<p>I am currently a senior in high school going into my freshman year in college and I wanted to start planning ahead.</p>
<p>Would it be beneficial to go to school where you can get a higher GPA or a school with a better education and a lower GPA? When you apply for law school will they consider the school that you went to or is it strictly based upon your GPA and LSAT grade?</p>
<p>In some situations (very elite schools, mediocre GPA, very high LSAT) I think I've seen it matter. But not usually.</p>
<p>Yeah I'd say the only elite schools that may help overcome a mediocre GPA (coupled with a high LSAT) are Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, and (maybe) Cal-tech. There's also some Ivy incest going on.</p>
<p>I've seen it extend to the very top LACs, as well: Swarthmore, Williams, Amherst. I've also seen HYP matter. Those six I'm fairly confident about. The rest, not so sure.</p>
<p>I want to comment on what appears to be an underlying assumption of the OP. I may be mistaken, but as I read the first post, the subtext seems to be that if a person goes to the top LAC's or Uni's, then you may get a low gpa; but if that same smart person goes to a different school (presumably the one with the lesser "education"), then the gpa would automatically be higher. I'm not sure that this assumption is valid.</p>
<p>^ It's not necessarily valid. However, in general it is much easier to compete and succeed at lower ranked universities given the caliber of students and the material taught at lower-ranked universities tends to be easier to comprehend.</p>
<p>BerkSen - if you compare Catawba Community College to the University of Michigan, then yes, I agree with you. But how finely are you willing to draw the comparison? Princeton to U of Michigan? U of Michigan to Penn State? Do you think there's a distinct ladder of smarts that pairs up the smartest kids with the highest ranked schools, and take that down the list as each school fills up? I think you underestimate the smarts of a lot of kids by doing that, not to mention underestimating the quality of education which can be found at a broad range schools.</p>
<p>Princeton to U Michigan, maybe not a huge difference in terms of the material although Princeton kids are probably smarter and harder working. </p>
<p>Larger difference from U Mich to Penn State</p>
<p>I know quite a few people who went to a university equivalent to Penn State and they say it's easier than high school AP classes.</p>
<p>I honestly feel like there is a distinct ladder of smarts/hard workers...you couldn't have said it better. OF course this doesn't apply if 1) the student isn't prestige oriented so just went to the cheapest university 2) can't afford Harvard but got in 3) didn't apply to top schools</p>
<p>But in general yes. For undergrad, just look the average statistics for each school (i.e. average SAT and GPA) you will get an idea of the caliber of students that go there.</p>
<p>Oh, you know quite a few people to a university equivalent to Penn State? Sounds like a legit sample size and a great statement. </p>
<p>By that logic, I know a couple kids that went to Florida, Syracuse, and U Texas. They all thought the classes were easier than high school. They are all very close to Penn State in the rankings, so the same must apply for Penn State. Also, the weather is always warm at the University of Florida. Penn State is right next to Florida in the rankings, so I guess it's hot year round there as well. Ok, just read back over your comment and let the stupidity of your post flow over you before responding. </p>
<p>Who are you to judge the level of competence of thousands of people and lump them into 3 categories of exceptions? You must be an expert of some kind. I would love to see your credentials that qualify you to make such a bold and ignorant statement. </p>
<p>Yeah, let's just go by average SAT and GPA scores. What about those that take the ACT? What about colleges that don't even require the SAT? There are plenty of liberal arts colleges that don't even require you to submit an SAT score. Dickinson, for example. What about the school that focuses more on SAT than GPA, and vice versa?</p>
<p>Ok, now WRITING TO THE ORIGINAL POSTER. You can go to great law schools from all different schools. Honestly, I would stay within the top 75, but that allows for many choices. The people in the Ivy League, and those that consider themselves ivy equivalents would have you believe that their education is leaps and bounds above the rest. I am not sure why, then, that there are numerous lists of public schools that are called "public ivies". The definition of a public ivy: “is a public institution that “provides an Ivy League collegiate experience at a public school price.”” Penn State and Texas are both on that list. </p>
<p>Anyone can make broad and unfounded statements, as you can tell from the post above me. Yes, I go to Penn State. Do I fall into any of his ridiculous and absurd exception categories? No. I am also planning on going to law school. I will make a pointless statement myself and say that "several people I know at Penn State” have already heard back. I would like to say that one is trying to decide between Harvard and Stanford law, one just chose NYU law, and the other is picking Duke over Northwestern law. Limited sample size, I know, but I feel that that has as much weight as anything said by those before me. </p>
<p>You can get in to the top law schools from many places. You can save a lot of money by going to the good publics. You can do this without hurting your chances for admission to a top law school. Don’t let these pompous and uninformed individuals convince you otherwise.</p>
<p>ACT can be made equivalent to the SAT. You can easily convert it.</p>
<p>For example for the old SAT a 31 ACT=1380 SAT. 32 ACT=1420.</p>
<p>And yes averages are pretty representative of the campuses. I could say the same for Berkeley students. In general we aren't as smart/hard working as HYPSM's. </p>
<p>Ignoring the small sample size I used, look at the admissions statistics for Penn State versus U Michigan. The more competitive a school is to get into, usually the higher caliber of its students (either intelligence-wise, work ethic or both). </p>
<p>I don't see how saying this is pompous or unfounded. It's fact and statistics. No need to get emotional. </p>
<p>Nobody ever said going to a lower ranked undergrad would hurt your chances to get into a top law school. Your alma mater matters very little in admissions. It's mainly a high LSAT first and high cum. GPA second. We're just saying that going to a higher ranked university generally means tougher competition and hence a harder time to get a 4.0 so maybe for schools like HYPSM, they value their GPAs more.</p>
<p>Oh, I definitely got what you were saying, yet I didn't, and still don’t, agree with it. I wouldn't call my response emotional, but rather I was just trying to impress upon you the faults within your logic. I understand there is a way to translate the ACT to what the probable SAT score would be, but it is not an exact science. The tests are different and should be treated as such.</p>
<p>"The more competitive a school is to get into, usually the higher caliber of its students (either intelligence-wise, work ethic or both)"</p>
<p>The level of selectivity has NOTHING to do with the difficulty of classes or the intelligence of students. For example, the UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO-BAYAMON has an acceptance rate of 18.1%. That's just above Dartmouth and 3% less that U Penn. Ok, I am going to go out on a limb and say that Dartmouth and U Penn both provide a more rigorous education than the University of Puerto, no offense to anyone from the Bayamon based campus.</p>
<p>I understand that there are statistical differences in the numbers of those getting accepted at those three schools, but a "competitive" school to get into does not always mean it's good. Also, you really don't put a definition on what exactly you consider “competitive”. Is there a cut off? Do you have to have a certain SAT score? Certain GPA? Certain acceptance rate? Ok, then let's take look at your reference to Penn State vs Michigan. Penn State Main Campus' acceptance rate is 54.9%, while University of Michigan- Ann Arbor's acceptance rate is 62.5%. Source: College</a> acceptance rates: How many get in? - USATODAY.com . I am sure the average SAT for Michigan might be higher, but, as I a said before, Penn State puts less of an emphasis than Michigan does on the SAT. Here in lies why I don't agree with you. I think the rankings are useful and are a measure of the caliber of students, but I believe once you hit certain sections of the rankings the students are going to be very similar. The problem is that it is hard to draw lines as to what schools are within which sections. I think some people would group Berkeley with HYPSM and Penn State with Michigan, while others would feel differently. It’s all personal opinion, and personal opinions are about as solid as sand castles during a rising tide. </p>
<p>I don't believe the people at your school would necessarily agree with you and say that they are not the same caliber of students that are at HYPSM. If you are in a class without a curve, it really doesn't matter how tough your competition is anyway. I don't believe that the HYPSM GPAs should or are valued more, hence why I referenced the "public ivies". The admission numbers may be higher and the acceptance rate lower, but that does not always generate the best students, nor does it always mean more difficult classes. People that transferred may disagree with me, but the bias within that opinion would be too great to take it seriously. Plus, everyone knows Ivy League schools inflate their grades, so I bet those great GPAs are taken with a grain of salt by law schools.</p>
<p><a href="Negative%20numbers%20are%20grade%20deflated%20and%20positive%20numbers%20are%20inflated.">quote</a>
MIT -2.646136
Penn -1.486136
Johns Hopkins -1.246136
Swarthmore -1.246136
UC Irvine -1.046136
Dartmouth -1.046136
Princeton University -0.966136
Univ. of Chicago -0.966136
Harvard University -0.926136
Williams College -0.886136
Princeton -0.806136
Yale -0.766136
Cornell -0.686136
Duke University -0.686136
Stanford -0.646136
UC - Berkeley -0.646136
Haverford College -0.646136
Oberlin College -0.646136
Pomona -0.646136
Univ. of Virginia -0.526136
Rice -0.446136
Northwestern University -0.406136
Emory -0.406136
Columbia Univ. - Columbia College -0.326136
Univ. of Texas -0.286136
Georgetown University -0.246136
Boston University -0.206136
Univ. of Michigan - Ann Arbor -0.206136
Brown -0.166136
Emory -0.166136
Bryn Mawr College -0.046136
Tufts University -0.006136
Univ. of Rochester 0.033864
Brandeis University 0.113864
UCLA 0.153864
Univ. of Southern California 0.193864
Villanova University 0.353864
Baylor Univ. 0.353864
Univ. of Massachusetts - Amherst 0.353864
Boston College 0.373864</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>St. John's Univ.-Jamaica 2.353864
Temple University 2.353864
Univ. of North Texas 2.753864
Jackson State University 3.153864
[/quote]
[Quote]
MIT is 2.6 "standard deviations" below the mean for grade indexing by this standard, etc.</p>
<p>What this is not:
This does NOT represent any kind of grade correction. For example, it does NOT tell you how much you should add to your GPA to see what you would have gotten had you attended MIT, or Jackson State University, or whatnot. (The raw scores would have been useful for that purpose, and you can reproduce that calculation very easily using the website.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thanks for the post bluedevilmike. </p>
<p>The whole "grade inflation" notion at Ivies is a fallacy. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Ignoring the small sample size I used, look at the admissions statistics for Penn State versus U Michigan. The more competitive a school is to get into, usually the higher caliber of its students (either intelligence-wise, work ethic or both).
[/quote]
This is my comment by the way. By this comment and "how competitive a school is to get into" I meant who you compete with applicant-wise (self-selection) and the general statistics for the incoming class (like SAT, GPA). The admit percentage does factor in to some extent but this depends on the quality of the applicant pool. Keep in mind that the High Ivies tend to have the lowest admissions rates</p>
<p>
[quote]
The level of selectivity has NOTHING to do with the difficulty of classes or the intelligence of students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Read above.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am sure the average SAT for Michigan might be higher, but, as I a said before, Penn State puts less of an emphasis than Michigan does on the SAT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what does Penn State put more of an emphasis on? GPA? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Penn State bases admission decisions on a variety of factors. The high school grade-point average (GPA) accounts for approximately two-thirds of the decision. The remaining one-third is based on other factors, which may include standardized test scores (students taking the ACT are required to complete and submit the writing component), class rank, the personal statement, and activities list. Class rank is also considered for students with honors or Advanced Placement courses whose schools do not supply a weighted GPA. The optional personal statement and activity list are sometimes used to assist with the decisions for students whose applications require additional review.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So despite the 2/3 weight on GPA, Michigan is still more competitive than Penn, even when looking at GPA. </p>
<p>Student</a> Body and Admissions Statistics - Penn State Undergraduate Admissions</p>
<p>According to PSU-Main Campus:
GPA interquartile (25th-75th): 3.57-3.97.
SAT interquartile :1740-1980
ACT: 26-30.</p>
<p>For U Michigan the interquartiles are:
University</a> of Michigan - Office of Undergraduate Admissions
GPA 3.7-4.0
SAT 1920-2180
ACT 27-31</p>
<p>So U Michigan beats out Penn State in all respects, SAT (Penn's 75th is near Michigan's 25th), ACT (more similar but Michigan is slightly higher), and GPA (Michigan's 25th is higher than Penn's). </p>
<p>Taking a look at the discrepancy between the two admitted percentages for each university:
PSU received 48,093 applications. Michigan received 26,976. Penn received 21117 more applications than Michigan and has a lower admit rate yet still loses out SAT, GPA and ACT-wise.</p>
<p>A possible reason for this is self-selection. Those who applied to U Michigan were more likely to self-select than those who applied to PSU. Following this logic, U Michigan's applicant pool generally had higher SAT, ACT and GPA, and in general--statistics wise--were "more competitive" applicants. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I understand there is a way to translate the ACT to what the probable SAT score would be, but it is not an exact science. The tests are different and should be treated as such.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know this just my own experience, but I took both the SAT and ACT and received equivalent scores. I took each once so retakes did not factor into the result. In general standardized exams (SAT, MCAT, LSAT, ACT, GMAT, GRE) are very similar because good test takers in general do well on them while bad test takers fare poorly on all. In fact there is an equation for finding your potential range for the LSAT based on your SAT (despite the fact that they are "dissimilar" tests) . This equation holds true on a general basis, as those who are good test takers on one exam tend to be consistently good test takers on others.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you are in a class without a curve, it really doesn't matter how tough your competition is anyway.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most majors curve. Only the " writing intensive " majors don't curve.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't believe that the HYPSM GPAs should or are valued more, hence why I referenced the "public ivies". The admission numbers may be higher and the acceptance rate lower, but that does not always generate the best students, nor does it always mean more difficult classes
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well statistics seem to show that coupled with a high LSAT, mediocre GPAs from the elite universities are valued more for law school admissions purposes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't believe the people at your school would necessarily agree with you and say that they are not the same caliber of students that are at HYPSM.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Our graduate students are the best considering all of our graduate programs are ranked top ten, but our undergraduates aren't as "competitive" statistically speaking as HYPSM's students. There are some prodigies on campus (no kidding, prodigies who score higher than the GSIs on midterms and finals) but on average our undergraduates aren't as competitive as Harvard's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I understand that there are statistical differences in the numbers of those getting accepted at those three schools, but a "competitive" school to get into does not always mean it's good.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Good in terms of the strength of the departments is a different issue, but in general there is a relationship between "competitiveness" and the quality of departments. Also the more competitive a school is to get into (again not purely percentage-wise, but also in context of the quality of the applicant pool) the tougher the competition once you get in</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, you really don't put a definition on what exactly you consider “competitive”. Is there a cut off? Do you have to have a certain SAT score? Certain GPA? Certain acceptance rate?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have personal cutoffs, but for law school admissions purposes they seem to value certain elite universities more than others and as you can tell these tend to be the most competitive to get into with the highest average standardized test scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem is that it is hard to draw lines as to what schools are within which sections.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you say this, then why did you post the following as advice for the OP?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Honestly, I would stay within the top 75, but that allows for many choices.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why is 75 even significant? Why did you draw an arbitrary boundary despite the first quote?</p>
<p>edit: i also wanted to clarify that by this comment i made "Well statistics seem to show that coupled with a high LSAT, mediocre GPAs from the elite universities are valued more for law school admissions purposes." I meant that schools tend to be more forgiving of a mediocre GPA at elite universities than at lower ranked ones, given an equivalently high LSAT.</p>