Five Qualities that Law School Admissions Committees Look for in Applicants

You want your application to tell your unique story—but there are certain qualities that law schools are looking for in applicants, and you must prove you have those through your anecdotes. Here are some skills that you want to show in your Personal Statement: 

Intellectual curiosity. Law school is academically rigorous, and schools want students who can not only handle the workload but elevate the classroom discourse by engaging deeply with the material and concepts. Just demonstrating a record of academic success is not enough. Rather, you will want to show the admissions committee examples of situations where you went beyond what was required to better comprehend a topic. Show your commitment to asking questions, taking on additional research, and seeking out learning opportunities. Keep in mind that you can demonstrate intellectual curiosity in an academic environment but also beyond it – at work or in your participation with a charity or hobby. 

Critical thinking. Law schools look for students who are adept at problem-solving. In Psychology Today, Christopher Dwyer, Ph.D., Assistant Lecturer in Applied Psychology at the Athlone Institute of Technology in Ireland, wrote that critical thinking is the process of using analysis, evaluation, and inference to derive a conclusion. Show that you employ this process when making decisions or handling a problem. Demonstrate your ability to combine and review disparate pieces of information to examine a situation and come to a conclusion. 

Collaborative abilities. Law school and the practice of law are often team endeavors. Throughout your application, you will want to showcase your ability to work with others to accomplish a common goal. Consider the role you play within a group and how you help bring out the best in other team members. What has working in teams taught you about yourself? Law schools are looking for a diverse range of students. You don’t need to be the captain of a sports team or a club president to be a highly-effective and persuasive leader. Rather, you need to be able to articulate how your influence and openness promote the best outcome(s) in a collaborative environment. 

Persistence. Law school and the practice of law require commitment, fortitude, and tenacity. Show the admissions committee that you are up to the challenge by providing examples of previous situations in which you worked steadfastly towards a goal, despite setbacks or failures. Show your ability to face adversity and get things done. 

Ethical behavior. Law schools are highly-attuned to the character of applicants. You'll need to answer character and fitness questions honestly and thoroughly, of course. But admissions committees will also carefully review your application materials to ensure that you employ integrity and ethical decision-making. They want to see that you are a responsible, principled person. Share a story that exemplifies that you understand the importance of character in academic, social, and professional settings.

ABA Moves Forward with Motion to Drop Law School Admissions Test Mandate

On Friday November 18, as expected, the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar voted to eliminate the standardized test mandate for law school admissions. The proposal will now move to the ABA’s House of Delegates for a final vote in February. If it is approved then, due to a last-minute revision, the removal of the test mandate will still not take effect until the fall of 2025. This revision was enacted to provide law schools with time to consider new ways to gauge student readiness.

This is not the first time that the test mandate’s fate has been brought before the ABA’s House of Delegates for a vote. In 2018, the measure was brought to the House, although it was withdrawn prior to the vote, as it appeared unlikely to pass after diversity advocates lobbied House members to reject the proposed change.

Now stakeholders who are, both for and against, overturning the test mandate have aligned their position with the same goal of improving diversity within the legal profession. “It’s very rare that I encounter a situation where the proponents on exact opposite sides of an issue are citing the same issue to support their arguments,” said Joseph West, Chair of the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. 

Those who wish to see the testing mandate remain, including 60 Law School Deans, believe that the test provides a meaningful way for applicants to showcase their acumen and law school readiness. This allows law schools to take educated chances on students who may have lower GPAs. Without this score, the Deans argue, law schools will not have as much information to gauge a student’s likelihood of success in a challenging academic environment. 

Those who wish to see the mandate overturned argue that standardized tests “perpetuate racial gaps,” and cite research showing that white test-takers tend to perform better on the tests than those from underrepresented backgrounds. 

Related blogs:

New Survey Shows Most Law Schools will Continue Using Standardized Test Scores

Law School Deans Write Letter of Opposition to ABA’s Proposed Recommendation to Drop Standardized Test Requirement

ABA to Vote on Recommendation that Would Allow Law Schools to Drop Admissions Test Requirement

Two Law Schools Announce Continued Participation in U.S. News Ranking

Amidst a stream of law schools withdrawing from the U.S. News ranking, University of Chicago and Cornell University have just confirmed that they plan to continue their participation. 

In an email sent to students, University of Chicago Law School Dean Thomas Miles wrote, “Most of the data we supply to U.S. News is already public, and the rest is information we have no reason to withhold. The rankings of academic institutions clearly have a readership, and we wish to prevent the use of inaccurate information.” Making a similar argument, Cornell Law Dean Jens David Ohlin, writes in a published statement, “My own view is that the rankings distort academic decision-making, fail to adequately capture institutional quality, and create perverse incentives that are not in the best interests of students or the legal profession. However, withdrawal from the rankings process will not have the desired impact that many assume it will have.”

The only law schools within the top 15 that have not yet commented on how they will proceed with the ranking are University of Pennsylvania (Carey), NYU, and UVA. Ten law schools have joined the boycott of the U.S. News ranking: Berkeley, Columbia, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Michigan, Northwestern, Stanford, UCLA, and Yale. 

Update 12/6/2022: University of Pennsylvania (Carey) and NYU have announced that they will withdraw from the rankings. UVA has announced that it will continue to participate in the rankings.

Yale and Harvard Law Schools Will No Longer Participate in the U.S. News Law School Rankings

Yale Law School announced yesterday that it would no longer participate in the U.S. News ranking of law schools. Harvard followed, withdrawing from participation a few hours later. The two schools routinely topped the rankings with Yale holding the number one spot since 1990 and Harvard, most recently, taking the fourth rank. 

In making the announcement, Yale Law Dean, Heather Gerken, called the rankings “profoundly flawed” and criticized the methodology. “Its approach not only fails to advance the legal profession, but stands squarely in the way of progress,” she said. She specifically criticized the methodology’s treatment of students who receive school-funded fellowships to pursue public-interest work, or go on to pursue further graduate-level education. US News classifies them as unemployed. She also noted that the rankings reward schools that provide financial aid to students with high LSAT scores rather than demonstrated financial need, and that the ranking methodology does not incorporate schools’ loan-forgiveness programs, which can help ease the burden of debt.

Harvard Law’s announcement, made by Dean John Manning, noted many of the same methodological concerns as Dean Gerken. He also communicated that the ranking’s inclusion of the student-debt metric may reward not only schools that offer significant financial aid, but also schools that opt to admit wealthier students who do not need to take out loans.  

“Dean Gerken has made some very salient points, and like many, we have long been concerned about the U.S. News law school rankings methodology and will be giving this careful thought,” Stephanie Ashe, Stanford Law’s Director of Media Strategy, told the Wall Street Journal. 

The University of Chicago (ranked third) and Columbia University (tied for fourth rank with Harvard) declined to provide a comment to the WSJ.

Update 11/18/2022: The UC Berkeley School of Law has also announced plans to withdraw from the U.S. News ranking. As have the law schools at Georgetown and Columbia.

Update 11/28/2022: Ten law schools, total, have joined the boycott of the U.S. News Ranking. These include Berkeley, Columbia, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Michigan, Northwestern, Stanford, UCLA, and Yale.

New Survey Shows Most Law Schools will Continue Using Standardized Test Scores

On Friday, the ABA will vote on a proposal that would eliminate the requirement for law schools to use standardized test scores as a component of admissions. But, according to a recent Reuters article, new survey results from Kaplan suggest that the vote’s outcome may not significantly impact current practices at many schools.

Kaplan recently surveyed 82 law school admission officers about how their school would proceed if the ABA opts to eliminate the testing mandate. Among the respondents, which included admissions officers from 12 of the top 25 law schools, half responded that they are “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to continue requiring standardized test scores. Almost half, 37 admissions officers, replied that they were unsure. Just four respondents said that they were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to stop requiring a standardized test.   

Jeff Thomas, Kaplan’s Executive Director of Legal Programs, likened the situation to that of medical schools. He noted that while the medical school accrediting organization does not mandate an entrance exam, almost all schools still make use of one for admissions decisions. “Irrespective of how this vote goes on Friday, it doesn’t necessarily mean that anything in admissions is actually going to change,” he said.

Related:

Law School Deans Write Letter of Opposition to ABA’s Proposed Recommendation to Drop Standardized Test Requirement

ABA to Vote on Recommendation that Would Allow Law Schools to Drop Admissions Test Requirement

Harvard Law Students Demand Coursework and Clinics in Reproductive Rights and Justice

Last month, the Harvard Law School Alliance for Reproductive Justice, a student group, staged a sit-in on campus to shine a light on the school’s lack of movement on reproductive justice offerings. They noted that students have been demanding coursework in reproductive rights for a decade, but that the school has done little more than to provide a few elective courses with visiting professors. In a demand letter submitted by the group to the administration last week, the students requested a reproductive justice clinic, at least one dedicated faculty member, and a curriculum. In their letter, the students also called out existing offerings at other law programs, which include:

• New York University Law School Reproductive Justice Clinic and Advanced Reproductive Justice Clinic: This clinic trains students in the legal knowledge and skill required to secure fundamental liberty, justice, and equality for people across their reproductive lives, with a particular focus on pregnancy and birth. For current clinic work, students participate in advocacy and litigation around legal or policy frameworks restricting the autonomy and undermining the equality of pregnant, parenting, and birthing women; or punishing persons by virtue of their reproductive status.

• Yale University Reproductive Rights and Justice Project: Students gain firsthand experience in fast-paced litigation and timely and strategic advocacy in a highly contested area of the law, confronting knotty procedural problems as well as substantive constitutional law questions in an area where established doctrine is under siege. Students advocate for reproductive health care providers and their patients, learning the vital importance of client confidentiality, as well as the impact of political movement strategy and management of press and public messaging.

• Columbia University Center for Gender and Sexuality Law: This center's mission is to formulate new approaches to complex issues facing gender and sexual justice movements. The Center is the base for many research projects and initiatives focused on issues of gender, sexuality, reproductive rights, bodily autonomy, and gender identity and expression in law, policy, and professional practice.

• Cornell University Gender Justice Clinic: This clinic engages in local, national, and global efforts to address gender-based violence and discrimination. Issues covered include intimate partner violence, sexual assault, gender-based violence in institutional settings, discrimination at work and in the criminal legal system, discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation, and reproductive rights, among others. 

• University of California – Berkeley Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice: This center is a multidisciplinary research center dedicated to issues of reproduction and designed to support law and policy solutions by bridging the academic-advocate divide.

• UCLA Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy: This center is committed to training the reproductive law and policy leaders of tomorrow, while empowering the advocates and scholars of today. By creating a trusted hub on the West Coast for local and national convenings, the Center engages academics, community members, and practitioners to reimagine the landscape of reproductive health, law, and policy.

Online Law School Classes Boost Student Participation

According to data from the Law School Survey of Student Engagement, online law school classes promote a broader range of participation from students than in-person classes, particularly among women. 

The Success with Online Education report collected responses from 13,000 law students at 70 schools, and sought to understand the success of online learning in the law school environment. Online learning remains relevant due to the ABA’s recent expansion of online learning options for accredited law schools. Students may now take up to one-third of their credit hours for graduation online. Among the survey respondents, 50 percent had taken at least one online class. 

A quarter of students taking mostly in-person classes reported participating “very often” in class, and 31 percent of students taking mostly online classes said the same. But among women, 30 percent of those taking mostly online law school classes participated in class “very often” compared to 23 percent of those taking mostly in-person classes. 

In addition to increased participation, a comparison of responses between mostly in-person and mostly-online students showed similar proportions who agreed that they are learning to think critically and analytically, are developing legal research skills, and are honing their writing abilities. Similar numbers also reported developing positive relationships with faculty and staff. 

Related: Female Law School Students Speak Up More in Small Classes and when Professors Use Systematic Methods for Student Participation

In-House Lawyers who Attended Top-Ranked Schools Report Higher Compensation

It is well-documented that attending a top law school provides the best return on investment. A recent survey confirmed in-house lawyers who attended a top 20 law program reported earnings significantly higher than those who did not. 

The study, sponsored by the Association of Corporate Counsel and consulting firm Empsight, collected over 2,000 responses from in-house legal professionals. Respondents with a law degree from a U.S. News top 20-ranked school garnered 25 percent more in base salary and 41 percent more in total cash compensation, compared to other lawyers. 

The survey also called out other factors associated with higher compensation: 

• Legal specialty: Base salaries for lawyers in IP/patent litigation, entertainment, and licensing/royalty practices tended to land above the median salary, whereas those in insurance, government relations, and risk management typically fell below the median. 

• Firm experience: Lawyers who gained experience at firms prior to moving in-house earned salaries 20 percent higher than those who went directly in-house after graduation (a less common career trajectory). Less than one-fifth of respondents, 17 percent, went directly to in-house work after law school. 

• Years of work experience: Lawyers who graduated prior to 2000 have salaries that are 45 percent higher and total cash compensation that is 86 percent higher than those lawyers who graduated after 2010.

The survey also collected data on non-compensation benefits. The majority of respondents, 79 percent, reported that their employer offers remote work options. Just under two-thirds, 64 percent, take advantage of the offering by working a hybrid schedule. Twenty-four percent reported that they work fully remote. 

The Law School Application—Letters of Recommendation

Recommendation letters are not going to make or break your candidacy for law school—ninety-nine percent of the time, applicant’s rec letters are filled with glowing reviews of their academic abilities and potential. But, if done right, a letter of recommendation can reinforce and expand upon key themes presented in other application components like your resume, personal statement, and essays.

Here are some actions to take to make sure this happens:

Select the Best Recommenders

Most schools require two letters of recommendation and will accept up to three or four. At least two should come from academic sources (professor, teacher’s assistant, advisor) who can speak to your ability to thrive in a challenging academic environment. You may also submit letters of recommendation from nonacademic sources, for example a coach, professional manager, or volunteer coordinator. Of course, you will want to choose those you know will sing your praises, but also who can back up their claims (with specific examples) on your abilities in the areas of intellectual curiosity, problem solving, critical thinking, integrity, and perseverance. Don’t ask your family friend who is a Senator or Judge to submit a recommendation letter because you think his/her title will impress admissions committees. Save requests to contacts with significant influence at a specific school (say, they're donors or members of the board) for letters of support, which they can send separately from your application to the Dean of the law school. 

Take a Strategic Viewpoint

If your personal statement is anchored in a story that shows the reader your critical thinking and persuasion skills on a significant project, one of your recommenders could provide additional insight on this project in their letter. And remember, if one of your letters of recommendation further emphasizes your academic potential, the second should focus on other qualities, such as your ability to thrive in a collaborative environment. Furthermore, if you see gaps in your application, you may want to speak with one of your recommenders who could address them in his or her letter and share how you’ve grown from specific challenges. 

Set Your Recommenders Up for Success

Give your recommenders enough time to meet your request. We suggest at least eight weeks prior to submission. It is also helpful to give each one a short portfolio of information, which should include:

• School names and submission date(s)

• Method for recommendation submission (e.g., LSAC’s Credential Assembly Service)

• Background information (academic, professional) and your future career goals

• Illustrative anecdotes from your work with this recommender, with particular emphasis on the following topics: analytical/critical thinking, writing/presentation skills, leadership, teamwork, personal characteristics you want to highlight (e.g., determination, intellectual curiosity), and your ability to grow from feedback.

Frequently Asked Questions

I’m not very close with any of my professors, but have a great relationship with the volunteer manager at the legal aid clinic. Can I use her as a reference?

Law schools specifically look for recommendation letters to provide insight into a candidate’s ability to thrive in a challenging academic environment. You will need to have at least one reference from an academic source. Even if you aren’t close, providing specific examples from class discussions and course work will allow the professor to speak directly to the quality of your work.

Check with the law school, but most will accept supplemental recommendations. So you can also request a recommendation letter from your volunteer manager.

I’ve been out of school and working for a while now. Can I have my current supervisor write one of my recommendation letters?

Yes, if you have been out of school and working for a few years, you may ask your supervisor to complete a letter of recommendation. But you still must ensure you have one academic reference.  

The law school requires two recommendations, but will accept up to four. Do I need to submit four?

You do not need to submit the maximum number. Carefully consider the perspective and anecdotes that each of your potential recommenders could share. Pare down the number if you feel any of your recommenders will provide overlapping views of your abilities. However, if you have four strong relationships and each recommender can provide a unique view of your skills and character, then feel free to submit them all.

What if my recommender asks me, the applicant, to write the letter?

If a potential recommender puts you in a tough spot and only agrees to submit a letter that you’ve written, it is best to move on. It is often obvious to schools when an applicant has crafted the copy because of similarities in voice to other application components.

Dean of Yale Law School Responds to Judge’s Ban on Hiring Yale Law Clerks

By way of a public letter to alumni of Yale Law, Dean Heather Gerken defended the school’s approach to free speech and the “free and unfettered exchange of ideas” on campus. She outlined recent actions the school has taken to promote free speech, which, she notes, while readily apparent to students, faculty, and staff, they should also be known to the broader community. The institutional actions listed include the hiring of a new Dean of Students to support student discourse, disagreement, and resolution, revisions to the disciplinary code that prohibit secret recordings that discourage free expression, as well as the provision of free speech resources and a physical space to encourage students to meet and discuss disagreements face-to-face.

The letter comes on the heels of—but does not specifically reference—Judge James Ho’s (5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals) public announcement that he will no longer hire clerks from Yale law due to its “cancel culture.” In his declaration, he called out incidents in which conservative speakers were disrupted when speaking at Yale. "Cancellations and disruptions seem to occur with special frequency," he said. Judge Ho also called on other judges to join him. Currently, U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch is the only one to do so publicly. According to Reuters, over a half-dozen Republican-appointed federal district and appeals court judges have voiced that they have either no plans to join the boycott or that they actively oppose it. Ho’s fellow 5th Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee and Yale Alumni, responded to the ban in writing. “I regularly (and recently) have had Yale clerks who, consistently, are extremely talented and performed spectacularly in upholding the rule of law and supporting toleration for diverse viewpoints,” he wrote. “Instead of boycotting, I hope to receive even more Yale applications from qualified men and women, not only this year but in future years.”

Survey Finds Majority of Summer Associates Felt Law Firm Cared About their Mental Health

Summer associates surveyed by American Lawyer expressed positive feedback on their work experiences in the 2022 Summer Associates Satisfaction Survey. Over 5,400 associates responded to the survey, which asked questions on a range of topics including partner access and mentorship, associate interactions, interest in the work, and firms’ alignment with their own goals and self-image. Based on average scores across the categories, American Lawyer ranked the 2022 best firms for summer associates:

1. Blank Rome, 5.0 (tie)

1. Duane Morris, 5.0 (tie)

3. Kramer Levin, 4.993

4. Paul Hastings, 4.980

5. O’Melveny & Myers, 4.997

6. Stroock, 4.956

7. Allen & Overy, 4.944

8. Day Pitney, 4.935

9. Proskauer Rose, 4.929

10. Akin Gump, 4.915

The majority of the law firms received high ratings and nearly 90 percent of third year respondents said that they would accept an offer from their summer firm for full-time employment. Just under three-quarters of respondents said that they expected to have a career at their law firm. The survey also asked summer associates to rank their concerns. Alongside work-life balance, mental health and emotional well-being emerged as key priorities for respondents. Many summer associates felt that their firms adequately addressed those concerns and almost three-quarters said that they felt that their firm genuinely cared about their mental health. 

Non-Profit Pilots Innovative Law School Funding Model to Alleviate Student Debt Burdens and Promote Career Choice for Graduates

Stanford Law School recently announced it would begin piloting a new tuition financing method for law school students in partnership with a 501(c)(3) nonprofit called The Flywheel Fund for Career Choice. In an effort to alleviate student debt concerns and allow for students to have greater choice in seeking out legal careers, the Flywheel fund has created safeguards around repayments for both lower and higher-income earners.

The pilot program, set to commence this fall, will include up to 20 Fellows who are current students at Stanford Law and have not yet committed to employment post-graduation. The Fellows will receive up to $170,000 up-front to pay for law school tuition and fees, which will be funded by philanthropic donations to the organization. Repayment will begin when the Fellows start their chosen employment post-graduation.

The terms of the pilot program include the following:

• A 12-year payment term, with a maximum of 18 years.

• Fellows will not pay anything until they have started employment (no payments will be requested during any period of unemployment post-graduation).

• Repayment is tied to income, with special consideration given to both low and high-income earners. For Fellows earning less than $100,000 per year, Stanford has agreed to cover all payments. For those earning between $100,000 and $115,000, Stanford will cover partial payments. A cap is also in place for those who opt to take high-income positions, ensuring that payments are never out-sized. The cap is placed at $225,000 per year/$18,750 per month, and Fellows will not be asked to pay a percentage of their income beyond that level.

• Fellows will never need to repay more than they would have if the Fellow had taken out a Grad PLUS Loan at the rate in effect at the time they entered into the pilot program.

• Fellows will also take part in ongoing research on the various factors, including debt, that go into shaping their career selection decisions.

 “We believe this new model for financing a legal education can alleviate financial pressure, encourage students to pursue alternative careers more quickly after graduation, improve our LRAP [Loan Repayment Assistance Program] program, and have a ‘greater good effect’ in terms of helping to finance the legal education of future students at Stanford Law School,” said Frank Brucato, Senior Associate Dean for Administration and the CFO at Stanford Law School.

Almost Half of Young Lawyers Express Willingness to Leave Employers for Greater Flexibility

A divide between newer and more experienced lawyers is emerging in the wake of Covid. Earlier this week, the American Bar Association (ABA) released its 2022 Practice Forward report, which showed that almost half (44 percent) of lawyers with ten years of experience or less would be willing to leave their current employer for one that offers more remote work. Just 13 percent of those with 41+ years of experience said they would leave.

The report, published with the purpose of gaining an understanding of the “new normal” that legal professionals and employers face post-pandemic, includes survey responses from nearly 2,000 ABA members working in jobs requiring a law degree. 

Three-quarters of respondents expressed a willingness to work in the office any time their employer asks (81 percent of men and 68 percent of women), but the strong majority of all respondents—nine in ten—reported that remote work either improved, or did not adversely affect, their work’s quality. Women were more likely to report that their work metrics (work quality, productivity, billable hours) improved.

Almost half, 47 percent, of respondents said that remote work positively impacted their ability to balance work and family obligations. Among women, 56 percent felt that it improved their ability to find balance. Just over a quarter of respondents, 27 percent, reported that remote work increased the quality of their mental health while the majority noted that it had no impact (57 percent). Almost half of survey respondents noted that remote/hybrid work diminished the quality of their relationships with co-workers, and 61 percent said that it decreased their professional network. 

The report’s findings demonstrate that, in order to retain a younger generation of lawyers, firms and legal employers must create remote/hybrid work policies that are nuanced and cater to individuals’ needs rather than mandating one-size-fits-all policies.  

Pilot Testing Underway for the Updated, Skills-Based Bar Exam

Students currently applying to law school will be the first to experience the Next Gen Bar exam, which is slated to roll out in 2026. The updated exam will test skills identified as necessary for entry into the legal profession, will cover eight subjects, as opposed to the current exam’s twelve, and will use computers for administration, rather than the current practice of pencil and paper. The National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE), which oversees the bar, will continue to administer the exam twice per year. 

The exam is currently still in development with the NCBE finalizing the content scope outline for the test. The initial draft of the scope content was provided for comment in the spring of this year and stakeholders including bar examiners, judges, law school deans, faculty, and administrators, law students, admissions officers, and attorneys provided almost 400 comments. The NCBE has also started to pilot test item sets. The item sets, which are groupings of test questions based on a legal scenario or procedural issue, will ask exam-takers to perform one or more legal skills. Item sets are designed to gauge both a test-taker’s knowledge of legal doctrine, as well as their proficiency in applying the requisite legal skill(s). The NCBE will use the pilot testing to gain insight into the role that resources play in assisting test-takers, as well as the proper method to grade response items within item sets for reliable and accurate scoring. 

To learn more, visit the NCBE Next Gen Bar exam site. 

Law School Deans Write Letter of Opposition to ABA’s Proposed Recommendation to Drop Standardized Test Requirement

In response to the ABA’s proposed revision to eliminate the test requirement as a component of the law school admission process, 60 law school deans have submitted a letter expressing their opposition to the measure. They believe it will harm efforts to improve diversity in law school classes. “Without the LSAT as a factor, law schools may be less willing to take a chance on students who do not perform well on GPA or other metrics because they worked to put themselves through school, had to care for family, or for other reasons, but would enhance the diversity of our institutions and ultimately the profession,” the Dean’s letter states. “Students who struggle early in college, which sometimes happens with first-generation college students, may have lower initial grades and thus overall lower grade point averages. Test scores may help these students, both in determining which schools they should consider and in gaining admission.”

The Society of American Law Teachers also submitted a letter, written by Olympia Durhart and Allyson Gold, calling for a data review of the projected impact of abolishing the test requirement on groups historically underrepresented in law. They note that it is necessary, before taking action, to ensure that the measure won’t adversely affect the very groups which it purports to help. Further, they contend that law schools should “act as laboratories for admissions strategy experimentation to attack the larger structural barriers to the profession.”

In total, 51 individuals or groups submitted comments in favor of the proposal, while 49 submitted comments opposing the measure.

Related: ABA to Vote on Recommendation that Would Allow Law Schools to Drop Admissions Test Requirement

Tips for Acing the Law School Interview

Most law schools don’t interview their applicants. But among those who do, an admissions director or alum will typically conduct a 20 to 30-minute behavioral interview where they will assess your interpersonal traits, commitment to and aptitude for the study of law, and your interest in and potential to contribute to the school/community. They will also want to ensure that your interview is consistent with your application.

Begin preparing for your interview by thinking through your most meaningful experiences that will help demonstrate your skills and abilities in the areas of critical thinking, leadership, and teamwork, as well as those that reinforced your commitment to the study of law. As with your personal statement, you’ll want to show the interviewer your strengths and potential through specific examples, rather than limiting your content to claims.  

Below, we’ve compiled a list of common interview questions, by type, to help you with your preparation. 

Know yourself. This interview is about giving the admissions committee a view into who you are. Think about your interests, passions, and underlying motivations.

• Tell me about yourself. You’ll want to prepare an elevator pitch (consider a one-minute version, as well as a three-minute version) that provides an overview of your background and interest in law school. What have been some of your most meaningful experiences, that reinforced your commitment to the study of law?  Why? Are there specific experiences that prompted an evolution in your perspective so notable you want to include them here too? What led you to make certain academic and professional decisions? 

• Why Law School? Your response to this question should demonstrate your interest in the study of law. You’ll want to highlight key experiences in the areas of critical thinking, ideally in an academic or legal setting, that reinforced your desire to attend law school. Prepare also for related questions such as: Why now? What is your legal dream job? Where do you see yourself in ten years?

• What has been your most meaningful academic or professional accomplishment to date? Why? Prepare to speak confidently on any of the experiences you have listed in your application materials. What did the experience teach you about yourself? How did it challenge you? How did the experience reinforce your interest in pursuing law school? How did it change or reinforce your views of the legal system—and your desired role within it—in the U.S.?

• Would you change anything about your undergraduate education? Why? 

  If there is a red flag pertaining to your undergraduate education (for example, a semester with a low GPA or a transfer between schools), this may present a good opportunity to address it.  Without making excuses, emphasize what you learned from the experience and/or point to other areas of your academic record that are much more indicative of your ability to compete in a rigorous academic environment. 

  If you do not have a red flag to address, you may want to talk about that missed opportunity to study abroad or take a class in philosophy. Did an early disappointment ultimately inspire you to change your path to pursue law school after graduation? Be sure to link your chosen topic to qualities related to your law school candidacy. Prepare also for related questions such as: Why did you choose your undergraduate institution? What did you enjoy most about your undergraduate education? 

Understand your fit with the school. You must prove to the interviewer that their law program is the perfect intersection between where you’ve been and where you want to go. Do your homework and be prepared to discuss how your past experiences and future goals have inspired your interest in their offerings. 

• Why [specific school]? Look at the mission of the school, student organizations, courses, faculty, research and experiential learning opportunities, and come to the interview prepared to explain how you would engage. Keep in mind also that law schools are integrated in their local communities, so consider your fit here too. Do you have a particular interest in working within the state, or in a rural/urban environment? Did the location of the school impact your decision to apply to this program? Why? Prepare also for related questions such as: What do you hope to gain from our law school? What hesitations do you have with our program? 

Share stories. Use stories from your life to show your interviewer who you are, how you’ve grown, and what you will bring to the incoming class. Spend some time brainstorming and reviewing anecdotes that can be tailored to different behavioral questions and demonstrate the qualities law school admissions committees are looking for. 

• Tell me about a time when you challenged the group consensus. Tell me about a time when you came up with an innovative solution to a problem. To respond to a situation-based question, use the SAR (Situation, Action, Response) model. Spend about 20 percent of your response on the situation, and the remaining 80 percent on the actions you took and what resulted/what you learned. The SAR model also applies to a question like: What is your greatest weakness?  You will want to spend 20 percent of your response on the weakness, and 80 percent discussing the actions you took/are taking to improve, and what the results have been/what you’ve learned since beginning your improvement plan.

• What is your greatest strength? How would you sum up your leadership style? For questions where a simple claim would seem to suffice for a response, always take it a step further. Make a claim, THEN back it up with a specific example to illustrate that claim—in a group project, professional/intern experience, or extracurricular role.

Apply Point’s Tips for Success

• Outline the key points and experiences you would like to discuss within the behavioral interview and take responsibility for bringing up these points. It is most helpful to review all of your application materials again, and highlight those stories that will showcase your abilities and strengths in the areas of critical thinking, leadership, problem solving, and teamwork, as well as those experiences that reinforced your commitment to the study of law. 

• Nearly every response in a behavioral interview should include a story, even those that don’t ask you to recall a specific situation. This will not only make your interview more compelling and specific, but it will be much more memorable to the interviewer. 

• Speak about any recent accomplishments or events not included in your application. Continue to improve your candidacy even after you’ve submitted your application.

• Be proactive about bringing up red flags or weaknesses in your application. Address these head-on during the interview because they will inevitably come up within the admissions committee’s discussions. Rather than make excuses, talk about what you’ve learned and how you will continue to improve moving forward.

• Practice delivering your responses to interview questions aloud, and be sure to limit most responses (to behavioral interview questions) to between 1.5 and three minutes. Ask us for a list of behavioral interview questions so you can practice and prepare. 

• Prepare two to three school-specific questions for the interviewer that demonstrate your interest in and enthusiasm for the program.  

• At the end of the interview, thank your interviewer, reiterate to them if their program is your first choice, and send a hand-written thank you note.

Related: Law School Interview Practices

Law School Interview Practices

Among the top 20 law schools, interview practices vary. Some programs interview as many applicants as possible. Others opt not to interview at all. 

If you are invited to take part in an interview, optional or not, we recommend that you take advantage of the opportunity and schedule it as early as possible. It will give you the chance to expand upon the information in your application, demonstrate your maturity and commitment to the study of law, show that you will be a collaborative part of the law school community, and, most importantly, articulate your interest in the school by speaking specifically to courses, professors, or experiential learning opportunities that you’re most excited about. While the University of Michigan Law School does not facilitate evaluative interviews, they note that, “...schools that do employ interviews typically do so not because it enhances their selection of candidates, but because it enhances their ability to select people who are committed to attending the institution. In other words, they believe that if you are willing to attend an interview, you are much more likely to attend the school if you are admitted.” 

Below, we have compiled a list of the U.S. News Top 20 law programs’ interview protocols. 

Yale: Interview by invitation only 

The Admissions Office is piloting an interview program for the 2022–2023 application cycle. A small number of applicants will be selected for interviews as part of the evaluation process. Participation in this program is optional. Applicants who choose not to participate in the interview program, or who opt to participate and are not selected for an interview, will not be disadvantaged in our admissions process.

Stanford: Interviews are not a part of the admissions process. 

University of Chicago: Interview by invitation only 

We still strongly encourage applicants to take advantage of this opportunity to interview with a member of the Admissions Committee and will make every effort to move each application through the review process as expeditiously as possible.  Once you receive an interview request, it is in your best interest to schedule your interview as soon as possible. Interview slots are scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis. 

Columbia: Interview by invitation only 

Incorporating interviews into the admissions process is one of the channels through which we hope to meet the needs of our applicants. We are seeking to provide you with the means to learn more about Columbia in a more personal way, just as we hope to understand even more about you by having a conversation. Since we employ a holistic admissions process in which we do not use a grid or formula to determine admissibility, an interview will not carry any particular weight relative to the other application components. Rather, we hope that the interview will, in addition to allowing you to get to know us better, amplify what you have already included in your application for admission. Because of the nature of our selection process, the interview will be contextualized differently for each applicant.

Harvard: Interview by invitation only 

During the application review process you may be invited to interview. These interviews will happen throughout the admissions cycle, starting in November. The Admissions Office will contact you directly to set up an interview. Interviews are conducted using Zoom. As always, we will accommodate individuals who may be unable to conduct their interview in this manner.

University of Pennsylvania (Carey): Interview by invitation only 

The Admissions Committee occasionally may request to interview an applicant during the evaluation period.

NYU School of Law: Interviews are not a part of the admissions process. 

University of Virginia: Interview by invitation only

Every applicant who, upon review of his or her file, is determined to be a competitive and serious candidate for admission is contacted and interviewed via video call or phone, by an admissions staff member. Those who review files and conduct applicant interviews make recommendations to the Assistant Dean for Admissions, who conducts a final review and is charged with releasing decisions to applicants. In some cases, the Assistant Dean may consult with the Dean of the Law School before releasing decisions.

University of California, Berkeley: Interviews are not a part of the admissions process. 

University of Michigan: Interviews are not a part of the admissions process. 

Duke:  Interview by invitation only

When the admissions committee determines that additional information would be helpful in making a final decision, applicants may be invited to interview with a member of the committee. These interviews are optional, and offered by invitation at the discretion of the admissions committee. 

Cornell: Interview by invitation only

Interviews are at the request of our Admissions Committee only. 

Northwestern (Pritzker): Interview by invitation only

Interviews are optional and provide the Admissions Committee with additional information about the applicant's interpersonal and communication skills, maturity, and motivation. These conversations also help us to preserve the strong sense of community and cooperative culture for which we are known, while providing you with the opportunity to build your application.  

Georgetown: Interview by invitation only

Invitational interviews are another way for the Admissions Committee to get to know you. We have two interview programs, Alumni Interviews and Group Interviews. Both programs are invitation only at this time.

UCLA: Interviews are not a part of the admissions process. 

Washington University in St. Louis: Interview by invitation only

Applicants may be invited to complete an interview with Admissions staff. The Admissions Committee determines who will be interviewed based on factors in the application.

Boston University: Interviews are not a part of the admissions process. 

University of Texas, Austin:  Interview by invitation only

During the application process, the Admissions Committee may invite you to complete an online interview as part of your evaluation. These interviews are conducted by invitation only. If you are invited to participate, we will contact you directly with instructions on how to access and complete the interview.

Vanderbilt: Alumni interview by applicant request

We would like to know you better as a prospective student - and for you to learn more about Vanderbilt. That's why we offer admission interviews with VLS alumni as part of the application process, and why VLS alumni conduct interviews nationwide and in several foreign locations. 

University of Southern California (Gould): Interviews are not a part of the admissions process. 

Related: Tips for Acing the Law School Interview

Biden to Announce Student Loan Debt Relief for Earners Making Less than $125K

According to the New York Times, President Biden is expected to announce today that his administration will cancel $10,000 in student loan debt for Americans earning $125,000 or less per year (or households earning $250,000 or less per year). The administration will also extend the payment moratorium until December 31st of this year, with borrowers expected to resume payments in the new year. 

Along with this announcement, the President is expected to report that college Pell grant recipients will receive an additional $10,000 in debt forgiveness. 

Legal challenges to the loan forgiveness program are expected, which may make the timing for implementation uncertain. 

Law School Applicant Volume Dropped Significantly from the Historic Spike in 2021

The number of law school applicants dropped significantly in 2022, -11.7 percent, from the historic spike seen in 2021. The decline may seem striking, but taking a longer-term view shows that this year’s applicant pool may just be a return to the mean after a dramatic surge in 2021 rather than a concerning decline. When this year’s applicant numbers are compared to 2020, there is just a -0.5 percent decline, and the number of applications actually increased by 13 percent, demonstrating a continuing trend of prospective law students applying to more schools. 

The largest decline in 2022 occurred among applicants who identify as White/Caucasian (-13.9 percent). There were also significant declines in applicant groups who are historically underrepresented in law, and which the legal community is actively working to attract. There was a 10.1 percent drop in Black or African-American applicants, as well as declines from applicants identifying as Puerto Rican (-8.0 percent) and Hispanic/Latino (-5.7 percent). Other groups including Canadian Aboriginal/Indigenous (-13.7 percent), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (-13.1 percent), American Indian or Alaska Native (-11.0 percent) also had large declines, although the smaller applicant numbers in these groups create more variability in the change. Asian applicants also saw a decline (-4.8 percent).

This year’s data also shows that the largest applicant decline stemmed predominantly from the top end of the LSAT score distribution. The largest decline came from applicants scoring between 170 and 174 (-14.4 percent), followed by those scoring between 160 and 164 (-14.3 percent) and then those scoring in the highest range between 175 and 180 (-14.0 percent). 

LSAT scores are down overall from 2021, but it is worthy of note that applicants’ score distribution for this year compares favorably to applicants in previous years (2018, 2019, and 2020). The number of applicants scoring in the top three brackets, 165-169, 170-174, and 175-180 are all higher, while the number of applicants submitting lower LSAT scores (below 149) has declined. 

Employment Market “Strongest Ever” for 2021 Law School Graduates

The National Association for Law Placement’s (NALP) latest data release confirms that the employment market for 2021 law school graduates was “one of the strongest ever.” 

The report’s findings include:

• The overall employment rate for the 2021 graduating class, 91.9 percent, increased 3.5 percentage points from 2020, and matched the record employment rate set by 2007 graduates. Conversely, the unemployment rate (measured 10 months post-graduation) fell three percentage points in 2020 to 6.3 percent, and those unemployed and seeking employment fell from 8.1 percent to 5.2 percent. 

• Full-time, long-term, and bar passage required jobs, the gold standard among law school graduates, increased 4.3 percentage points from the previous year, to 76.7 percent—a record high.

• The percentage of those taking private practice jobs came in at its highest level (57 percent) since 2003. 

• An increasing proportion of graduates also entered into public interest employment. Employment in public interest has gradually increased over the past five years and this year matched the previous year’s record high of 8.7 percent. 

• Other employment sectors held steady. The number of 2021 graduates taking judicial clerkships came in at 3,402; it has been between 3,100 and 3,500 since 2008. Similarly, 11.1 percent of 2021 graduates chose government employment (non-judicial clerkship), which is on par with the 11 to 13 percent who have entered this sector post-graduation for more than 20 years. 

• The Class of 2021 graduates also garnered record salaries. The class’s mean salary increased 6.4 percent (from 2020) to $109,469. And the median starting salary increased to $80,000, up $5,000 from the previous year. Law firm hires received a mean salary increase of 6.6 percent to $137,844; the median salary increased from $130,000 to $131,500. Among the largest law firms, starting salaries jumped from $190,000 to $205,000 (and in some cases, $215,000). 

James G. Leipold, Executive Director of the NALP, summarized the findings in the report, “This is as strong a set of employment and salary outcomes as I have seen in my more than 18 years here at the NALP. Certainly, they confirm that the slight downturns in many markers measured last year were not the beginning of a larger downturn in the job market but instead were one-time downturns that reflected the market interruptions and many complicating factors brought on by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Notwithstanding those interruptions, the legal employment market for new law school graduates has remained strong, and as we have seen in the past, remarkably resilient despite economic challenges.”