Three common mistakes that admissions officers have noticed with increasing frequency.
Vapid, dull, emotionless...
What I am referring to here is a reliance on historical data – particularly data from last year. In the top 10 rankings of applicants mistakes for the class of 2016, this is the only one where there is a great deal of overlap for law schools. In other words, law schools make this mistake just as much as (or more than) law students. It is harming both students and schools alike. But, I
An upcoming series.
No, this does not mean anyone or everyone is not up to par this year (although this was my favorite guess at what the Dyson Effect is… thinking through what a Dyson does…). The Dyson Effect simply means that many applicants see themselves in a vacuum. To be fair, this happens every year. In other words I get a good deal of the following. “Dear Spivey, I am a law school applicant from Western State with a LSAC computed uGPA of 3.5 and a 167 LSAT. Can you tell me if I will get into Eastern State
Study after study suggests that first impressions matter; indeed, in terms of creating a lasting impression, they matter more than anything else. You are going to be remembered from the first few minutes of your initial encounter—the question is, how do you want to be remembered?
This trait rings true for almost all highly successful people — they have the ability to stay on focus. But what is focus, and how can it help for a law school applicant or job seeker?
Our first guest blog comes from a hiring authority at a Fortune 50 company.
I live in a swing state, which means that I am constantly getting emails from both the Obama and Romney campaigns. Political platforms aside, what these emails tend to have in common is this important nugget for job search emails.
In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike has a conversation with Orin Kerr, a prominent law professor and legal academic who currently serves as a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and a Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. In his 25+ years as a law school faculty member, Professor Kerr has written 75+ law review articles, authored casebooks, and been cited in 4,500+ academic articles and 500+ judicial decisions, including several U.S. Supreme Court opinions. He has held tenured positions at Stanford Law, GW Law, USC Law, and UC Berkeley Law, and he has been a visiting professor at UChicago Law, Penn Law, and Yale Law.
In addition to his career in academia, Professor Kerr completed two clerkships, including a Supreme Court clerkship with Justice Anthony Kennedy, argued before the Supreme Court, and practiced law for a number of years, including as a trial attorney for the Department of Justice in the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section and as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. He has a bachelor’s degree in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from Princeton University, a master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from Stanford University, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School.
Professor Kerr discusses how law schools try to balance preparing students to be practice-ready with teaching how to think like a lawyer (5:49), what Professor Kerr sees as the “ideal” legal training (11:27), what professors actually think when someone messes up a cold call (37:58), how and when he knew he wanted to become a law professor (1:47), the “old way” and the “new way” that law schools hire faculty (3:41), advice for prospective law students who want to become law professors (12:32), the different types of law professors (12:51), every professor’s least favorite part of the job (23:12), the built-in advantages that some students enter law school already having (32:48), Professor Kerr’s most-read law review article (33:50), and more.
They also discuss a video that Professor Kerr recorded last year, “So You’re About To Start Law School: A Law Student’s Guide with Stanford Law Professor Orin Kerr.” You can watch that video for free on YouTube here.
You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. You can read a full transcript of this episode with timestamps below.
In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Anna Hicks-Jaco discusses the strategy of reapplying to law school, joined by former law school admissions officers and Spivey consultants Sir Williams and Julia Truemper. They give a great deal of insider insights and strategic advice, including common reapplication mistakes (8:11, 17:57, 34:26), how to explain why you’re reapplying (32:15), whether admissions officers review reapplicants’ previous applications (2:31), whether they hold a previous denial against reapplicants (5:25), how discrepancies between the previous application and the current application can be problematic for reapplicants (3:52, 30:06), whether and how you need to revise and create new materials for a reapplication to the same school (6:32, 16:06), how to critically assess your previous application (10:43, 17:57), how you should change your school list (23:07), advice for the sometimes difficult process of rewriting your personal statement (25:42), how law schools look at reapplicants who were previously admitted (and how to mitigate potential negative impacts of that) (30:41), advice for reapplicants who weren’t admitted anywhere the previous cycle (40:01), and more.
You can find Part 1 of this two-part series, “Should You Reapply to Law School,” here.
Other resources mentioned in this episode:
You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. You can read a full transcript of this episode with timestamps below.
In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike has a conversation with Vincent Sheu, an attorney and AI startup founder with a JD and a Master’s in Computer Science from Stanford (in addition to degrees in Statistics, Molecular and Cell Biology, and Bioengineering).
Mike and Vincent discuss how he uses AI in his legal work today (19:20, 22:20), how he expects to be using AI in legal work in the future (37:23), how important his human contributions are vs. the contributions of AI (25:32), whether AI will be able to learn EQ (27:12), the sorts of AI tooling skills that employers are (and will be) looking for (29:19, 42:45) and how they screen for those skills (33:39), the benefits of using AI for legal work as well as the risks (24:04, 31:21, 44:23), how the next generation of lawyers will be advantaged and disadvantaged in the new landscape of legal practice (30:03), whether Vincent would hire a new lawyer who was brilliant and likable but has no familiarity with AI (32:52), Vincent’s recruiting process out of law school (14:03) and what his hours looked like in biglaw vs. as an in-house general counsel (19:36), how Vincent went 23 for 25 during his law school admissions cycle as a “super splitter” (3:32), and more.
Near the beginning of the episode, Mike and Vincent chat about a viral video from 2014 in which Vincent rapidly completed a Rubik’s Cube at a college basketball game. While the original video is now private, you can find the referenced SportsCenter article here.
Mike also mentions the recent case of a defendant attempting to use an AI avatar to make their opening argument in court. You can find that video here.
You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. You can read a full transcript of this episode with timestamps below.
In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Anna Hicks-Jaco has a conversation with two Spivey consultants and former law school admissions officers, Kristen Mercado and Nathan Neely, on the decision whether to reapply to law school. What are good reasons—and what are bad reasons—to reapply? How much of an LSAT improvement is enough to justify reapplying (6:00)? How much of an impact can improved work experience have (16:09)? Can it be a game-changer if the only thing you do differently is applying earlier (36:09)? Does it ever make sense to reapply based purely on the hope that next cycle will be less competitive overall (38:17)? And what advice can we share for applicants who weren’t admitted anywhere (47:10)?
This is part one of a two-part series. Coming late next month: part two all about the STRATEGY of reapplying.
You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. You can read a full transcript of this episode with timestamps below.
In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike has a conversation with Rob Baker, a long-time practicing entertainment lawyer who has served on hiring committees for multiple law firms, ranging from biglaw to mid-law to a small firm, and who leads Spivey Consutling’s new employment coaching and law school mentorship program. Rob discusses his law school application process (3:49), what it was like starting 1L year (5:18), how law school prepared Rob for practicing (12:16) and how it didn’t (16:18), how legal employers view rankings (10:00), whether law school is “fun” (19:07), what makes a good lawyer (21:32), one key talent of the highest-earning lawyers (15:15), the one trait that can make all the difference in excelling in biglaw, becoming an entertainment lawyer, or getting admitted off the law school waitlist (17:28), and more.
Mike mentions our podcast episode with Jeff Chapman in this episode, “Interview with a Biglaw Partner (Jeff Chapman, Gibson Dunn Co-Chair of Global M&A),” which you can listen to here.
If you’re interested in learning more about Rob’s coaching and mentorship services, please reach out to info@spiveyconsulting.com.
You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. You can read a full transcript of this episode with timestamps below.
In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike discusses the five reasons that being denied from law school hurts—and the concrete ways that you can handle it.
Mike mentions a few other podcasts and a video clip in this episode:
You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and YouTube. You can read a full transcript of this episode with timestamps below.
