2L willing to answer questions on LSAT/lawschool.

Well can you explain the benefits of the JDMBA combination? Is it true that this is more beneficial to people in law who want a business degree on the side and not the other way round?

Also how difficult is the LSAT? Can a GMAT prep help with it?

good questions. I am planning to take the GMAT next semester, so I can't compare the two in how "hard" they are just yet, BUT it sure can't hurt. The lsat has nothing to do with law. Its all about reasoning and doing story problems. Think of the old grade school train a leaves at this time going this speed, when will it meet train B type stuff. Multiple choice too. There is an essay but it is ungraded, lawschool see it to get an idea of your skill level but you could in theory draw dirty pictures on it for an answer and get the same score. The best comparison to another test that I have taken would be the ASVAB. If you did good on that, you will do go good on the LSAT most likely.

As for the joint degree, I see the market being tight so I figure it can't hurt me any. Most lawyers start in a firm being going solo and that would give me an extra skill to add to a resume to get into said firm. That's my main motivation. I would recommend it to those who plan first to be a lawyer and a business man second.
For those whose first goal is an MBA, then getting a joint MBA/JD might not be as good of an idea. It does teach a lot about the law that is good both for business and day to day life in general, but unless you plan to practice law or be a politician, think long and hard before adding a JD to your degree. For the JD the MBA basicly takes up the electives that I'd have to take anyways, but vice versa just remember that the JD is a larger degree than the MBA. Just because one fits into the other dosn't mean the same works vice versa.

good points.. I guess that is why it is called a JD/MBA primary JD and secondary MBA. I never thought to pursue law itself, but then began to see that one could get 2 degrees in 3 years so what is the downside? I guess that got me started thinking about this degree... Your comments are helpful. Northwestern does not seem to need the LSAT for the JDMBA. I believe that is unique?

Most schools have some type of combo, but the MBA is the most common one that I've seen. I have seen joint MPA, Dr of Religion(regent) and even a joint jd/dr of pharmacy (I think it was in florida)

But yeah, most tend to have at least joint mba.

Many schools that dont have it on campus still have "agreements" with nearby universities that offer the other degrees to bounce between BUT your finaid will only apply to ONE not both of the schools. That part sucks.

I'd still say take the LSAT, if you get a high enough score lawschool can be free and then even though it takes more time, those credits that are free still flow over to MBA credits too, most won't get a 180 but it's only around $100 to take it and could save a $100K, so its worth a shot.

Hi Everyone,

My little sister is contemplating law school... she worked for a healthcare consultancy but was laid off last year and has been running a tutoring service. Wanted to know what is the typical profile of a law student (if there is one). She's 27 and I'm not sure if that means she'll be an "older" applicant.

Additionally, are there any law school admissions consultants and LSAT prep that ya'll can recommend?

Thanks in advance!

.

The typical profile of a law school class is now about 1/2 22 year olds frech out of UG who have never worked a non-hourly job and about 1/2 24-25 year old who have crappy work experience or maybe a worthless graduate degreee. Classes have been scaling a bit older in recent years. Your sister won't necessarily feel out of place in LS, but sometimes you are really reminded of just how young and naive some of the younger students can be. As far as prep: Powerscore Logic Games Bible, Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible, (and maybe) Powerscore Reading Comprehension Bible. I thought the RC bible was alright, but some people think it's a waste of time. The LG Bible and LR Bible are widely considered to be the two best prep books you can buy. These books in combination with all the modern preptests are all you need to maximize your potential on the LSAT. All of that together would run about $400. Also, www.top-law-schools.com (TLS) can be helpful. It's basically this site but for LS instead of BS. I didn't find the prep forum to be all that helpful, but their equivalent to our "peer review" admissions help is very, very helpful. LS admissions are more of a pure numbers game than BS, so anyone applying to LS should do their homework. In addition to TLS, www.lawschoolnumbers.com is very helpful; it contains self-reported admissions data for each admissions cycle. It is extremely helpful at the margins (high LSAT, low GPA "splitters" such as me and low LSAT, high GPA "reverse splitters"). Without LSN, I never would have thought that a T25 LS was reachable with my <3.0 GPA.

How much does the Lsat count in admissions?
From my knowledge the Lsat is weighted more heavily than the Gmat is, but i would be interested about the difference

some schools value the LSAT more than others, but on average, I'd say the LSAT is around 2/3 of a person's application. for some schools, LSAT is only worth 1/2 to 1/3, but there are other schools where the LSAT is at least 80% of your application. when it comes to LS admissions, a good LSAT can make up for almost anything.

Hi 77,

Great post by you above. Thanks! The numbers site is very useful.

I hear it all the time that the acceptance to a law school is a "numbers game" and that if your GPA and LSAT is good, you'll be in.

However, in the lawnumbers site, there are many folks who have 170 = LSAT, 3.7+ GPA AND were rejected by Stanford etc. I also see other trends: folks with a lower (in 160s) LSAT, 3.4:ish GPA and accepted to Stanford, Yale etc.

Law school application does not include resume or interview, so it must be down to your personal statement that divides your fate?

It seems that acceptance to law schools, after all, is not a numbers game? Could anyone shed light on this? What else - beside the numbers - are important?

Thanks!

Hi AlmostFamous,

The only way someone with a 3.4 and sub-170 LSAT would be accepted to Stanford or Yale is if they were a severely URM, such as from some tribe in North Dakota that has only recently been uncovered.

Remember, while LSN is generally a decent guide for accept/reject decisions, the outliers should more or less be discarded as they are trolls.

There are many people with 3.8+, 170+ who are rejected from these schools. The personal statement plays almost no role, except in distinguishing between candidates who are considered identical.

-----

As for comparing the GMAT and LSAT, the similarity is that they both test a person's ability to make logical deductions quickly while absorbing a lot of information. The obvious difference is that the GMAT has a Math section that requires the test-taker to use some basic mathematical principles to make such deductions.

The LSAT, on the other hand, uses only English. However, the general mindset between logic games and data sufficiency, for instance, is very similar.

LS admissions is very much a numbers game. However, Berkeley and Stanford (along with Yale) are kind of the exception to that rule. Those schools seem to take a more holistic approach to admissions. Those three schools seem to routinely reject applicants with numbers (GPA and LSAT) above both medians. However, the rest of the schools have an almost purely numbers-based admissions criteria. Stanford, Yale, and Berkeley are the outliers. FYI, LS applications generally do require that you submit your resume.

The only other universally important admissions factor is race. All schools care about race; Berkeley, Stanford, and Yale might be the only ones who really give significant weight to other soft factors as well. Those three schools seem to never be a "sure thing" for anyone.

i have some admissions from different law schools, and now seriously considering JD/MBA. i want to get into mergers and aquistions and securities law... so wondering if the MBA would be usefull....?

I'm kind of wondering the same thing. I've heard that it can be, but that it generally doesn't greatly increase one's legal job opportunities. I want to do the JD/MBA at my school (I'm currently a 1L), but I don't know if it's worth it.

what i hear is that for the mba to worth the time and the money, the school you will attend should have a recognizable brand name...
however, i think if you are a business minded individual the mba could help you to create and run your own business in the long run. one thing that i hear is : being an attorney is a very boring and stressful job, specially if you work for big law, and a lot of the lawyers do go into business on their own or change career path after a while. i think it is at that instant that your mba would come handy.
in addition if you are a person who will do networking, the network you can create in the B school will help you in the long run and provide you with clients...

It depends on the admissions process. At Yale, the dean accepts about 40-60 exceptional applicants without having to go through the traditional process. The remaining applicants are reviewed by 3 faculty members who rank each applicant on a scale from 1-4. IF an applicant accumulates a total score of 12 (4 from each faculty member) then they are admitted. If an applicant gets a total score of 11, then they are waitlisted. Every one else is rejected. At the end, Yale ends up with about a 5-6% acceptance rate and over 90% yield rate. It is the most competitive law school to gain admission to in the world. Numbers play a role, especially GPA, but Yale really looks for the wow factor (Rhodes Scholar, Started own million-dollar company, Military combat experience, best-selling author, etc). I would say Yale prefers people with high LSATs, yes, but moreso with high Undergraduate GPAs. If you have anything under a 3.8, Yale is probably going to say no regardless of LSAT. Yale is also the only school that publishes a grid so you can see exactly how many people with the LSAT/GPA combo got in within the last few years. Yale is also the only school which doesn't do affirmative action in the traditional sense. Faculty readers do not have to take the race or gender of the applicant into account when making decisions. Most of the URMs at Yale have stellar GPA and LSAT combos (3.8+/168+).

Harvard is a pure numbers game for some and more holistic for others. If you have a 3.9/175, you'll get into Harvard Law. But if you have a 172/3.7 then you'll need to have other things going for you. A 3.9/175 is not an autoadmit at Yale and many of those combos are rejected. Harvard is one of the largest law schools in the world, however, and has a much larger class than Yale.

Stanford is very selective, but it is not a pure numbers game. Like Yale, they prefer students who stand out. Like Yale, they may forgive a relatively low LSAT, but the GPA almost always needs to be stellar.

Again, getting into Yale/Harvard/Stanford is difficult because they don't have to pick and choose between a good GPA/LSAT applicant. They admit students with the complete package.

As you move down the top 14 law schools, you'll notice people having splits. Like say a 3.5GPA\175 LSAT. That'll get you into a lot of good schools. As will a 3.9/169. So you just have to apply broadly and early if you're a "splitter" and you'll probably get into a well regarded school. For people with good, but not great combos 3.4/163, then you guys are looking at top 25-50 schools.