Big name public universities (Berkeley/UVA/Michigan/UNC/UCLA) Versus Non-HYP ivies

College Search & Selection
181

<p>^ Thank you for providing that data. I would like to clarify that I was not considering lower elite privates – i.e., Georgetown, Cornell, etc. – when discussing the difference between student bodies in the context of medical and law school admissions. I was mainly referring to top elite privates – HYPS – where their undergrads on average score noticeably higher on the LSAT and MCAT. On the other hand, on average, lower privates’ undergrads do not score noticeably higher on the LSAT/MCAT than top publics’ undergrads to render a significant difference in admissions’ results.</p>

<p>Further, when I stated that a 159/160 is a “bad” LSAT score, I meant that the law schools that would admit such an applicant would not be worth attending, particularly in light of the current condition of the legal employment sector. I did not mean that Berkeley’s average is relatively “bad” compared to most schools’ averages. To be fair, a Harvard undergrad with a 166 probably should not attend law school either. The vast majority of people who take the LSAT at any undergrad should not go to law school, but due to lack of research and knowledge about current employment prospects, many will matriculate anyway.</p>

182

<p>

</p>

<p>what a silly statistic, Michigan has 2x the number of undergrads as Cornell and 2.5x the number of undergrads as Penn. So Michigan matriculates 60% and 40% of the proportion of it’s undergrads to top 14 law schools compared to Cornell and Upenn, way to shoot your case in the foot. </p>

<p>On an acceptance rate basis (thanks for getting the data btw) Upenn outperforms Michigan at every single top 14 law school apart from Michigan itself for which the acceptance rates are equal. In most cases penn’s acceptance rate is ~1.5 times that of Michigan’s. </p>

<p>Now either michigan is taking in noticeable less qualified kids or it’s doing a worse job educating them - I’m inclined to believe it’s the former, but the students as a whole in the two institutions are not all that comparable for the purpose of law school admissions.</p>

183

<p>As titillating as this discussion is, I’m confused as to why statistics for medical school and law school admissions matter. The average Penn, Dartmouth, Columbia, or top public university student will not get into a top 14 law school or top medical school. In other words, these medical and law school admissions statistics are pretty meaningless because your alma mater will not help you get into law school or medical school. I know people at my graduate program (ranked in the top 10) from low-ranked, no-name undergrads, as well HYPSM. We all ended up at the same place, based on our own ability/test scores, not our alma maters.</p>

184

<p>Confidentialcoll, thanks for the classy remark! Has it occured to you that I know exactly what I am talking about and that I am 100% correct. My point was not that Michigan (and other publics) have identical (or proportional) placement statistics to their private peers. My point was that the difference is not exponential, but rather, comparable. In fact, admission rates from Michigan are virtually identical to those from Cornell and Georgetown.</p>

<p>As you can easily surmise, the student body at Michigan will be somewhat different from the student body at Penn. </p>

<p>For one thing, at Michigan, only 800 (out of 6,000 who graduate) or so students apply to law school each year. That’s partly due to the fact that 2,000 of those 6,000 belong to programs such as Music, Art & Architecture, Nursing, Kinesiology, Engineering, Pharmacy, Education etc…Such students are highly unlikely to apply to Law school. Only students enrolled in the College of LSA, Public Policy and Ross will apply to law school in great numbers. Those three colleges enroll a total of 17,000 undergrads. </p>

<p>For another, as you pointed out, and I fully admit it, only 50% or so of the students at Michigan (college of Arts and Science) are comparable to the top 75% of the students at schools like Columbia or Penn.</p>

<p>For these reasons and several others I cannot think of, you are not going to have as high a ratio of pre-law students at Michigan as you are at Penn.</p>

<p>But at the same time, it is also pretty clear that Law school admissions committees do not differentiate between applicants from an elite university, regardless of whether it is private or public. That was all I was saying.</p>

185

<p>

</p>

<p>but the difference while not exponential (incorrect use of exponential) is significant as I have shown in my post.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>those same corrections apply to penn and especially to cornell.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>firstly, I’m not sure it’s as high as 50%, secondly, I’m not sure coming into college less qualified deters people from wanting to go to law school (these are still high quality students at both schools) and thirdly, if a small proportion of qualified students are applying from Michigan, then shouldn’t the acceptance rates be higher or as high?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think it’s a lot easier to compare Mich to Cornell than to Penn. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I wouldn’t say it’s pretty clear, but I definitely cannot prove otherwise, so I’ll accept this, but it’s highly likely that the average applicant from Michigan is less qualified than that of penn. However, if we take applicants of equal quality, it seems like it doesn’t make too much of difference which top school s/he goes to.</p>

186

<p>I agree with most of your responses confidentialcoll. Your last sentence above sums it up perfectly.</p>

187

<p>

</p>

<p>This is not relevant to the discussion about statistics, but I find it amusing to read a comment such as “at Michigan, only 800 (out of 6,000 who graduate) or so students apply to law school each year.” Is it positive that 800 of 6,000 students who graduate apply to law school? What if they all did get in … somewhere? I think that a number between 50 and 100 should gives us reasons to … applaud! A number close to 1,000 should be a real reason for … concern.</p>

188

<p>alex,
Looking thru your Law School Admissions data for the four colleges (Cornell, Georgetown, U Michigan, U Penn), all are considered part of the T-14 calculation. </p>

<p>A few numbers really jump out at me, most prominently the % of undergrads choosing same university Law School’s among T-14 Law Schools</p>

<p>16% from Cornell undergrad choosing Cornell Law among T-14 Law Schools (101 T-14 matriculates, 16 going to Cornell Law)</p>

<p>na from Georgetown undergrad choosing Georgetown Law among T-14 Law Schools (na T-14 matriculates, na going to Georgetown Law)</p>

<p>45% from U Michigan undergrad choosing U Michigan Law among T-14 Law Schools (131 T-14 matriculates, 59 going to U Michigan Law)</p>

<p>18% from U Penn undergrad choosing U Penn Law among T-14 Law Schools (135 T-14 matriculates, 24 going to U Penn Law)</p>

<p>I’m not sure that this means that the U Michigan students are unqualified, but it’s certainly suggests a significant advantage for U Michigan undergrads applying to U Michigan Law. </p>

<p>In addition, when you adjust for undergraduate population, you get the following:</p>

<p>2.9% Cornell undergrads going to T-14 Law Schools
na Georgetown undergrads going to T-14 Law Schools
2.0% U Michigan undergrads going to T-14 Law Schools
5.5% U Penn undergrads going to T-14 Law Schools</p>

189

<p>"This is not relevant to the discussion about statistics, but I find it amusing to read a comment such as “at Michigan, only 800 (out of 6,000 who graduate) or so students apply to law school each year.” Is it positive that 800 of 6,000 students who graduate apply to law school? What if they all did get in … somewhere? I think that a number between 50 and 100 should gives us reasons to … applaud! A number close to 1,000 should be a real reason for … concern. "</p>

<p>Why is that? There are many law schools in this country. Most of the T14 are on the coasts. People from the midwest are not as likely going to go that far to attend graduate school.</p>

190

<p>Hawkette, the data is all there and does not support your claims. All Law schools give slight preference to their own. Typically, Michigan students make up 15% of Michigan Law classes. That’s no different from Harvard, Penn or Yale. </p>

<p>Look at the numbers:</p>

<p>Cornell Law admitted 70 of its own students. The average LSAT and GPA of those students was 166 / 3.6. Of those 70 admitted, only 16 (23%) decided to enroll. </p>

<p>Michigan Law admitted 92 of its own students. The average LSAT and GPA of those students was 168 / 3.75. Of those 92 admitted, a whopping 59 (65%) decided to enroll.</p>

<p>Penn Law admitted 68 of its own students. LSAT and GPA averages were not disclosed. Of those 68 admitted, 24 (35%) decided to enroll. </p>

<p>What this tells me is that Michigan students are more likely to stay put if given the chance. Afterall, given the caliber of Michigan students admitted into Michigan Law, there is a good chance most of those students were admitted into other top Law schools. 3.75 GPA with 168 LSAT is by no means lowering their standards. Maybe this says something about their experience at Michigan and Ann Arbor.</p>

191

<p>"In addition, when you adjust for undergraduate population, you get the following:</p>

<p>2.9% Cornell undergrads going to T-14 Law Schools
na Georgetown undergrads going to T-14 Law Schools
2.0% U Michigan undergrads going to T-14 Law Schools
5.5% U Penn undergrads going to T-14 Law Schools"</p>

<p>Comparing Cornell and Michigan in this fashion is fair. Afterall, only 65% of their students are enrolled into academic programs (LSA, Ross, Public Policy) that feed into Law school. LSA, Ross and PP at Michigan enroll a combined 17,000 undergrads. That’s 65% of the total undergraduate student population. At Penn, that number is closer to 80%, with over 8,000 of its 10,000 undergrads enrolled in the CAS and Wharton. At most other private elites, roughly 90% are enrolled in such programs. </p>

<p>And student body strength should also be factored in. Although I disagree with your estimation of Michigan students, I always admit that only about half of Michigan’s undergraduate student body is comparable to the top 75% of the undergraduate students enrolled at its private peers.</p>

<p>And can you share the % of students from Vanderbilt or Washington University that matriculate into top 14 Law schools? I am willing to bet it is lower than 2%. How about schools that you claim are peers of Michigan, such as the University of Miami? 05%? Probably even lower. 2% is a pretty considerable number when you factor in the fact that only 10%-15% of Michigan students apply to law school.</p>

192

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s ridiculously clear. Go on top-law-schools.com and read the forums. Pretty much only your numbers matter for law school admissions. Nobody cares where you went for undergrad, except possibly UChicago Law, and even then, only HYPSM would offer any slight boost.</p>

<p>My friend from an unranked undergrad (the average SAT score at his school was a 900 on the old scale) had a 4.0 and a 180 LSAT and is going to Yale Law.</p>

<p>And fwiw, Penn undergrads on average score a 162 or 163 on the LSAT…which is pretty horrendous. </p>

<p>I also don’t know where someone mentioned Miami being a peer of Michigan…but seriously? </p>

<p>And yes, Cornell and Michigan undergrads are more comparable for admissions purposes than Mich-Penn undergrads because they have more similar SAT interquartiles. Penn undergrads on average score slightly higher on the LSAT than Cornell and Mich ugrads, but they still do bad enough where most of them shouldn’t even attend law school. Your undergrad really does not matter for med/law school admissions.</p>

193

<p>Alex,
I was using your data. I’m not making any “claims” about it. Heck, I explicitly said that I was not. But I must admit that I was surprised by the degree to which U Michigan students made up the % of U Michigan T-14 matriculates. It’s significantly different than any of the schools you posted data for. </p>

<p>As for data for places like Wash U and Vanderbilt, not to mention U Miami, do you know how many even applied to the T-14 law schools and how they did? </p>

<p>Also, how old is this information? My sense is that the lagged effect of changes in student body strength are not yet showing themselves in your data. For students who are matriculating to law school this fall, they took the SAT/ACT more than 6 years ago. That’s a long time. Have any of the schools that you are comparing experienced significant changes in the standardized test scores of their students? As you probably know, high SAT/ACT scores are often a good leading indicator of LSAT scores later in their academic careers. </p>

<p>Anyway, IMO the observation made earlier about “quality in, quality out” is right on target. The school does not make the student. The student makes the student. I don’t care if he/she went to Harvard or U Michigan or U Miami. Get the GPA, score well on the LSAT, maybe get some impressive work experience—that’s the path to acceptance at the T-14. </p>

<p>ericsson,
When he mentions U Michigan and U Miami, Alex is referring to discussions from other threads. Btw, for their overalls student bodies, it might surprise you that U Michigan is a much closer peer to U Miami than it is to U Penn.</p>

<p>1170-1380 U Miami
1230-1430 U Michigan</p>

<p>1230-1430 U Michigan
1350-1530 U Penn </p>

<p>Like all Top 50 schools, U Michigan has some strong students, but when measured on an overall basis, its student body is hardly elite and is not in U Penn’s class.</p>

194

<p>^ Weird. I didn’t realize Penn’s 25th was that low, considering it’s ranked in the top 5 undergrads. There’s overlap between all three schools. Michigan is in the middle, not really closer to Miami than it is to Penn. Michigan’s IQs look similar to other top publics, like UCLA and Berkeley…I don’t think anyone said that the top publics’ IQs are similar to higher ranked private undergrads’ IQs. Top publics’ IQs are similar to Cornell’s, Georgetown’s, etc.</p>

<p>You guys should read top-law-schools.com. Work experience does not matter for top-14 admissions, except for Northwestern Law. Berkeley Law accepts lowish LSATs compared to the rest of the t-14 (its 25th is a 165), but looks for certain types of ECs. Besides that, it’s pretty much a numbers game.</p>

<p>I also get the feeling that many of you are simply pushing this agenda that privates > publics because you attended Ivy undergrads…let’s face it though, most of you will not get into top graduate programs, because most of you will not do well enough on standardized tests. You guys are not special butterflies, and adcomms will not give you a boost.</p>

195

<p>Hawkette, the data are for students who graduated from college in either 2008 or 2009 (the links specify the year). None of those four universities have have experienced significant changes in selectivity over the last 5 years. </p>

<p>“I was using your data. I’m not making any “claims” about it. Heck, I explicitly said that I was not. But I must admit that I was surprised by the degree to which U Michigan students made up the % of U Michigan T-14 matriculates. It’s significantly different than any of the schools you posted data for.”</p>

<p>Not really Hawkette, not when you consider the size of the respective Law schools. </p>

<p>Cornell Law matriculates 200 students per class. 16 out of 200 is 8%
Penn Law matriculares 250 students per class. 24 out of 250 is 10%
Michigan Law matriculates 400 students per class. 59 out of 400 is 15%</p>

<p>There isn’t much of a difference in matriculation statistics. The main difference is yield. For some reason, cornell and Penn are not nearly as successful at attracting the alums they admit into their Law programs as Michigan is. I am not sure why that is, but I assume it has to do with quality of life on and around campus.</p>

196

<p>eric,
Not entirely sure what you mean about relative standing of students/student bodies and IQ, but a few more data points comparing student body strength at U Penn, U Michigan and U Miami. </p>

<p>ACT 25/75</p>

<p>27-31 U Miami
27-31 U Michigan</p>

<p>27-31 U Michigan
30-34 U Penn</p>

<p>Here are some depth measurements: </p>

<p>% scoring 700+ on CR, % scoring 700+ on Math, College (one-year lag in reported data)</p>

<p>20%, 27% U Miami
22%, 46% U Michigan</p>

<p>22%, 46% U Michigan
52%, 70% U Penn</p>

<p>% of students scoring 30+ on ACT</p>

<p>42% U Miami
44% U Michigan</p>

<p>44% U Michigan
76% U Penn</p>

<p>I think it’s a myth that U Michigan’s student body is anywhere close to a place like U Penn. In actuality, it bears a lot more resemblance to U Miami’s. </p>

<p>Alex,
Students who entered law school in 2008 or 2009 took their SAT/ACT in 2003 or earlier. Not exactly the most current data set to compare with. </p>

<p>My contention is that one’s SAT/ACT scores are a good predictor of future LSAT scores. While I don’t presently have any data to support this, my sense is that many schools have seen material changes in their average SAT/ACT scores since 2002-03. If I’m correct, then we are likely to see improvement in their average LSAT scores going forward. </p>

<p>Btw, I was not judging the % of U Michigan students are in the entering class at U Michigan. I was commenting on the U Michigan students who achieved T-14 Law Schools and how many of them are concentrated at U Michigan Law School. Here is how it compares among the four schools:</p>

<p>16% Cornell
na Georgetown
45% U Michigan
18% U Penn</p>

197

<p>

</p>

<p>For the bazillionth time, however, the % of students from a given school who get into a T14 law school (or top medical school, or top b-school) is a meaningless number. Schools that have undergrads in a wider range of areas (such as WashU with an art school, Vandy and NU with music schools, etc.) are going to have a lower % of students who are even interested in law in the first place. Bigger schools have more law-school-aspirants than smaller schools. </p>

<p>As well, not everyone who wants to be a lawyer wants to go to a T14 school. Some may have family or personal reasons to stay in a different area of the country. Someone’s not a “failure” if they decide they want to be a lawyer in their home state of Washington and only apply to the UWashington law school. (If they have one - just making that up.)</p>

<p>What is meaningful is what % of students who APPLY to law school get into their top (or perhaps top, second or third) choice. That is the only relevant metric.</p>

<p>Not understanding this concept is not understanding some very basic math here.</p>

198

<p>

</p>

<p>91st percentile (163) is horrendous?? You have very high standards. How about toning down the hyperbole?</p>

199

<p>The average student at Berkeley may be similar to (or slightly weaker than) the average student at a school like Emory, but the distribution is very different. The bottom is much weaker and the top is stronger.</p>

200

<p>

You do realize you’re looking at tier 2 law schools with a 163, right? All of the t-14 law schools (except cornell and berkeley) have median LSAT scores of 169+. Most medians are 170+. You have to miss a decent amount of questions to decline from 170 to 163 (something like 10 questions). Even non t-14 medians, like UCLA, Vandy, and UT are now at 167/168 or so. Also, schools in the lower top 20, like GW, have medians of 167.</p>

<p>So yeah, a 163 is pretty freaking horrendous.</p>