<p>then sakky, just plz explain to me why U of Chicago places more kids into Harvard Law and Yale Law than Northwestern, and plz you can account for class size as well, and Chicago still wins. It not only has grade deflation but is not such an easy school to begin with. Plz explain, I would like to hear your argument. What are you going to say more kids from Chicago apply to eastern law schools.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php</a>
<a href="http://www.yale.edu/bulletin/html/law/students.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.yale.edu/bulletin/html/law/students.html</a></p>
<p>No, it's the other way around. NW actually sends more kids to Yale/Harvard than Chicago. One may say Chicago is smaller but NW has many students in preprofessional programs and probably not many of them (like engineering/theater/music majors) apply to law schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
then sakky, just plz explain to me why U of Chicago places more kids into Harvard Law and Yale Law than Northwestern, and plz you can account for class size as well, and Chicago still wins. It not only has grade deflation but is not such an easy school to begin with. Plz explain, I would like to hear your argument. What are you going to say more kids from Chicago apply to eastern law schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think your question basically got answered by Sam Lee. The number of Uchicago kids who go to Harvard and Yale Law is actually relatively low, relative to peer schools. Chicago can get only 16 kids into HLS, whereas a school like Stanford can get 91 and Duke can get 55? Chicago can get only 7 kids into YLS, whereas Stanford can get 40 and Duke can get 12? Come on.</p>
<p>So what about people who come from state schools that are not well known at all (i.e. - It's certainly no Berkeley or anything - just average). Right now I go to Georgia State University and may have to stay there because of financial reasons and am a little worried that my school's lack of prestiege will kick me out of the running for a top law school (I have a 3.97 GPA). With an LSAT score within range, would a top law school seriously consider me?</p>
<p>Sure. Law school admissions are mostly numbers-oriented. They don't care very much about where you went to school, just as long as you have the grades and LSAT score. That's why people who go to difficult schools (i.e. MIT, Chicago) get screwed in the process.</p>
<p>However, HYS seem to be in a different league. They have sent a lot more people to HY law schools than anybody else.</p>
<p>collegegirl, my bet is that law schools would LOVE someone with a 3.97 and GPA to match, as long as their college was accredited and their major was an academic one (ie tourism management studies is not looked upon the way English or math or poli sci would be). a high LSAT score backs up the grades and indicates that you could do the work in an elite law school, and your numbers would help their stats for rankings.there's no footnote in US News that says "yeah, but most of those 3.6s were from Princeton" or "well, it's a 3.9 but it's from a poorly-ranked school." the numbers are the numbers, and law schools want to have high ones.</p>
<p>Regarding majors, I was under the impression that it honestly doesn't matter, they just index your GPA with your LSAT, and voila. Is this accurate?</p>
<p>Your major doesn't matter very much at all, although if you major in something really soft or something like "pre-law," then they won't be as impressed by your GPA. On the other hand, if you major in a hard science but have a very high LSAT, they might give you a break.</p>
<p>I got some conflicting advice from 2 different threads here. Maybe Ricz (or anyone else) could throw in their 2 cents. What do you think about business as an undergraduate major for law school? One thread said it's great and another said other fields (like some which Ricz said were "soft" - philosophy, history) are better for cognitive development, communications etc.</p>
<p>Thanks sakky, Sam Lee, and stacy for the advice. I appreciate the input!</p>
<p>I would not quote ricz for much.</p>
<p>CD</p>
<p>Was it proven that he truly wasnt an Admissions officer?</p>
<p>I don't think his identity could be verified.</p>
<p>I'm sticking up for ricz. Many of you have no idea what you're talking about. I don't know what school he does admissions for but I sat in on a couple small meeting sessions with the Dean of Law at U of I who was very honest about everything (ie our "low" ranking is BS because we definitely trump Iowa which is not the kind of thing you expect to hear from a Dean [it was said in the most professional way possible]).</p>
<p>He said very similar things to what ricz says. That major slightly did matter because engineers did get a little leeway for GPAs at U of I. He mentioned that this may be because of the Law School's obvious knowledge of the grading and curves at the College of Engineering at U of I. He told us that U of I Law School was in talks with the COE to raise the curve but it'll be a cold day in hell before that happens. I suspect these talks are even going on because of U of I LS's reputation in the state for turning out record numbers of patent lawyers. The companies and firms love them and want more while the LS wants to raise it's ranking and allowing all of these engineers in isn't helping.</p>
<p>He also said in pretty much the same breath that grade inflation/deflation matters. They have a pretty good idea what inflates and what doesn't. Princeton btw still grade inflates even with the 35% A thing because I would personally ADORE a 35% A policy (quite a few of my classes curved to a C last semester, it was a *****).</p>
<p>But to contradict what ricz says he also said that he was somewhat unlike other law schools in this respect. He said that all do pay attention to those factors but neglected to mention that some LSs do more than others. U of I's disproportionate amount of attention those factors receive is probably due to the relationship as part of a largely technical school and also well known for not inflating grades (especially outside of lib arts, it hits business and engineering pretty hard but for some reason the engineers care more).</p>
<p>So in conclusion when applying to a law school look at it's rep and what it usually looks for. Going to lawschoolnumbers.com is amazing. Some are GPA skewed (there is an obvious horizontal line, the least common) others are LSAT skewed (there is a blatant vertical line, the most common, many are red one side and green on the other almost uniformly) and others are both (green quartile, this is especially apparent at Harvard). Some schools seem to have visible patterns of bottom reject to top acceptance with a noticeable closing diagonal gap. Others have obvious rolling admissions that end up forming a general pattern. It is incredibly useful to see patterns and if their is an anomaly you can click and maybe find out why (see the persons profile).</p>
<p>In fact the only school with no pattern and no general rule of thumb, surprisingly: Stanford. It's admissions were all over the board most skewing into the upper right quartile but really no traditional obvious score line for either GPA or LSAT.</p>
<p>Business and/or econ is a great undergrad major. It distinguishes one from the usual history, poli sci and pre-law majors, which many prospective law students take. But in the end, grades seem to be the only thing that matter...so if you can succeed as a business major, you're set.</p>
<p>I am in a law class right now with a law prof who never got his JD! He actually has a PhD in Econ and had no interest in teaching law until he was asked to teach by the law school and what he figured would be a fad movement. Now, he is world-reknowned in his area of teaching and has taught everywhere from Eastern Europe to Asia to California and co-founded an organization that combines Law and Econ a movement started in the late 70's-80's. He said that if you're going into law school it was be highly(!) beneficial to take at least one econ course. Perferably several. Most schools don't have a pre-law major but yes to distinguish from poly-sci / english, yes it would be a great thing to try if you like it.</p>
<p>The problem with ricz was that he claimed to be something that could not be verified to the site's Administrator. You are free to agree, or disagree, with what he had to say. I just don't want it quoted as gospel, given that his claim to authority could not be verified. Simply treat it as one opinion, and if something he said resonats and rings true from you experience, so be it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Business and/or econ is a great undergrad major. It distinguishes one from the usual history, poli sci and pre-law majors, which many prospective law students take. But in the end, grades seem to be the only thing that matter...so if you can succeed as a business major, you're set.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Economists are in a group of a few majors that often go to law school. I can't agree that majoring in economics is a good way to stand out. It's great to study, though, and there is a high correlation between being an economics major and doing very well on the LSAT. Also, what's so good about being a business major? Yes, one might acquire certain skills that one would not get in other majors, but it seems to be generally less rigorous than other fields. If you're in a decent program, you can make great contacts, learn some business-related skills that some people won't have, and probably have an easier time getting a higher starting position. If you're in a top program, it's probably looked at as any other major for law school, but in general, don't you think that admissions committees view it as just another major? I do agree that grades are generally the biggest factor, with the LSAT score given around the same weight, and these two accounting for a huge amount of the application, so that if you can succeed as a business major, and like it, you should study it.</p>
<p>Being an economics major is far from being an economist.</p>