Effect of having a top law degree

[njskatchmo]

I did well enough on the LSAT where I can expect to get into a top law program.

If i do a law degree will it improve my chances of getting into a graduate program?

What about at the same school?

[tm_guru]

Why on earth would you go through Law School in order to get into an Econ program?

[Gecko]

law and econ - a la coase~

[piffle_dragon]

Yeah, other than the case where law and econ is your interest this would probably have no effect.

[Harry Lime]

I would think the other way around. If you get rejected from a top law school but accepted to the econ phd program in the same school, I would think the next time around the law school would take you (just my speculation, based on nothing.)

Jeeves got in to Berkeley Law but didn't get into Berkeley econ. However now that he's at MIT econ and won an NSF, I would imagine he'd easily get into Harvard Law just because they'd be intrigued by his profile and desire to study law (that is, if MIT would even allow that kind of cross-pollination.) If Jeeves reads this maybe he can update us on whether he still plans to pursue law.

[slightlyconfused1]

Spending 3 years and an ungodly amount of money on a law degree with the primary aim of improving chances for a Ph.D in economics does not seem optimal to me -- I'm pretty sure that spending time in an RA position or in a good master's program would be better.

That said, from my entirely anecdotal experience this is not entirely out of the question. A coworker of mine this summer was accepted into a top 10 finance Ph.D program despite not having the academic background that one would expect -- he had an economics major but very little math, and his only exposure to finance was in the private sector. The reason? Apparently some Ph.D programs were intrigued by his degree from a top 3 law school...

And I have to admit that as silly as it sounds, I've considered (as a contingency) this course of action as well. I have no idea how good an econ Ph.D applicant I'll be, but I know that numerically I'd be an extremely good law school applicant (lsac gpa ~4.2, near-perfect lsat). If the econ applications don't work out, there's always a temptation to leverage my strengths in the law school process and climb my way back into economics. Still, after vaguely considering this possibility for quite some time, I think it's probably only suitable as a worst-case measure. I'd try an RA position or some other more directly relevant occupation first.

[tm_guru]

Yea, the effect of having a top Law degree would be positive, but not the most effective way of gaining a similar effect. A top law degree would be les of a positive signal than a BS in Math and Econ with a 3.8+ GPA from the same school.

[slightlyconfused1]

Yea, the effect of having a top Law degree would be positive, but not the most effective way of gaining a similar effect. A top law degree would be less of a positive signal than a BS in Math and Econ with a 3.8+ GPA from the same school.

Right, but this generally isn't a plausible alternative. People will usually try to supplement their profile with a master's degree, which is much more directly relevant and useful for an econ Ph.D than a law degree. I've been considering what circumstances might prompt one to reasonably for the law degree rather than a master's as prep for a Ph.D, and I can only come up with the following (excuse the second-person; it's just a convenient device):

1) You are already very interested in law and view it as a viable alternative career. Alternatively, perhaps you are interested in law and economics as a specific subfield of economics.

2) For personal reasons, you cannot attend one of European or Canadian master's programs that is most useful for Ph.D prep, and opt for a top law school as a second-best (or third-best) alternative. This still seems fairly unlikely to me, however, since there is a smattering of econ master's programs (Duke, maybe NYU) in the US that will be more useful than a mostly unrelated law degree.

3) You have a singular talent at the LSAT that is far out of proportion to your other academic qualifications, and you feel compelled to exploit it. I can imagine this being an option for people who are generally strong analytical thinkers (and are good at the LSAT) but weaker in the quantitative coursework that is heavily used to evaluate Ph.D candidates. Still, if this is the case you have to ask some serious questions about the fitness of economics as a career -- most people with this profile of talents would be far better suited for something else.

4) You want to save face and attend a prestigious program of some kind, even if it's not in economics. (But still are interested enough in economics that you want to eventually transition...) This is generally a very bad reason for decisions that may profoundly affect your career, but as a human I can't deny that the thought lingers. In all honesty, I know I would probably be very embarrassed if I didn't get into a decent Ph.D program this season, and from the standpoint of pure vanity I would be tempted to apply to Harvard Law or wherever the next year simply to confirm that I was academically successful. When I think about the consequences, though, it becomes clear that this is a really bad idea: you're stuck for three years in a curriculum and subject that doesn't suit you, you have enormous debts to pay off, and so on.

[Harry Lime]

I'll throw in the paranoid TMer view:

Law degree + possible Econ phd => interest in litigation and economics => interest in anti-trust litigation => interest in consulting antitrust litigants => interest in becoming a consultant after getting phd rather than working in academia => reject pile

QED

[tm_guru]

Agreed with the Limester...