@aluminumboat : Apparently it is still doing very well. The interesting thing is currently Emory is much less selective than most elites (except Georgetown and Berkeley…and Berkeley is huge so you would expect representation). But from Emory itself…looks like we do well. http://career.emory.edu/prelaw/advising/acceptancestats.html . Georgetown seems to love them some Emory students. And many others, depending on the year were running at a 1/6-1/4 admit rate which is pretty solid. Unfortunately it appears many must be unaffordable (of course they are) so many people don’t even go. I wonder if that skews our placement rate. Like, at some elite schools, are people admitted to T15 schools more likely to matriculate than those at Emory.
Looks like generally 3.6-3.7+ will make you competitive for top law schools, but then for the most part, you need between 165-170 (or higher) to have less than a random shot at admission. Also, to be in the running for some schools such as Harvard, 3.75-3.9 will serve you much better, especially if you did not break around 175 on the LSAT.
Out of 60 applicants, ~75% got into a top 15 Law School? Holy shit.
I guess they must have some sort of screening system where inferior applicants are not allowed to apply…
Regardless, I stand by my point that Emory is a great place for prelaw.
A lot of it probably has to do with the significantly decreased number of applicants per law school spot in recent years due to many new “no name” law schools opening up and the oversaturation of lawyers. Notice that even the top 15 law schools have acceptance rates that are around 10-20% (and not below 10%) depsite having high LSAT scores, and those ranking below that often have acceptance rates of 20-40%. Compare that with medical school, where acceptance rates at just about any private school or any higher-ranking state school will be <10% (often 2-6%), and only being in-state at a less selective public medical school will allow for a admit rate of 10-20%. This means that for law schools, students that meet the criteria will have more certain admission (and it’s based mostly on LSAT score and actually very little on GPA once you meet some minimum threshold), while with top medical schools qualified applicants get denied all the time (but if you apply to many med schools of the caliber that matches your application’s competitiveness you’ll still be likely to get least one acceptance out of them).
Of course the flip side is that most lawyers out there today are not paid very well and don’t have good job stability down the line (and probably take quite some years to break six figures after getting out of law school), while a very small portion make an insane amount (for example, partners at the big firms or heads of legal departments at large multinational corporations easily break seven figures). The income distribution in other fields, including medicine, is much more even.
I agree with that - all of it.
Well…I agree, but do you really need to make a lot straight out of law school? It is 3 expensive years. Med school is 4 expensive years plus residency (and then more for some people), so I don’t know if it is a fair comparison in terms of the “straight out” thing. I honestly think Law School vs. reasonably reputable MBA programs (though many MBA students kind already have/had a career or a job or venture that has made them a solid amount of money) . Admittedly, it is clear that a certain tier of law schools make likelihood of success much more likely so it is nice to see Emory successful with that.
Med. school is indeed a much more popular and unsaturated option, but I would argue that even if it were less popular, the admissions would still be quite of random (as in much less predictable than law school after whatever new and lower incoming stat threshold is met) because they are simply looking for other things. Again, the “culture” of each medical school matters (like someone with stats in the upper end of some some schools with one mission may not even be interviewed whereas at another, they are welcomed with open arms…as I described before, this is especially the case among the medical schools with more prestige. UNC-Chapel Hill may say “hell no!” to a perfect student whereas Duke says…“come on in!” even if you’re in N. Carolina. Notice how one has a primary care rep and the other is much more known for research…you don’t have research law schools and “primary care” law schools. The equivalent of “primary care” with law schools are schools who simply cannot place well outside of certain settings and thus claim a mission of “serving the underserved” whereas many primary care oriented medical schools actually are pretty good in general.). It is likely that they try to integrate much more foresight than “will be able to hack it in this school and land a good residency partially from the good great USMLE score they will earn” though that is certainly part of it. They are kind of looking out for the very sensitive area that is healthcare as a whole and figuring out who will become the “type” of healthcare provider that the school wants to produce (I don’t know if law schools have this in mind. They mainly have “needs to be good enough to get into top firms to make us look good”). If a school mainly wants top researchers, then high stats., solid research experience, and standard resume based qualifications will probably be higher/more likely to get someone in. Some other places may pay more attention to the types of ECs on the resume and are more likely to end up choosing more extraordinary students (despite interviewing standard high stats applicants) in terms of this, many who have high stats and many who have lower (but still good enough to thrive at the school). They are essentially shaping a class that is based on the mission and ethos of the school. It seems law schools have much less of that element and weight EC’s much less.