Applying after PhD - Questions about Letter Writers and GRE vs LSAT Forum

[ihrenalten]

I am a currently ABD doctoral student in the STEM subjects. Throughout undergrad I was interested in law school, but ended up taking a fully funded PhD offer instead, which turned out to be a mistake. I am intending to apply to law schools, matriculating in either Fall 2020 or 2021. My advisor and I had sort of fallen out, and he is unsupportive of my decision to go to law school (thinks I'm crazy, strongly wants me to stay in academia, talks about it every other week). But I wrote enough papers to graduate smoothly next year, so it should have no impact.

Unfortunately, aside from him and one other research advisor (who also argued strongly against me going to law school), it is difficult for me to come up with other recommendation letter writers who both know me well and have been in recent contact. I can contact my previous professors from undergrad, but we haven't been in contact for 5+ years. Another option is to find a job and work a bit after my PhD and get my bosses to write the letters. I don't know whether any of these options make sense. Who should I seek to be my letter writers?

Another issue is: whether I should take the LSAT vs. GRE. I last took the GRE five+ years ago and had decent scores (167V/170Q/4.0W), but these scores have since expired. At the time, law schools only took LSATs, but now I see GREs are acceptable in lieu at many institutions. If I were to retake, I should be able to get the same or better scores given my growth over the years. On the other hand, I took some mock LSAT practice exams recently - I can score around 164-165 without preparation, which is too low for my needs. I may be able to get it to the 170's, but it would take many months of study. So is it worthwhile to still prepare for and take the LSAT given my GREs?

Here are my details:

-Current ABD PhD student in theoretical sciences (Ivy, but not HYP)
-Undergrad GPA: 3.92 (reputable large public university)
-Defending PhD in early 2020. But may want to defer law school until fall 2021 to avoid burn-out.
-Probably top ~20% amongst PhD students of my cohort. 8 papers (5 first-author), 140+ citations. Well above median but not a star.
-Took GREs 5+ years ago, got 167V/170Q/4W. Can probably get similar scores taking again
-Score around 164-165 on LSAT w/o much prep, no idea if I can get it to 170+, would probably take intensive prep over months
-Not many 'softs' or ECs. I taught a popular science course on a web podcast platform (for $5K usd) and that's about it. PhD students in our department are heavily pressured to focus their lives on research.

My goal: Want to go to the best law schools possible (otherwise why bother). Aiming for YSH or CCN + money. Something like Columbia Hamilton may be ideal.

Thanks for any advice!

[The Lsat Airbender]

Why do you want to go to law school? Depending on what STEM subject your degree is in you might be better off just going straight into industry, and "to go to the best law schools possible" is a rather shortsighted goal in and of itself. And you actual, long-term goals will inform the approach you should take to law-school applications.

[IPProf]

First, do think hard about why you want to go to law school; the grass may not be greener over here.

Second, think a little more broadly about letters. Does your undergrad thesis advisor still like you? Did you TA for anyone? Did you take classes? Is there someone in your department who arguably has authority over you that can vouch for you? Can you talk around one of your primary advisors to at least writing a passable "they're a good student" letter? You only have to fill the slots. Remember that they're not hiring you to continue in your STEM field; they care about more than just your research. Personally, I'd do 1 undergrad letter if you have a strong (if outdated) reference + something more recent so that law schools can have confidence you haven't suffered a complete breakdown since.

No idea on the LSAT v GRE question, but do take a careful look at your practice exams. If you have clear weaknesses (as opposed to random errors) you might be able to improve rapidly with concentrated effort.

[ihrenalten]

Why do you want to go to law school? Depending on what STEM subject your degree is in you might be better off just going straight into industry, and "to go to the best law schools possible" is a rather shortsighted goal in and of itself. And you actual, long-term goals will inform the approach you should take to law-school applications.

Hello, thank you for the response. About the "to go to the best law schools possible" part, I only meant that with-in the context of my law school application, it is not the full extent of my broader future plans.

To clarify, I am aware that with my background it is possible to get a very remunerative career in industry, possibly making more money than BigLaw. I am not applying to law school merely to escape academia or defer a job search. Apologize if I sound pretentious with this, but I understand that given my skills set, regardless of my current path I would be in a good situation financially 10, 20 years down the line. I would like to pursue a JD so that I can pursue a career that aligns with my personal ambitions and values. I do not want to leave any regrets of unfulfilled dreams when I am much older, by choosing to take the path of lessor resistance. I am and always have been interested in a public policy / political career, in particular I want to go back to my home town and run for mayor or possibly higher offices, and a series of world events in recent years only strengthened my resolve.

I come from an underprivileged Asian American background where even attending college was a significant financial burden, I had few resources when I was in high school and college and was a late bloomer academically. There weren't enough financial resources to support me going to law school right after college. Doing the PhD stabilized my personal and family situation greatly, and opened a large number of doors for me, it was a logical thing to do at the time. But being an academic scientist, software developer or hedge fund quant (the most common paths people in my field take) had never been in my long term plans. I am interested in public service and that is the primary source of my interest in the law.

[ihrenalten]

First, do think hard about why you want to go to law school; the grass may not be greener over here.

Second, think a little more broadly about letters. Does your undergrad thesis advisor still like you? Did you TA for anyone? Did you take classes? Is there someone in your department who arguably has authority over you that can vouch for you? Can you talk around one of your primary advisors to at least writing a passable "they're a good student" letter? You only have to fill the slots. Remember that they're not hiring you to continue in your STEM field; they care about more than just your research. Personally, I'd do 1 undergrad letter if you have a strong (if outdated) reference + something more recent so that law schools can have confidence you haven't suffered a complete breakdown since.

No idea on the LSAT v GRE question, but do take a careful look at your practice exams. If you have clear weaknesses (as opposed to random errors) you might be able to improve rapidly with concentrated effort.

Dear IPProf, thank you for your response, I honestly do appreciate it. I am fully aware that a JD would likely bring no net financial returns to me, but it would open doors to me that would be personally meaningful. To me, the opportunity costs are small enough relative to lifetime earnings to make it worthwhile, and I will always be able to seek employment outside the legal industry with my academic background.

I had two advisors for my undergraduate thesis and both of them have a great opinion of me, one of them was very supportive in my decision to pursue a JD while the other was less so. There are also two members on my thesis committee (out of four, the other two are my research advisors) who have been supportive of my work and my future goals. Unfortunately, I only had to TA once due to an external fellowship, and I had minimal interactions with the prof I TA'ed for. In short, I think it is possible to find 3 supportive letter writers including 2 recent ones.

My main concern is my main research advisor, every time I brought up the possibility of asking for a letter, he immediately dismissed it, he would sound somewhat angry and tell me I should stay in academia. I am afraid he would sabotage my application if I were to ask him for a letter. I don't know to what extent this might raise a red flag in the eyes of the admission committee, that my main advisor is not one of my recommenders. I would have to weigh the risks of that, versus potentially getting a bad letter.

Your answer brought some mental clarity to me and I'm grateful. Cheers.

[QContinuum]

I am and always have been interested in a public policy / political career, in particular I want to go back to my home town and run for mayor or possibly higher offices, and a series of world events in recent years only strengthened my resolve.

A J.D. is not necessary by any stretch to enter politics. It may even be a liability - you must be aware of how the average American views lawyers. At the least, I don't think you'd have any advantage running for office as ihrenalten, Ph.D., J.D. instead of "just" ihrenalten, Ph.D.

A J.D. will also not train or prepare you to govern. An MPA or even an MBA would be of far more use to you as a mayor or governor than a J.D.

I understand many have been motivated by the Trump administration and related developments in Europe and the Middle East (Brexit, right-wing populism in eastern Europe, Erdogan's consolidation of power in Turkey, etc.). But odds are Trump will no longer be President by the time you get around to running for any kind of elective office, and short of a really high-level national position, you wouldn't be in any position to have an effect on non-U.S. developments. (Even as POTUS, your influence over, say, right-wing populism in Europe would be limited at best.)

I will always be able to seek employment outside the legal industry with my academic background.

Let me caution you against making that assumption. Nonlegal employers view J.D.s with great skepticism. They view J.D.s as a flight risk (thinking they'll decamp for a legal job as soon as they can find one) and/or assume the J.D. must have "struck out" of getting a legal job.

My main concern is my main research advisor, every time I brought up the possibility of asking for a letter, he immediately dismissed it, he would sound somewhat angry and tell me I should stay in academia. I am afraid he would sabotage my application if I were to ask him for a letter. I don't know to what extent this might raise a red flag in the eyes of the admission committee, that my main advisor is not one of my recommenders. I would have to weigh the risks of that, versus potentially getting a bad letter.

Don't ask your main research advisor for a letter. Law schools won't care. They aren't assessing 0Ls for their research abilities.

Also, don't feel any need to submit more than the minimum number of required letters. I only submitted two LORs when I applied and that did not negatively impact my cycle at all.

[IPProf]

[
Don't ask your main research advisor for a letter. Law schools won't care. They aren't assessing 0Ls for their research abilities.

Also, don't feel any need to submit more than the minimum number of required letters. I only submitted two LORs when I applied and that did not negatively impact my cycle at all.

I agree with not asking the main advisor for a letter - don't take that chance - but you might want to submit three letters rather than the required minimum (often 2) if you can get good ones. You're hoping for special admission outcomes and have more of a story to tell given your age/additional schooling.

Having said that, 2 points on the LSAT will likely matter more than 3 letters v 2. Direct your stress appropriately

[QContinuum]

I agree with not asking the main advisor for a letter - don't take that chance - but you might want to submit three letters rather than the required minimum (often 2) if you can get good ones. You're hoping for special admission outcomes and have more of a story to tell given your age/additional schooling.

Having said that, 2 points on the LSAT will likely matter more than 3 letters v 2. Direct your stress appropriately

I agree that 3 terrific letters would be better than 2 terrific letters, if and only if the third letter adds value over the other two. This generally happens if the letter writer interacted with the applicant in a different context - e.g., if letter 1 is from the graduate thesis committee, and letter 2 is from a course professor, a third letter from an employer would add value (assuming, of course, that all of the letters are strong).

So what do we know of OP's potential letter writers?

I had two advisors for my undergraduate thesis and both of them have a great opinion of me, one of them was very supportive in my decision to pursue a JD while the other was less so. There are also two members on my thesis committee (out of four, the other two are my research advisors) who have been supportive of my work and my future goals. Unfortunately, I only had to TA once due to an external fellowship, and I had minimal interactions with the prof I TA'ed for. In short, I think it is possible to find 3 supportive letter writers including 2 recent ones.

OP can get letter 1 from their undergrad thesis advisor who was very supportive of their decision to pursue law school. OP can get letter 2 from a graduate thesis committee member. I'm not sure a third letter from the other thesis committee member adds too much value. But if OP is confident that the third letter would be equally strong, then including it won't hurt. If, however, OP has any reason to fear that the third letter might be weaker or more qualified than the second letter, then I would lean in favor of not including it.

[Npret]

What about law is going to be so personally fulfilling to you? Nothing in your background shows any background or reason as to why law school will be personally fulfilling.

I’m hesitant to recommend 0Ls go to law school for nebulous, feel good reasons. Maybe your advisor has good reasons for doubting your choice?

As to your question about GRE v LSAT- take a couple of practice LSAT exams and see how you do.

[nixy]

I don’t know whether the OP should go to law school or not, but I’m pretty sure their adviser doesn’t have any good basis for not wanting them to do so (PhD advisers are invested in training future academics as part of their own legacy, and rarely know anything realistic about non-academic options).

[Npret]

I don’t know whether the OP should go to law school or not, but I’m pretty sure their adviser doesn’t have any good basis for not wanting them to do so (PhD advisers are invested in training future academics as part of their own legacy, and rarely know anything realistic about non-academic options).

OP not being able to articulate a reason for law school is a good basis at least to me. Maybe the advisor knows OP is giving up a promising career? I don’t know why the advisor is opposed but the advisor knows OP better than we do and seems strongly opposed. Maybe it’s because of the advisor’s own self interest. I don’t know.

OP hasn’t come close to convincing me that law school is a smart choice for them.

[ihrenalten]

What about law is going to be so personally fulfilling to you? Nothing in your background shows any background or reason as to why law school will be personally fulfilling.

I’m hesitant to recommend 0Ls go to law school for nebulous, feel good reasons. Maybe your advisor has good reasons for doubting your choice?

As to your question about GRE v LSAT- take a couple of practice LSAT exams and see how you do.

I was always very interested in municipal and local politics, the fact that I can make my community better is fulfilling to me. Maybe it sounds silly to say, but I just feel a great sense of personal connection and belonging to my hometown. Issues like transit planning, zoning and real estate developments, school board matters, policing, affordable housing, trying to get large companies to come, etc, are all interesting to me. I used to volunteer and attend lots of public meetings as a high schooler as a recreational activity. I moved away for college and grad studies, but still pay close attention on local developments on web forums. If I don't pursue a JD, I would probably return to my hometown and try to work in consulting or some other position of social responsibility.

Perhaps a forum full of JDs would know better than me, it always seemed that for public service, which for the most part deals with drafting, creating and executing the law, one of the best preparations would be a JD. The last 3 out of 5 mayors, more than half of the senators, all the governors going back decades, etc. were lawyers. The ones that didn't have a JD mostly had MBAs and transitioned into politics after becoming famous and wealthy for something else. My understanding is that the conditional probability of a successful career in politics with a JD is much higher than for those without, but perhaps my understanding is naive.

[ihrenalten]

I don’t know whether the OP should go to law school or not, but I’m pretty sure their adviser doesn’t have any good basis for not wanting them to do so (PhD advisers are invested in training future academics as part of their own legacy, and rarely know anything realistic about non-academic options).

Yes. My advisor has a good track record of pushing his advisees into tenure track positions, and he devotes a lot of personal investment into this. It is his personal legacy.

He thinks I have a good chance of getting an academic job, so in his opinion it is stupid not to go for one. But honestly, the academic job market is a crap-shoot these days, people often post-doc into their mid 30s before settling down. For my discipline the positions are scattered across universities all over the place, mostly in places I'd never want to settle long-term. He is fairly upset when promising students of his leave academia for industry or whatever else, calling it a waste of time and energy. I'd imagine he'd be upset regardless of what I do afterwards, except for doing a post-doc.

[ihrenalten]

I agree with not asking the main advisor for a letter - don't take that chance - but you might want to submit three letters rather than the required minimum (often 2) if you can get good ones. You're hoping for special admission outcomes and have more of a story to tell given your age/additional schooling.

Having said that, 2 points on the LSAT will likely matter more than 3 letters v 2. Direct your stress appropriately

I agree that 3 terrific letters would be better than 2 terrific letters, if and only if the third letter adds value over the other two. This generally happens if the letter writer interacted with the applicant in a different context - e.g., if letter 1 is from the graduate thesis committee, and letter 2 is from a course professor, a third letter from an employer would add value (assuming, of course, that all of the letters are strong).

So what do we know of OP's potential letter writers?

I had two advisors for my undergraduate thesis and both of them have a great opinion of me, one of them was very supportive in my decision to pursue a JD while the other was less so. There are also two members on my thesis committee (out of four, the other two are my research advisors) who have been supportive of my work and my future goals. Unfortunately, I only had to TA once due to an external fellowship, and I had minimal interactions with the prof I TA'ed for. In short, I think it is possible to find 3 supportive letter writers including 2 recent ones.

OP can get letter 1 from their undergrad thesis advisor who was very supportive of their decision to pursue law school. OP can get letter 2 from a graduate thesis committee member. I'm not sure a third letter from the other thesis committee member adds too much value. But if OP is confident that the third letter would be equally strong, then including it won't hurt. If, however, OP has any reason to fear that the third letter might be weaker or more qualified than the second letter, then I would lean in favor of not including it.

I think I know what I should do for my letters now. Thank you and IPProf for taking the time to tell me all this. It is helpful and I am grateful.

[miskellyjohnson]

Law schools will absolutely not care that your advisor was not one of your letter writers. I know in academia this would raise a red flag, but I can guarantee you that top law schools do not care about it.

I would strongly recommend you take a class or two outside of STEM in the semesters you have left. Based on your interests, find a class or two about city planning, economic development, political science, etc. All ivies must offer these. Best would probably be a small, graduate level seminar type class where you get to know your professor well. If you can take two classes sequentially (say, summer semester then fall semester, or fall semester than spring 2020 if you are still around) with the same professor, it is great, but if not, you can still form a good relationship in one semester.

Your application to top schools is about putting together a coherent package. If you are a STEM major that says you are interested in city planning, then it helps to have a City Planning course or two on your transcript, and it will help to have a LOR from a professor of city planning that says "This kid was the only STEM major in my class, and brought interesting and diverse opinions in addition to being one of the best students I had."

One LOR from someone that knows your science/research side and one LOR from a social science professor that talks about that side of you would be a favorable package.

Have you thought about doing something like a Fulbright science research project? These are usually short (semester or two), pretty low stress/high prestige independent research projects carried out abroad. With your grades/ research credentials it should be in your ball park, and it would help with your 'burnout' while looking good for law school apps .

[cavalier1138]

I was always very interested in municipal and local politics, the fact that I can make my community better is fulfilling to me. Maybe it sounds silly to say, but I just feel a great sense of personal connection and belonging to my hometown. Issues like transit planning, zoning and real estate developments, school board matters, policing, affordable housing, trying to get large companies to come, etc, are all interesting to me. I used to volunteer and attend lots of public meetings as a high schooler as a recreational activity. I moved away for college and grad studies, but still pay close attention on local developments on web forums. If I don't pursue a JD, I would probably return to my hometown and try to work in consulting or some other position of social responsibility.

Perhaps a forum full of JDs would know better than me, it always seemed that for public service, which for the most part deals with drafting, creating and executing the law, one of the best preparations would be a JD. The last 3 out of 5 mayors, more than half of the senators, all the governors going back decades, etc. were lawyers. The ones that didn't have a JD mostly had MBAs and transitioned into politics after becoming famous and wealthy for something else. My understanding is that the conditional probability of a successful career in politics with a JD is much higher than for those without, but perhaps my understanding is naive.

Run for office.

You don't need a JD (and the politicians who had them are likely older, when there weren't degrees like an MPP). But especially for local politics, you don't need a JD, and city lawyers do almost none of the things that you're interested in.

[QContinuum]

What about law is going to be so personally fulfilling to you? Nothing in your background shows any background or reason as to why law school will be personally fulfilling.

I’m hesitant to recommend 0Ls go to law school for nebulous, feel good reasons. Maybe your advisor has good reasons for doubting your choice?

As to your question about GRE v LSAT- take a couple of practice LSAT exams and see how you do.

I was always very interested in municipal and local politics, the fact that I can make my community better is fulfilling to me. Maybe it sounds silly to say, but I just feel a great sense of personal connection and belonging to my hometown. Issues like transit planning, zoning and real estate developments, school board matters, policing, affordable housing, trying to get large companies to come, etc, are all interesting to me. I used to volunteer and attend lots of public meetings as a high schooler as a recreational activity. I moved away for college and grad studies, but still pay close attention on local developments on web forums. If I don't pursue a JD, I would probably return to my hometown and try to work in consulting or some other position of social responsibility.

Your goals and aspirations aren't "silly" at all. Wanting to improve and give back to your home community is a very noble aim. But again, a J.D. is neither necessary nor necessarily even helpful. Law school will teach you nothing about transit planning, or zoning, or real estate development, or education reform, or housing reform, or attracting corporate investment. An urban planning or public administration degree would help with most of the items on your list. A civil engineering degree might help with transit planning/zoning/real estate development issues. An MBA could help, w.r.t. attracting corporate investment, and possibly w.r.t. making government run more efficiently. A teaching degree could help with education reform. Law school is probably the least helpful graduate program you could pursue to prepare you for your aims.

Perhaps a forum full of JDs would know better than me, it always seemed that for public service, which for the most part deals with drafting, creating and executing the law, one of the best preparations would be a JD.

No, elected officials - at their best - formulate policy. They set forth desired results. "I want better transit options for neighborhood X. I want commercial investment in neighborhood Y. I want our cops to have body cameras." Etc. Legislators and mayors have staff attorneys to attend to the statutory/regulatory language needed to effectuate those desired results.

The last 3 out of 5 mayors, more than half of the senators, all the governors going back decades, etc. were lawyers. The ones that didn't have a JD mostly had MBAs and transitioned into politics after becoming famous and wealthy for something else. My understanding is that the conditional probability of a successful career in politics with a JD is much higher than for those without, but perhaps my understanding is naive.

Correlation isn't causation.

[Npret]

OP I’m not saying your public spirit is silly. I’m saying you seem to know little about law school, the practice of law and careers. You have a viable degree and potential jobs from that- maybe you can find another way to achieve your public goals.

I’m trying to convince you to do a great deal more research before you commit to attending law school. Clarify your career goals and then see if a JD is necessary to obtain those goals.