Blogs

The blogosphere has come down hard on Michigan Law School's recently announced Wolverine Scholars Program. I'm excited when any law school innovates, so I chatted with Dean of Admissions Sarah Zearfoss to find out what's what. Our Q&A below:

1. Could you explain what the Wolverine Scholars Program is and who is eligible for it.

Our new Wolverine Scholars Program will invite applications from University of Michigan undergraduates who have at least completed their junior year and at most are scheduled to graduate in Winter or Spring 2009 (that is, rising and graduating seniors) who have cumulative GPAs of 3.80 or higher; review will take place during the summer, and will substitute for the usual LSAT requirement an intensive review of the undergraduate curriculum. It is a non-binding program; if an applicant is admitted, he or she is free to apply to other law schools—but since we are not requiring the LSAT of the applicants, it is of course our hope that we will attract people for whom Michigan is their first choice, and who will choose to enroll here rather than going through the hassle of applying to other law schools (including the necessity of taking the LSAT).

2. You've come under a lot of fire in the blogosphere for the program. For example, MoneyLaw, Above the Law, TaxProf, and Prof. Henderson (of Indiana) have basically accused you of a transparent attempt to game the rankings. Prof. Henderson has gone so far as to say that "the only rational explanation is that Michigan seeks a rankings payoff." How do you respond to that? If gaming the rankings wasn't your only motivation, or your main motivation, what was your reasoning behind the program?

Well, I’d have to actually say the opposite is the case—that is, a desire to manipulate the rankings would NOT have been a rational motivation for this program. Consider, if that were the purpose, whether it would make sense for a public institution whose every admission decision in recent years has been subject to FOIA requests from multiple organizations to announce something so publicly! Further, since we anticipate being able to matriculate at most 5 to 10 Wolverine Scholars—a fractional sliver of our typical entering class of 360—this couldn't be a successful route for manipulating the rankings, even if we were so inclined. That number of people couldn't possibly affect our LSAT median, and is quite unlikely to affect the GPA median by even 1/100th, let alone materially.

Instead, we were motivated by a desire to strengthen our intra-institutional ties with the undergrad community, which is our single biggest feeder and at which, nonetheless, there is a persistent, unshakeable rumor that it is impossible to be admitted to Michigan Law if one attended Michigan for undergrad. As a result, we lose a lot of people who don’t apply, thinking it’s just not worth their time—and we therefore we miss getting applications from many students who would be great additions to our class. Relatedly, we needed to think creatively about ways to increase the applications we receive from our single biggest source of in-state residents (given that we are a public institution with a goal of matriculating 20% of the class as in-state residents). Bottom-line, we had well-considered policy objectives here, and our policy decisions have never been dictated by blind obeisance to rankings.

3. If you are willing to admit X students a year without an LSAT score, why require an LSAT score from the rest of the class? Why not just do away with it completely?

We have found the LSAT to be an excellent tool for predicting first-year grades, and believe that it is an exceptionally well-designed standardized test. That does not mean, however, that there may not be limited, special circumstances where reliance is not necessary, or not appropriate. We have a LOT of data on Michigan undergrads who enroll here at the law school, and the data lead us to be very confident that we can learn what we need to about ability to succeed here from a rigorous examination of the curriculum of those students who have proven themselves able to achieve at a very high level. We just don't have that body of data for other schools.

4. Some other law schools -- including top law schools like Georgetown and Northwestern -- have admissions programs that do not require an LSAT score. Any idea why people are piling on Michigan and not on those other schools?

Michigan certainly does get people's attention when it comes to admissions issues! But I suppose it's also timing; the programs that I know of are not of recent vintage, and I do think that attention to standardized tests and to rankings has really amped up in the last couple of years.

5. Colleges and business schools innovate constantly with their admissions requirements. For example, a number of top colleges make the SAT optional, while Harvard Business School has the 2+2 program. Why do you think law schools are generally so resistant to experimenting?

I confess I have found it rather surprising that in a climate where many organizations are examining the appropriate use of standardized tests, one very small outside-the-box step by one law school should attract such apparent shocked skepticism. Law schools (and the law as a field, more generally) tend to be very conservative in their approach to any proposed changes, however, and so I suppose the reaction was not completely unpredictable. I’ve had a lot of supportive emails, though, from prelaw advisors and admissions consultants, so I’m hoping that once the initial excitement winds down, the people who really matter to us—i.e., our applicants—will see that we're trying to be critically thinking about what we're doing. That can only be a good thing from their perspective.

One of the hardest things to sort out in law school is whether to choose a litigation or transactional career. Law school training (at least the required part) is notoriously biased in favor of litigation, so the burden is on law students to figure out whether they want to default into a litigation career or seek out training for a transactional practice.

Prof. Jeff Lipshaw has some great postings on how to go about deciding whether transactional law is a good fit. Check them out here and here.

By the way, you are forgiven if you are a law student and don't even know what a transactional practice is. (And when transactional work is slow at law firms, as is the case on a fairly cyclical basis, even first-year lawyers walk the halls asking themselves, "What's a 'deal' anyway?") Prof. Kenneth Klee has written a great paper on transactional law, and you can also check out Columbia Law School's transactional program (arguably the best around) to get a sense of what's involved.

Note, too, that transactional work can get very specialized. For example, my old law firm (Irell & Manella) has sub-groups focusing on art transactions, intellectual property transactions, and IPOs and private placements (among others).

Edited to add: Prof. Lipshaw kindly sent this follow-up to his original posting, with an emphasis on in-house counsel positions. I have a posting on in-house roles here as well.

Mary Abraham, who blogs about knowledge management at law firms, writes:

I can't wait until Generation Y lawyers start flooding through the doors of big law firms. We're told that just about everything about Gen Y runs counter to the work ethic and environment of these firms. So a showdown is inevitable. It will be very interesting to see which force prevails.

I'd put my money on Big Law. All this talk about "Gen Y works to live" just doesn't reflect the weakness of any twenty-something, of any generation, in the face of six-figure paychecks right out of school. Are they all tempted? Of course not. And they're not all in the running for those big paychecks either; most people don't even come close. Still, unless there's a fundamental change in the business model of Big Law, or a big drop in the number of law school students graduating with boatloads of debt, Big Law will continue to have the leverage. (I've written more on that here and here and here.)

Of course, retaining their associates is a different matter entirely, and Big Law will continue to get clobbered on the retention front.

A story broke yesterday about a University of Chicago Law School alum who got busted for fudging the grades on his law school transcript when he was applying for law firm jobs. Apparently, the complaint to the Illinois bar also alleges that he fudged his law school application materials by failing to disclose that he had flunked out of medical school.

I take particular interest in this story not just because I too am a UofC law school alum, but because, based on his graduation year, there's a very high likelihood that I admitted him when I was an admissions officer there.

Every year that I have been counseling applicants, multiple people ask me: "Do I really have to disclose that? How will they ever find out?" And my answer is always the same: "Yes, you have to disclose, first because it would unethical not to when it's a mandatory disclosure, and second because you might get caught."

Some people are very, very good liars, and it's hard for admissions officers to catch every lie, especially lies of omission. But this incident is a powerful reminder that one way or another, these things can come back to bite you. If these allegations are true, he might be disbarred.

Incidentally, some commenters at Above the Law are asking why he would have had to disclose flunking out of medical school when he was applying to law school. Law school applications require you to list every undergraduate and graduate institution you have ever attended, whether or not you received credit or a degree. You also have to submit all of those transcripts with your applications. Those disclosures are mandatory, not discretionary. For details, see page 22 of the LSAT and LSDAS Information Book.

I love The Office Newb blog, a "twenty-something's guide to the corporate life." In a post called "Age Is the New Glass Ceiling," the Office Newb pondered "why are we all so quick to judge people based on age? Why do we favor the potential of 'experienced' employees over the proven track record of younger ones?"

It's a great question to ask, and I would reply that younger employees don't really have that much of a track record yet. I know it doesn't seem that way from their perspective, which is why Office Newb is frustrated.

In her great follow-up posting, she writes:

I feel that there are lots of mid-level or managerial positions I qualify for based on my skill set, interests and previous experience, however, they usually require 2 – 3 more years of professional experience than I currently have. What exactly can I do about this? Nothing but wait. And I think that is at the root of the frustration for many young people.

Is it a millennial thing? Is it just the folly of youth? Most likely it’s a combination of both. And for a generation that was taught “if you can believe, you can achieve” being told to wait can be a hard lump to swallow.

From the manager side of the table, I often get an earful about Gen Y'ers who show up in the workforce right out of school and expect management experience right off the bat. That was, in fact, the biggest complaint I heard from a group of managers I gave a presentation to at conference a few weeks ago. So Office Newb has tapped into a more widespread, two-way frustration.

It's a conflict I see over and over again. Gen Y doesn't value or respect experience the way older generations do. That outlook is of course inherent to twenty-somethings of any generation, but it seems to be more pronounced with this one. And that causes a certain amount of friction for everyone involved.

There are a lot of fabulous twenty-somethings out there -- and thank goodness for that. At the same time, it's true that many of them have been raised to think they are more capable than they are at their level of experience, and that they deserve the benefits of experience right away. But life doesn't work like that. Those benefits have to be earned, and earning them often takes time. Not always, but often.

That doesn't mean that every person who is older is necessarily the best at what he does -- competition is a beautiful thing, and it's great when talented people of any age rise to new levels of responsibility. Talent is age-blind, but talent is not the same as experience. They are two totally different metrics. Age isn't just a number. Age means experience, and the working world still values experience.

Good luck Office NewB. I'm rooting for you. And you are right: patience is hard. At any age.

It's been a great day, hearing from so many of my blog readers! Here's another one that just came in:

Ms. Ivey,

I'm sure you've probably been emailed this recent article from the New York Times  ["Who's Cuddly? Law Firms"] multiple times today, but I felt compelled to share.

I read it, breathed a sigh of relief, and thought you could post your thoughts on the situation to your blog. It seems everything I'm hearing lately about law school is grossly negative, and this makes me feel better about having to choose between enjoying my life or my career.

I also wanted to take a minute to share my appreciation for your Guide to Law School Admissions. I find myself reflecting often on its messages, and though I find the admissions process daunting, at least I now have expert and candid advice to approach it. Thank you so much, and if you're still available, I'll be sending you my stats and information for my applications next fall.

Thanks again and keep up the good work!

First of all, I'm so utterly charmed when people call me "Ms. Ivey," but seriously, you can call me "Anna."

Second, I have the nicest readers, ever. Thank you.

And finally, to answer your actual question: I remain pretty skeptical. (Another blogger recently decided I'm a pessimist, but I prefer to think of myself as a realist.)

I think these are wonderful experiments, largely driven by PR, but the fundamentals of the law firm business model have not changed, and until they do, I think all these wonderful law firm life-balance initiatives look great on paper but are probably a bunch of hooey.

It's a really nice idea that some firms are letting people bill fewer hours and still be on the partnership track, but until those people actually start making partner... well, I'll believe it when I see it. (Not that partners have such a great life either. They work tremendously hard, and as one law firm partner friend of mine put it, "It's like winning a pie eating contest, where the prize is... more pie.")

See here ("Law Firm Brain Drain") for a longer discussion I posted about the law firm business model and why it's likely to outlive you, me, cockroaches, and Twinkies. (I know, I know. Twinkies don't last forever. It's just a turn of phrase.)

I realize all this might seem weird coming from someone who, among other things, helps people get into law school, but my mission is to help people make informed decisions, and the reality of law firm life is something they need to grasp. And the day I become some ambulance chaser pushing people into law school, that's the day I hang up my shingle and go do something else. (In case you were wondering why I keep writing these pessimistic/realistic articles...)

And if I'm wrong, and law firms are indeed becoming "cuddly," I'll be the first to celebrate and do a happy dance!

Just discovered the blog Bum No More ("Off the Couch, Out the Door") after it linked to my 8 tips for recent college graduates. I've spent some time poking around there and found a lot of great advice on many of the same topics I write about here -- go check it out. Oh, and I love the little logo.

Blogger Kristina Cowan posts a great round-up of reviews of Yahoo's Kickstart, a professional online social network targeted at twenty-somethings. Kristina's conclusion:I use Facebook and LinkedIn, and I recognize the merits of both. After signing up for a Kickstart account and exploring the service, I agree with other bloggers--it could prove useful to 20-somethings just starting out and looking to build a professional network.... But for those who have been working for a while--Generation X, for example--Kickstart is more likely a place to reconnect with old college chums. Gen X is better off sticking with LinkedIn for professional networking.My two cents: Anything that helps college students and recent alums focus on professional networking is a great thing. It's not something all college graduates do well. More here.

I had the honor of guest-blogging for one of my favorite blogs, Blueprint for Financial Prosperity. Check out my 8 job tips for new graduates here.