While I think I'll forgo passing along the Dahmer analogy to the
student, I appreciate the responses. Thanks to all. Laurie
-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bennett, Robert
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 5:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: query to those who do prelaw advising
When I do career advising, I usually tell students that if they are
president of the Jeffrey Dahmer Fan Club, they might want to leave that
off their resume. Although I generally agree with Ken, the same thing
probably applies in law school applications. Generally, I think that
anything that students feel comfortable talking about--that they are
passionate about--should probably be included. For one thing, if it is
something that they are passionate about, it is a part of who they are.
Conversely, I advise students not to engage in "resume padding." I have
been in lots of interviews where I asked about some activity or
leadership role and had the response: "What?" or "All that we did
was..." or "All that I did was..." or "That was really not that
important..." There is no graceful or acceptable way to finish any of
those sentences. A few things that they are passionate about is much
better than lots of things that they were not heavily involved with. A
classic example: I was doing some consulting work for a law school a
few years ago and the firm was considering hiring a lateral. Since the
lawyer was a former Butler student, the firm asked me if I knew him and
could comment on him. The firm was particularly impressed with his
college and law school activities, and most impressed that he put on his
resume that he was the only student picked to serve as a student
representative on a Dean's search committee at Butler--which was true
enough. Unluckily for him, I was on the same Dean's search committee.
Of the five or six months of at least weekly meetings (including 12 on
campus interviews), he attended a grand total of one meeting. He will
probably never know why he never got that job.
Your friend,
Bob
________________________________
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Schneyer
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 12:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: query to those who do prelaw advising
My impression is that law school admissions officers look for as diverse
a mix of people as they can, because variations of experience,
background and views are essential in classroom discussion about legal
issues. This, at any rate, is what I was told by people in my own law
school.
In admissions in general, standing out in any way is a good thing.
That the officer would find the student's views objectionable, and would
reject him on those grounds, seems far-fetched. My law school class
included both representatives of the extreme end of the Christian Right
and members of the Communist Workers Party. Their dialogues were
fascinating.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lucas, Laurie
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: query to those who do prelaw advising
A student recently asked me to review a personal statement for a law
school application. A great deal of the student's story included a
statement of a strong and sincere belief in the values of an
organization that some might perceive as being outside the dominant
culture in America. I wonder how a law school admissions officer might
view such a statement and whether to discuss it with the student (a
strong applicant-high grades, 90th percentile LSAT)-is this within our
role as advisers? What would you do if you were advising a student who
professed strong beliefs and values in a personal statement for law
school-whether those beliefs and values were religious, philosophical or
ideological-which were outside the norm in American society? Any
thoughts would be appreciated. Laurie Lucas
|
