<p>Hi. Will be graduating from Columbia with probably a 3.8 plus moving into the 3.9 territory. You never know, I am a junior but I do not foresee anything but A's forthcoming for my senior year.</p>
<p>My SAT was almost perfect so assuming my LSAT will be the same.</p>
<p>So this means Ivy League grad, with some impressive NY internships and top grades and top LSAT.</p>
<p>Everyone I know at Columbia that wants to go to law school wants to do exactly what I want to do: stay in NYC.</p>
<p>Is there a bias at Columbia Law against Columbia undergrads in the name of 'diversity.'</p>
<p>Also -- in terms of scholarships -- which top tier law school offer the best scholarships?</p>
<p>I am not really interested in Stanford, Harvard or Yale.</p>
<p>Want to stay in NYC but would go to S, H or Y before Fordham. (Sorry, Fordham.)</p>
<p>Any idea of my chances at Columbia ... and insights into scholarships.</p>
<p>In terms of financial aid it looks like Columbia is the best. This makes the Columbia Law question regarding bias against Columbia undergrad even more significant. </p>
<p>Columbia</p>
<p>Full Time Tuition: $41,226 % Receiving Grant Aid: 46.1%
Part Time Tuition: – Full Tuition & Stipend: 0.0%
Living Expenses: $18,800 Full Tuition: 2.8%
Total Cost (FT): $60,026 Half Tuition: 8.1%
Total Cost (PT): – Other Scholarships: 35.1%</p>
<p>NYU</p>
<p>Full Time Tuition: $40,385 % Receiving Grant Aid: 31.3%
Part Time Tuition: – Full Tuition & Stipend: 0.0%
Living Expenses: $21,333 Full Tuition: 7.9%
Total Cost (FT): $61,718 Half Tuition: 6.3%
Total Cost (PT): – Other Scholarships: 17.1%</p>
<p>Harvard</p>
<p>Full Time Tuition: $38,490 % Receiving Grant Aid: 39.7%
Part Time Tuition: – Full Tuition & Stipend: 0.2%
Living Expenses: $19,336 Full Tuition: 1.3%
Total Cost (FT): $57,826 Half Tuition: 13.6%
Total Cost (PT): – Other Scholarships: 24.6%</p>
<p>erf, i also got a "nearly perfect score" on my SAT but ended up bombing the LSATs. It's not a direct equivalent, especially if you have spent the four undergraduate years heavily abusing your brain</p>
<p>^ It depends on if you studied for the SAT or not. I never studied for the SAT but studied for the LSAT for 1.5 months and it pretty much corresponded exactly to the equation listed below. If you did not study for the SAT and scored nearly perfectly, then with minimal prep (one month or so) you can get a high 170s LSAT score. </p>
<p>Just wanted to know, how does the equation above apply when talking about prep classes and whatnot? Because I feel that if a person took prep courses and studied their arse off for the SAT then that equation may be too optimistic, just as it may the other way around for those who BS'd and studied for the SAT minimally.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just wanted to know, how does the equation above apply when talking about prep classes and whatnot? Because I feel that if a person took prep courses and studied their arse off for the SAT then that equation may be too optimistic, just as it may the other way around for those who BS'd and studied for the SAT minimally.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is definitely too optimistic for those who studied a lot.</p>
<p>The equation generally applies for a NO PREP SAT (first time taking it, no retakes) and a PREP LSAT score. </p>
<p>It predicted my score exactly on the dot. I did NOT study for the SAT but studied for the LSAT for 1.5 months.</p>
<p>The formula worked for me within 1 point. But I also know someone who on first taking LSAT was within 1 point of predicted LSAT based on SAT and ultimately improved 8 points on LSAT by studying weaknesses. So while it is a guide, your effort on LSAT prerp can substantially improve performance.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My SAT was almost perfect so assuming my LSAT will be the same
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your logical reasoning skills = fail.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Any idea of my chances at Columbia ... and insights into scholarships.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No one can tell you your chances without an LSAT score, or at least a diagnostic. If you score over 170, as you seem to know you will, obviously you have a decent shot.</p>
<p>Regarding the formula: I scored 4 points higher than it said I would, probably because I didn't study for the SAT.</p>
<p>did not study for SATs (back then, nobody did, at least around me). by that formula i shoulda gotten a 177, which might have saved me from MVP purgatory. in reality, i was far, far, far off. i needed to prep and retake to even get to the above mentioned purgatory.</p>
<p>or maybe i just got stupider in college <em>shrug</em>.</p>
<p>I don't put any stock into that formula. It discounts/accounts for studying or the lack thereof between the two tests. The effect and type of studying is highly variable and different between almost everyone.</p>
<p>The only way I think it may be valid is if the student's preparation leading to both the LSAT and SAT were identical, meaning both study or no study.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only way I think it may be valid is if the student's preparation leading to both the LSAT and SAT were identical, meaning both study or no study.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>FAIL. I don't have hard, statistical evidence to back up my claims, but I pretty much only knew pre-law students during undergrad, and the formula generally worked within +/- 3 points with no study/study. (More applicable if you did not prep for the SAT and prepped for the LSAT.)</p>
<p>dude
average SAT scores at top schools, back when I was applying, was ~1450, IIRC
that would translate into 171 with this formula
the average LSAT from the top schools, however, is much less than that. i think my school's was ~163. And I don't think there were a lot of kids who really prepped for the SATs back then either.</p>
<p>@ OP, with regards to your question on whether or not bias exists in law schools accepting their own undergraduates, I know this is true for PhD programs. I'm not so sure if it matters that much for law school.</p>
<p>Average LSAT for Harvard undergrads is a 166/167, despite much higher SAT score. You honestly don't think Harvard undergrads prepped for the SAT? Seriously? </p>
<p>There's two explanations for this discrepancy:
1) They prepped for both, hence equation doesn't work as well.
2) The "dumber" kids at Harvard take the LSAT. The average SAT for engineering/hard science majors is higher than the average for liberal arts at most schools. It makes sense that there are more pre-law liberal arts majors than hard science/engineering. If they take it, then it might skew the results somewhat since it is not the same sample.</p>