<p>Would it have been greatly beneficial if I were to attend Yale (hypothetically) after high school, compared to attending George Washington (again, hypothetically) for 2 years and transferring to Yale as a junior. I mean in the context of grad school and employment.
Would a person with 2 years at GU and 2 at Yale be handicapped compared to someone who has spent all 4 at Yale?</p>
<p>The biggest handicap would be to your college experience. The relationships you'll form with students and profs, the opporrtunities to become a leader on campus, the ability to know about and take advantage of the best programs are really not the same when you arrive as a junior. This is the biggest complaint of all at my prep school who arrive two years in.</p>
<p>But in terms of employment and grad school?</p>
<p>You have to work harder to get the letters of recommendation...</p>
<p>I do see your point. But can you plese put yourself in an employee's or a grad school adcoms's shoe's and then reply.</p>
<p>If you're talking about Yale specifically, anyone would look at that as a GREAT accomplishment because Yale accepts less transfers(percentage-wise) than they do incoming freshman. Frankly, if you get into HYS, either out of HS or as a transfer, you're golden - don't sweat anything. But, I would suggest you read this board throughly. Reason being, there may be a good reason to stay at your school (GW) if you're planning on going to grad school. People here will tell you that the top schools will expect top scores (LSAT/GMAT, etc). Grad schools will be able to pick from the best of the best and they only accept so many from each school. You may have an advantage (with lower scores) at another school. I think Berkeley's website has some stats on this. Students who were accepted from Berkeley to top teer law schools scored outrageously higher than the average accepted. Just a thought...</p>
<p>KKaech, first off, those Berkeley numbers are completely misleading. Secondly, your whole post doesn't make much sense. </p>
<p>Going to a good undergraduate institution can only help you; they will not say: 170 LSAT from GWU, 170 from Yale, oh we must accept the GW kid because we expect much higher scores from a Yale student! The "only accept so many from each schools" is misleading; you will see that top schools have disproportionately higher numbers of students from the top undergraduate institutions--but, and here's the kicker, it isn't because they value the undergrad institution THAT MUCH, it's because those kids often have the best scores!</p>
<p>That's what it comes down to! INDIVIDUAL APPLICANTS. Yale will help but not enough to change a 3.5 to a 4.0 for instance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You may have an advantage (with lower scores) at another school.
[/quote]
Entirely false.</p>
<p>G1a2b, numbers are numbers genius. You may be familiar with this famous quote The numbers dont lie. Whether you choose to believe then or not and/or call them misleading is up to you! You can live in your little bubble where the numbers dont count but the rest of us live in the real world. But again, notice the quote You MAY have an advantage ! Take a deep breath. There was nothing definite about the quote but a mere suggestion - O GOD OF THE CC BOARD g1a2be! Take it easy.</p>
<p>with someone not gettng any financial aid I saved around 20-30K</p>
<p>and I got into UCLA!!!</p>
<p>This is like planning to win 5,000 from a scratch off in 2 years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Reason being, there may be a good reason to stay at your school (GW) if you're planning on going to grad school.
[/quote]
"Admission is limited and competitive. Applicants should have an undergraduate degree from a college with strong offerings." --Columbia Grad web page
Just an example.
[quote]
You may have an advantage (with lower scores) at another school. I think Berkeley's website has some stats on this. Students who were accepted from Berkeley to top teer law schools scored outrageously higher than the average accepted. Just a thought...
[/quote]
I don't see it. You think that you'd have an advantage if coming from a less competitive school and having lower scores as opposed to having higher scores from an institution of Berkeley's magnitude?
It doesn't make sense.</p>
<p>Thanks for echoing me one<em>big</em>tree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
G1a2b, numbers are numbers genius. You may be familiar with this famous quote The numbers dont lie. Whether you choose to believe then or not and/or call them misleading is up to you! You can live in your little bubble where the numbers dont count but the rest of us live in the real world.
[/quote]
I wasn't disputing the use of numbers; you need to understand statistics somewhat to see why those numbers are so misleading. The numbers were from a self-selected survey of students graduating and also applying to law school(s) in a given year; they represent a super small non-random subsample. </p>
<p>While law schools certainly consider which undergraduate institution(s) you completed your undergraduate work at, the bottom line scores matter most: gpa and graduate school test scores. And the scores one should look at to see if they have a chance at a particular school are that school's overall averages. This is of course assuming that you attend an undergraduate institution with a reasonable reputation, that is, just as they will say, a school that offers challenging coursework, etc., etc.</p>
<p>Interesting post because in the last year three of my friends and my sister applied to top law schools and Ill never understand how the law schools base their acceptances. Two of my friends applied from my school (BC), one from Kansas State and the other from Duke. All of them had good stats; no one was under a 3.6. The funny thing is, my friend from K State got into the best school of the four, Harvard. My sister is heading to UCLA and the other two are at lower-second tier schools. The Duke student had the highest stats and is heading to USD this year rejected from the all the top law schools. Explain that one???</p>
<p>First of all, "no one was under a 3.6" isn't very explanatory. You didn't even mention their LSAT scores. A 3.6 and a 160 LSAT score, for instance, is very low for "the top" law schools (assuming top 5 or 10). In any case, the Duke student would be the one that requires explanation if he really had good stats, but it's obvious that there will be individual cases like this...</p>
<p>3.75, 171 - Duke (USD Law; rejected from HYS, UVa, UoC, NYU)
3.7, 167 - KSTATE (HLS)
3.63, 169 - BC (UCLA Law)
3.65, 161 - BC (DePaul Law)</p>
<p>No one needs to explain anything to you. They were all awesome high school students (4.0+, killers SAT's), great college students, active citizens and generally good high class people. It is what it is. </p>
<p>From what he (Duke) said, a lot of students applied to the same law schools from Duke and they only accept so many from each school. It was a very competitive class. He worked extremely hard on his ap, his LSAT, and recs. I don't know what to tell you but maybe kkaech is right. Sounds like Berkeley has the same issue.</p>
<p>Was the KSTATE applicant a URM applicant? </p>
<p>I just discovered that there were 1,238 Berkeley grads who applied to law schools for 04-05; the survey (with those scary numbers everyone keeps mentioning) on Berkeley's website has a total of 319 for that same year.</p>
<p>With most of the inflated gpas on the site it's because the total accepted are under five, in some cases just TWO--clearly an average of TWO-five is not enough to gather much. You can say that the low admit percentage is enough, but the survey just doesn't cover enough applicants.</p>
<p>Just look at an example of how these numbers are not very useful:
UChicago, 2005, 27 applicants, 2 admits--7% admission rate
UChicago, 2004, 39 applicants, 10 admits--26% admission rate
Does anyone actually believe that the admission rate for Berkeley students would go from 26% to 7% in one year? The total applicants (RECORDED IN THE SURVEY) actually went DOWN from 2004 to 2005 (even though that most certainly is not the case for the comprehensive numbers).</p>
<p>Also, an example of the average gpa issue:</p>
<p>UChicago, 2005, 2 admits/27 applicants, average gpa: 4.04
Uchicago, 2003, 5 admits/43 applicants, average gpa: 3.70</p>
<p>These numbers are not consistent as nspeds stated.</p>
<p>Harvard, 2004, 12 admits/63 applicants, average gpa: 3.93, lsat: 171
Harvard, 2003, 3 admits/64 applicants, average gpa: 3.98, lsat: 171
From 5% to 19%, four times as many admits from Berkeley.</p>
<p>I think these numbers are an indication of (1) the nature of the self-selecting survey and POSSIBLY (2) the importance of individual applicants over undergraduate institution--the numbers don't support a quota as has been suggested. But really, I think the numbers are pretty much useless because of their limited nature. A vast number of applicants just don't participate.</p>
<p>"Each year profiled includes Dec, May, Aug grads (e.g. 2005 includes 12/04, 5/05& 8/05 graduates).
Source: Law School Admission Council, 2005."</p>
<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Law/lawStats.stm%5B/url%5D">http://career.berkeley.edu/Law/lawStats.stm</a></p>
<p>I really don't want to argue about this any more nor do I have the time to spend (as some clearly do).</p>
<p>I am well aware of that, Kaech. What's your point? They include all the grads that apply to law school for the upcoming academic year. Graduating Seniors 1998-2005. </p>
<p>Did you miss this part, or?</p>
<p>4 The Top 20 Law Schools & California Law Schools report is based upon a subset of data and consists only of students who agreed to report their admissions data.</p>
<p>The "1,238" number I stated includes ALL grads, those who have been out of school for years, etc. I'm aware of that. That's kind of part of the point. It just shows how ridiculously limited the Berkeley website numbers are.</p>
<p>Kansas State - 1 -0.0593472% of admitted students</p>
<p>Yale University - 126 - 7.5%
Stanford University - 91 - 5.4%
Duke University - 55 - 3.3%
Harvard University - 232 - 14%</p>