Vault’s Legal Diversity Career Fair is in LA and DC this summer.

Hollywood, get ready, because Vault is heading your way this July. Vault is also setting up camp in the land of khakis and politics. That’s right, the Vault/MCCA Legal Diversity Career Fair is back for its sixth year.  And this year, Vault is getting the west coast in on the action (allowing them not only to reach attorneys and law students across the country but perhaps also to answer the burning question of which coast really is best: east or west) by hosting the career fair in Los Angeles and in Washington, DC.

The Vault/MCCA Legal Diversity Career Fair provides an opportunity for diverse law students and attorneys to meet and network with legal employers that are committed to diversity, including law firms, government agencies, nonprofits and corporate law departments. If you’re a minority, female, or LGBT candidate, get your resume ready. You can register for both events here and can find more details below.

The fair is for minority, women and LGBT Law students & attorneys (seeking lateral or networking opportunities)

Los Angeles Vault/MCCA Legal Diversity Carer Fair

When: July 26, 2011
Time: 9AM – 4PM

Washington, DC Vault/MCCA Legal Diversity Career Fair

When: July 29, 2011
Time: 9AM-4PM
Location: Renaissance Hotel

REGISTRATION for the Vault/MCCA Legal Diversity Career Fair

For more information on career planning, you can listen to Law School Podcaster’s full show, Networking 101: Essential Tips for Law Students

Professors rate 25 legal TV shows — from the oldies to the newbies. Find out how the shows rated and why they were givens a Thumbs Up or a Thumbs Down.

What do you get when you show clips from Law & Order, The Defenders and L.A. Law on three different televisions in front of aclassroom? Quite frankly, you get televisions biggest and brightest legal TV shows of all time. And the entertainment is not just for the average viewer, but for law students who really get an idea what the “average” person thinks of the profession.

Pop culture is the greatest teacher in the history of the universe, says Michael Asimow, professor of law emeritus at UCLA School of Law.

“Lawyers are the most hated profession in the world today,” Asimow said. “It wasn’t always that way. This hatred of lawyers is very much reflected in pop culture. What the public thinks about lawyers is a pretty important subject for lawyers.”

Christine Corcos, associate professor of law at Louisiana State University Law Center, said she likes to use clips from TV or film and popular culture to illustrate legal issues or ideas that people have about the law.

“I like to show students what people think about law so that they know what people think about lawyers and what they are going to run up against,” said Corcos, who teaches media law, entertainment law, advanced torts and gender and the law. “For example, people that they run into might think that all criminal defense attorneys have all really evil people as clients. We
teach the presumption of innocence. But most people assume that when people are arrested, they are guilty.”

We asked seven professors, including Asimow and Corcos, to rate some old and new legal television shows by giving them a Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down. Of course everyone had there own taste in shows. Law & Order, The Defenders and L.A. Law all received seven out of seven stars. Damages followed closely with six out of seven stars. The only show to get zero stars
was Judge Joe Brown. Big surprise?

For legal shows that best represent the reality of practicing law, Corcos said she had to change up the shows over the years, because students tend to identify with shows that are new, like The Good Wife, Boston Legal or Law & Order.

“TV has a bigger impact than movies,” said Asimow, who is also the editor of “Lawyers in Your Living Room: Law on Television.” “Television shows are repetitive. Whatever message it’s sending keeps getting pounded into people. It influences juries, lawyers, witnesses…”

And what law school applicant or student wouldn’t want to get their nose out of the books and watch a couple clips from these 25 legal television shows? Here they are in order, starting with the best:

#1        Law & Order (1990-2010) available on DVD

While L.A. Law built upon critique and character, subterfuge and comedy, Law & Order plays it straight and linear. Meticulous and well-researched plots. The structure of the program itself was a profound innovation. The core characters are compelling, and the details of the courtroom procedure are nicely presented. — Philip Meyer

The first few seasons were excellent because, as a collegeague of mine remarked, the plotline focused more on cases ripped from criminal law and criminal procedure casebooks than cases ripped from the headlines. Over all its seasons, this show accurately reflects the tensions inherent in the prosecution of criminal cases — the delicate balance between the prosecutor, the police and the politicians. — Taunya Banks

#2        The Defenders (1961-1965) not available on DVD or online

The Defenders was the most intelligent seriesfrom the late 1950s and 1960s and successfully dramatized such issues as
abortion, euthanasia and anti-Communist blacklisting. — David Papke

This is probably the finest legal drama of all time, but sadly unavailable on DVD and rarely shown on cable. Each show tackled an important social problem from a legal point of view and many were far ahead of their time. — Michael Asimow

#3        L.A. Law (1986-1994) available on DVD

L.A. Law inspired nearly all of the current lawyer shows. It was the first TV show to recognize that law is a business, practiced for profit in large firms. Great actors worked in an ensemble cast and the show had great ratings for a number of years. Fascinating stories, strong characters and excellent emphasis on ethical issues. — Michael Asimow

L.A. Law broke away from the tired primetime lawyer series that always featured a white, male solo practitioner doing criminal defense work for innocent clients, and instead portrayed a lively firm with significant degree of diversity. —David Papke

#4        Damages (2007) available on DVD

Damages is a thriller about big-ticket litigation in New York, and Glenn Close’s portrayal of Patty Hewes is superb. — David Papke

This is one of my favorite current legal shows. Nevertheless, other than a few good scenes during its first season about discovery in civil practice, the primary focus is the unethical, and sometimes illegal, activity of Patty Hewes, no one’s ideal lawyer. — Taunya Banks

#5        JAG (1995-2005) available on DVD

Dispelled the myth that lawyers aren’t macho. — Bob Jarvis

#6        Perry Mason (1957-1966) available online and on DVD

When you call someone a “Perry Mason” even years after the show left the airwaves, everyone still knows exactly what you mean. — Bob Jarvis

Although Perry Mason was enormously popular and influential and continues to be available on cable, all 250 shows have precisely the same story. Seen one, seen them all. Silly hackneyed view of law practice and trial practice. — Michael Asimow

#7        Murder One (1995-1997) available online and on DVD

Murder One gave a deep analysis of a single case, and in the process provided a critique of specific aspects of our criminal justice system. It was innovative, and often riveting and heartfelt. — Philip Meyer

#8        Night Court (1984-1992) available on DVD

Night Court was society in microcosm. All sorts of crazy characters come out at night, and they end up looking for law and love in a courtroom presided over by a lawyer/magician. It can’t get better than that. — Christine Corcos

#9        Paper Chase (1978-1986) available on DVD

For better or worse, it gave law schools and professors their public persona. — Bob Jarvis

People remember the movie of the same name, but viewers of the television series lost track of it when it left CBS after one year and moved to Showtime. Professor Kingsfield endures as the greatest pop cultural professor of all time, and to this day some law students are a little disappointed when their professors cannot match him in nastiness. — David Papke

#10      Judging Amy (1999-2005) available on DVD

It was nice to see a television version of juvenile court and a fully developed judicial character, one with a complicated family and human flaw of her own. — David Papke

#11      Boston Legal (2004-2008) available online and on DVD

Transforms a premise somewhat akin to Ally McBeal and spins it cleverly into a law program for another generation. Students also
find Boston Legal “wonderfully entertaining.” — Philip Meyer

Sexual harassment of female employees was commonplace and treated lightly, and the canons of legal ethics were routinely flouted to win cases at all costs. Serious issues were trivialized, as was the legal practice. — Taunya Banks

#12      Law & Order: Criminal Intent (2001-) available on DVD

The series is interesting as a study of the human psyche, and both the perpetrators and the detectives give the viewer lots to think about. However, the legal themes are wimpy. — David Papke

#13      Law & Order: SVU (1999-) available on DVD

How many lawyers get their cases from a real-life rapper? — Bob Jarvis

This show is increasingly more a crime drama than a show that focuses on legal procedures. Further, we see police breaking the rules too often to achieve their idea of justice. — Taunya Banks

#14      Judd For The Defense (1967-1969)

The show provides a reasonable and pretty accurate portrayal of legal controversies of its era. — Taunya Banks

#15      Reasonable Doubts (1991-1993)

This show was a good show, but could have been better. I’m not overly pleased with shows that imply that the leads must or should have a romantic relationship. Why is that always necessary? But I very much liked the fact that it featured a lawyer with disabilities. — Christine Corcos

#16      The Practice (1997-2004) available online and on DVD

A great portrait of a bottom-feeding law firm that would take most any case to meet the payroll. Did a great job of portraying the personal life of the lawyers, which was often as unsuccessful as the lawyers were successful in court. —Michael Asimow

What I didn’t like about this show was the personal drama and the ethics of the main partner. Ellenor Frutt and Jimmy were more to my liking, but Bobby’s behavior, particularly with regard to his romance with the D.A., really bothered me. I realize that legal dramas aren’t reality, but so often they portray this kind of behavior and non-attorneys think it is reality. — Christine Corcos

#17      The Good Wife (2009-) available online and on DVD

The Good Wife herself takes and wins her share of cases, but what makes the show especially engaging is her complicated relationship with her ex and her constant battles to overcome the pain and mortification it caused her. — David Papke

#18      Petrocelli (1974-1976)

This was a well-written show with believable plots that accurately depicted what goes on in the courtroom. —Taunya Banks

#19      Matlock (1986-1995) available on DVD

Matlock portrays straightforward depictions of the criminal justice system with reputable lawyers. — Taunya Banks

#20      Shark (2006-2008) available on DVD

Very well acted picture of how an unethical prosecutor functions. There’s a lot to hate about the Shark, but the stories were always well written and acted. —Michael Asimow

I didn’t like the portrayal of this amoral character. The worst, most trite Hollywood-ish example of the “hired gun.” He fit in either as a defense attorney or as a prosecutor. — Christine Corcos

#21      Ally McBeal (1997-2002) availableon DVD

Ally McBeal was goofy, but downright funny. Who could forget the remote toilet flusher for the unisex bathroom or the dancing babies that haunted Ally? — David Papke

#22      The Defenders (2010) available online

This is actually an entertaining, amusing series. And hey, it’s Vegas, baby. — Christine Corcos

Sometimes it’s best not to revise a classic. — Bob Jarvis

#23      Eli Stone (2008-2009) available online and on DVD

Eli Stone was unfortunately short-lived, but featuring a lawyer with divinely inspired visions of the future was an intriguing twist. You could build quite a practice with that attribute. — David Papke.

I found the notion that one can only be good if one is spiritual rather shocking, and I didn’t like the underlying premise — that lawyers are “evil” if they are not “spiritual.” — Christine Corcos

#24      Judge Judy (1996-) available on DVD

Judge Judy presents a horrible image of what judges are supposed to do. Here’s a hot tip: Judges don’t belittle the litigants, don’t apply the law off the top of the heads, don’t encourage the litigants to act out, don’t mouth off about their prejudices and don’t controlthe evidence. This is reality television at its very worst. Judy’s commercial success is entirely underserved. — MichaelAsimow

#25      Judge Joe Brown (1997-) available on DVD

Judge Joe Brown takes himself too seriously. Your Honor, you are sitting in a mock courtroom with paid parties on daytime television. — David Papke

The Judges

*The judges below also contributed to the book “Lawyers in Your Living Room: Law on Television,” published by the American Bar Association.

• Bob Jarvis, professor of law at Nova Southeastern University Law Center, and the co-editor of “Prime Time Law: Fictional Television as Legal Narrative.”
• David Papke, professor of law at Marquette University Law School, where he teaches a range of courses and seminars relating to law and the humanities.
• Taunya Banks, Jacob A. France Professor of Equality Jurisprudence at the University of Maryland School of Law, where she teaches and writes about law and popular culture.
• Elayne Rapping, professor of American Studies at SUNY Buffalo, specializing in media and cultural studies.
• Michael Asimow, professor of law emeritus at UCLA School of Law, and the editor of “Lawyers in Your Living Room: Law on Television.”
• Christine Corcos, associate professor of law at Louisianna State University Law Center, where she teaches media law, entertainment law, advanced torts and gender and the law.
• Philip Meyer, professor of law at Vermont Law School, where he teaches torts, criminal law and law and popular culture.

This story was authored by Michelle Weyenberg and published in the January 2011 issue of The National Jurist.  Click here for the digital edition of the January 2011 issue or visit the the National Jurist website for more great content about law school.

Stay on top of all the latest information about law school with a free subscription to the digital edition of  preLaw and/or The National Jurist Magazines and by subscribing to Law School Podcaster’s shows!

Coming Up Next….for law school applicants and students considering a career in sports and entertainment law, you’ll want to tune into our next podcast, when we  spotlight the sports and entertainment practice area.

Whether being a lawyer has been a lifelong dream of yours or a newly discovered one, you will need to consider many things as you prepare to apply to JD programs. Which schools are “right” for you? Should you take the LSAT more than once? What should you be doing now to set yourself up to succeed?

These are just some of the questions you may be asking yourself, and we at jdMission are here to help you answer these and many more.

My name is Sunitha Ramaiah, and I am a graduate of Princeton University and Columbia University Law School. After graduating from law school, I practiced corporate law for eight years, while at the same time helping guide many aspiring law students through the JD application process. One day I had the opportunity to meet Jeremy Shinewald, the founder of mbaMission, the world leader in MBA admissions consulting, and together we decided to establish jdMission — an elite JD admissions consulting firm that helps candidates distinguish themselves from the rest of the applicant pool and secure a place in the law school of their dreams.

No one can deny that your LSAT score and undergraduate GPA (and graduate GPA, for some applicants) are very important factors with regard to which law schools may grant you admittance, but they are not the only ones that matter. We at jdMission strongly encourage you to dedicate a substantial amount of time to all the elements of your application, including your resume, your essays and your letters of recommendation. Why?  Because these components of your application provide a more complete picture of you as an applicant and an individual—and can truly make the difference between being accepted and being rejected.

An effective essay can demonstrate your strong writing abilities, even if your GPA is not as high as you would like it to be. A detailed resume can illustrate for the admissions committee the ways in which you would add diversity and breadth to the school’s next entering class. Letters of recommendations can attest to your strong capacity to succeed in law school, even if your LSAT scores are not stellar.

Law schools ask for a variety of information in various forms for a reason—to get a ultidimensional impression of what each candidate has to offer—so paying proper attention to all aspects of your application will give you your best chance of success. Be your own best advocate.

Do you have a question about applying to law school? Submit your inquiries to info@jdmission.com, and we might choose your question to answer in an upcoming blog post here at Law School Podcaster.

You can also sign up for a free one-on-one consultation with jdMission by submitting the form found at http://jdmission.com/consult.php.

And be sure to check back here every other Tuesday for tons of great law school admissions tips and  application advice. We look forward to hearing from you and wish you luck on your road to law school!

Things don’t always go as planned.

Especially when it comes to standardized tests like the LSAT.

But if you face serious trouble on or before test-day, or  your score genuinely falls below your expectations, it doesn’t mean you are destined for rejection at your top choice law school.  But there are important things to consider before you decide on next steps.

Our new podcast Cancelling or Retaking the LSAT:  What to Do When Test Day Doesn’t Go As Planned takes a look at this topic and runs down what test-takers need to know.   We talk with leading experts to help you understand why and when to consider cancelling your score, how to cancel, when to consider retaking the exam, how law school admission committees evaluate multiple scores and how to make your application shine despite a low LSAT score.

• Noah Teitelbaum, Managing Director, Manhattan LSAT
• Brad McIlquham - Director of Academics, Knewton LSAT
• Glen Stohr, Sr – Manager of Content Development for Grad Programs, Kaplan Test Prep & Admissions
• Richard Geiger – Dean of Admissions, Cornell Law School
• Sarah Streit, LSAT student

Tune into the full show to hear more!

Part Time vs. Full Time JD  -  Panel Discussion

Would you like to get a holistic view of what law school is all about?   One thing you’ll want to consider is whether a part-time or a full-time law school program is right for you. If you are in the NY area, you can attend a panel event on this topic to hear more about each program from the experts—the alumni.

The Law School Alumni Panel, including jdMission Co-Founder Sunitha Ramaiah, will be moderated by Kaplan’s assistant director of pre-law programs, Jeff Thomas, Esq., and will cover the following topics:

• Which law school program is right for you and your lifestyle
• Advantages/challenges of full-time programs
• Advantages/challenges of part-time programs
• The experience you’ll get in a part-time/full-time program
• Impact on internships, clerkships, etc.
• Q&A and much more

Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Time: 6:30-9:00 p.m. EST

Location: Kaplan’s Manhattan Center, 131 W. 56th Street, New York, NY

Price: Free!

To register for this event, please click here.

To hear more on this topic, you can also listen to our podcast, Part-time or Full-time Law School:  Which Makes Sense for You?

If you’ve been wondering whether you’re ready for the June LSAT (and it’s probably crossed your mind), the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) has just made it easier to decide whether to withdraw from a test administration right up until the day before the test. 

How is this news?  The blog Most Strongly Supported posted on the significance of the change in policy:

“At some point in the last couple of weeks, LSAC changed its withdrawal policy for the LSAT, meaning that you can now wait until the day before the LSAT to decide whether or not to take the test.  The big thing about this policy is that if you choose to withdraw up to the day before the LSAT, nothing will show up on your record. Law schools won’t know that you signed up for the LSAT and then decided to withdraw. It doesn’t count toward the three tests in two years that students are allotted. All you lose in the exchange is the $100+ for signing up, since there are no refunds if you wait til the day before the test. . . 

Before, you had three options if you weren’t ready.

1. You could make the call three weeks before to get a partial refund of $48.
2. You could not show up for the test, getting marked down for an absence.
3. You could take the test and then cancel the score within six days”

So, full steam ahead with your prep, but keep that in mind, just in case.

And here’s something else to keep in mind.  Our upcoming podcast, Canceling or Retaking the LSAT: What to Do When Test Day Doesn’t Go as Planned  tackles a related topic.  We speak with test prep providers and with the dean of admissions from a top law school to get insight into when to cancel your score, when you should retake the exam, and how schools evaluate multiple scores.  Guests include:

• Noah Teitelbaum, Managing Director, Manhattan LSAT
• Brad McIlquham – Director of Academics, Knewton LSAT
• Glen Stohr, Sr – Manager of Content Development for Grad Programs, Kaplan Test Prep & Admissions
• Richard Geiger – Dean of Admissions,  Cornell Law School
• Sarah Streit, LSAT student

Stay tuned for the full show!

Here is your section-by-section guide to perhaps the most important part of your law school application.

This is Part II of preLaw Magazine’s story, Spotlight on the LSAT

Logical Reasoning Section I & II

Time: 35 minutes each

Format: 24-26 questions each

Topics tested: The LSAT includes two scored Logical Reasoning sections. These questions are designed to evaluate your ability to understand, criticize, and draw reasonable conclusions from arguments. Each argument is presented in a brief one-paragraph passage.

Sample question: The supernova event of 1987 is interesting in that there is still no evidence of the neutron star that current theory says should have remained after a supernova of that size. This is in spite of the fact that many of the most sensitive instruments ever developed have searched for the tell-tale pulse of radiation that neutron stars emit. Thus, current theory is wrong in claiming that supernovas of a certain size always produce neutron stars.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A)            Most supernova remnants that astronomers have detected have a neutron star nearby.

(B)            Sensitive astronomical instruments have detected neutron stars much farther away than the location of the 1987 supernova.

(C)            The supernova of 1987 was the first that scientists were able to observe in progress.

(D)            Several important features of the 1987 supernova are correctly predicted by the current theory.

(E)            Some neutron stars are known to have come into existence by a cause other than a supernova  explosion.

Analytical Reasoning

Time: 35 minutes

Format: 4 sets, 22-24 questions

Topics Tested: These questions are designed to measure your ability to understand a system of relationships and to draw appropriate deductive conclusions about those relationships. The questions are presented as a series of four distinct question sets — or logic games. Adequate space for drawing diagrams is provided on the exam pages.

Sample question: A university library budget committee must reduce exactly five of eight areas of expenditure—G, L, M, N, P, R, S, and W—in accordance with the following conditions:

If both G and S are reduced, W is also reduced.

If N is reduced, neither R nor S is reduced.

If P is reduced, L is not reduced.

Of the three areas L, M, and R, exactly two are reduced.

Question 1: If both M and R are reduced, which one of the following is a pair of areas neither of which could be reduced?

(A)            G, L

(B)            G, N

(C)            L, N

(D)            L, P

(E)            P, S

Reading Comprehension

Time: 35 minutes

Format: 4 sets, 26-28 questions

Topics Tested: These questions are designed to measure your ability to read carefully and accurately, to determine the relationships among the various parts of the passage, and to draw reasonable inferences from the material in the passage. The questions are presented as a series of four distinct question sets.

Sample question: The following passage was written in the late 1980s.

The struggle to obtain legal recognition of aboriginal rights is a difficult one, and even if a right is written into the law there is no guarantee that the future will not bring changes to the law that undermine the right. For this reason, the federal government of Canada in 1982 extended constitutional protection to those aboriginal rights already recognized under the law. This protection was extended to the Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples, the three groups generally thought to comprise the aboriginal population in Canada. But this decision has placed on provincial courts the enormous burden of interpreting and translating the necessarily general constitutional language into specific rulings. The result has been inconsistent recognition and establishment of aboriginal rights, despite the continued efforts of aboriginal peoples to raise issues concerning their rights.

Aboriginal rights in Canada are defined by the constitution as aboriginal peoples’ rights to ownership of land and its resources, the inherent right of aboriginal societies to self-government, and the right to legal recognition of indigenous customs. But difficulties arise in applying these broadly conceived rights. For example, while it might appear straightforward to affirm legal recognition of indigenous customs, the exact legal meaning of “indigenous“ is extremely difficult to interpret. The intent of the constitutional protection is to recognize only long-standing traditional customs, not those of recent origin; provincial courts therefore require aboriginal peoples to provide legal documentation that any customs they seek to protect were practiced sufficiently long ago—a criterion defined in practice to mean prior to the establishment of British sovereignty over the specific territory. However, this requirement makes it difficult for aboriginal societies, which often relied on oral tradition rather than written records, to support their claims.

Furthermore, even if aboriginal peoples are successful in convincing the courts that specific rights should be recognized, it is frequently difficult to determine exactly what these rights amount to. Consider aboriginal land claims. Even when aboriginal ownership of specific lands is fully established, there remains the problem of interpreting the meaning of that “ownership.“ In a 1984 case in Ontario, an aboriginal group claimed that its property rights should be interpreted as full ownership in the contemporary sense of private property, which allows for the sale of the land or its resources. But the provincial court instead ruled that the law had previously recognized only the aboriginal right to use the land and therefore granted property rights so minimal as to allow only the bare survival of the community. Here, the provincial court’s ruling was excessively conservative in its assessment of the current law. Regrettably, it appears that this group will not be successful unless it is able to move its case from the provincial courts into the Supreme Court of Canada, which will be, one hopes, more insistent upon a satisfactory application of the constitutional reforms.

Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?

(A)            The overly conservative rulings of Canada’s provincial courts have been a barrier to constitutional  reforms intended to protect aboriginal rights.

(B)            The overwhelming burden placed on provincial courts of interpreting constitutional language in Canada has halted efforts by aboriginal peoples to gain full ownership of land.

(C)            Constitutional language aimed at protecting  aboriginal rights in Canada has so far left the  protection of these rights uncertain due to the difficult task of interpreting this language.

(D)            Constitutional reforms meant to protect aboriginal rights in Canada have in fact been used by some provincial courts to limit these rights.

(E)            Efforts by aboriginal rights advocates to uphold constitutional reforms in Canada may be more successful if heard by the Supreme Court rather than by the provincial courts.

Trial Section

Time: 35 minutes

Format: 22-28 questions, unscored

Topics Tested: The 35-minute trial section will look just like one of the scored sections (Logical Reasoning, Analytical Reasoning or Reading Comprehension). However, the trial section itself is not scored. The trial section may appear at any point during the exam, and you will not be able to tell which section it is. However, by the conclusion of the exam, you will know which type of section was included as a trial section.

Question Types: Could be from any other section of the LSAT test

Writing Sample

Time: 35 minutes

Format: 1 topic, unscored

Topics Tested: The 35-minute Writing Sample topic is designed to evaluate (1) your ability to formulate persuasive and cogent arguments, (2) your ability to write an organized, coherent essay in a short time period, and (3) your command of the language and the conventions of Standard Written English. The Writing Sample is not scored or evaluated by the testing service. Instead, the service provides a photocopy to the law schools to which you direct your LSAT score for their own evaluation.

Information about the LSAT is available from the test makers at LSAC.org. A complete sample test is available for free download at www.lsac.org.

Answer Key

Correct answer to Logical Reasoning question: B

Correct answer to Analytical Reasoning question above: C

Correct answer to Reading Comprehension question above: C

This story ran in the Fall 2010 issue of preLaw magazine.  Click here for the digital edition of the Fall 2010 issue or visit the preLaw Magazine website for more great content about law school.

Stay on top of all the latest information about law school with a free subscription to the digital edition of  preLaw and/or The National Jurist Magazines and by subscribing to Law School Podcaster’s shows! 

For more information about LSAT study options, listen to Comparing LSAT Test Prep Companies: Which One is Right for You?” 

 For more information about the LSAT, listen to these great podcasts:

• The LSAT: Everything You Need to Know About the Test 
• Conquering the LSAT: Tips for Tackling the Test
• Mastering LSAT Logic Games: Tips to Beat the Toughest Part of the Test 

The devil is in the details.  Any lawyer in practice knows that.  Law school applicants and students should too – especially as they consider the merit scholarship packages offered by law schools.  At least that’s one of the take-aways from an article published in the New York Times on Sunday, Law Students Lose the Grant Game as Law Schools Win.

The gist of the NYT story is summed up by the WSJ Law Blog:

“[S]some schools lure top students with offers of merit scholarships that pay thousands of dollars annually. The schools bolster their U.S. News rankings by attracting academic overachievers, but there’s a catch: the students must maintain high GPAs to retain their scholarships, which students often are unable to do partly because schools grade on a curve, thus ensuring that only a small percentage of student will earn the sort of grades needed to retain their scholarship money, according to the Times.

Students accuse some schools of a bait and switch by offering high-paying scholarships without fully informing prospects of the likelihood that they will be able to do well enough to keep the scholarships.”

Any first year law student can tell you the hard truth.  It’s not easy to beat the law school curve.  And that leaves many grant recipients in a tough bind.  (About 80 percent of law schools have these explicit merit stipulations, known as “stips.”)  The NYT story has some cautionary tales of students who lose their scholarships and are then forced to incur high debt levels to pay back tuition at schools ranked lower than the schools they might have otherwise selected, but for the attractive scholarship offer that lured them in.

As the NYT story details, there is the question of whether the law schools do enough to disclose the stipulations and terms of merit scholarships.  The ABA Journal post on this story provides some context on the call for increased disclosure of law school-related data:

“The group Law School Transparency, which backs better reporting of jobs statistics for law grads, has submitted a proposal to the ABA Section of Legal Education to require law schools to publish their law school scholarship retention data. Details are at Law School Transparency’s website.

Both the group and the Times cite a new research paper on the issue by University of St. Thomas law professor Jerry Organ. He also endorses better disclosure.”

This important information has to be readily available to would-be students.  Then, of course, would-be students must avail themselves of the information.  Upon receipt of a scholarship grant, a student should ask the question, “what does it take to keep this?”  After all, future lawyers should learn to read the fine print before they accept grants, take out loans or choose law schools. 

In our podcast Financing Your JD: How to Pay For Law School, Assistant Dean of Enrollment Services at Fordham School of Law, Stephen Brown, says law school is an investment and you should treat it as such. “It can be a good or bad investment, depending on what you’re looking to do with your life, depending on your choices. So pay attention to this as you would at any other investment. You find people to do more research on cars than law school, so that’s important.”

Take the Logic Games Challenge!  Manhattan LSAT posted Logic Games Challenge #31 and they invite our listeners to join in the chance to Win $200 off any LSAT Course or any Manhattan LSAT Strategy Guide (your choice!).  The latest challenge:  The Presentation Game (Easy)

Seven students – K, L, M, N, O, P, and R – give presentations, one at a time and in order. The following conditions apply:

• N presents before L.
• M presents after O.
• P presents after L but before M.
• R presents before K but after N.
• K presents after P.