For all those who cry about our jobs stats......

[cooley3L]

So in short what types of work experience would you say help give an applicant an edge, and which don't?

I'd think someone with a decade of fast food experience would mean less than even a month unpaid internship at a legal aid clinic as far as relevancy goes.

Most weekend and nights Cooley students are on the part time plans and tend to be around 40 some even with a pension from their old jobs. Would you give them priority over a Harvard grad due to that?

[Cher1300]

So in short what types of work experience would you say help give an applicant an edge, and which don't?

I'd think someone with a decade of fast food experience would mean less than even a month unpaid internship at a legal aid clinic as far as relevancy goes.

Most weekend and nights Cooley students are on the part time plans and tend to be around 40 some even with a pension from their old jobs. Would you give them priority over a Harvard grad due to that?

To answer your first question, it really depends upon the job someone is applying for.  My fast-food analogy mostly applied to young college graduates applying for entry level positions, etc.   So of course, 10 years of fast food experience compared to a legal internship for a legal job is not going to look so good.  The DA I mentioned was responding to a person who asked if it was okay to put any other experience on their resume if the intership experience was limited.  They were concerned that any other experience may not be relevant, which was not necessarily the case. 

In terms of your last question, however, you're now talking about school rankings which affects job prospects much more than work experience.  A 40 year-old T4 student doesn't hold a candle to a Harvard law graduate.  Since I am a 40 year old at a T4, I can say that with some certainty.  Any ivy league grad will generally be sought after by big law firms and making over six figures their first year.  A 40 year old T4 grad won't even be looked at for that same position.  On the other hand, if the 40 year old is competing with a younger T4 grad for the same job, it could go either way depending upon grades, experience or even an employers perception.  Some employers may look at the 40 year old as someone who will hate doing document review work or any other type of entry level law work because of their experience, etc.   An employer might think the 40 year old is more set in their ways whereas a younger grad may be more eager to please and the employer can shape them the way they want.  It all depends upon the employer really.  But if the 40 year old has a history of insurance experience and is applying as an attorney for an insurance company, then that will give them an edge, etc. 

[Zepp]

Most weekend and nights Cooley students are on the part time plans and tend to be around 40 some even with a pension from their old jobs. Would you give them priority over a Harvard grad due to that?

There is no experience that a Cooley student can have that will ever give them a leg up on a Harvard grad (unless that Harvard grad has subsequently been convicted of a felony).  Sorry, those are just the cold hard facts.  At least keep it reasonable, a see how you compete against a 3rd tier grad...not a grad from one of the top 3 schools.

[Duncanjp]

Also, a 3.0 and a 4.0 are miles apart, Duncanjp.  At most state universities, a 3.0 in a liberal arts degree doesn't require hardly any effort.  Maybe some 4.0's aren't "that" impressive, but a true 4.0 shows dedication.    That said, a 3.6 and holding down a job is pretty dang impressive. A 3.0 and holding down a job shows you have the skills of a highly functioning primate, at least.

I wasn't belittling a 4.0, Jack . It's certainly impressive, regardless of the graduate's major. My point was that a person who has the luxury of going to college without having to hold down a job ought to get good grades. Working at BK or wherever is time-consuming, and it drains the person both mentally and physically. The student who can get good grades in undergrad while holding down steady employment simply demonstrates discipline, character, and a clear work ethic, which are highly marketable traits to have. This doesn't mean that a person with a 4.0 might not also possess the same traits. But the student with a high GPA who doesn't have to work has only proven that he or she did what one should expect of them during college. Obviously, they're capable of learning. But it doesn't really demonstrate much about their work ethic when required to do something they don't want to do, or whether they'll take mental health days on a regular basis, or how well they're going to cope with angry clients, insensitive bosses, snide co-workers, and the weekly grind out in the real world. Incidentally, I used to work with somebody who, unbelievably, had a custom license plate that read 4.0 GPA. Even if pretentious, he was a very intelligent guy. But his interpersonal skills created a thick glass ceiling over his head, which kept him from ever getting anywhere close to a position in management. My point is that, standing alone, a GPA, like the LSAT, is an imperfect predictor of later success.

That's anecdotal, I realize. I think Cher is correct, though. A person who works her way through college and gets a 3.3 would almost certainly have gotten a much higher GPA if she had not had to work at all. But she's shown things that the 4.0 has not necessarily shown: (1) the ability to manage her time under a substantially harder schedule; (2) an ability to juggle multiple, diverse responsibilities; and (3) an ability to function successfully outside the ivory tower of academia. Furthermore, there is a good probability that the working student with the solid GPA is going to have a healthier, more cooperative ego, than the 4.0, who will be tempted to think he's above mopping a floor or making a pot of coffee. After several years in management, I've seen enough of both to know and can declare from experience that a good attitude has far more to do with success in business (maybe not government) than one's superior knowledge. The person who has to work through college knows that she's not entitled to anything, and nobody's going to hand her a dime. The student who never worked through college may or may not know that, but as an employer weighing candidates, it crosses your mind - especially if you had to work through college yourself.

All of that being said, 10 or 15 years out of college, the playing field levels. Nobody is going to be uber-impressed by your 4.0 or the fact that you worked your way through college. Your credentials and success will speak for themselves. If you're right out of school looking for work, you stress your 4.0 if you have one, or you stress your character + solid GPA if you worked. There's no shame in either. But there's no excuse for getting a really low GPA, whether you worked or not. That person has shot himself in the foot big time. That person has shown that he cannot learn new things, cannot juggle responsibilities or manage time, and probably had no discipline in college at all. Would have been better waiting until he grew up a little before enrolling.

[cooley3L]

Most weekend and nights Cooley students are on the part time plans and tend to be around 40 some even with a pension from their old jobs. Would you give them priority over a Harvard grad due to that?

There is no experience that a Cooley student can have that will ever give them a leg up on a Harvard grad (unless that Harvard grad has subsequently been convicted of a felony).  Sorry, those are just the cold hard facts.  At least keep it reasonable, a see how you compete against a 3rd tier grad...not a grad from one of the top 3 schools.

where you attend school has nothing to do with your experience (if talking about prior to law school) and as far as post, yeah being a sitting Judge or Prosecutor, or just being licensed for a decade will give more of an edge than some rookie who didn't just graduated with no experience and blow off seminars for electives.

Every one who hasn't even taken the lsat yet thinks they know the world. Never fails.

[jack24]

I wasn't belittling a 4.0, Jack . It's certainly impressive, regardless of the graduate's major. . . .

I've managed up to ten employees at a time in my career, so I'm no executive level business guy here.  Still, I would take raw talent, energy, and enthusiasm, over "work ethic" any day.   Find the right mixture of duty, reward, and fear, and you can unleash them.  I recognize there is a significant risk that you will waste time and money in training someone who ends up being lazy and entitled, but there is also a huge long-term reward.

Before I passed the bar, I worked with four law firms (100+ hours with each).  Nobody involved wanted to manage at all.  My current firm is the same way.  They want you to just "go, go, go!"   I understand why they are that way, but that simply isn't the reality.  However, I think the new crop of employees has much more potential with the right management.

[cooley3L]

I don't get why more students don't volunteer at legal aid while in school. They take almost anyone and give all the managment and help  one could want if needed. Plus a resume builder.

[SoCalLawGuy]

From what I heard, it's hard to get a job even as a janitor with the economy these days so, yeah, attending law school doesn't mean you'll necessarily be a lawyer after you graduate.