Law Schools Must Navigate The Surge Of Applicants And Look For Red Flags In A Politically Charged Era
A few weeks ago, it was reported that more than 76,000 people have applied to law school. A number of these people cited President Trump as their motivation to become a lawyer.
Soon after Trump’s first term started, I cautioned prospective law students that it is not a good idea to go to law school solely because they hate President Trump. Those planning to attend next fall should know that they will graduate in May 2029 which is when Trump’s second and final term will end. I realize that some people are taking Trump’s trollish comments about running for a third term seriously. But I wonder how many reasonable people will vote for a 82-year-old man in 2028 who will likely have made billions from his recent crypto ventures.
But since the numbers show that people will apply to law school anyway regardless of what a lowly columnist writes, perhaps a message to law school admissions committee members would be more appropriate. While increased interest in legal education is good, all applications must be evaluated with greater scrutiny. Because if schools accept those who haven’t done their research and lack commitment, more students will be jaded and depressed. And if schools accept more students than they normally do, those students might face a harder time getting jobs after graduation. More unemployed graduates means more unhappy graduates, and it could affect the schools’ future rankings.
So let’s look at a few potential red flags.
One red flag is an applicant who appears to be going to law school to weather a bad economy. In a bad job market, some people turn to law school as a default or last-resort option. These people tend to have no or very superficial legal experience and their knowledge about the legal profession is based on episodes of “Ally McBeal.” Or these people are applying soon after they were laid off from their previous job and may have an erroneous belief that the legal profession is more stable.
This should be distinguished from an applicant who wants a career change after working for several years. These people should have work experience and can concretely explain how they can transfer their life experience into the legal profession.
Another red flag is an applicant whose personal statement consists mostly of political sound bites or vague platitudes. For example, an applicant who wants to go to law school to “drain the swamp,” challenge the “deep state,” “protect democracy,” or fight fascists. It is fine to go to law school to challenge an unjust system, but how will they use their law degree to do it? Those who want to fight fascism should know what fascism means without citing their favorite political podcaster. Otherwise, their motivation could be coming from clickbait news headlines. These people will have to learn quickly that legal writing does not accept partisan talking points or lived experiences as arguments.
Of course, nothing is wrong with having strong political views. Such people might be more interested in working for government or nonprofits serving the vulnerable rather than making money at a major law firm. But, unfortunately, a growing number of people seem to have a winner-take-all mentality. The legal profession is desperately asking their members to be civil but social media algorithms tend to favor argumentative behaviors as those tend to attract engagement.
Lastly, another red flag is their internet footprint. These days, law schools can look up a candidate on the internet and check their social media posts. An applicant’s social media activity could contradict what they wrote on their personal statements. Did they attend a peaceful protest with a gun or a Molotov cocktail in their hand? Did they advocate political violence? Or any violence?
As the number of applicants increases to record levels — with some having questionable motivations — law schools should identify red flags that would indicate that an applicant will make it through law school and be fulfilled in the legal profession after they graduate. It is fine for a lawyer to lean one way politically, even if it is considered extreme. But law schools should train future lawyers to at least address the other side’s arguments without resorting to talking points. While some may call this gatekeeping, others will call it stewardship.
Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at stevenchungatl@gmail.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.
The post Law Schools Must Navigate The Surge Of Applicants And Look For Red Flags In A Politically Charged Era appeared first on Above the Law.
