Top Law Schools

Trying to figure out if I should go to law school. please help, having a sort of quarter life crisis and want it figured out before LSAT season. I’m a junior with a 3.9 GPA, URM in more than one way, compelling life story, and pretty sure I could do well on the LSAT. I don’t know if I want to be a lawyer, leaning towards no, but not really sure what else I would do - i’m bad at math so an MBA or MPP is out of question. I think I could get into HYS, which seems like the only schools where it’s even a little acceptable for someone to attend if they aren’t sure they want to be a lawyer. I do think politics are interesting, but definitely could make a foray into that without a legal degree. The only thing is, I genuinely enjoy academic learning. I would get a PhD if I didn’t hate research/teaching. I think the theoretical concepts - social sciences, history, philosophy, etc that HYS are known for would be really interesting to learn. But is this enough to outweigh huge amounts of debt, the fact that so many people say law school is horrible, and a strong likelihood that I won’t end up being a lawyer? is it really true that a even a HYS law degree would look bad for “non-J.D preferred jobs”? (mind you I am not interested in anything remotely close to STEM). please provide any and all insight you have!

Work in a law firm for a bit to get more of an understanding as to what a lawyers day is like. Don’t go to law school just to go to school or stay in school. It’s a professional school designed for people who want to enter that profession. If you don’t want to be a lawyer, then don’t go to law school.

Don't go to law school if you don't think you want to be a lawyer. Working at a law firm is a good idea, or just go get random jobs (you should have options especially if you start now, you have an excellent GPA and you have another year of school) and figure out what you like and what you want to do and what you're good at. The world doesn't boil down to PhD/STEM/JD, and law school isn't going anywhere - you can always go back in a few years if you decide you want to.

northwood wrote:Work in a law firm for a bit to get more of an understanding as to what a lawyers day is like. Don’t go to law school just to go to school or stay in school. It’s a professional school designed for people who want to enter that profession. If you don’t want to be a lawyer, then don’t go to law school.

Does this apply even to HYS? I've been given the impression that those schools don't really fit that narrative.

nixy wrote:Don't go to law school if you don't think you want to be a lawyer. Working at a law firm is a good idea, or just go get random jobs (you should have options especially if you start now, you have an excellent GPA and you have another year of school) and figure out what you like and what you want to do and what you're good at. The world doesn't boil down to PhD/STEM/JD, and law school isn't going anywhere - you can always go back in a few years if you decide you want to.

nixy wrote:Don't go to law school if you don't think you want to be a lawyer. Working at a law firm is a good idea, or just go get random jobs (you should have options especially if you start now, you have an excellent GPA and you have another year of school) and figure out what you like and what you want to do and what you're good at. The world doesn't boil down to PhD/STEM/JD, and law school isn't going anywhere - you can always go back in a few years if you decide you want to.

Does the "don't go to law school if you don't want to be a lawyer" still apply to HYS? I was kind of under the impression that they are an exception to the rule.

I think this is a common misconception about HYS. The vast majority of people who go to those schools wind up being lawyers. The institutions (from the professors through the career counselors) are set up to train students to be lawyers and help them find jobs doing just that. (Things may be slightly different at Y, where people seem to follow non-traditional paths far more frequently than anywhere else.)

If you don't want to be a lawyer, attending even the most prestigious law school just isn't going to help you that much towards whatever you do want to do. Of course, it is a gold star on your resume, but I think you're better off with three years experience in your desired field than an excellent credential in a field you don't want to enter.

anonymouse919 wrote:I think this is a common misconception about HYS. The vast majority of people who go to those schools wind up being lawyers. The institutions (from the professors through the career counselors) are set up to train students to be lawyers and help them find jobs doing just that. (Things may be slightly different at Y, where people seem to follow non-traditional paths far more frequently than anywhere else.)

If you don't want to be a lawyer, attending even the most prestigious law school just isn't going to help you that much towards whatever you do want to do. Of course, it is a gold star on your resume, but I think you're better off with three years experience in your desired field than an excellent credential in a field you don't want to enter.

^all this.

It's still a professional degree intended to prepare you to become licensed to enter a specific profession. It's not for general learning or a generic degree or a continuation of college.

take the LSAT but probably work a year or two before you matriculate.
You'll be more competitive as an law school applicant as well as a big law applicant too. Plus you will be able to figure out if this is the career path you really want!

If you are really unsure about whether you could see yourself working as a lawyer, have HYS stats and no specific career path in mind but are interested in law school, I think the obvious choice is to take a full-ride at a lesser but still top-notch school. Pick the area of the country you want to live and go to the best school in the city for free and figure it out along the way.

In the end, you will probably end up being a lawyer if you graduate.

nixy wrote:

anonymouse919 wrote:I think this is a common misconception about HYS. The vast majority of people who go to those schools wind up being lawyers. The institutions (from the professors through the career counselors) are set up to train students to be lawyers and help them find jobs doing just that. (Things may be slightly different at Y, where people seem to follow non-traditional paths far more frequently than anywhere else.)

If you don't want to be a lawyer, attending even the most prestigious law school just isn't going to help you that much towards whatever you do want to do. Of course, it is a gold star on your resume, but I think you're better off with three years experience in your desired field than an excellent credential in a field you don't want to enter.

^all this.

It's still a professional degree intended to prepare you to become licensed to enter a specific profession. It's not for general learning or a generic degree or a continuation of college.

Thirding all of the above. Even at Y, the vast majority attend because they have a specific need for a J.D. The fact that Y allows people to pursue non-traditional paths doesn't mean these are paths unrelated to law. For example, half of Y grads clerk at the federal level, which certainly requires a J.D. When you hear of Y grads pursuing academia, that means law professorships, which generally require a J.D. When you hear of Y grads pursuing "unicorn" international law or impact litigation positions... guess what? These are legal jobs requiring a J.D.

Don't attend law school if you "don't know if [you] want to be a lawyer, leaning towards no, but not really sure what else [you] would do." There are so many other options out there!

Most cases of lawyers winding up in other professions (politics, sports agency, entertainment, VC firms, etc.) are the product of coincidences that happened to when they were practicing law. Most such folks didn't go into law school not planning to be a lawyer.

UBETutoring wrote:Most cases of lawyers winding up in other professions (politics, sports agency, entertainment, VC firms, etc.) are the product of coincidences that happened to when they were practicing law. Most such folks didn't go into law school not planning to be a lawyer.

I now have careers in multiple capacities (current titles: attorney/law firm owner, GC, tenure-track professor, CTO, advisor, business owner), and I owe it all to my law degree. The law degree opens doors, some people walk through them some don't, but they are open.

r6_philly wrote:

UBETutoring wrote:Most cases of lawyers winding up in other professions (politics, sports agency, entertainment, VC firms, etc.) are the product of coincidences that happened to when they were practicing law. Most such folks didn't go into law school not planning to be a lawyer.

I now have careers in multiple capacities (current titles: attorney/law firm owner, GC, tenure-track professor, CTO, advisor, business owner), and I owe it all to my law degree. The law degree opens doors, some people walk through them some don't, but they are open.

Congrats on those doors being there for you, but you must acknowledge that you are a wild exception to the rule. I mean, a tenure-track professor is a door that is so rarely present that it shouldn't be in the calculus for any law student, outside of those attending Yale or maybe Harvard. You cannot just point at folks who lack these achievements or options as "failing to walk through open doors," implying that a JD is some sort of magic bullet that can elevate one anywhere one wants to go. Tell this to the median-pawned 2L at a random T2 school. The story, generally, unfolds much differently for this student, because, for statistical purposes, a lawyer's first gig out of law school is extremely crucial to future doors opening.

BasilHallward wrote:

r6_philly wrote:

UBETutoring wrote:Most cases of lawyers winding up in other professions (politics, sports agency, entertainment, VC firms, etc.) are the product of coincidences that happened to when they were practicing law. Most such folks didn't go into law school not planning to be a lawyer.

I now have careers in multiple capacities (current titles: attorney/law firm owner, GC, tenure-track professor, CTO, advisor, business owner), and I owe it all to my law degree. The law degree opens doors, some people walk through them some don't, but they are open.

Congrats on those doors being there for you, but you must acknowledge that you are a wild exception to the rule. I mean, a tenure-track professor is a door that is so rarely present that it shouldn't be in the calculus for any law student, outside of those attending Yale or maybe Harvard. You cannot just point at folks who lack these achievements or options as "failing to walk through open doors," implying that a JD is some sort of magic bullet that can elevate one anywhere one wants to go. Tell this to the median-pawned 2L at a random T2 school. The story, generally, unfolds much differently for this student, because, for statistical purposes, a lawyer's first gig out of law school is extremely crucial to future doors opening.

Edit: I should qualify the above since I noticed that OP is only considering HYS. Yes, there will be more open doors than a random T2 school, assuming OP actually crushes the LSAT. Best of luck!

I think if you were able to manipulate your degree in A into opportunities B, C and D, it stands to reason that you'd be likelier to manipulate a law degree into multiple non-legal opportunities than the average law student. What I often see are people who, for example, failed to segue a sports management into any job in sports management who subsequently attend a lower tiered law-school on the pretense that will open doors in sports management. Typically, this does not work out well. I have also seen examples of people who are already in a field go to law school to advance in that field, and that has sometimes worked out quite well.

BasilHallward wrote:

r6_philly wrote:

UBETutoring wrote:Most cases of lawyers winding up in other professions (politics, sports agency, entertainment, VC firms, etc.) are the product of coincidences that happened to when they were practicing law. Most such folks didn't go into law school not planning to be a lawyer.

I now have careers in multiple capacities (current titles: attorney/law firm owner, GC, tenure-track professor, CTO, advisor, business owner), and I owe it all to my law degree. The law degree opens doors, some people walk through them some don't, but they are open.

Congrats on those doors being there for you, but you must acknowledge that you are a wild exception to the rule. I mean, a tenure-track professor is a door that is so rarely present that it shouldn't be in the calculus for any law student, outside of those attending Yale or maybe Harvard. You cannot just point at folks who lack these achievements or options as "failing to walk through open doors," implying that a JD is some sort of magic bullet that can elevate one anywhere one wants to go. Tell this to the median-pawned 2L at a random T2 school. The story, generally, unfolds much differently for this student, because, for statistical purposes, a lawyer's first gig out of law school is extremely crucial to future doors opening.

Thank you! And you make a fair point. But I would say this is less about your law school ranking than the person (as the poster just above this pointed out).

Specifically addressing your point: you could actually get a tenure-track (not law school) professorship position at a teaching university or community college if you teach well. I taught para legals in my 2L/3L years, and I could have gone for a tenure-track position teaching paralegals then. It does help (I will admit) that I went to a T14 school, but it certainly doable from lower ranked law schools. Most undergrad schools hire lawyers to teach. Business law is a required course and is taught by a lawyer. So if one were to hone their teaching skills they can find a way in as a professor. I have a few friends doing this from lower ranked schools.

A law degree really does "qualify" you for multiple things. Having a T14 degree makes it easier in multiple aspects, but not having it doesn't close the doors. Another way to look at it is: for students at T2 schools, what were their options before law school? Does law degree provide some incremental value to their career outcome? I would say almost always yes, but it takes vision and hard work to capitalize on the value.

r6_philly wrote:Specifically addressing your point: you could actually get a tenure-track (not law school) professorship position at a teaching university or community college if you teach well. I taught para legals in my 2L/3L years, and I could have gone for a tenure-track position teaching paralegals then. It does help (I will admit) that I went to a T14 school, but it certainly doable from lower ranked law schools. Most undergrad schools hire lawyers to teach. Business law is a required course and is taught by a lawyer. So if one were to hone their teaching skills they can find a way in as a professor. I have a few friends doing this from lower ranked schools.

This is wildly optimistic, especially the bolded. Lots of undergrad institutions actually don't hire lawyers to teach (and very few require students to take business law???) - they hire from the glut of desperate people with PhDs and teaching experience. Academia is one of the absolutely most saturated fields around. It's also hard to hone your skills as a college teacher without actually teaching college.

If you mean only specifically schools that offer paralegal programs/teaching in paralegal programs, that may be slightly different. But that's a way narrower field than "teaching university or community college."

nixy wrote:

r6_philly wrote:Specifically addressing your point: you could actually get a tenure-track (not law school) professorship position at a teaching university or community college if you teach well. I taught para legals in my 2L/3L years, and I could have gone for a tenure-track position teaching paralegals then. It does help (I will admit) that I went to a T14 school, but it certainly doable from lower ranked law schools. Most undergrad schools hire lawyers to teach. Business law is a required course and is taught by a lawyer. So if one were to hone their teaching skills they can find a way in as a professor. I have a few friends doing this from lower ranked schools.

This is wildly optimistic, especially the bolded. Lots of undergrad institutions actually don't hire lawyers to teach (and very few require students to take business law???) - they hire from the glut of desperate people with PhDs and teaching experience. Academia is one of the absolutely most saturated fields around. It's also hard to hone your skills as a college teacher without actually teaching college.

If you mean only specifically schools that offer paralegal programs/teaching in paralegal programs, that may be slightly different. But that's a way narrower field than "teaching university or community college."

Business law is a required core department course at my institution, and it was required to be taught by a lawyer. Every student in our department has to come through my class. There are always postings at teaching universities, and they almost always require JD.

Here, feast your eyes on these JD required teaching positions. https://www.higheredjobs.com/faculty/se ... JobCat=228

This is not an exhaustive list, not all institutions post on the site.

And to be very lawyerly about this, I said "you could actually get ..." The positions are there. I did this (business law -> tenure track). There are enough postings at B schools to tell you that it is a path, however small the number of openings is. Hence "could".

r6_philly wrote:

nixy wrote:

r6_philly wrote:Specifically addressing your point: you could actually get a tenure-track (not law school) professorship position at a teaching university or community college if you teach well. I taught para legals in my 2L/3L years, and I could have gone for a tenure-track position teaching paralegals then. It does help (I will admit) that I went to a T14 school, but it certainly doable from lower ranked law schools. Most undergrad schools hire lawyers to teach. Business law is a required course and is taught by a lawyer. So if one were to hone their teaching skills they can find a way in as a professor. I have a few friends doing this from lower ranked schools.

This is wildly optimistic, especially the bolded. Lots of undergrad institutions actually don't hire lawyers to teach (and very few require students to take business law???) - they hire from the glut of desperate people with PhDs and teaching experience. Academia is one of the absolutely most saturated fields around. It's also hard to hone your skills as a college teacher without actually teaching college.

If you mean only specifically schools that offer paralegal programs/teaching in paralegal programs, that may be slightly different. But that's a way narrower field than "teaching university or community college."

Business law is a required core department course at my institution, and it was required to be taught by a lawyer. Every student in our department has to come through my class. There are always postings at teaching universities, and they almost always require JD.

Here, feast your eyes on these JD required teaching positions. https://www.higheredjobs.com/faculty/se ... JobCat=228

This is not an exhaustive list, not all institutions post on the site.

And to be very lawyerly about this, I said "you could actually get ..." The positions are there. I did this (business law -> tenure track). There are enough postings at B schools to tell you that it is a path, however small the number of openings is. Hence "could".

I have to agree with nixy here. I do not doubt there are paralegal and other specific programs that require students to take business law; however, the vast majority of undergraduate majors and degree programs do not. The typical university/community college teaching position will want someone with a Ph.D., not someone with a J.D.

Also, I actually took a run down your list of "JD required teaching positions." I don't think your list does what you think it does. I clicked on one position randomly. The Monroe College post for adjunct instructors requires a "minimum of a master's degree ... Doctoral degree preferred at all levels." There's no mention of a J.D. While you'd probably be able to argue that a J.D. satisfies the "minimum of a master's degree" requirement, the position clearly isn't J.D.-preferred, let alone J.D.-required.

The next-listed position, for a real estate professor at Cal State Northridge, requires a "Ph.D. or other terminal degree in real estate or a related field." Again, no mention of a J.D. Maybe you'd convince the hiring committee to accept a J.D. as a "terminal degree in real estate or a related field." But clearly not a J.D.-preferred or required position.

The next-listed position, at the University of Wisconsin Stout, accepts a Ph.D. or J.D. At least this posting, unlike the previous two, expressly lists a J.D. as a qualifying degree. But there's no hint that a J.D. is preferred.

Finally, the next position, at Miami University's School of Business, does require a J.D. But that's a clinical position at a b-school, not quite the kind of position that comes to mind with your "university or community college" phrasing.

r6_philly wrote:

nixy wrote:

r6_philly wrote:Specifically addressing your point: you could actually get a tenure-track (not law school) professorship position at a teaching university or community college if you teach well. I taught para legals in my 2L/3L years, and I could have gone for a tenure-track position teaching paralegals then. It does help (I will admit) that I went to a T14 school, but it certainly doable from lower ranked law schools. Most undergrad schools hire lawyers to teach. Business law is a required course and is taught by a lawyer. So if one were to hone their teaching skills they can find a way in as a professor. I have a few friends doing this from lower ranked schools.

This is wildly optimistic, especially the bolded. Lots of undergrad institutions actually don't hire lawyers to teach (and very few require students to take business law???) - they hire from the glut of desperate people with PhDs and teaching experience. Academia is one of the absolutely most saturated fields around. It's also hard to hone your skills as a college teacher without actually teaching college.

If you mean only specifically schools that offer paralegal programs/teaching in paralegal programs, that may be slightly different. But that's a way narrower field than "teaching university or community college."

Business law is a required core department course at my institution, and it was required to be taught by a lawyer. Every student in our department has to come through my class. There are always postings at teaching universities, and they almost always require JD.

Here, feast your eyes on these JD required teaching positions. https://www.higheredjobs.com/faculty/se ... JobCat=228

This is not an exhaustive list, not all institutions post on the site.

And to be very lawyerly about this, I said "you could actually get ..." The positions are there. I did this (business law -> tenure track). There are enough postings at B schools to tell you that it is a path, however small the number of openings is. Hence "could".

Apart from Qcontinuum’s point about the degree required (which is important), the vast majority of positions at your link are adjunct/lecturer/instructor/part time - *not* tenure track.

And to be lawyerly back at you, my point was exactly that it is a small path - an extremely small path. For instance, I didn’t say that your institution doesn’t require students to take business law - I said most don’t, which I still think is true.

(You’ve mentioned in other posts the extensive experience you had before law school, and I’m suspecting this helped you here too in a way that wouldn’t apply to the average K-JD.)

Actually, counter to what you think, having a Master degree requirement makes JD more competitive: my experience has been (with 4 different academic institutions) that it is extremely difficult to recruit lawyers who can teach. So most institutions lower the degree requirement to masters or a related doctoral degree, but really prefer a JD to teach any "xxx law" class. Remember a master degree holder can get a tenure track position at a CC. That does mean having a JD makes you more competitive. When a school is large enough (say 5000-10000 undergrads), they may have to offer 3-4 sections of business law per semester, and that would justify a tenure track position all by itself. See data below, the JDs with tenure are pretty much all teaching business law in business departments (like me). And there are a lot more Business Admin departments which are not AACSB accredited. Adding on CC/JCs, there are a surprising number of tenured positions around. But since there is really only one per department, there isn't a lot of turnover. If you start as an adjunct at multiple schools and do a good job, you actually stand a decent chance of landing a full-time appointment somewhere. This is one area I think Adjunct->TT is more likely than not.

I did extensive research when I was considering my tenure-track appointment.There are a good percentage of JD-only holders at AACSB (business accreditation schools) schools with tenure track (I had researched to see if I should still go get a DBA for tenure purposes, my conclusion is that I do not). For tenure track business and a few other departments at 4 year colleges, JD is a terminal degree that fits the qualification for tenure/faculty standing in most business departments.

Data:

2016 AACSB faculty by terminal degrees:
PhD: 4975
DBA: 240
JD: 312
Institutions: 427 (therefore a majority has JD teaching business law. Also worth to note, adjuncts are not "faculty" so likely other schools have JD adjuncts)
Source: http://ijds.org/Volume11/IJDSv11p217-22 ... an2459.pdf


I am not necessarily trying to say that it's an easy path, but it is also not one well traveled by JD holders. So it might actually be less competitive than you think (as opposed to say with a PhD in social sciences field). Several positions on that list that I looked at have been open for quite some time and/or reposted (I have been looking at that list for 2 years).

I would agree with you guys that I do offer a lot more than K-JD, but I think the most important quality I have is that I am a very good teacher. But still, I just have not seen the specialty UG teaching market in business law very competitive.

ETA: there are 427 institutions in the study.

So what about the fact that about 4 of the positions on your list are actually tenure-track? (One is for a tax practitioner at a law school.) Also, many adjunct positions are posted on a rolling basis/stay posted to accumulate a pool of applicants rather than actually being listed to address a current opening.

Wrt business admin departments, your numbers show that only 5% hold a JD (90% have PhDs). Also business admin schools are a small subset of even teaching universities/community colleges.

I mean, I get that it’s a possible path, and it clearly works for you, but I still think you’re overestimating it as a practical path for most. In particular the way it requires getting experience as an adjunct first, which wasn’t initially mentioned.

(Also, retreading the OP, they state that they hate research/teaching, so this is all pretty moot, sorry!)

Nervousprospect wrote:Trying to figure out if I should go to law school. please help, having a sort of quarter life crisis and want it figured out before LSAT season. I’m a junior with a 3.9 GPA, URM in more than one way, compelling life story, and pretty sure I could do well on the LSAT. I don’t know if I want to be a lawyer, leaning towards no, but not really sure what else I would do - i’m bad at math so an MBA or MPP is out of question. I think I could get into HYS, which seems like the only schools where it’s even a little acceptable for someone to attend if they aren’t sure they want to be a lawyer. I do think politics are interesting, but definitely could make a foray into that without a legal degree. The only thing is, I genuinely enjoy academic learning. I would get a PhD if I didn’t hate research/teaching. I think the theoretical concepts - social sciences, history, philosophy, etc that HYS are known for would be really interesting to learn. But is this enough to outweigh huge amounts of debt, the fact that so many people say law school is horrible, and a strong likelihood that I won’t end up being a lawyer? is it really true that a even a HYS law degree would look bad for “non-J.D preferred jobs”? (mind you I am not interested in anything remotely close to STEM). please provide any and all insight you have!

Don’t go to law school when you can’t figure out what you want to do. It’s a huge mistake and part of the reason so many lawyers are unhappy. It’s a waste of time and money.
Don’t assume your HYS acceptance without an LSAT.
Try other jobs, there are many, many jobs in the world. Going to law school sounds like a huge mistake for you.

r6_philly wrote:Actually, counter to what you think, having a Master degree requirement makes JD more competitive: my experience has been (with 4 different academic institutions) that it is extremely difficult to recruit lawyers who can teach. So most institutions lower the degree requirement to masters or a related doctoral degree, but really prefer a JD to teach any "xxx law" class. Remember a master degree holder can get a tenure track position at a CC. That does mean having a JD makes you more competitive. When a school is large enough (say 5000-10000 undergrads), they may have to offer 3-4 sections of business law per semester, and that would justify a tenure track position all by itself. See data below, the JDs with tenure are pretty much all teaching business law in business departments (like me). And there are a lot more Business Admin departments which are not AACSB accredited. Adding on CC/JCs, there are a surprising number of tenured positions around. But since there is really only one per department, there isn't a lot of turnover. If you start as an adjunct at multiple schools and do a good job, you actually stand a decent chance of landing a full-time appointment somewhere. This is one area I think Adjunct->TT is more likely than not.

I did extensive research when I was considering my tenure-track appointment.There are a good percentage of JD-only holders at AACSB (business accreditation schools) schools with tenure track (I had researched to see if I should still go get a DBA for tenure purposes, my conclusion is that I do not). For tenure track business and a few other departments at 4 year colleges, JD is a terminal degree that fits the qualification for tenure/faculty standing in most business departments.

Data:

2016 AACSB faculty by terminal degrees:
PhD: 4975
DBA: 240
JD: 312
Institutions: 427 (therefore a majority has JD teaching business law. Also worth to note, adjuncts are not "faculty" so likely other schools have JD adjuncts)
Source: http://ijds.org/Volume11/IJDSv11p217-22 ... an2459.pdf


I am not necessarily trying to say that it's an easy path, but it is also not one well traveled by JD holders. So it might actually be less competitive than you think (as opposed to say with a PhD in social sciences field). Several positions on that list that I looked at have been open for quite some time and/or reposted (I have been looking at that list for 2 years).

I would agree with you guys that I do offer a lot more than K-JD, but I think the most important quality I have is that I am a very good teacher. But still, I just have not seen the specialty UG teaching market in business law very competitive.

ETA: there are 427 institutions in the study.

What does the fact you are a good teacher have to do with OP going to law school? Maybe they are a terrible teacher?

It’s a stupid move for anyone to go to law school by default because they can’t be bothered to find out about other careers. OP has little idea of what jobs are available to them in the real world and I don’t think going to law school is a reasonable choice until they’ve seriously explored the huge number of options available.

I also think OP is being overly optimistic about getting into HYS. The LSAT is a crucial, missing factor.

Agree that it's crazy to assume acceptance anywhere without an LSAT score, which is probably the most important part of the application and becoming a lawyer is a lot of work. Yes, you can do things other than practicing law with a law degree but the advantage you have in these fields hardly justifies the time and cost involved. Having strong analytical skills, which you need to do well in law school are useful in a myriad of industries, but it's unclear how much you develop these skills in law school. Although your analytical thinking is likely to improve to some degree, law school mostly rewards those who have these skills going in so outside of law, it's unclear what benefit, if any, a law degree provides.

If your diag is below a 160, it can take a year or more of consistent studying to get an HYS score. That's a lot of work, and this is the easiest, least stressful part of the entire process.