. They were like coming in, like, almost certainly you're going to take them. And if the interview goes average or above, they're in. They're fine. There's some people, and not everyone can hit an average or above interview, but most people do. Most people just kind of are solid enough. There are some people where the interview is their shot. You know, they were coming in sort of, as I think David was describing as an edge case for us. And we were like, let's interview them and just see if they knock it out of the park. And if they do, then we'll take them. And I think no one really knows coming in if you're in sort of which of those two buckets you're in.
- [09:17]
B
Yes, I do. No, I have never walked into a room or interview where it's mine to lose. I have always walked in where I've got to knock it out of the park. I mean, and so, okay, let's assume I always feel that way whether I'm accurate or not. And P.S. i am accurate on that. And so I walk in knowing that I'm a long shot. I can't believe I got the interview. Wow. What does it mean to knock it out of the park versus, like, I think we can all imagine an average interview like a do no harm interview. Although I gotta say, like, if I'm getting an interview at Yale or Harvard, I just can't imagine thinking that, like, do no harm is my best strategy. I think I'm gonna think I'm better off trying to knock it out of the park, even if it means I might fail at that, because at least I gave it my full shot, you know, I didn't hold back.
- [10:07]
D
I think it's important to be really prepared. We'll send all the questions in advance. And I think, like I say to applicants all the time, get all the low hanging fruit, do the preparation, follow the instructions, avoid typos. You know, if we say we want it two pages, make it two pages. If we say 12 point font, make a 12 point font. And with the interview, because you have basically all the questions in advance, one of the ways that you can get start to go on the path towards knocking it out of the park is being really prepared.
- [10:32]
B
Wait, I'm sorry, you get the questions in advance for the interview at Yale?
- [10:36]
D
You sure do. And, and that's a way of, for us, of leveling the playing field. There are some people who are rolling in with 15 years of professional work experience and we assume that they're going to be smooth interviewers. There are some people who are first in their family to go to college and they're a senior of their final year of college. The level of polish that we expect is lower. And so we want to level that playing field as much as we can so that people can prep into feeling confident and giving us their best substantive answers so that we're evaluating less the style and more the substance. And so preparation is really important. I think we're looking for people who feel enthusiastic and kind and respectful and interesting and interested. And that's the thing that we're getting from the interview that you. It's harder to evaluate from the paper.
- [11:21]
B
Can you give me an example of a Yale interview question and ask it to me like you would?
- [11:27]
D
For real? Sure. So, Sarah, it's so lovely to meet you and have you here today. So let me start by asking you if you can give me an example of a time when you disagreed with a rule or policy and how you handled that disagreement.
- [11:40]
B
Yeah, I definitely need to prepare that in advance.
- [11:43]
E
Yeah, that's a definite preparation question.
- [11:47]
A
That's a very common interview question these days, and that's actually a very common prompt for essays at the undergraduate admissions level now too.
- [11:54]
D
Yeah, we have a whole series of questions and that's just one example of it that are geared towards managing disagreement and conflict. Give me a time example of a time when you were a member of a group that was in conflict and how you handled it would be another example of the same bucket of questions. We have questions centered around achievement. Tell me something you're really proud of. And then we have. And we would give that to people who seem maybe like they're underselling themselves a little bit in the application. And then we have the reverse that. Tell me about a time when you made a mistake and how you handled it. And maybe we're gearing that more towards people where we're not sure about their level of humbleness and ability to see their own mistakes and areas for improvement. Can we get that from them a little bit in the interview? So the questions all have purposes.
- [12:37]
B
What am I proud of being in this interview? What are my mistakes? How long do you have?
- [12:45]
D
You could go that route. I don't know if I would advise it, but you could try.
- [12:51]
E
So a question about the questions. Have they changed over time? Because my oldest kid so I'm coming at this interview from the standpoint of having two kids who are starting as one LS this fall. But interestingly, one of them got in two years ago and she deferred two years at Chicago. And then my son is going to be a 1L at Northwestern. So the and the questions that my my son reported and my daughter reported were a little bit different this cycle. It seemed as if there were more questions about exactly the things you raised, handling disagreement, handling a time when you were in conflict with somebody else, et cetera. Is that increasing? Is that kind of question increasing? Or has that kind of always been a part of the mix for you guys?
- [13:39]
A
So for us in 2019, HLS decided to have at least one interview question. And it can vary from person to person, but at least one interview question that touched on a person's capacity to navigate across disagreements. So Miriam gave some examples. It also could be. Tell me about a time you were frustrated with a coworker. How did you navigate that situation? It could be all sorts of different examples, but at least one had to touch on it. I think one of our peer schools put in an essay about disagreement across difference. I would want to say two years ago, Miriam, in response to various challenges that those that law school was facing, and this has become an increasingly popular thing at the undergraduate level, particularly since 2023. So I would say that law school, it's not like law school admissions offices weren't interested in people's ability to handle conflict 10 or 15 years ago. But kind of centering it more in the application process has become a bit of a trend.
- [14:38]
D
Yeah. Our interview program is only three years old and this has been part of it from the beginning. But it's new enough. I will say too, we have new essay questions and you can pick one of four, and one of the four is about changing your mind. Give an example of a time when you change your mind. I will say tips for applicants. That is the question where we most frequently get non responsive answers. Only counts if you actually change your mind, not if you've realized that people on the other side also have valid points. You didn't change your mind. And so people struggle, I think, to give real examples where they have actually changed their mind in a substantial way. So that's something that's always interesting to poke at a little bit.
- [15:18]
E
Yeah, you know, just spitballing here. I think that we have taught a generation of people that changing your mind is a sign of weakness. It's a sign of inconsistency, it's a sign that you're not steadfast. And I mean, this is a social media product where you see constantly, like somebody comes out with something that they wrote in 2024 or 2025, and then someone throws a thing that they wrote in 2018 or 2019 at them. And sometimes it's been like just a naked flip flop. And sometimes people actually do change minds. But I do wonder if that's a product, if a kind of constant combat online experience where any kind of openness is often seen as weakness.
- [16:01]
A
I think that's true political discourse as well. There's a lot of, you know, gotcha. And I don't think this is that new, actually. I think this is probably the last 20 years. But there's a lot of. Let's dig back and find the time. Speaker of the House Smith said X and now he's advocating for Y. There's a lot less grace.
- [16:20]
B
How much feedback do you get? So, you know, you have these questions, you do these interviews, you've let these students in, and then student X is a known disaster on campus. How much do you go back? How much do you have the faculty ask you to go back? How much does the dean of the law school say, how did we let the student. Where did our process go wrong? Miriam, this is all your fault.
- [16:44]
A
How does that work?
- [16:45]
D
So that is not what happens, thankfully. Although I always like to go back if someone is struggling in, you know, and there's a myriad ways people can struggle. I Always like to go back to see like, was there something that hinted that this was a possibility? I've been very lucky. Dean Gerken is actually just stepping down to lead the Ford Foundation. But she has been my only boss in this job until actually this week. And she was amazing. And I think that her philosophy and mine was that you have to take some risks. Like it's easy in admissions to get super risk averse and take people who are just like straight down the middle all the time. And then you miss out on some maybe slightly riskier admits for various reasons who end up being superstars. But you want to take some people who have different backgrounds, different perspectives, different experiences, and maybe their undergraduate GPA was a little softer or maybe their essays were slightly less polished. But you feel like there's so much potential there. And I think that's part of our job is to balance that feeling of if I never take any risks, it's easy to over index on the ones where things get sticky and then to forget about the ones where you took a risk and someone just really shone and really was a superstar. And so I always try to remind myself I can be very hard on myself, my team can be very hard on themselves. And whenever that happens, I say, but you know, what about these 15 people who we were worried about who ended up being amazing? And so it kind of goes both ways. But yes, I always do go back. Sometimes there's things where you're like, oh yeah, I guess I could have seen that coming. And often there's not. And that's okay. People are complicated and you can't always predict what's going to happen.
- [18:18]
E
So first I just want to say, Sarah, since we're in the spirit of tolerance and grace and forgiveness, I forgive you for casting shade on that Lipscomb University to Harvard Law School pipeline, that highway between those two institutions. But let me ask you this, and maybe it's one of those too soon. Because you guys have been through one of the biggest cycles in law school history. I have expected you to sign on with like this thousand yard stare. So what happened this cycle? There's all kinds of theories that I've seen. My favorite is that a whole coalition of mid 20 somethings suddenly sensed a recession in the atmosphere. And like ducks fleeing a hurricane, when you see just piles of birds like fleeing the Hurricane, these were 20 somethings fleeing the economy. That's my favorite sort of like metaphysical explanation. But what happened and what's your explanation for it?
- [19:19]
A
Miriam and I have happened to presided over the two Largest pools in law school admission history. And that is the COVID year, 2020 to 2021. And then this past year, 2024 to 2025. Miriam, you want to touch on kind of the LSAT changes we saw in those years?
- [19:36]
D
I'm going to put on my conspiracy theorist hat. Those years happened to be years where there were very substantial changes to the LSAT that arguably made the test easier. So in the COVID year, understandably, they had to pivot from an in person test to an online test. It was went from five sections to three sections. And part of the test is making it through five sections, went down to three. And then this past year they got rid of the logic games, was removed from the test. So the number of sections stayed the same. I think it's at four now, three real and one experimental. But they're now duplicating one of the other two sections. And from speaking to some LSAT experts, for a third of people, the logic games was an enormous impossible lift. A third of people love them and then a third of people, it was kind of the same. So one theory, and I think this is part of the answer, but not the whole answer, is that when the LSAT gets easier, you have tons of people with higher scores or more people with high scores. And people with higher scores tend to apply to more schools and to apply in higher percentages. And so I think that is certainly part of it, but probably not the whole answer.
- [20:43]
A
It's also interesting that both of those years were presidential election years. So going back Even into the 90s, when there's presidential election years, there tend to be previously more modest bumps, but always a bump in law school applications. People spitball all sorts of theories for this. Some think that just issues of law and policy are a little more in the water. There's always just a group of young people that thought they were moving into a presidential administration and their candidates didn't get elected in November. So they're looking for jobs. And we see those in our applicant pool. And then of course, and if an administration turns over as it did in both 2020, 2021 or January 2021, and this past January, you have a bunch of people who are kind of law and policy inclined who are looking for something to do the next year. That was particularly true this January because with the change in presidential administration, there were a lot of young ambitious people working at DOJ and CFPB and other places who lost their jobs. And at least in my applicant pool, very, very quickly pivot before the February 15 deadline and a bunch of them will be my incoming one Ls.
- [21:52]
E
So those explanations sound slightly, very slightly more credible than mine, which is that 20 somethings can sense in the barometric pressure a looming recession, but I'll allow it.
- [22:04]
D
I don't think you're wrong though. I do think the economy and a sense of the entry level market can also drive it. Like I wonder how much AI and the advent of AI and people worrying. I can see Sarah getting excited because she wants to talk about AI is driving people to think like what kind of jobs can I get to? Or how can I sort of just hide myself away for a few years and see how this all pans out.
- [22:23]
B
Doesn't it seem like law school might be the wrong place to go if you're worried about AI? I was so curious what you guys would say about that because it seems to me that AI is going to replace a lot of the research and document review work of incoming associates, but not the partner level work. And so what you're going to see is instead of the normal pyramid where there's a whole lot of associates and then fewer senior associates and then fewer junior partners and then even very, very few senior partners at the top of the pyramid, that pyramid is going to look a lot more like a skyscraper where there's going to be a few associates and there's going to be a lot more work to retain them all the way up through the chain. But basically law firms are going to care a lot more about hiring associates in a way that, like when I was in law school and David, I assume when you were in law school, you know, they were handing out offers like it was ones at a strip club. What a simile.
- [23:22]
E
Wow. That was not the my go, not, not my go to analogy.
- [23:28]
D
That's better than baseball. That's a better than a baseball metaphor. I'm liking that. I don't think that's happened yet. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's, and I say this, my husband is, works at a, at a law firm, one of the big law firms. That is not what's happening yet. So I think there's still so much uncertainty around that that it, they're, they haven't made that adjustment to date. Although I was playing around with Copilot on his, because he uses Copilot for emails. And I was like, I made it type a poem. Like I got it to like do it as a poem, like an email to one, you know, a scheduling email. And it was pretty awesome. That was, that made my day.
- [24:07]
A
So AI has been just the topic of the summer. So within law school admissions offices, we're talking a lot about AI, as you can probably imagine, related to the essays and, and reading these essays and thinking, did ChatGPT generate this? I mean, you probably, probably all of your listeners have read the New Yorker article that came out this summer about how college students are using AI and ChatGPT for everything. And I think both of us would say that we've seen a good number of essays, particularly in the last year, where they're so clearly created by ChatGPT. So law school admissions office is talking about it in the context of how do we make clear in our instructions that we expect you to write your own essay? We want to see what your writing style is like warts and all, passive voice here, maybe a split infinitive there. That's part of what makes writing sound like it comes from a human. And I think law school faculty are talking a ton about AI, as you can imagine. Some think this is just the worst thing that's going to ever happen to the law. Others think this is the greatest tool we've ever been given to innovate the practice of law, particularly with delivery of legal services. I personally still think there's a ton of need for critical thinkers and people to work through, even if the work product is generated by AI on the front end like a research paper, but like really thinking critically and more analytically and also presenting that work product, maybe as a junior associate to a more senior associate, but also preparing to present it to clients in a client facing profession. And I'd say, like, you know, once upon a time there were physical federal reporters and that's what everybody used. And then Lexis and Westlaw came along and people thought that there'd be no more junior associates because research was so much more efficient. And in some ways it just accelerated the entry level work and the expectations for entry level work. And it changed it, but it didn't eliminate it. So it'll be interesting to see if.
- [26:07]
D
I read one more 250 word essay about large language models. I might cry. I read so many last year and I want to. Can I break news? The smallest news ever. So we're adding a new question to our application this year. So we have a section on assistance. So did you get paid assistance? Did you have a consultant help you? Did you pay them? Did you pay for LSAT prep? Because we like to understand the context of our applicant. And so we're adding into that section. We want people to disclose any use of AI tools in the application and then it becomes an ethics issue if they fail to disclose things that they used. But we're also hoping it will give us some insight into the ways in which people are using AI to help put together their application. With the caveat that it must still be all your own work, which they certify too. So I'm curious to see what we'll learn.
- [26:52]
E
I also am a little bit skeptical of the AI demolishing associates thesis because I think we overestimate how much original work associates do anyway right now. You know, when even in the early 90s I had access to a giant brief bank, I had access to giant banks of contracts of every kind of agreement under the sun that the firm had done. And so often, you know, especially when you're dealing with things like standard of review discussions or standing analysis or whatever, a lot of this stuff is rote that people put into their work product and then modify anyway. So there's, there's been an awful lot of borrowing of work forever from associates. I think it's we're a bit, we're overestimating how much these young attorneys are actually digging in and doing independent work to begin with.
- [27:46]
C
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progress Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.
- [28:12]
B
As the days cool down, the coffee routine around here shifts. Comforting warm mugs in the crisp mornings, refreshing iced coffee in the sunny afternoons. No matter the season, hot or cold, Trade recommends beans you'll love. Roast them to order and delivers them right to your door. It's like having your favorite cafe on standby without ever leaving home. Trade is the number one coffee destination in the United States for both hot and cold coffee drinkers. They've sourced the best beans from over 50 top roasters across the United States. For cold brew lovers, they've teamed up with 15 roasters to create a special collection made just for cold brew, so every cup comes out smooth and delicious every time. Take their quiz and in under a minute they'll recommend coffees you'll love. If that first bag isn't quite right, no problem. Trade will replace it for free until they nail it. Right now, Trade is offering 50% off a one month trial at drink trade.com advisory. That's drinktrade.com advisory to get 50% off your first month drinktrade.com advisory okay, let's spend some time on the LSAT because I am up in arms. I mean my arms are up, they're in the air like the ymca. The purpose of standardized tests is to allow diamonds in the rough to shine that otherwise wouldn't. When you make the entire application process subjective based on who professors like the all the things that basically money and privilege can help you game, you leave all those diamonds behind. And let me give, I mean the logic games actually to me, like, yes, I like the logic games. I think that the practice of law is far more like the logic games than anyone wants to acknowledge. You are trying to put together a puzzle piece a lot of the time and that's what the logic games are. They're a puzzle, a verbal puzzle. But fine, I'll not all practice of law is the same. I'm only like an 8 on the 10 scale about the logic games going away.
- [30:11]
A
But it's part of a larger problem.
- [30:13]
B
Which is for instance, gaming the system so that your kid gets more time on a standardized test based on basically whether you had the money and access to a psychiatrist or someone else who could say that your kid needed time and a half. So here's my question to you guys. Why would Harvard and Yale not say we want you to take the LSAT twice Because you know what, these are really good, impressive schools and we can do that. We are so great that we can make you take it twice. One time we want you to take it in the time allotted. That is hard to get that test done because that's testing what you do when you basically can't spend all the time you need. That's the whole point is that you can't spend all the time you need. How do you react under that kind of pressure? Then we want you to take it again under, you know, give people 10 hours, whatever it takes. Like a long one day exam where they can take all the time they want. Because that's testing a different skill that lawyers also need, which is the ability to get to the right answer and the desire to keep drilling down until you can find the right answer. Both of those are important skills for lawyers. So why don't we want to know whether a student can get the right answer if given all the time in the world and how they respond when there's a deadline where they can't spend all the time they want? Why are we allowing students, some students, to have to take it in that amount of time, other students to get.
- [31:40]
A
Time and a half.
- [31:40]
B
And it's all based on this really unfortunate place that we're in right now.
- [31:46]
D
So I agree with your premise that we're in an unfortunate place. I think the solution that you've proposed, I'm going to poke some holes in it, and then I'm interested to see what Kristi will say. So I think the problem with what you've suggested first is we require everyone to take it in the standard time would be a clear violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We cannot go behind someone's approved accommodations and question them. We all know that there's socioeconomic status issues with the way accommodations are given, but we as law schools, we don't grant those accommodations. That's done through lsac, and they rely on the medical documentation that's provided. And so we can't dig behind that without violating the ADA. Even though I hear you, I 100% understand the concern that who gets access to these kinds of accommodations, it tends disproportionately to be people with more privilege, more resources, more access. I have been nagging and suggesting to lsac, they probably hate me for many years that the LSAT be moved away from being what's called a speed test to what's called a power test. A speed test is a test where one of the primary drivers of performance is how quickly you can do things. So it's designed where some people are going to run out of time. A power test is a test where generally the amount of time allotted is enough for almost everyone to complete the test. And the questions are at a difficulty level where not everyone is going to be able to answer those questions. And I think that especially with what we're seeing in the accommodation quote, unquote, industry, having a power test would be a better way to minimize those kinds of issues. There's all sorts of logistical complications and other complications to moving in that direction. But that's something that I've read some of the research on and I floated for years. And it is something that we're seeing in the undergraduate world. I believe the ACT is being redone. And there is a difference between the SAT and act, on which I'm not an expert at all. But those tests are. Tests are structured differently. And I think the gre, for example, tends to be a test where the timing is less of an issue. So it is something that I think as a profession, we should be thinking about. And that is one alternative solution is making it more of A power test.
- [33:49]
E
I know we're beginning to drift out of your remit, but I am very interested in the growth of accommodations when accommodations don't really exist in the practice of law. So, for example, if you have to generate a preliminary injunction in by midnight, you got to generate a preliminary injunction by midnight. It isn't by midnight unless you have an ADHD diagnosis or something like that. And so I do wonder about how this accommodation revolution is meshing with preparing people for the practice of law. But I might have just stepped outside of, of, you know, where y' all yalls focus. But if you've had any thoughts on that, it's. It does seem like there maybe the balance has moved a bit too far. I don't know.
- [34:37]
B
When I have young people, David, I'm curious because you teach now undergraduates, and I work with some young people. When I get asked for an extension on a deadline 10, 15 years ago, like, I might have said yes to that. And now I almost like routinely say no because I assume it's because they were coddled too much in their educational environment. And I want them to know that, like, welcome to the real world. You don't get extensions. Now, I don't mean I never give extensions. If the person had heart surgery or something, there was a death in the family, but I no longer give. I'm feeling stressed out. Can I have more time extension?
- [35:14]
A
Not to drift us even further, David, but this is a really interesting pattern happening at the undergraduate level with undergraduate students who were in high school during the COVID era, when very understandably, someone teaching chemistry from their bedroom in their condo trying to handle a high school chemistry class was happy to be generous with extensions or kind of, you know, just turn it in whenever you'd like. And so that crowd is kind of coming to an undergraduate setting now. That's really, I think, pretty squarely in the post Covid era and somewhat understandably, except expecting maybe the same treatment that they got in high school and talking to a lot of undergraduate professors at various universities. This is a real tension point on the undergraduate level.
- [36:01]
D
This is like a classic tragedy of the commons where if, if only, if a few people have a need for accommodations or a need for extensions and they get them, it works for everyone. But then we begin to over graze that. And this is the same thing with grade inflation. It's like actually absurd the level of grade inflation. And I think you made this point earlier, Sarah, that when you have tons of people with ILSAT scores and everyone is coming in with a 3.9 and up. How do you distinguish between people in a way that feels objective and not reliant on. Well, this professor says they're great. This fancy professor, or. Oh, they have these external markers which again are class correlated. You know, the ability to have fancy internships unpaid. You know, you can only do that if you don't need to work to make a living. And it just feels like we've lost the plot where I think it's. I always say it this way, it's hurting the top people to favor the mushy middle. And why, why are we not trying to support our, you know, best and brightest from all sorts of backgrounds to really distinguish themselves instead of having everyone kind of look the same?
- [37:09]
A
Just to put it. I mean, there's grade inflation, which is the drift upwards. There's also grade compression, which is. Everybody's kind of getting the same thing and it's an A. Just to say it.
- [37:19]
D
It's always an A. That's what they're getting.
- [37:21]
A
To put it in terms for your listeners, if you haven't read an application in some period of time or you've never read an application, one of our top national state schools, a 4.0, just over a 4.0, is at the 75th percentile.
- [37:38]
D
And people from that school think they have grade deflation. They're like, oh, my God, I come from this school. It's so tough. We have so. Our grades are so deflated. And I'm like, girl, they're not deflated. No, they're not.
- [37:48]
A
And then you'll know this one as well. At one of our Ivy league institutions, a 3.95 is at the bottom half of the class. It makes it actually very hard as an admissions reader, because a 3.95, I could be looking at the strongest student in that entire school based on their coursework and their academic potential. Or I could be looking at someone who's kind of skating by. Right. And so I'll share from my team's perspective on the grade inflation point that we've stopped looking at GPA as a number. So I've kind of instructed my team like 3.97, 3.82, like just disregard it completely. You have to dig into the course selection, the trajectory of grades and what letters of recommendations are saying for themselves. Now, I'm not sure if that's the right approach, but I've got just gotten to the point where I feel like I don't know if someone's a 4.0 where they are in terms of Academic potential.
- [38:46]
D
It used to be in our first couple of years, Kristi, that if we got a high 170 LSAT score, that felt special, like they were still rare. And we're not. We haven't been doing. We've been doing this for less than a decade. And now people are just floating in with these GPAs and LSATs. Scores like, where we can't distinguish based on those. And that has been a very quick shift. I think Covid accelerated it. These LSAT changes accelerated it. And I don't think it's good because it puts more weight on subjective factors which are problematic in their ways.
- [39:16]
A
Right. Like, so you, you put a lot of weight, for example, on letters of recommendation. I love an excellent letter of recommendation, but we know that there's different. Those are inflated as well. But. And also the way that an English literature professor is going to write a letter of recommendation can read as more compelling than the way a chemistry professor might write just based on kind of style. And I don't know if that's a good thing either. Right. You're just in more subjectivity land.
- [39:43]
E
Well, and also the people with more connections can get the cooler letters of recommendation.
- [39:49]
A
Or you're a research assistant for a professor instead of working at the Chipotle 25 hours a week. Right.
- [39:55]
E
Yeah. That is absolutely fascinating. Those numbers. I mean, that's at a scale that I was pessimistic about grade inflation and that's at a scale beyond.
- [40:04]
D
It's ridiculous. There's a handful of schools that have held the line, but we're talking like, literally, like I can count them on one hand.
- [40:12]
A
It's basically the military academies in Reed College.
- [40:14]
D
Seriously? Yea. Reed College for real. Good for them.
- [40:17]
E
That's amazing. So when I. And again, so this is 20 year old outdated information, but when I was on the admissions committee, one of the first things we looked at was GPA relative to the institution. Because we knew, for example, when I was on the admissions committee, Texas A and M was notorious for. Especially in the STEM disciplines. If you had a 3, 5 in the stem disciplines in Texas A and M, you were killing it. You were doing great. If you had a 3.5 at Brown, you may never have gone to class once.
- [40:53]
A
And so no one has a 3.5 at Brown anymore.
- [40:56]
D
No one has a 3.5.
- [40:58]
B
You're saying that's too low?
- [41:00]
D
Oh, it's absurd. That would be like the bottom eight, 10% of the class, maybe like that. You're talking a seventh percentile GPA at Brown.
- [41:09]
B
At this point, y', all, my GPA was well below a 3.5.
- [41:12]
D
Well, this is historic data. Like, it's. You see it like. Because sometimes we'll get someone who applied. So I went to Dartmouth College, which is slightly less inflated than some of our peers, but only slightly so. But I'll have an applicant at Dartmouth College, grad of 06, just because they're applying late, and you'll look at their percentile because it's a three year look back, and the same. It's crazy how those percentiles have floated up and up and up and up over a very short period of time.
- [41:39]
B
Okay, I want to talk about the wait list, because a lot of people. I know, I don't. I mean, not a statistically significant sample, but, boy, it seems like a lot of people are getting put on wait lists these days. I was waitlisted at Harvard, for what that's worth. So maybe I. Yeah, maybe I just attract waitlisters. So you get your waitlist letter, you're like, oh, I'm excited. But also, what do I do now? Christy, how do you get off the waitlist at Harvard?
- [42:04]
A
You gotta let them know you want it. So you gotta just really express your sincere instance in the institution, lay your cards on the table why you want to go there, make clear that it's your top choice. If that's true. And most schools, I actually think, are pretty direct about what they want from their waitlist candidates. Some schools will say, please don't write us. Some schools will say, write us once. Some schools will say, touch base with us every two weeks. Right. Schools are usually pretty direct for us. We have a letter of continued interest process, and we really want to fill those remaining spots with the people who want them most. And every once in a while, we're thinking about things like, is there an undergraduate institution that we don't yet have in the class? Is there a geographic area that's a little less represented? Some of it is kind of balancing the class as a whole. But by and large, you're looking for the people who are going to be enthusiastic community builders. And I would have guessed that was you, Sarah. I could totally see you getting off the waitlist. People would have known. The admissions committee would have been like, sarah's going to rock it here. 3.5 GPA in all.
- [43:05]
D
I always say our waitlist folks are our admissions team fan favorites. It's like, all the people you've been, like, keeping your eye on, you're, like, hoping you can get there, and then you're giving out 225 offers. They were like, you've talked about them a million times, and it feels like you get one more bite at the apple to have all of your favorite people that are maybe a little quirky, a little interesting feel really special. And so it's like the admissions team is vying for their own personal fan favorites to make it into the class. And I have one person who was my fan favorite last year, and I lost the head to head battle from the wait list. Transfer student. When I saw the name on the transfer application, I was like, like, dying of excitement. I was like, this is. We could admit one transfer student this year, and it's going to be him. And I'm going to be thrilled because it had been years of, like, kind of keeping my eye. And I was so excited that he came back and he's starting in the fall.
- [43:53]
B
It's so funny that y' all know these students. Like, I think most people would think this is kind of a nameless, faceless process for you, but you guys, you know, back in my undergraduate days, I think this actually will shock people. But I was in a sorority, and we had this, like, metaphor about, like, the forest is on fire and you can't save all the bunnies in the forest. Like, you'd want to. That's not the issue. But, like, you're gonna have to just pick some bunnies to save. And, like, because you know all the bunnies, you've named all the bunnies. And I don't know, that makes it kind of sound hard that, like, you know, you. You both let a student in and you both, it sounds like, would know this student. You go head to head. They're gonna pick one of the schools and not the other. You're gonna kind of follow that student and see how they've done and, like, maybe run into them at a conference and in a few years and all of that, like, that's. That's kind of cool, guys.
- [44:42]
D
I will say I think Christie is better at this than me. I feel like once they choose not to come, I try to, like, delete them from my brain. They're not that they're dead to me. It's more like I only have so much brain space for students, and I try to, like, save it for the ones who are at yls. So occasionally you'll see a name and you're like, oh, that seems familiar. And you'll kind of go back and poke it in. You're like, oh, yeah, I remember that person decided to go to Harvard, like, three years ago. But mostly it's like a Rolodex of. Of students in my brain, and I try to limit it to the ones that I need to remember.
- [45:12]
B
Christie, I just feel very seen by your description of waitlisters that you knew I was a waitlister. I think I've told you this, but my essay was on working for Swift Boat Vets for truth in 2004, and I think I highlighted that I knew a lot about wildlife rehabilitation. My application could not have screamed quirky any louder with the, like, high LSAT, low GPA, crazy essay on. I mean, remember, in 2004, Swiftboat vets for Truth was like, I don't even know what the equivalent would be today of a highly controversial but important cultural touchstone of sorts. And I. You're. I did exactly what you suggest. I wrote, like, an insane letter that was like, you are all I've ever wanted. Harvard, like, please let me in. I didn't just show ankle, I'll tell you that.
- [46:13]
C
@Blinds.Com, it's not just about window treatments. It's about you. Your style, your space, your way. Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right. From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows. Because@blinds.com, the only thing we treat better than windows is you. Visit blinds.com now for up to 45% off with minimum purchase plus a professional measure at no cost. Rules and restrictions apply.
- [46:45]
E
Okay, can y' all tell me if I have been leading my undergrads astray? So, one quick thing about the undergrads I've been teaching. Guess how many. This is just a tangent to a previous part of the conversation. Guess how many requests for extension or accommodation I've gotten in teaching 4 semesters of undergrads? 11 out of 120 or so that I've taught. But here's what I told them, and you tell me if I have just given. Led them astray, because I told them, I said, if you go back to when I was applying in the early 1990s, if you had an LSAT and a GPA of a certain level, you could be pretty sure you knew where you were getting it, at least where you were competitive. So at, you know, 99th percentile and a 4.0, you're going to be very competitive for Harvard, Yale, Stanford, et cetera. I think if you perform really, really well and you have a shoot the moon lsat, you're going to get in somewhere good. But you cannot predict even in that like layer of 14 or 20 where you necessarily are going to land. Like you can, you can feel reasonably confident you'll go to a very good law school. You cannot feel confident any longer which very good law school that you'll go to. Is that a fair statement or is that not a fair statement?
- [48:04]
B
I have a friend who was waitlisted at every T14 school and didn't get off a single wait list. This person graduated this year. So they're at what, a 20, 22, 2021 applicant, something like that.
- [48:19]
D
I think one feature of the increase in applicant volume is that there's, there's more randomness in the process. I think we saw this in the COVID year where there was less cross admitting. So it used to be like if you got into Yale, you would almost certainly get into Harvard and Stanford and Columbia and Chicago as well. And then you would pick. But I think when the volume is high, the preferences and biases and school specific features of the process dominate more. And so you might get into Yale but not Harvard and not Stanford and then yes, Columbia, it just becomes a little more random. And I think what happened during COVID is so some schools were not prepared or they ended up with their classes were too big because the cross admitting levels were ahistoric. And I think this past year when we saw the volumes go up, people got more risk averse. Like no one wanted to end up with a class, 50 students over what they were planning on. And so you had to tighten it down and go more slowly to kind of see where the cross admitting was because that's something that can really throw off a class.
- [49:18]
A
And I think this reinforces a larger point that both of us try to talk about, talk to applicants about is this is not a referendum on your ability as a future law student or your future in the profession at all. The students you're describing, David, as you say they're going to get into a great law school. There's so many amazing places to go to law school and there's so many ways to be successful in the profession. So it's hard for folks, I know it's hard to be disappointed when you don't get into a particular school you might have really had your heart set on. But it's not a referendum on you.
- [49:55]
D
You can only go to one like you can really like at the end of the day, you know I would never look back and be like, well, I got into five law schools and who cares? You know, I went to a law school, I had a good experience. Like, I had a nice career. That's what matters. And all the places you get into that you don't go to, like, at the end of the day, it's really like a low stakes thing. I'm actually surprised, Christy. I've, I'm curious about what percentage of cross admitting we have. I think it's lower than I originally. Like, I suspect. I would suspect it's 60 to 70% and not higher than that, which you would expect it to be closer to like 90 to 100. And I actually really don't think it is.
- [50:33]
A
I don't think it's ever been 100. But I think when we first started in 2018, it was far closer.
- [50:39]
D
It was far closer. And as the, the applicant pool's gotten bigger and more, as Kristy said, compressed, the level of cross admitting has gone down.
- [50:49]
E
One quick question and then I want to ask about financial aid. One thing we have not talked about at all is the time. How much does it matter if you're coming straight out of law school? I mean, straight out of undergrad to law school, and how much with, for example, the gpa, inflation and everything else, how much now does that work experience between law school and college and law school maybe help distinguish yourself compared to others? And are you looking, are you interested in people who've come from non traditional? Maybe. You know, one of the, one of my favorite classmates from law school was a guy who spent 20 years as a firefighter in West Texas before he got his undergrad, like slowly at night. And then his professor told him, you know, you, I think you do well in lsat. And he did very well. And he. But he had 20 years as a firefighter. So how much is that work experience? How much does that work experience matter and how much does it sort of have to be and that I'm clearly grooming myself to be a Scadden Arps attorney or a state department attorney kind of work experience.
- [51:56]
B
By the way, I get to use my new phrase that I'd never heard before. Do you like kjds? Get it kindergarten through jd.
- [52:05]
D
Oh, I feel like you spent some time on the law school admissions subreddit. Sarah, I'm impressed. To prepare for this, this podcast, I was kjd, so I say this with love to all my fellow kjds. Yeah, I think it was more common in our era. I do think, I mean, in Any given year, about 10 to 15% of our incoming class will be straight from college. We're probably 12ish next year, which is pretty standard for us. And some of it is that folks defer, so we admit slightly more than that, and then some people will defer. But I do think that for many, many, many people, taking at least a couple of years to get some professional experience or a graduate degree is really useful. I always say that I wish I had done that because I ended up working in private practice for a while. It was not the best fit for me. And if I had worked for a few years before law school in the private sector, I would have realized that and been able to more quickly move towards sort of the areas I up doing civil rights work that that were more personally fulfilling for me. And so I do think there's a level of professional skills and sort of personal development and the tightening of the narrative of like why you want to go to law school and the kind of law you want to practice that often happens for people in that time. And we do love a non, quote, unquote, non traditional applicant. I think they can bring something very, very special to the class.
- [53:26]
A
And there's fewer of them in the pool than people think. A lot of times people think they're non traditional because they're two years out of college and have worked it as a paralegal. And it's hard when you're talking to that person to break the news that actually they're quite traditional. The example you gave David, I mean, those folks are really few and far between, even in a pool of 10,000 people. And they really pop. So if anyone out there is listening with years of firefighting experience, would love to see you in the applicant pool next year.
- [53:55]
E
One of my favorite applicants that we had when I was on the admissions committee as a guy had really good grades, really good lsat, but not stand out. It did not stand out. And I thought, why are we looking at this person? I kept scanning and then I hit pilot of Marine One.
- [54:14]
D
Oh, wow. Yes. Yeah, we have a fighter jet pilot incoming. I'm very excited. We call them. Like, I have to put together a list of fun facts for the dean's convocation speech. And it's like one of my favorite times of the year is like I get to go through all the applications and it's like professional baker, you know, fighter jet pilot, like forest firefighter, you know, with chainsaws sharpening skills. It's really, really, really cool.
- [54:39]
A
One of the cool things with the COVID year bump 2020-2021 is a, you know, not a giant chunk of the pool, but a nice little chunk of the pool was folks who were in industries that just weren't, you know, there was just nothing going on that year. So we saw more professional opera singers, Broadway actors, and, and the next year in our 1L class at HLS, we had the first chair violinist from the Kennedy Center. We had a professional bassoonist from the San Francisco Orchestra. I mean, we had so many really, really amazing people. And especially in the arts, a lot of them came to law because they were involved in union negotiations during the COVID era, which was this unprecedented time for these whole industries. And it's just as you say, David, it really adds so much to the class and to the classroom discussion.
- [55:27]
B
Okay, so Christy, a question. David and I get emails from law school applicants and law school admittees more often than you probably think, or maybe exactly as often as you think. But a question that we get is, you know, I got into Harvard, let's say with no money, or I got into my state school, and for the purposes of this conversation, let's say it's a free ride. How are students supposed to think about it differently than undergraduate? And what advice do you give? Or does that advice that you guys even give? Really?
- [56:01]
A
Yeah. So we in the admissions team have admitted students talk with our financial aid office. And I think for both Harvard and Yale and a whole lot of schools, the people doing financial aid are really doing God's work. Like sitting down with people and thinking, helping them think very carefully about this financial investment, which is huge. It's a huge financial investment, but it is an investment. And the question that one needs to answer as an admitted student is does this, will this financial investment pay off? Not just in terms of my experience during three years of law school and the education I receive, but my long term career. And that can be a really challenging and emotional question to answer for yourself, especially if you're 22, 24 years old and thinking about hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. So I think both of our schools have really strong loan repayment assistance programs. And so the conversation can look a little different if folks are very committed to public interest work or lower paying work outside the private sector, then if somebody is kind of thinking about a clear private sector career and there's really the important thing is there's no right answer from an objective point of view. It's really just what is the right answer for you? And I'll say again, I always tell Admitted students. I think Harvard's an amazing place to go to law school. We'd love to have you in the community, but there are so many really great places to go to law school. And a lot can just depend on your career goals, where you want to practice and where you see yourself moving.
- [57:32]
D
Law term I think money is really personal. Like, I think it's really wrapped up, I think a lot in the way you were raised in your family. And, you know, are you going to be obligated to support family members or help? You know? I decided to go to law school right after my father, who was the primary breadwinner in my family, had sort of unexpectedly passed away. And so there was. You know, it can be very emotional how money lives with inside of you. I think it lives inside of all of us, which is like a little sad and kind of capitalist. But I think it is really personal. And so I don't. I think I completely agree with Christy. It's a very personal decision that can be right and not right. It's like your head versus your heart in a way. And, you know, if there's a place that just feels like your place, it's. Your heart is calling out to you. How do you balance that with taking on more debt? And I don't think there's one right answer. And I never want someone to feel unhappy at Yale that they gave something up and it wasn't worth it. And then they're kind of unhappy and bitter and constantly looking for the negative in the experience because they're already feeling that way. Better to take the money and go a place where you're just going to feel really good about it or come to Yale and like, like enjoy every second of the experience if it is one that is more expensive. I will say we have a very amazing full tuition scholarship that goes to about 15% of our class that Dean Gerken sort of fundraised for called the Hearst Horizon Scholarship. So that is for our highest need students, which is, I think it's just over 30 people in our incoming class this year. And so I do think that has made it more accessible and affordable and less weighty for people from very high need financial backgrounds to come to Yale and feel good about that choice.
- [59:13]
A
And we similarly have up to full tuition support for those from the highest need backgrounds. And it's interesting because I think it's such a different conversation for people who are kind of on those two barbells versus folks from the middle class. And that's really where financial aid and Law school and need based financial aid has the most room for growth.
- [59:32]
B
David, I feel like when we get that question, one of the things I try to emphasize is that it is really different than undergrad. The investment that you're choosing to make is very different. So if someone told me they got a free ride to x place versus, you know, they're going to take on $200,000 in debt to go to Y place for undergrad, I'm like, nah, probably take the free ride, man, and like crush it with law school. That's not the choice for me. And I really. And again, this is not Christy and Miriam talking now. This is Sarah and David and just the advice we generally give. And yes, it is personal and all of those things, but generally speaking, David and I say you go to the best law school you get into.
- [60:13]
E
Yeah, my only qualifier to that, and I'm talking to a lot of people who are living in places like Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama. And I say, look, look at it this way, you have more options if you go to say, a Harvard or Yale. You have fewer options. Not zero by any stretch of the imagination, not zero, but you have fewer options if you say you go, go to Tennessee. However, if you know, you want to practice law in Tennessee, if you, you know, you're going to join your dad's firm or your mom's firm or you, you know, you want to be a prosecutor in this town, like, you know where you want to go and what you want to do and that Tennessee law degree is going to be fantastic for that. Then I, I would say think long and hard, long and hard before you take on that kind of debt.
- [61:02]
A
Fun fact.
- [61:02]
B
Arguably better because when I tried to move back to Texas with a Harvard law degree to work in sort of the legislative session and lobbying work, it was a downside, not an upside.
- [61:15]
D
Yeah, sometimes it can be. Even if you want to go work at like the Queen's DA's office, you know, I remember like looking to get into like local government work when I, I was, I'm now a US citizen, I've been at the time of, was a non US citizen, I'm Canadian. And so there's a lot I couldn't apply to federal government jobs and I was only looking at like state and local government jobs. And it would have been easier in some ways. I had something to prove that I was really interested and excited about those jobs, even though it was New York City jobs, than if I had come from a school that was more local there. They sort of assumed that I thought I was better than those jobs, and I did. Not at all. I don't. I never thought that way. But it is, it can be a little bit tough. Law schools are regional, and I think there are a few schools in Yale and Harvard are among them that are national. And so you might struggle a little bit more with the regional jobs, but most law schools are going to prepare you to practice in a fairly limited geographic. That's where most doors are going to be open. Nothing is impossible either way. But I think you've given great advice on where it's going to be easier and where it's going to be harder.
- [62:18]
B
Okay, I want to end with this question because it's the question that David and I struggle the most with. On the podcast, we try to ask all of our big time guests, of which y' all are clearly the biggest of the big time, especially for a lot of our listeners who are law school applicants, should you go to law school? Miriam, I will start with you.
- [62:38]
D
That's a tough question for me because in some ways I went to law school for all the wrong reasons. I went to law school because I had been pre med and decided I don't want to go to medicine school. And then I felt really pressured, you know, by circumstances to not get off the quote unquote track and you do something. And I was like, well, I'll just take this LSAT thing and see how I do. And I did, you know, reasonably well. And then I was like, I guess I'll just apply to law school and go to law school and figure it out once I'm there. So you should definitely not go to law school for the reasons I went to law school. And I say that with, with so much love because I loved my experience in law school, I loved my career, I loved my current job, but I don't think I had thought it through. So I will make the pitch that and I'm going to a little bit steal Christie's thunder. I think that I think you should go to law school if you kind of want to be a lawyer. But I will also say that there are many, many ways to get a lot of value out of a law degree, even if you aren't a lawyer. I think Christy and I are examples of that in our careers. I have wonderful classmates who are journalists, who founded companies, who work in the business space, who I think would say, and I've heard them say that they've gotten an enormous amount of value from the thinking skills, the network, the connections, the approach to problem solving. That they got in law school. But I think if you're 100% sure you never want to be a lawyer, I would think long and hard about whether you should go to law school.
- [63:57]
B
Okay. I think Miriam gets A minus from the David School and I think she gets C plus from the Sarah School. Let's see how Christy does.
- [64:07]
D
I'm going to come to your office hours and beg for you to raise.
- [64:11]
A
My grade when I'm answering this question. And of course, it can be very, very personal to the person you're talking to. I usually say, unless you have unlimited financial resources and time resources. And by the way, who does only go to law school if you think you want to be a lawyer, if you have the intention to practice law at least for some period of time, maybe you're thinking longer term, I'm going to transition careers. But go if you think you want to be a lawyer, you think you want to practice law. Lots of people would enjoy law school. I'm sure tons of your listeners on this podcast are people who really enjoy the legal discussions. But law school might not be right for them because they don't have really any intention to practice law. Just given the financial investment these days and just also the opportunity cost of taking three years out of the workforce, sidelining your career in a way. I would just think very, very long and hard about going to law school without at least some intention to practice law.
- [65:06]
B
How did I do? Christy gets an A from Professor Sarah.
- [65:11]
D
I think there's a little bit of bias there, I'm not gonna lie.
- [65:15]
B
And what do you think, David? A D from you.
- [65:18]
E
I mean, in the era of grade inflation, I'll have to go with C minus. C minus at best. Yeah, absolutely.
- [65:25]
B
I love it.
- [65:26]
E
I found Miriam far more compelling, to be honest.
- [65:29]
D
You're picking favorites.
- [65:31]
E
This is totally unbiased, objective assessments here. Totally. My view is, unless it's financially very, very, very difficult going to law school when you don't have. When you're not certain of your course and you want to expand your options? I fully endorse going to law school. Just going to law school and saying only if you want to be a lawyer, go to law school. No, no, no, no. I think law school is in a very mind opening, option expanding alternative. That is also really, I thought, fun. I thought it was great.
- [66:05]
D
Can I just say, I think you should think about the school you're going to if you want the option expanding. Because I do think that the experience of law school can range from being very theoretical, academic. Let's talk about the why and the how and not just the what to very much a I am gearing you for a professional career as a lawyer in these ways. And so I do think I'm splitting the baby again. That there might be law schools that are better suited for the Sarah approach or the David approach, depending on who the person is, what they're coming in with, and what their goals are.
- [66:39]
E
That's very fair. I agree with that.
- [66:41]
B
I feel like that was such a Canadian can't we all just get along Answer. Thank you.
- [66:46]
D
We love to get along. We really do. Why can't we all just get along? Sarah and David and Christy.
- [66:53]
B
I forget, was it the Andy Warhol oral argument? But at some point, Lisa Blatt says something to Justice Alito, who went to Yale to the effect of like, well, as you learned in your 1L whatever class. And Justice Alito interrupts to say, we didn't learn law at my law school.
- [67:10]
D
I have a very embarrassing story about being a junior associate and asking the question, federal rules of what? And they were like, of civil procedure. And I was like, oh, I didn't learn about that very much. I learned a lot about class actions and the procedural due process rights to which all of us are accustomed or entitled. But I definitely did not learn anything about Rule 26B motions. 0.
- [67:39]
A
My extremely, extremely smart and wonderful co clerk got an assignment from our judge, and the judge basically slapped the papers on her desk and was like, okay, straightforward Fourth Amendment case. And she walked out and my co clerk looked at me and she goes, which one's the Fourth Amendment? I was like, oh, it's a search and seizure. Okay, well, we'll, we'll start at the beginning.
- [67:59]
D
Even I know that coming from Yale, I'll just say Rule 26B motions and no Fourth Amendment. Yes.
- [68:07]
B
Miriam, I think my only pushback to your answer, which was of course very good, is, is what you just, like, added about the schools matter. Because I feel like a lot of people showed up to Harvard Law School thinking they could do whatever they wanted with a law degree and maybe they could have. But it's also in many ways a conveyor belt to going to a law firm. If you have an idea of what you want to do, like, feel free to go do that thing. Everyone will support you and love that. But if you're just putting one foot in front of another and you don't know what you want, you're going to end up at Scadden or wherever. And so I think a lot of people are like, wait, how did I end up at a law firm? And I hate this. And now I have an alcohol problem because I hate it.
- [68:48]
A
That's me.
- [68:48]
D
But without the alcohol problem. I'll just say that out loud.
- [68:51]
A
And one thing I'll flag and listeners who work at law firms know all about this, or listeners who work at law schools. But for those who don't, the recruiting process has accelerated to so early on. I mean, there's a large law firm that has its applications for next summer open right now for incoming admitted students who have not started 1L orientation.
- [69:11]
D
We joke about just sending a list of our incoming one else to the law. Soon they're going to ask us to just send them straight to the law firm so that the summer before they even start, they can lock in their post grad jobs. Like, it's lunatic. Lunatic.
- [69:22]
A
So to your point, Sarah, in this type of an environment when it's just so early on, it's hard, I think, for a lot of incoming law students to even give themselves the time to think about, what do I like about this? What do I. What am I thinking about for next summer? It's just like, you come in October, November, you're expected to start interviewing for law firms for next summer. And it's so much.
- [69:43]
B
It's a mind boggling amount of money. You know, I worked between. I'm not KJD, but I made just. I made $30,000 at my first till job and they were offering more than $30,000 for the summer. So, like my whole year's salary just over the summer. And so like, that's really hard to wrap your head around. What it would mean to say no to that.
- [70:08]
A
That.
- [70:09]
B
And I will give a shout out to Quinn Emanuel here who put fuzzy flip flops in each of our mailboxes. And you just can't overestimate how important that was to me. Loving. I mean, I loved those fuzzy flip flops. They were so nice.
- [70:26]
D
I got a slinky from Goodwin and Proctor that I really enjoy.
- [70:30]
B
Oh, I still have my umbrella. I think it was from Goodwin, actually. Maybe Goodwin's just really high on their swag. Okay, well, Miriam and Christy, we cannot thank you enough for joining us. And the podcast is called Navigating the Law School Admissions Process.
- [70:46]
A
Close. Navigating Law School Admissions with Miriam and Kristi.
- [70:49]
D
Don't laugh so hard at the name. We challenge you to come up with a better name. And we will rebrand.
- [70:55]
E
I have it. Decision Points Law School Admissions with Miriam.
- [71:00]
A
And Kristi back in May 2020. Those are the types of names the two of us were spitballing forever, and then we just gave up. We were like, like navigating law school admissions with Miriam and Christie. Done.
- [71:08]
B
I was going to say, you know, be really good at this is Claude.
- [71:12]
E
The Agony and the Ecstasy and law school admissions.
- [71:17]
B
Thank you, Miriam and Christy. And if you guys have more questions for them, hop in the comments section, let us know. We'll, we'll maybe do some follow up Q and A with Miriam and Christie during the year when it's not the month of October. I know that that's not a good time for you guys. We will never bother you in October.
- [71:35]
D
Thanks for having us. Bye.
- [71:36]
B
All right. Thank you.