@SeattleTW: When I was in law school no one knew, or cared, or ever asked where anyone else had gone to undergrad. If one of my classmates had tried to look down on someone for their undergrad I can’t imagine it would have gone over well. The same is true at my law firm, but it also extends to law schools.
At my law school we had a picture book with the undergrad listed and when it was published I cannot tell you how many "whaaaaat"s were said by kids who had attended elite private schools. They were as nasty as the characters at HLS in Legally Blonde.
Sen. Ted Cruz, HLS, was reportedly so snobby about undergrad education that he formed a law study group that included only alums of Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, and excluded what he called the “lesser Ivies” e.g., Brown, Penn, Columbia. Maybe others aren’t so brazen about it, but I do think undergrad snobbery does occur, and the comment by SeattleTW above about micro-aggressions (“what state is that school in?”) is right on.
That says a lot about the character of those kids, huh? 
Average performance at an elite school = top grades at a lesser school. my 2.9 GPA at an Ivy got me into law school. Lots of Law schools wouldn’t give a B student from an “average” school a chance.
@SeattleTW: How long ago did you attend law school?
@spayurpets: Every so often someone still makes a study group like that and ATL makes fun of it. I’m not saying there aren’t any snobs, I’m saying that it’s an attitude no longer generally accepted.
When I was in law school, among the people who got perfect LSAT scores in class was a guy who went to a Northeastern state school for undergrad; I don’t recall any looking-down on people who didn’t go to elite colleges.
A reliably researched thread, “Mean LSAT Score by Undergraduate College,” indicates that some colleges are significantly better than others in instilling their graduates with the depth of skills necessary to perform well on this important exam.
Beyond that, writing skills are useful to have for both law school and the practice of law. USNWR’s subcategory, “Writing in the Disciplines,” can help you identify a few colleges that will reinforce your skills in this area.
The above are a couple of aspects worth considering when selecting an undergraduate college as a place to prepare for law school.
(Referenced thread available in the College Search and Selection forum.)
@merc81: It indicates no such thing. The far more plausible conclusion is that undergrads that demand higher test scores tend to get people with better test scores, and those skills persist come time for the LSAT.
@Demostenes49: To point out that correlation does not prove causation seems like an elementary observation for a law school forum. Indeed, the thread I referenced proves “no such thing” as causation. However, it clearly indicates it, and could even prove it, as further analysis would be likely to demonstrate that certain colleges either significantly over or under-perform their entering metrics. By your interpretation, no school should matter. Ever.
“Demostenes” should be “Demosthenes.” (#29)
@merc81: Correct, no school matters. It doesn’t matter for law school admissions purposes, and there’s no evidence at all that going to a better undergrad generates a better LSAT score. There is, however, evidence that SAT scores correlate with LSAT scores, which handily explains the connection between undergrad name and LSAT score.
To answer the original question:
- There are posters on College Confidential who have served on admissions committees, and there is a poster in the Law School forum who has served on 3 law school admissions committees. That poster says that one's undergrad certainly matters, and in that poster's experience, the law schools would at least favor the undergrad college in the law school's university, and highly-ranked colleges otherwise.
- There is also a poster who had direct experience with Harvard Law School admissions and reported that Harvard College applicants received a small GPA "boost", so someone coming from Harvard College could get into HLS with a lower GPA than someone coming from elsewhere.
Both of those reports make sense to me, as an important factor in hiring by law firms is one’s undergrad name (although one’s law school name and law school grades are most important). That factor was reported in a law school-wide survey of hiring practices that was reported to the student body when I was in law school.
If Demosthenes says one thing and the posters described in 1 and 2 above say another, I’d go with what the posters described in 1 and 2 say, unless Demosthenes gives some background information that trumps the background information that posters described in 1 and 2 above have given. Those posters carry weight.
I gotta ask: what poster on CC has served on three law school admissions committees?
@crankyoldman, there is one; if you hunt around, the poster has posted pretty recently in one of the “does your undergrad school matter” threads. I believe that at least one of the admissions committees was for a public school, if that helps.
For even-handedness, my background is that I went to law school almost 20 years ago and did not serve on any admissions committee and so my posts should be taken with that as the context; however, what I read and heard from my classmates at that time, any my experience on the interviewer/hiring side of law firm hiring is consistent with the view that where you go to undergrad does matter, even if it matters far less than your GPA/LSAT score and law school name and grades.
“no school matters” (#31)
You began with your conclusion, then failed to support it.
“There is . . . evidence that SAT scores correlate with LSAT scores”
That evidence does not have relevance as to whether other factors, such as the college attended, independently correlate with LSAT performance after an adjustment for entering factors has been made.
The former dean of admissions of U. of Chicago Law School says- very clearly- that where you go to college DOES matter; (in my words, a 3.5 from Stanford will not be treated the same as a 3.5 from Cowtown College):
@merc81: I’ve supported it in several other threads now and didn’t think I needed to repeat. Boiled down, law schools care about USNWR rank, USNWR rank is based on GPA/LSAT, it would therefore be contrary to law schools’ financial interests to care about undergrad name (as it could disqualify people with good GPA/LSAT), in any event there are now far too few LSAT takers for schools to discriminate even if they wanted to, and admissions data largely reflects this (see law school numbers).
Deans of various schools and admissions counselors say otherwise for a couple reasons. First, they have a financial interest in people thinking that more things matters as it generates application fees/selectivity for the former and clients for the latter. Second, law schools do care about URM status, and public schools can only care about URM status if they do so “holistically,” which means public law schools must dissemble or face suit. Private schools taking federal funds are in a similar boat (and they all take federal funds as that is basically the modern law school business model).
And with respect to the LSAT, as the proponent of an effect the burden is on you to show it exists. Occams razor suggests the LSAT/SAT correlation is enough. If you want to propound a new source of improved LSAT scores, you should support it with evidence.
The graphs speak for themselves…Yes there is possible selection bias and self reporting but here is Columbia’s graph. http://columbia.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1415
The success rate is much higher with an LSAT over 170…and generally speaking the only way to compensate for a sub 170 is a very high GPA as the majority of the admits under 170 were either URM or high GPA.
If undergrad DID matter then we would see greater numeric variations in acceptances for non-URM apps
@Eagles0517, thanks for posting the lawschoolnumbers.com graph. It is completely consistent with statements by people such as Anna Ivey and Joyce Curll and contrary to statements by Demosthenes.
A prior poster who claimed to have seen HLS admissions records stated that HLS had what seemed to be a pretty hard and fast LSAT cutoff below which few people were admitted. HLS, however, gave a GPA “boost” to Harvard College applicants, so as long as they met the HLS LSAT minimum, they got into HLS even with lower GPAs than other applicants.
That’s completely consistent with the Columbia graph.
Further, if college (and other soft factors) didn’t matter, then the upper right-hand portion of the chart, above GPA and LSAT cutoffs, would have only green, and elsewhere on the graph would have only red. That’s not the graph at all, though. There is a huge swath of waitlisted people, mixed in with admitted people. Candidates with a 166 LSAT and at or above a 3.7 GPA have a decent shot at being admitted, although it’s certainly a mix.
Consistent with the graph, someone who had an LSAT score at the cutoff (or even with a 166 LSAT, which is below the median for Columbia) and who has, say, a 3.7 from Stanford would be more likely to get in than someone who has a 3.7 from Cowtown State and the same LSAT score, since both candidates would be at the margin, and the admissions committee would be looking for other factors to show strength of the person’s prior accomplishments. The iffy record of people with a 166/3.7 clearly shows that soft factors matter, particularly when you’re on the edge.