Law Zombies?

The ABA sends me regular emails with headlines (plus I follow them on Twitter) and while a lot of the articles are doom and gloom about the job markets, every now and then something catches my eye.

This one, about Yale Law's admissions process, gives a few interesting tips for law applicants.  While I have some critical thoughts about both Yale's undergraduate and law admissions process, I think it is good to know that they are looking for more than just a simple resume with all the right key-words.

My favorite two are the second two, the trivial obstacles and the childhood arguer.  The "trivial hardships essay" is also well covered in Ann Levine's Law School Admissions Game book (find my review here).  Both make the point that bemoaning an obstacle that either is common or less serious makes you seem like either you are lazy or a whiner.  However, the definitions vary.  In high school, I was told that writing about the death of a loved one probably wasn't a good idea, since a lot of people lose important friends and family members growing up.  Interestingly, this Yale Law admissions dean lists "divorce" as a significant obstacle.  I find this an odd choice, but perhaps I am being insensitive.  It just strikes me as one of those setbacks, such as moving, that is heartbreaking and incredibly difficult to manage, but also one that isn't unique for growing Americans.

I also loved the "I love to argue" one.  I can't tell you how many times people I meet in law school say, "Ever since I was young people told me I should be a lawyer because I love to argue!"  To be fair, my best friend told me I should be a lawyer in 5th grade.  But I don't think the fact that I felt like staging a protest in my English class about discriminatory Polish jokes makes me fit to be a lawyer OR for law school.  What makes me fit for law school is hard work, prior academic success, drive, and a wide variety of balanced interests.  In my opinion, the people who simply "love to argue" don't do well in law school.  You need to be able to listen to others, think about their position, learn the ins and outs of their position, and then construct a valid counter-argument.  Simply going back and forth does nothing.  Also, you need to be able to work well with others.  We have small group discussions at least once a week in class, and often with people you don't know.  I think a lot of law school involves actually being completely silent and listening.  You very rarely open your mouth.

My biggest complaints with Yale Undergrad and Yale Law's application process is that so much of it is either secret or simply different from the rest of the country, seemingly just because "We are Yale, and we can make you do it, because you need us, and we don't need you."  Having said that, I think it is awesome that Yale looks deep into applications, and doesn't (at least seemingly) reduce people to LSAT scores and undergrad GPAs.  This is a cool article for applicants.