@HappyAlumnus …I’d argue differently…If anything, the question “Does where you go for undergrad matter to law schools?” instead of being focused on prestige/ranking of a UG school…it should be more focused on mean undergrad GPA.
A perfect example of this would be comparing the University of Chicago (#4 in National Universities rankings) to Ivies :
Ivies generally have more grade inflation than other schools and the university of Chicago is know for grade deflation as evidenced by its 3.25 GPA needed for honors
In this case a 3.7 from Chicago would be very impressive since it is well above the benchmark for honors, but at an Ivy with grade inflation the 3.7 would not be as impressive and would only above average. Even though they are ranked similarly in the USNWR rankings there is a large disparity between how Chicago and some of its peer Ivies.
@Eagles0517, we’re on the same page. While GPA/LSAT are the main criteria in law school admissions, undergrad matters unless your numbers are off the charts high and there are no other disqualifying things in your application.
Anna Ivey (see the other GPA/LAT thread started today) says exactly what you say: that where you go to college will be factored into the reviewer’s consideration of your GPA, since a GPA of 3.8 in basketweaving at Cowtown State, or a 3.8 at a school where the median GPA is inflated, is not nearly as strong a mark of intelligence than a GPA of 3.8 in a competitive major at a school with less grade inflation and a less competitive student body would be.
So, to reiterate: where you go to college matters unless your numbers are off the charts and there are no other disqualifying things in your application; law school admissions are not GPA/LSAT alone to the exclusion of all other factors.
@HappyAlumnus if in your example where you 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”.
it might come down to grade distributions: if both were at a 3.7 ( in a hypo if the median GPA a Stanford was a 3.5 and the mean GPA at Cowtown was a 3.0, the Cowtown student would be at an advantage since that student would be outperforming more of their competition than the Stanford student.)
@Eagles0517, yes, that may well be the case. I’d guess (and I certainly may be wrong) that the admissions committee would view the Stanford candidate as stronger, being above-average in a sea of really smart people versus being even more above average in a sea of less-sharp people, but your point is certainly correct.
Just to clarify, while you make some lucid points on grade distribution, that also assumes that admission committees are also making the same acknowledgements–many are not. Thus, whether it is truly equitable or not, the name value of the institution, sometimes rules the day.
Now, again, I can’t speak for every level of law school. The schools I have been involved with are a perennial top 20 school, and a couple on the next tier, but still within the top 40 or so…
boolaHI, are you the poster who was involved with 3 law school admissions committees? Your posts are very helpful, and having that involvement is really helpful
Here is a link to the undergrad institutions represented in HLS c/o 2017. With 172 undergrad institutions represented it is safe to say UG importance is minimal. A higher proportion may come from elite schools but correlation does not equal causality.
Eagles0517, there are indeed 172 undergrad schools, but most of them have just 1 person attending HLS every year or every few years. Graduates of HYP, Duke, Stanford and the like constitute most of each class at HLS. I don’t think that it’s the school name that gets people in, but other factors that tie to those schools help get people in.
Unless your GPA/LSAT numbers are off the charts or you have a disqualifying item on your law school application, where you went to undergrad matters at least somewhat: perhaps having a very selective school indicates that your GPA is an indicator of being really sharp, or perhaps having a very selective school with little grade inflation indicates that your GPA is worthy, or maybe the super-motivated people you were surrounded with in college helped push you to apply to, and get into, a top law school, but in any event, where you go to college matters. Cowtown State does not equal Stanford, all other factors being equal.
@HappyAlumnus: Top school graduates are more likely to be better test takers (that’s how they became top school graduates) and therefore are more likely to get into top law schools. It is not at all surprising that they are over represented and no indication that law schools care about undergrad.
@Demosthenes49: Occams razor as proof. Had a good laugh with that one. QED!
I really think some humility and honesty is in order for everyone on these law school admissions threads; NONE of us has the data to prove our hypotheses of what drives the admissions committee decisions, and we never will because these data are purposely hidden from the public. It is junk science for someone to say that their eyeballing the list of undergrad institutions represented at HLS or the law school admissions scattergrams (which are self-reported and incomplete) give one the evidence to “prove” their theory about undergrad institutions or disprove the contrary. A person applying to law school would be wise to take the law school’s word for how they choose their students because that’s the closest you’ll get to a primary source in the admissions game…
@spayurpets: Occam’s Razor wasn’t proof, it was a convenient way of pointing out that for someone who complained about insufficient evidence they had yet to provide any themselves. Still hasn’t.
As for data, you’re right that we don’t have the internal data, but we also don’t need it. External data (inputs and outputs) is sufficient to determine the mechanisms inside the box, no matter what the box says. LSN in particular is an excellent source of information. It may be self-reported, but I’ve no reason to think it therefore inaccurate. Certainly they have less of an interest in the outcome than the words of various deans, also self-reported and with a financial interest in the outcome.
First: whether or not law school admissions committees consider where you go to undergrad is a verifiable fact that can be proven. Either they do or they don’t.
Second: as lawyers, we don’t just pull things out of our heads and assert them and expect people to believe them. When we’re faced with a question, we do research and see what is authoritative on the matter, and what is authoritative governs.
So I don’t know why in the world anyone is giving any credibility whatsoever to anyone who just claims that schools do or do not matter if the person does not provide any third-party source that is authoritative on the matter. It doesn’t matter what Occam’s Razor would lead one to determine; an authoritative source matters. Nor does one’s personal analysis of lawschoolnumbers.com govern.
It seems to me that to determine whether or not law school admissions committees consider where you go to undergrad, we should look at what those committees themselves say. Anna Ivey and Joyce Curll, and plenty of others who have served on those committees, say that they do look at where you go to undergrad. They may look at where you go to undergrad just to figure out how much to deflate your GPA, or how competitive it is to rise to the top at where you go, or for one of many other reasons that is far from just considering the prestige of the school, but they are clear: where you go to undergrad isn’t ignored, unless perhaps your GPA/LSAT numbers are much higher than the law school’s medians.
Some posters prefer to say that people like Anna Ivey are lying for personal business gain, but there is no evidence whatsoever of that; there is no basis that the poster who says that is lying, but the same argument could be used against the poster.
So there we have it: look at law school admissions committees themselves rather than just pulling ideas out of one’s head, and the answer of whether or not college matters is clear.
If that is true wouldn’t certain portions of law applicants be disadvantaged? For instance, not everyone can afford to go to an Ivy for undergrad ( especially if they are trying to save for grad school )
Also, by extension of UG being important, then it would take HS into account and disadvantage students who did not perform well in high school. Which may not be fair since some students perform well in high school/do poorly in college and vice versa. Yeah why
Well, that assumes that all undergrad schools are both created equal and viewed with balanced parity- they are not. The top law schools certainly appreciate hardship, but at the end of the day, it is your scores and grades that will be the criteria of primacy.
Grad schools also want geographical and “prestige” diversity. If the law schools doesn’t have anyone from your undergrad, and the undergrad is at least as prestigious as the school you are applying to, that is considered a boost. This tends to help the smaller LACS in grad school placement.
@Eagles0517, based on what I’m reading from Anna Ivey and Joyce Curll, as I’ve said, it’s not that law schools see an applicant from a prestigious college and say, “well, she went to Columbia so let’s let her in!” It’s that schools are so different that the school has to be looked at as part of analyzing an applicant.
For example, say someone has a 3.7. The school has to be looked at to see what a 3.7 really shows: if the median GPA there is 3.6, then a 3.7 isn’t worth that much. But if the median is a 2.9 and the average SAT scores of admitted students is in the 97th percentile, then that 3.7 is worth a lot.
Applicants who don’t stand out at their schools would be disadvantaged, particularly if the school is mediocre. But an applicant who is #1 in her class at a no-name school (like a lot of the admitted students at HLS) can stand out.
@HappyAlumnus …generally speaking, where is the cutoff for T14 schools as far as UG prestige goes. If i go to a school within the Top 70 I am stuck in no man’s land, it’s not prestigious but not Podunk University…if I plan on graduating somewhere in the 3.7 -3.8 range which is just at median or slightly below for some T14’s
By way of example, if you are talking about the distinction between UCLA and U of Colorado for a T14, it will a negligible difference. Now, this separation becomes more stark when you are talking say, MIT and U of Idaho (with all due respect), where most T14s will favor the former (scores being relatively in the same range).