LSAT on resume

[....,,.,]

I got requests for undergrad transcript for the offers I received before I had any law school grades. 

Well there you go. I guess this does happen sometimes. During the beginning of the 1L job search, before you have law school grades, is the only time that it's likely to matter to anyone at all.

I actually had two 2L OCI employers request my undergrad transcript as well. I don't remember who it was, though.

Well, I stand doubly corrected. I hadn't heard of anyone asking for an undergrad transcript before, but now I have.

I never got asked, even for 1L jobs before I had any law school grades.  But I think it might be a little more common for IP people.  I think most employers at the patent fair in Chicago asked for UG transcripts.

[CST]

2) I think the best reason for the overall policy of not using it is not so much how you come off to law firms (I would hope attorneys at law firms are not so thin-skinned that they bristle at the sight of a test score) but that as a profession we want to keep the shelf life of an LSAT score as short as possible.  If LSAT scores were fair game for resumes, everyone would either have to put it on there or have potential employers wonder why it's not there.  It's in the best interest of everyone not to have it on there. 

You have this all wrong. You are entirely missing the point of a resume. You don't exclude an LSAT because you fear the attorneys are thin-skinned. (Do you think we are intimidated by your score?) You exclude it because it says nothing meaningful about what you will contribute to our office. Further, including it if you weren't asked for it, demonstrates that you don't understand what we are looking for. It also suggests to many attorneys that you are immature or egotistical.

The entire purpose of a resume is to market yourself to a potential employer. Many, many people starting out in their careers see it instead as either a dumping ground for everything they have ever done, or some sort of "brag sheet." Yes, you want to portray yourself in a the most favorable light possible, but to do that you need to look at it from the perspective of the employer. There are some times where you may feel the need to include something to "be true to yourself" because you wouldn't want to work for an organization if you felt the need to "hide" part of who you are (people who are heavily involved in certain causes and they run through their work experience, for example." But I hope that your LSAT score is not "who you are." If it is and that is the reason you are including it on your resume, well, you'll wind up where you belong -- but you'll also cut yourself out of the running of a lot of jobs in the process.

Employers have already dictated that the shelf life of the LSAT is limited to the moment you choose your law school. They enforce that policy by dumping the resumes that try to squeeze more milage out of it into the trash.

People talked a little about this earlier in the thread, but what are your thoughts on putting undergrad GPA on your resume?  I assume latin honors should always be there, and I'd imagine a high GPA (3.5+) should probably be there too.  What about average gpas (3.0-3.5), or bad ones GPAs?

Latin honors should be on a resume. GPA is a bit trickier. If you have latin honors, then no. If you don't have latin honors, it will be a judgment call. Generally, the rule of thumb is that if you don't list your GPA it is below a 3.5. So if your GPA is 3.5 or above and you don't have latin honors, then you probably should list it. If it is below 3.5, then you probably don't want to bother, unless you are afraid that an employer would think that it is well below 3.5 and it is actually close to it. If you are well below, then don't list it. You may also choose not to list it on your resume if it is lower than what an employer would assume given where you are attending law school. (If an employer requests the information, though, of course provide it.)

As for what materials to send in, cover letter and resume are standard. Be sure, though, to check out the web sites of all the places you are applying to, as they will often list their requirements. If you are unable to send in one of the required components, don't just not send it. Address in the cover letter why you can't send it in and when you will be able to submit it or what you might be able to provide in the alternative. Make sure that the recruiting coordinator doesn't think you were just careless. Of course give complete contact information so that an employer can get in touch with you if the do want additional materials.

[,.,.,.;.,.,.]

I agree with Cady.  During my lone callback, they seemed pretty impressed with my UG GPA.  They didn't ask for the transcript, but it definitely seemed like a huge point in my favor.

[....,,.,]

Latin honors should be on a resume. GPA is a bit trickier. If you have latin honors, then no. If you don't have latin honors, it will be a judgment call. Generally, the rule of thumb is that if you don't list your GPA it is below a 3.5. So if your GPA is 3.5 or above and you don't have latin honors, then you probably should list it. If it is below 3.5, then you probably don't want to bother, unless you are afraid that an employer would think that it is well below 3.5 and it is actually close to it. If you are well below, then don't list it. You may also choose not to list it on your resume if it is lower than what an employer would assume given where you are attending law school. (If an employer requests the information, though, of course provide it.)

Yeah, that's probably what I would have done.  Below 3.5 I probably would have left off.

I agree with Cady.  During my lone callback, they seemed pretty impressed with my UG GPA.  They didn't ask for the transcript, but it definitely seemed like a huge point in my favor.

Yeah, you had like a 4.0 right?  Did you put that in place of "summa" or whatever honors your school gave, or in addition to it?

[Thistle]

ive never been asked either, but 3.5 as mentioned above sounds reasonable.

[,.,.,.;.,.,.]

I put both my GPA and my summa designation next to it.  I also told them I graduated early.  Inter alia, the distinctions made me seem like a very hard worker, and I think they liked that.

[....,,.,]

I put both my GPA and my summa designation next to it.  I also told them I graduated early.  Inter alia, the distinctions made me seem like a very hard worker, and I think they liked that.

Yeah, that makes sense when you have an amazing GPA.  I just barely cracked summa in one of my degrees, and I was magna in the other, so I just put those and left off the number.

[,.,.,.;.,.,.]

I put both my GPA and my summa designation next to it.  I also told them I graduated early.  Inter alia, the distinctions made me seem like a very hard worker, and I think they liked that.

Yeah, that makes sense when you have an amazing GPA.  I just barely cracked summa in one of my degrees, and I was magna in the other, so I just put those and left off the number.

The converse is that I'll probably leave it off if things don't go as well with this degree.  Otherwise, it might say that the degree was easy, or that I became complacent here at Chi, or a number of other things that remind you of information failures and Elements.

I think you did the right thing.  If you look at firm websites, they love putting "magna" and "summa" and stuff, and so that communicates all they need to know.

[TeresaPinfold]

I have the equivalent of cum laude ("with distinction") and a 3.73 GPA, which seems to meet the threshold for inclusion. On the other hand, I have a full scholarship, so they might assume I have better - should I put either GPA or honors on?

[Connelly]

If you don't go to a school that usually attracts people with 179s, your LSAT score will put a red flag on your resume: why isn't this guy at Yale?  

I stopped reading the thread after this post, but I would agree with this concern. I have experienced similar problems in other arenas where the person making the decision does the math and realizes you probably didn't break a 3.0 in undergrad.  Just as they are free to infer that you are especially bright, they can also then infer that you are especially lazy, and there is no forum for you to explain that away until the interview stage (although an "Assumed GPA Discrepancy" addendum on a resume would be entertaining). 

Also consider who one would be separating themselves from with the inclusion of an LSAT score.  Take someone with a 179.  Who are they separating themselves from with that piece of information?  Those that scored 170-178?  Lawyers (people who have taken an LSAT) understand that the difference in the 170's is minimal and may be more tied to what one ate for breakfast that morning or 3 extra weeks of practice than actual intellectual ability.  Is it separating the person who scored a 179 from those that scored in the 160's or below?  If so, that has likely been demonstrated by school selection, or should be obviously demonstrated by one's performance in other arenas if the 179er is actually significantly beyond the lower scorers in the capacity to be an effective lawyer. 

This is a lot easier to see if one has been working before law school - especially if one has worked for a law firm before.  While it is not the end of the world to include this score, the risk will outweigh the possible reward in most situations.