Top Law Schools

Hey I’m a Chinese diplomat and I’ll start the question very straightly:

I’d want to go to a US law school and after that find a job at a biglaw in NYC.

Here are the basic information:

1, GPA: 3.84/S by LSAC; LSAT: 165(2016)—170(2019)

Thank you all so much in advance

"Blanket the T14 and go to whichever is cheapest" applies here even more than usual.

The Lsat Airbender wrote:"Blanket the T14 and go to whichever is cheapest" applies here even more than usual.

Thanks thanks thanks should I retake? For t6 is it a must to pass 175?

Big big thanks

MCWoodhill wrote:

The Lsat Airbender wrote:"Blanket the T14 and go to whichever is cheapest" applies here even more than usual.

Thanks thanks thanks should I retake? For t6 is it a must to pass 175?

Big big thanks

170/S gives you an okay shot at NYU and Chicago but yes—you should retake if you're gunning for T6. 174 is the magic number, although even higher is of course a bit better.

Not sure if you know this, but that 165 effectively doesn’t matter to schools with the possible exception of Yale

The Lsat Airbender wrote:

MCWoodhill wrote:

The Lsat Airbender wrote:"Blanket the T14 and go to whichever is cheapest" applies here even more than usual.

Thanks thanks thanks should I retake? For t6 is it a must to pass 175?

Big big thanks

170/S gives you an okay shot at NYU and Chicago but yes—you should retake if you're gunning for T6. 174 is the magic number, although even higher is of course a bit better.

What about age? Is it possible for an old foreigner to get into a T14/T6? And job prospect?

MCWoodhill wrote:

The Lsat Airbender wrote:

MCWoodhill wrote:

The Lsat Airbender wrote:"Blanket the T14 and go to whichever is cheapest" applies here even more than usual.

Thanks thanks thanks should I retake? For t6 is it a must to pass 175?

Big big thanks

170/S gives you an okay shot at NYU and Chicago but yes—you should retake if you're gunning for T6. 174 is the magic number, although even higher is of course a bit better.

What about age? Is it possible for an old foreigner to get into a T14/T6? And job prospect?

I can't speak to biglaw hiring, but my understanding is that your age won't matter to law school admissions. By far the most important admissions factors are your LSAT and your GPA (and more the former than the latter for you, because you're an international applicant). A career as a diplomat strikes me as a pretty rockin' soft, too.

LivHandsome wrote:

MCWoodhill wrote:

The Lsat Airbender wrote:

MCWoodhill wrote:

The Lsat Airbender wrote:"Blanket the T14 and go to whichever is cheapest" applies here even more than usual.

Thanks thanks thanks should I retake? For t6 is it a must to pass 175?

Big big thanks

170/S gives you an okay shot at NYU and Chicago but yes—you should retake if you're gunning for T6. 174 is the magic number, although even higher is of course a bit better.

What about age? Is it possible for an old foreigner to get into a T14/T6? And job prospect?

I can't speak to biglaw hiring, but my understanding is that your age won't matter to law school admissions. By far the most important admissions factors are your LSAT and your GPA (and more the former than the latter for you, because you're an international applicant). A career as a diplomat strikes me as a pretty rockin' soft, too.

Thank you so much. Given the future uncertainty, I’ll be focused on boosting the score to the magic number and applying the blanket strategy.

OP: Do you have a green card? Anecdotally, it would suck to go through everything and not get citizenship. I don't think have to sponsor you or anything like that would be a deterrent job-wise but can see the lack of guarantee you can remain in the states being a slight issue if only for the likelihood that you can be a sunk investment due to factors outside your control.

Feel like I should raise the elephant in the room here, since no one else really has--OP's age.

Age discrimination is 1000% illegal, 1000% wrong, but also 1000% happens. And I can definitely imagine a universe in which BigLaw Firm X decides that OP is unfit to be a first-year associate because s/he won't be able to handle the hours, being bossed around by people a decade younger than him/her, etc etc. It would really, really suck to quit your job and take on all this debt only to strike out at OCI because firms have an unspoken 2L SA age cutoff.

Does anyone have experience with this?

LBJ's Hair wrote:Feel like I should raise the elephant in the room here, since no one else really has--OP's age.

Age discrimination is 1000% illegal, 1000% wrong, but also 1000% happens. And I can definitely imagine a universe in which BigLaw Firm X decides that OP is unfit to be a first-year associate because s/he won't be able to handle the hours, being bossed around by people a decade younger than him/her, etc etc. It would really, really suck to quit your job and take on all this debt only to strike out at OCI because firms have an unspoken 2L SA age cutoff.

Does anyone have experience with this?

I think his diplomatic connections will help him.

I agree he needs to convince people he can work for younger people but I can see OP getting into more specialized groups than your typical 2nd career 1st year.

LBJ's Hair wrote:Feel like I should raise the elephant in the room here, since no one else really has--OP's age.

Age discrimination is 1000% illegal, 1000% wrong, but also 1000% happens. And I can definitely imagine a universe in which BigLaw Firm X decides that OP is unfit to be a first-year associate because s/he won't be able to handle the hours, being bossed around by people a decade younger than him/her, etc etc. It would really, really suck to quit your job and take on all this debt only to strike out at OCI because firms have an unspoken 2L SA age cutoff.

Does anyone have experience with this?

I think looks factor in here. Idk if they will intentionally ding someone if they are old according to their resume. If OP looks 40, they may ding them under the pretense of fit. I think discrimination today generally happens unintentionally, and is die to subconscious biases moreso than planned ones.

LSATWiz.com wrote:

LBJ's Hair wrote:Feel like I should raise the elephant in the room here, since no one else really has--OP's age.

Age discrimination is 1000% illegal, 1000% wrong, but also 1000% happens. And I can definitely imagine a universe in which BigLaw Firm X decides that OP is unfit to be a first-year associate because s/he won't be able to handle the hours, being bossed around by people a decade younger than him/her, etc etc. It would really, really suck to quit your job and take on all this debt only to strike out at OCI because firms have an unspoken 2L SA age cutoff.

Does anyone have experience with this?

I think looks factor in here. Idk if they will intentionally ding someone if they are old according to their resume. If OP looks 40, they may ding them under the pretense of fit. I think discrimination today generally happens unintentionally, and is die to subconscious biases moreso than planned ones.

Anecdotally, I know someone who is around 40, looks fantastic, law review experience, and is very charismatic (can’t imagine a bad interviewer), who struck out at OCI. This person was asked whether he/she would feel comfortable with younger people having authority and other age-related questions. Not necessarily convincing evidence, but something to think about for older adults heading into law school.

I’m good friends with someone who went to law school at 38. Admittedly he tends to look younger than his age, but he ended up in biglaw just fine. From what he said, there are definitely some firms who favor the shiny, new, and moldable associates, but there are enough who value other things more (experience, law school performance, etc) that 38 isn’t a deal-killer at all. I suppose it’s possible you might not have quite as much leeway on qualifications as younger person, but I think good experience can make up for that.

He did regularly get asked about taking direction from/working with people who are younger than he is, but if you can answer this question effectively I think you erase the concern. He could speak directly to doing e-board/moot court board with lots of younger folks and that seemed to assuage people’s concerns.

LBJ's Hair wrote:Feel like I should raise the elephant in the room here, since no one else really has--OP's age.

Age discrimination is 1000% illegal, 1000% wrong, but also 1000% happens. And I can definitely imagine a universe in which BigLaw Firm X decides that OP is unfit to be a first-year associate because s/he won't be able to handle the hours, being bossed around by people a decade younger than him/her, etc etc. It would really, really suck to quit your job and take on all this debt only to strike out at OCI because firms have an unspoken 2L SA age cutoff.

Does anyone have experience with this?

I’m a Chinese diplomat, in this sense I’m an obsequious—if it’s so strong a word, at least an obedient—person.

I worked in NYC for four years and during that time I often worked long

MCWoodhill wrote:

LBJ's Hair wrote:Feel like I should raise the elephant in the room here, since no one else really has--OP's age.

Age discrimination is 1000% illegal, 1000% wrong, but also 1000% happens. And I can definitely imagine a universe in which BigLaw Firm X decides that OP is unfit to be a first-year associate because s/he won't be able to handle the hours, being bossed around by people a decade younger than him/her, etc etc. It would really, really suck to quit your job and take on all this debt only to strike out at OCI because firms have an unspoken 2L SA age cutoff.

Does anyone have experience with this?

I’m a Chinese diplomat, in this sense I’m an obsequious—if it’s so strong a word, at least an obedient—person.

I worked in NYC for four years and during that time I often worked long

I'm not questioning whether you'd do a good job, *at all*. I'm saying you may be *perceived by others* as too old.

LBJ's Hair wrote:

MCWoodhill wrote:

LBJ's Hair wrote:Feel like I should raise the elephant in the room here, since no one else really has--OP's age.

Age discrimination is 1000% illegal, 1000% wrong, but also 1000% happens. And I can definitely imagine a universe in which BigLaw Firm X decides that OP is unfit to be a first-year associate because s/he won't be able to handle the hours, being bossed around by people a decade younger than him/her, etc etc. It would really, really suck to quit your job and take on all this debt only to strike out at OCI because firms have an unspoken 2L SA age cutoff.

Does anyone have experience with this?

I’m a Chinese diplomat, in this sense I’m an obsequious—if it’s so strong a word, at least an obedient—person.

I worked in NYC for four years and during that time I often worked long

I'm not questioning whether you'd do a good job, *at all*. I'm saying you may be *perceived by others* as too old.

I think if OP works with his career services to do interview prep and finds fun/casual ways to address it and is a good interviewer generally who checks the other boxes the interviewer is looking for, age wouldn’t be the deciding factor.

Additionally, if OP has good relationships with Chinese firms or contacts, as well as extensive experience with cultural business norms, deep understanding of certain dynamics in the market, there’s a situation where that’s really valued by certain firms. I agree, it’s likely that a few firms might immediately discount him because of his age and background, but others interests might be piqued especially if he’s open to certain practice areas and offices.

I also think to OP’s point that firms do like someone who knows how to work long hours and is good with hierarchy/ authority - anecdotally the only ex-diplomat I know got hired at a V5, but she’s also early 30s so the age thing isn’t as big a factor (and tbf she looks/ acts young and is super attractive). As I said above, i think this is definitely something to work on with career services but not Insurmountable, and I will say the older guy in my section (late 30s, several kids) did really well OCI (but again, anecdotal)