Ed regrets??

Colleges and Universities A-Z Cornell University
61

<p>

</p>

<p>No. This is incorrect. If they do, very, very small preference for their own undergrads. (even this, I doubt)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No. What you showed me is the enrollment number at HLS, not the acceptance rate statistics for applicants from different colleges. Do you have any sources or know of any real person at any top law school who can confidently tell you that Harvard Law School will give any admissions advantage to its undergrads, over Princeton or Cornell, or even Arizona State undergrads with identical LSAT scores?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Both are top ten law schools that give their students almost equivalent employment opportunities as Harvard Law, and known to give generous merit scholarships to applicants who score above 172 LSAT range - the score most Harvard Law School admits possess.</p>

<p>Lastly, your sources about Yale or Harvard Law undergrad representation numbers don’t prove anything - other than to suggest that more high scoring Harvard undergrads choose to attend Harvard Law School, choosing to go into 200 k of student debt, than other non-Harvard high-scoring undergrads who, despite being able to make it to Harvard Law, may choose to attend another top ten law school with substantial scholarship money.</p>

62

<p>

</p>

<p>Hmm, you can go to Harvard Law School website, click admissions FAQ, and it might be there. Or, you can email an adcom at any top law school and ask away. I met and talked with Cornell Law adcom, last semester, she said that what undergrad the candidate comes from doesn’t matter one bit. And, she also added, in response to my question - Cornell Law doesn’t give any benefits to Cornell undergrads in admissions cycle. So MANY people I met - students at top law schools, students gunning for top law schools, some admissions rep I talked with, and plus, admissions stats I saw with my own eyes - suggest that top law schools won’t care what undergrad school you come from. They want people with high LSAT scores, and preferably, people with high GPA, as well.</p>

63

<p>LazyKid - you want to be a lawyer? Why are you talking about employment opportunity when I thought we were debating about if law school admission is numbers driven. </p>

<p>Just look at the numbers. You could draw a lot of information from just looking at the numbers. Lawyers look for evidences and draw a reasonable conclusion. They don’t always need to have someone to tell them what’s right in front of them.</p>

64

<p>

</p>

<p>!!! Virtually all law students attend top law schools with the SPECIFIC intent and hope of landing a six figure, BigLaw firm job. And, attending a top law school over a mediocre law school would enhance the chance of doing just that. Of course employment opportunity is the big deal for any top law school student, or for anyone thinking about even applying to a top law school. </p>

<p>Why did I bring the employment issue? Because, like I said multiple times so far, a person with 175 LSAT can go to Harvard Law, but may choose to attend Michigan Law with full scholarship and he can save 200 k of money and land the same job anyway. What is so difficult to understand about this? And, I suggested that Harvard undergrads who get into Harvard Law may be more likely to attend Harvard Law than others from non-Harvard undergrad, even giving up big scholarship money from other top law schools, hence more representation of H undergrads at H Law School. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Dude. I am typing same info like 5 times, my fingers hurt. Choosing to attend Harvard Law School incurs very high opportunity cost - people who can get Harvard Law can attend schools like Cornell Law for free, FREE. Yet, if they decide to go to Harvard Law, they are going into 200 k of student debt since Harvard Law doesn’t offer any merit scholarship. My point is: just because more raw numbers of Harvard undergrads choose to enroll at Harvard Law School, it is not the case that Harvard Law adcoms would give admissions benefit to their undergrads.</p>

65

<p>This thread is boring, even to me.</p>

66

<p>Yes, this is boring and unbelievable. </p>

<p>This is my last try, and if you don’t see it then I am done.</p>

<p>1), you agreed that students from H&Y who would apply to to H Law or Y Law would apply to both. Since H and Y have about same number of UG students, and percentage of students who would apply law schools from both schools would be very similar, hence we probably could assume there would be same number of Yale UG and Harvard UG applying to Harvard Law.
2) You agreed caliber of H UG and Yale UG are about the same.
3) IF H Law is indifferent to where people went to UG, then they would admit as many H as Y applicants.
4) One could probably also assume the student body make up (intelligence, drive, social economic) are probably very similar, so how they would react to their H Law acceptance would probably be the same (certain % would go to another school for whatever reason, and certain % would accept the offer). This would imply yield rate to H Law from both H and Y UG would be about the same.</p>

<p>If everything I stated above are true, then one would expect same number of H UG enrolled at Harvard Law as Y UG, but that’s not the case. From where I sit, the only assumption above which may not be true is statement #3 - Harvard Law is NOT indifferent to where applicants went to UG, they admit more H UG than Y UG. If that’s the case, then law school admission is not all numbers driven, at least not with Harvard Law.</p>

<p>People have said that applicants may have more affinity for where they went to UG, and therefore it’s more likely for H UG to enroll at H Law. If that’s the case, then Yale’s enrollment data would also show twice as many Y UGs vs H UGs, but that’s not the case.</p>

<p>You introduced a factor of merit scholarship at other schools (like Cornell and UoM) as a reason why people may not enroll at H Law. This not relevant when trying to figure out why there are more H UGs vs Y UGs at H Law, because that factor applies to both H and Y applicants, hence it doesn’t add more variable to the analysis. </p>

<p>As far as employment, which I still don’t see relevancy to this discussion, you stated without any supporting document that U of M Law graduates could get similar jobs as Harvard graduates. I disagree, but lets assume that to be the case, then it would be just as likely for a Yale student to choose Mich over H Law as a H student. Again, it would have no impact on the yield when comparing Y vs H. If H had admitted same number of Y vs H, then same number of Y students would have enrolled at H Law as H students.</p>

<p>Unless I am missing something, the only conclusion I could draw from looking at Harvard and Yale’s enrollment data is Harvard has a huge preference for its own UGs.</p>

67

<p>

</p>

<p>Jesus, man. Please ask any top law school student, or anyone who got into a top law school, or any adcom at a top law school on this topic. That real person will straight up tell you that law school admissions (yes, including H Law) is all numbers game. Harvard Law will admit a kid from Arizona State undergrad, if that kid has 3.8 GPA and 175 LSAT. Anyone with a 3.8+ GPA and 174+ LSAT is looking at over 70% chance of getting into Harvard Law, no matter what undergrad that person is coming out of. This isn’t college admissions, in which many qualified applicants are rejected despite high GPA and SAT scores. In law school admissions universe, if you have the numbers, you get IN. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I honestly don’t care what you choose to believe. You probably aren’t applying/ planning on attending a top law school anyway. But, I went through the whole process and know quite a bit about the process, and I ended up getting into Columbia Law School, which is a legit Top 6 Law School in the nation. Based on your statements regarding law school admissions, you sound very ignorant of how the process works, to be honest. Don’t take this fight with me if you don’t like it. Ask a real person in a top law school. Ask anyone who got into a top law school. Or, at least make an effort to email and ask ANY admissions rep at any top 10 law school. Everyone will confirm my statements. Honestly man, you need to do some research before you try to refute the obvious truth.</p>

68

<p>

</p>

<p>Do some research. Actually, on this web site, there is a forum called “Law School.” Within that forum, there are several current top law school students knowledgeable about law school admissions. If you are too lazy to ask a real person knowledgeable about this topic, go there and ask these posters.</p>

<p>And, the bottom line is that if you get LSAT around 174 and GPA around 3.8, you are very likely to get into Harvard Law, or any other top 6 law school. (maybe except Yale) That Yale kid will 90% get into Harvard Law if he has 3.9 GPA and 175 LSAT. And, that Arizona State kid will 90% get into Harvard Law, too, with 3.9 GPA and 175 LSAT. Although, at Arizona State, there are very, very few folks capable of hitting that score range. (Average ACT at schools like Arizona State is like 20, and median LSAT at schools like Arizona State is around middle 140s)</p>

69

<p>I am a parent who works in finance and have done number crunching most of my life. We don’t just depend on the press release to base our analysis, we collect data from various sources, and see what kind of correlation we could draw from different data.</p>

<p>Most of family and friends who have law degrees graduated from Yale or Stanford, and they are partner or head of legal at their firms. Of course their information could be a bit out dated, and that’s why I am looking for information now.</p>

<p>I have no problem in taking this “fight” with you because I am discussing this with facts and numbers. You are basing everything you are writing on your emotion, what other people are telling you (even if they are admission reps, we know they only tell the truth?), and your own experience, which is one piece of data. The fact that you got into Columbia does not prove same stats from U. Arizona could also get into Columbia (do you get that?)</p>

<p>Not to worry, I am ahead of you. I have emailed some students, some family members and friends. This is of interest to me because my younger daughter is considering law school at some point. I am trying to figure out which UG school would be best for her. </p>

<p>Dude, even at 17, I think my younger daughter could debate better than you. All you have written is “I know I am right, I know I am right.” </p>

<p>I don’t understand why you are so upset.</p>

70

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s not that I am right. It’s just that I provided a realistic picture of how law school admissions are handled. How about you stay away from making ad-hominem attacks, if you really are a parent of someone my age and supposed to be in 50s or something. Talking about maturity…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think anyone could be upset, if you essentially type same info and repeating same argument over and over again. On top of that, I get ad-hominem attacks for saying what is true? Honestly, it can be frustrating if someone quite ignorant of a certain topic tries to dispute against the universally accepted fact on that matter. You stated that 1) admissions at top law schools aren’t that number-driven. 2) H law gives ‘huge’ preference to its undergrads. 3) Applicants at low-ranked undergrads are at a disadvantage at top law school admissions. All of which are just downright wrong. Believe me, I don’t care if you buy my argument or not. It is not of my interest. I stated the facts, and you kept on refuting with one single piece of data on Harvard Law enrollment chart. I tried to provide rational explanations, but to no avail… </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, law school admissions at top schools are very different now than say, 40 years ago. My dad is a lawyer and the managing partner at the firm he worked at had gotten into Harvard Law School despite having never attended a college and having no LSAT scores. He basically ‘talked himself’ into HLS out of blue. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Dude. My friend did. (I wrote previously that my Arizona State friend got into top 6) He had 3.7 GPA and 170 LSAT. Although his GPA was .1 higher than mine, his LSAT was 1 point lower than mine. He also got into NYU Law, Cornell Law, UVa Law, Michigan Law, and Georgetown Law. 3 other friends from Arizona State all got into Top 14 Law schools, all with 168+ LSAT.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I suggest you go to a forum named “Top Law Schools”. Within that forum, there a bunch of current students and wanna be students at top law schools talking about admissions, legal hiring, and grading at top law schools. I am sure you can learn most relevant facts from there.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I told you before that I am not surprised that H undergrads are largely populated at H Law. That was not my argument. And, you want the facts? Top law school admissions are all numbers game. That’s it.</p>

71

<p>oldfort,</p>

<p>I see that you worked in finance for many years and you also have many family members who graduated from yale and stanford. It seems to me that you and your family are well connected. Do you think your contacts helped your daughter land a job? I am not saying that she was not deserving.</p>

<p>I have learned that who you know grants you great opportunities in life.</p>

<p>I know somebody who got into HYP because his dad had connections. He would never have gained acceptance on his/her own merits.</p>

<p>What are your thoughts for a ivy high performer with no connections vs HYP average performer with connections trying to land a job at a top firm?</p>

72

<p>smileygerl - What I did for my daughter was to advice her on what courses to take at Cornell, and getting her first non-paying internship sophomore year. It was a way for her to find out if she even wanted to go into IB. </p>

<p>She went through recruiting at Cornell junior year. She didn´t want any help from me in getting her the job. Nevertheless, family and friends followed her progress. I knew she was getting moved to the next round before she did, but I did just let it take its course. She ultimately went with a firm of her choice, not one I would have picked for her. At the end of internship, when they were selecting interns to make offers to, a close friend asked if we wanted to put in a good word for her, she said, “No, I am doing fine, and please don´t let people know I know him.” I am pretty certain my daughter would have gotten those offers without our help, just like so many students from Cornell.</p>

<p>As far as who you know to help land that first job, even if your parents are not “connected,” at Cornell (or any school) there are friend´s parents and great alumni network. We are not that connected, but after working for 30+ years I do know quite a few people in my business and business that supports us (law firms, marketing, consulting). Some of my kid´s friends have asked me for help in getting internships, which I have done whenever it was possible. They did the asking, and I didn´t do it unless I knew they were outstanding (I have my own reputation to consider). </p>

<p>My personal view is connections will get you that first job, but connections won´t help you keep the job (unless if your father is a partner at a law firm, even if you are an idiot you could still continue to work there). As far as getting into HYP through connections, we have always known about that - legacy, donor, sports, URM…but there are still a lot of students getting into HYP on their own.</p>

<p>I heard back from some students and friends about law school admission. There is a service (LSAC) that is responsible for standarize GPA and LSAT from different UG schools into a single number and transmits that to each law school. It is to take into factors of different schools´ GPA calculation. Some schools are more numbers driven, and some take a more hollistic approach. Berkeley cares about campus involvement and leadership, and Dean of Admission from Stanford reads each application individualy (not as numbers driven, but takes longer for decision), Duke is very numbers driven and could give very fast decision. Columbia does not “like” its own graduates, whereas Harvard does. Most replies I got was, all else being equal, a Cornell graduate´s 3.9 would be worth more than other lower ranked schools.</p>

<p>Most of response I received from Cornell students were very well written, went into detail of each top law school´s criteria. I also got a view on strength of each school, whether they are liberal or conservative.</p>

73

<p>Should probably take this the the law school sub-forum, but here’s my uninformed guesses:

  1. Nobody is an “expert” on this simply because they got into a law school or their kid is thinking about it. One would either have to have conclusively analyzed a sufficiently comprehensive set of data, or be a law school admissions insider. IMO.
  2. My guess is many law schools probably do take undergrad school into account, to some small extent anyway. Why wouldn’t they take all available information into account? </p>

<p>It is a known fact that Boalt Hall used to do this explicitly, they had different add-ons for GPAs at different schools. But their add-ons got leaked to a California newspaper, after which they were forced to stop, due to some discrimination issue.
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/oberlin-college/934935-toughest-schools-get.html?[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/oberlin-college/934935-toughest-schools-get.html?&lt;/a&gt;
But what other, private schools do, who knows? Their procedures were not leaked, and they are private.</p>

<p>3) I think the major NY law firms do take the undergrad into account, to some small extent anyway. Why wouldn’t they take everything into account? Like Ibanks and consulting firms, these law firms have to impress Ivy-pedigreed clients in order to get their business. There are many snooty people at these firms, and they are involved in hiring. If you will look at attorney profiles at top firms you will see numerous top undergrad schools. Go look at Sullivan & Cromwell’s attorney profiles, they are on line.</p>

<p>I’m quite certain I had a shot at my IB job, when others at my MBA school didn’t, because I had an Ivy undergrad degree. Of course that isn’t a law firm, but I can well envision a comparable dynamic going on at one.</p>

<p>4) Arizona State has one of the most highly regarded Honors colleges, it could well be the case that a graduate from that program would be given the same “prestige points” as many good privates. If such points are there to be given.</p>

<p>5) From what I understand, University of Michigan has a great law school, and it is well recruited by wall street law firms. Grads of that program indeed interview for the same jobs that grads of many of the ivy law schools are interviewing for. We have two friends who are grads of that program who are both partners at top NY firms. They have Harvard law grads working for them, I believe. And they have counseled a recent grad we know to attend Michigan law school.</p>

<p>6) However, if you want to become a law professor it is an advantage to attend law school at Harvard, Yale, or Chicago.</p>

74

<p>

</p>

<p>This is debatable, but whatever. As you said, ‘all else being equal’. Yet, that Arizona State kid with 3.9 and same LSAT (168+) is highly likely to get into multiple top law schools anyway. And, that Arizona kid would have gotten that GPA much more easily than that Cornell kid. I think going to a low ranked UG actually helps you, not hurts you. If you have 174+ LSAT 3.9 GPA, you will get into every single law school in the nation, maybe not Yale, and law schools won’t care what UG you come from. Arizona State kid with 170 LSAT will beat that Cornell kid with 168 LSAT 10 out of 10 times in law school admissions! Law school admissions are very predictable.</p>

75

<p>

</p>

<p>This is a good point, moneydad. Since I haven’t gone through law school recruiting myself, I won’t know the most accurate answer to this. I’ve set my eyes on NYC BigLaw since like I was in high school… And, at this point of my life (since I am pretty darn close to starting law school and law firm interviewing) I began to do tons of research on that matter so that I have a good idea of what I am getting myself into.</p>

<p>From doing research, I’ve found that: BigLaw firms from major cities tend to recruit from only top law schools. And, these law firms are obsessed with academic credentials. Your class rank and GPA at the law school you attend is of paramount importance to these elite employers. Even if you come from Harvard UG, poor academic performance in law school won’t save your butt when trying to land that BigLaw gig. And, law firms care a lot about your personality, just like any employer does, but maybe even more so because lawyers work in teams and won’t like to hire an antisocial kid despite high intelligence. After those things are factored in, I guess having gone to an Ivy undergrad can be of a plus soft factor. Yet, I keep hearing from current top law school students that factors such as work experience pre-law school, and having that hard sciences background from your UG still overshadow the prestigious UG name on your resume. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It has a top 10 law school. And, it tends to give tons of merit money to kids with 173+ LSAT. Which is why I speculated that many Harvard Law admits would choose to attend schools like Michigan, or UVa, considering similar employment opportunities. My suspicion is that Harvard Law accepts equal numbers of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton UGs, considering equivalent caliber of students from those schools. It may be just that Yale and Princeton kids may turn down that H Law offer at higher rate.</p>

76

<p>

</p>

<p>I am going to count to three…</p>

77

<p>Since I haven’t gone through law school recruiting myself, I won’t know the most accurate answer to this."
Out of Columbia law you may never know the most accurate answer to this, because lots of your class will be deemed recruitable because they are there. A better vantage point would be out of Fordham law, or the like. See if the undergrad school influences the extent to which top Fordham grads get top interviews. That would be more analogous to the situation I was part of, on the MBA front. During MBA, I worked in a computer lab with two other guys who did better there than I did, yet I got interviews to top firms and they didn’t. That experience corroborated, to me, the “word on the street” to that effect, for my MBA school. The more marginally recruited program is where an undergrad effect may be most starkly evident. Or not.</p>

<p>"I am going to count to three… "</p>

<p>Sometimes I just get tired.</p>

78

<p>

</p>

<p>Top Fordham grads will get top interviews. Even if you are at Harvard Law, if you are bottom quarter of your class, odds are against you for landing a single offer from NYC BigLaw. In fact, last year 1/3 of Harvard Law 2Ls failed to land a single BigLaw offer, according to OCI statistics released. Because of top BigLaw’s emphasis on hiring the ‘best’ and their focus on academic credentials, a Fordham Law student in top 10% would beat that Harvard Law student in the bottom quarter. The point I am trying to make is you can’t compare MBA recruiting to law recruiting. MBA recruiting is much more work-experience oriented. BigLaw recruiting is very grade/class rank- oriented.</p>

79

<p>oldfort,</p>

<p>Thanks for your insight. Good luck to your daughter.</p>

80

<p>I sort of did have regrets, because its like…man maybe I should have taken the risk for Columbia or Princeton, or UPenn…but I chose Cornell because of its amazing ag and animal science programs, and I knew out of all the ivies its the best one, and I am an aspiring vet. Do you guys think I should have regrets? It is a huge relief though…</p>