MBA Before JD?

[Silex]

I guess what I'm asking is does law school over look the ugrad side of things if one already has a master's? I'm trying to move away from the fact that my ugrad gpa sucked with how well I plan to do in the MBA program I am admitting to. I was told that law school doesn't care about a master's, but I don't believe the guy since he couldn't provide any admissions evidence. Does anybody know for sure?

 

[sjwaste]

Not really. The formula is LSAT and UGPA, weighted based on however the school does it. It's the biggest factor. Other things, like an advanced degree, might factor in slightly.

However, most law firms and lawyers in general don't really see any benefit in an MBA. It really doesn't matter at all if you intend to practice law. If you don't intend to practice law, don't go to law school. It's not going to help.

I should add, since you're trying to compensate for a poor UGPA, that the LSAT does matter a lot. How bad is your UGPA? I mean, if we're talking right around a 3.0, a strong LSAT (170 or so) can overcome that. Also, it depends on where you're trying to go. There really is a law school out there for everyone, but I would suggest only going if you get into at least a top 50 school.

I didnt, and do have a job (class of 09) but it was a LOT harder to come by. And don't believe the average salaries, either.

 

[Silex]

I should provide more info. I have been working as Hardware Engineer for 2.5 years now. I have a BSME from UCSD, but my GPA sucks bad so I am taking MBA classes right now with the hopes that it will over shadow my low GPA. I am planning to get into IP law as a patent agent, but eventually I will attend law school in order to become a patent attorney so I do need the JD for this. I was just hoping that the MBA will raise my chances of achieving my goals, but by the sound of it I might have to go back to for a second BS degree more than likely in Electrical Engineering (the degree I was originally accepted for) in order to better cater myself towards the IP job market.

 

[sjwaste]

Originally posted by: Silex
I should provide more info. I have a BSME from UCSD, but my GPA sucks bad so I am taking MBA classes right now with the hopes that it will over shadow my low GPA. I am planning to get into IP law as a patent agent, but eventually I will attend law school in order to become a patent attorney. I was just hoping that the MBA will raise my chances of achieving my goals, but by the sound of it I might have to go back to for a second BS degree more than likely in Electrical Engineering (where I originally started) in order to beter cater myself towards the IP job market.

How bad is the GPA? And what law school(s) are you considering the lowest-ranked you'd attend?

 

[Silex]

2.1..........no joke, I barely graduated. I don't want to make excuses, but I had to take personal leave for a few quarters and had to work full time during one year which ultimately led to the issues I'm facing now. And I know I'm aiming high, but I really (and I mean really) want to only attend Stanford. It was all part of my plan to work for an IP boutique in Palo Alto and then have my tuition paid for and being a student associate. I know it looks bad and I have the worst combination of low gpa and high expectations. I don't want to fail before I start which is why I'm trying to pad my resume and application as much as possible. So if it's true that Standford will not even bat an eye at my MBA in Information Systems from SDSU, then I might be best suited to go back to UCSD for my BSEE which shouldn't take more than 2 years. And of course keep my act together this time around.

 

[sjwaste]

Stanford is a top 3. I have no idea what it would take to get in, but a call to the admissions office can't hurt. You'll probably need a very high 170s LSAT. Are you any part minority? Diversity is one of their admissions goals, can't hurt if you can check that box.

This data should help:

http://officialguide.lsac.org/...SchoolData/ABA4704.pdf

 

[jagec]

The #1 thing that makes up for low GPA is good references. Sleep with a senator or something.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Jack Daniels comes before everything!

 

[Killerme33]

Your MBA/Grad school work will count as some nice life/work experience, but the two most important factors (by far) are LSAT score and undergraduate GPA. Also being a minority.

 

[Silex]

sjwaste, thanks for the data!

Thanks for the humorous vote of confidence guys. Maybe the minority route is my best bet. I am half Taiwanese, quarter Russian, and quarter Italian. If anything I'm a rare bread, but maybe not a minority. I'm not sure how the term is classified these days.

I can understand the 170+ LSAT, but otherwise those GPA's seriously own me. I can't see how even being the last Botswanan alive can help me here.

Total Full-time Part-time
75% GPA 3.94 3.94 0.00
Median GPA 3.87 3.87 0.00
25% GPA 3.76 3.76 0.00
75% LSAT 172 172 0
Median LSAT 170 170 0
25% LSAT 168 168 0

 

[razor2025]

Not sure if you can be considered minority with 1/2 Caucasian blood. As for the GPA issue, I think a 2nd BS might be your best bet if you're absolutely convinced of your plans. Or... you could date the Dean's daughter

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: SilexSo if it's true that Standford will not even bat an eye at my MBA in Information Systems from SDSU, then I might be best suited to go back to UCSD for my BSEE which shouldn't take more than 2 years.

I do not claim to have knowledge of Stanford Law's admission policies, but I imagine that they will have much better candidates than you available. For a school with an applicant pool like Stanford, a MBA from SDSU likely means nothing when they will likely have applicants with graduate degrees from more prestigious schools.

 

[Silex]

1) Sleep with a senator.
2) Data the dean's daughter.

Shall we go for #3?

In the end, no matter what I will complete my MBA before attempting to apply for Stanford. In the mean time I am studying for the patent bar so I can get some experience doing patent prosecution.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Silex
I guess what I'm asking is does law school over look the ugrad side of things if one already has a master's? I'm trying to move away from the fact that my ugrad gpa sucked with how well I plan to do in the MBA program I am admitting to. I was told that law school doesn't care about a master's, but I don't believe the guy since he couldn't provide any admissions evidence. Does anybody know for sure?

I assure you, a master has very little bearing your admissions decision.

 

[Corporate Thug]

btw, why is it so important to go to Stanford? CA has many many tier 1 schools.

 

[Silex]

Originally posted by: GoSharks

Originally posted by: SilexSo if it's true that Standford will not even bat an eye at my MBA in Information Systems from SDSU, then I might be best suited to go back to UCSD for my BSEE which shouldn't take more than 2 years.

I do not claim to have knowledge of Stanford Law's admission policies, but I imagine that they will have much better candidates than you available. For a school with an applicant pool like Stanford, a MBA from SDSU likely means nothing when they will likely have applicants with graduate degrees from more prestigious schools.

Hey now, an MBA from SDSU ain't nothing to sneeze at. Their MSBA for International Business is ranked #21 and BA for Entrepreneurship is ranked #7 in the nation according to the 2007 US News & World Report.

In any case, we all have dreams, but I'm just hoping I can achieve mine. Realistically, I can go to a place like Santa Clara University which is ranked #85 according to US News and they are ranked #7 in IP law which is a plus for me. LSAC gave me a 90+% of admission if I get a 170+ LSAT score even with a 2.1 GPA. Then again, I think most T2-T4 schools let someone in with this LSAT regardless of undergrad discipline.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Silex

Originally posted by: GoSharks

Originally posted by: SilexSo if it's true that Standford will not even bat an eye at my MBA in Information Systems from SDSU, then I might be best suited to go back to UCSD for my BSEE which shouldn't take more than 2 years.

I do not claim to have knowledge of Stanford Law's admission policies, but I imagine that they will have much better candidates than you available. For a school with an applicant pool like Stanford, a MBA from SDSU likely means nothing when they will likely have applicants with graduate degrees from more prestigious schools.

Hey now, an MBA from SDSU ain't nothing to sneeze at. Their MSBA for International Business is ranked #21 and BA for Entrepreneurship is ranked #7 in the nation according to the 2007 US News & World Report.

In any case, we all have dreams, but I'm just hoping I can achieve mine. Realistically, I can go to a place like Santa Clara University which is ranked #85 according to US News and they are ranked #7 in IP law which is a plus for me. LSAC gave me a 90+% of admission if I get a 170+ LSAT score even with a 2.1 GPA. Then again, I think most T2-T4 schools let someone in with this LSAT regardless of undergrad discipline.

No matter the tier, LSAT is the single most important factor.

 

[Silex]

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: Silex
I guess what I'm asking is does law school over look the ugrad side of things if one already has a master's? I'm trying to move away from the fact that my ugrad gpa sucked with how well I plan to do in the MBA program I am admitting to. I was told that law school doesn't care about a master's, but I don't believe the guy since he couldn't provide any admissions evidence. Does anybody know for sure?

I assure you, a master has very little bearing your admissions decision.

Unfortunately I have come to this realization, but it still can't hurt in having it for when it comes time to open my own practice or decide to be work on a board of directors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_JD/MBAs

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
btw, why is it so important to go to Stanford? CA has many many tier 1 schools.

I also just had this realization that I should have a fallback plan, but in this plan I want my employer to cover the costs to law school no matter which one I attend. This can only happen if I am doing patent agent work for a medium to large IP firm boutique. So I guess the important thing is to find a job where they are local to the school I plan to attend and have a reimbursement plan for student associates.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Silex

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

Originally posted by: Silex
I guess what I'm asking is does law school over look the ugrad side of things if one already has a master's? I'm trying to move away from the fact that my ugrad gpa sucked with how well I plan to do in the MBA program I am admitting to. I was told that law school doesn't care about a master's, but I don't believe the guy since he couldn't provide any admissions evidence. Does anybody know for sure?

I assure you, a master has very little bearing your admissions decision.

Unfortunately I have come to this realization, but it still can't hurt in having it for when it comes time to open my own practice or decide to be work on a board of directors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_JD/MBAs

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
btw, why is it so important to go to Stanford? CA has many many tier 1 schools.

I also just had this realization that I should have a fallback plan, but in this plan I want my employer to cover the costs to law school no matter which one I attend. This can only happen if I am doing patent agent work for a medium to large IP firm boutique. So I guess the important thing is to find a job where they are local to the school I plan to attend and have a reimbursement plan for student associates.

Not a great time to be absolutely honest. While IP remains in [relatively] high demand in the legal industry, there are still too many people chasing too few jobs. It's a tough sale to get an employer to swallow the bill.

 

[WildHorse]

``

 

[Silex]

Originally posted by: WildHorse
Earn MBA & JD concurrently

Here's one opportunity, may be others out there too.

I was considering this, but SDSU only offers joint programs with two law school that are not even ranked. I'd rather just complete (or half complete) my MBA and make the switch from engineer to patent prosecutor in order to get some experience under my belt.

EDIT: I appreciate that you pulled UCLA as an example, but even I know with my bachelor's that I won't even be considered a candidate in their MBA program, let along a joint MBA/JD. Historically, they are harder to get into since you have be accepted by both the business and law departments. I will be attending SDSU at least for the time being in order to max out transfer credits. In the end though, I will not be relying heavily on an MBA at first since until I get more well versed within the intricacies of business law (IP law included). The JD, PTO certification, and experience will ultimately be what will allow me further growth potential. The MBA is a nice filler or backup plan at that point.

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
Not a great time to be absolutely honest. While IP remains in [relatively] high demand in the legal industry, there are still too many people chasing too few jobs. It's a tough sale to get an employer to swallow the bill.

Definitely agree. Not a great time to making a career change of any kind. With the influx of law students getting their offers rescinded and plenty of layoffs to go around, the competition will be plenty fierce once things start picking back up. I can't let this deter me though as experience takes time and not something I can dwindle upon. Even getting a part-time unpaid internship is ideal in this situation, because I hear it's tough to get hired as a 0 year due to the exorbitant amount of investment a law firm must take on new associates. This holds true no how the economy is doing though.

 

[Wreckem]

With a 2.1 you would need atleast a 170 not to get auto-denied by almost every top 50 school. 175 Would get you into some. You have NO SHOT at Stanford, even with a 180.

Unless maybe if you worked in engineering for 10 years and then went and got a great LSAT(175+) and then applied, but out of undergrad no chance in hell even with a 4.0 in an MBA program. Anyone under a 3.5 really has no shot at Stanford no matter what their LSAT score.

Law School Predictor

Law Score Numbers

As for your original question about masters degrees and law school admissions.

Having a Master's Degree is a soft factor(its way down there though, its rated lower than letters of rec and work history).

The LSAC, computes ONLY undergrate coures taken during your (first) undergraduate degree.

If your school counts withdrawls as punitive, LSAC counts them as F. If your school uses +s and -s, LSAC computes + and -s(A- = 3.66 etc). LSAC counts ALL courses taken and graded. So if your school does grade replacements, those dont matter LSAC will use both the original grade and the replacement grade to compute GPA.

Law school admissions is roughly 60% LSAT 35% GPA and 5% other stuff. Some schools GPA means more than LSAT(Berkley, UT, etc).

Put it this way, I have a 3.13, if I somehow pulled a 180 out of my ass, the University of Texas(15th) still isn't likely to accept me.

There was movement in almost every schools 75th/25th GPA this past year. Some also had sizable movement in their 75th/25th LSAT. Many schools didnt take a single person off their waitlists. Law schools have become harder to get into during this recession. And once numbers go up for top schools, they are unlikely to ever go back down.

 

[Silex]

Wreckem, thanks for the reality check. I really needed it. I have done a little more research and Santa Clara University is starting to look pretty good especially for someone looking to get into IP law. You definitely hit the nail on the head with the LSAT needing to be 170+ so I Will be surely aiming for that.

Now I'm starting to think that unless I plan to stay at my current job and finish my MBA (which is still 2+ years out), that I should instead focus on pursuing the patent agent certification and then JD followed by an MBA later on down the road. Otherwise I will spend additional years getting an MBA before-hand that will not prove to be very useful, initially, to my legal career.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Silex
Wreckem, thanks for the reality check. I really needed it. I have done a little more research and Santa Clara University is starting to look pretty good. You definitely hit the nail on the head with the LSAT needing to be 170+ so I Will be surely aiming for that.

Now I'm starting to think that unless I plan to stay at my current job and finish my MBA (which is still 2+ years out), that I should instead focus on pursuing the patent agent certification and then JD followed by an MBA later on down the road. Otherwise I will spend additional years getting an MBA before-hand that will not prove to be very useful, initially, to my legal career.

If you are serious about trying pursue a law degree now or later I suggest spending money for a LSAT prep course by any of the three

testmasters.net(Not testmasters.com)
blueprintlsat.com
powerscore.com

Those have the three best prep courses. Dont bother with Kaplan, Princeton Review, or any other one. Those are the three best to prep you for 170+.

 

[Silex]

^ I will heed your words of wisdom.