<p>how hard is it to get into harvard law school after graduating from harvard college?</p>
<p>Some 240 Harvard College alums currently attend the Law School, meaning the admissions rate is around a 80-per-year. The next closest is Yale, with 110 alums at the Law School. There's no sure way to get into Harvard Law, but the closest thing to it is to attend Harvard College.</p>
<p>Getting into Yale Law is another story. (Sort of.)</p>
<p>I suppose it's a bit easier than non-ivy league colleges. However, I do notice that they take at least one grad from "lesser" colleges. I don't think they take many, maybe 10 from the same school or so.</p>
<p>It's easier, but still nothing close to a slam-dunk. I believe that something like 20-25% of all Harvard College students who apply to HLS get in, hence most do not. And obviously we're only talking about those Harvard College Students who bother to apply to HLS. Lots of them want to go to HLS, but don't bother applying because their grades weren't good enough.</p>
<p>Depends. Law school admissions does not look so much as where you went as an undergrad, what you did, etc. It is basically all based on GPA and LSAT scores. Someone who graduates from a decent, public state school with a 4.0 and high LSAT score stands a better chance than someone who graduates from Harvard with a 3.5 and a similar LSAT score. It's all in the numbers.</p>
<p>It should be said that Harvard College's grades are heavily inflated, so you're pretty much assured of getting a half-decent GPA if you go. I am convinced that this is a big reason why Harvard College is able to get so many alumni into top law schools.</p>
<p>However, in general, I agree with RKATC - the numbers are king. In other words, those who study easy majors in easy schools get a huge leg up.</p>
<p>In reference to PsedrishMD's above weblink, whether you think Harvard is engaging in less grade inflation than in the past, well, let's just think about whether the students at MIT would trade their grading scheme at MIT for the one at Harvard, even if the Harvard scheme is not as inflated as before. I think that MIT students not only would MIT students even have to think twice about trading, they probably wouldn't even have to think once. Harvard's grading may or may not be as inflated as it was in the past, but it's still a lot more inflated than that at MIT.</p>
<p>The reason Harvard students get into top law schools is not because of grade inflation (which does exist), but rather because they tend to be people who do very well on standardized tests. That's how they got into Harvard in the first place. </p>
<p>On the other hand, It may not really be an advantage to apply to HLS from Harvard College. For one thing, you're competing against all the other very talented and intelligent Harvard College students, for a limited number of slots. Remember, only about 1 out of every 4 or 5 Harvard College applicants get accepted. </p>
<p>I would submit that if the same person instead attended a good public university, they would have even better odds of earning admission to HLS. For one thing, they would almost certainly earn the same, requisite 170+ on their LSAT. </p>
<p>For another thing, grade inflation is fairly universal, and this student would be competing against students who are generally somewhat less competitive. He would therefore probably be more likely to end up with the necessary 3.75+ GPA. (I don't know what the median GPA is at Harvard College, but I'm sure it's well below this.) </p>
<p>Therefore, I would submit that a person of equal intelligence and ability from outside Harvard will probably have a better overall chance of being accepted to the law school than someone from Harvard. This would only be increased by the fact that Harvard does desire geographic and academic diversity, and will therefore be looking for truly qualified (170+) grads from the top public schools, where such students are also somewhat more rare.</p>
<p>"Grade inflation is fairly universal." LMAO! Right. With only one quarter of my fellow students in my engineering major breaking a 3.2... grade inflation? Right. Most of our tests were scaled to a 2.5 (B-/C+ average). 92% of Harvard undergrads graduate with honours; half of grades given are an A or A-. There is grade inflation in many humanities, but Harvard is one of the worst violators. Their professors refuse to change, as they (rightly) fear that students will not take their courses.</p>
<p>Also, HLS has about 240 Harvard alums per class. I will contend that more Harvard undergrads go onto HLS than any other law school - and, for that matter, all other law schools put together.</p>
<p>When I say grade inflation is fairly universal, I mean that it occurs at almost every school, and affects most students at those schools. There are of course exceptions, like MIT, the military academies, and some (if not most) engineering/science programs. </p>
<p>I also don't doubt that Harvard, and the Ivies in general, are probably the worst offenders in this regard. However, you could argue that it is most justified at a school like Harvard, which is almost impossible to get into in the first place. When you're competing against the brightest students in the country, it seems somewhat unfair to give someone a "C" on a standard curve when that paper or exam would get an "A" at most other schools. (The same analysis, of course, is applied to hiring at top law schools.) </p>
<p>However, even with this grade inflation, half the students at Harvard end up with B's and C's, when they would probably be getting A's at many other schools. </p>
<p>Finally, HLS has less than 80 Harvard alums per class, not 240. (The 240 is the number for the entire school, and it's actually 238.) The graduating class size at Harvard College is about 1650 people. If 20%/25% of the Harvard grads who apply to HLS get into HLS, then a far greater number of Harvard grads end up attending other law schools. (And this is assuming everyone at Harvard who applies to law school applies to HLS.) </p>
<p>Now, it is clear that HLS has more students from Harvard College than from any other school. However, this is probably true of most law schools. Most laws schools will have a greater representation from their own undergraduate school than from any other, for obvious reasons. The real question is whether it is actually easier to get into HLS from Harvard than from other programs. Once you control for test scores and inherent ability, I'm just not sure this is the case. Again, Harvard students tend to be among the brightest, hardest-working students in the country, and tend to excel on standardized tests. It is therefore only natural they would tend to have high LSAT's, and seek out the best law schools in the country, particularly Harvard and Yale. Since Yale has a small number of spots, many will end up at Harvard. </p>
<p>However, given that these students would probably have the same LSAT if they attended other schools, and would usually have a comparable or higher GPA, I'm not sure there's any real advantage to attending Harvard per se. Again, the bottom half of the class at Harvard would probably have a higher GPA at most other schools. And the vast majority of students at HLS, of course, are not from Harvard.</p>
<p>I would actually argue that grade inflation is actually not fairly universal, and in particular is not all that common to state schools. The fact is, state schools tend to grade harder than the Ivies do. Hence it is unclear whether a person who attended a state school would really get a higher GPA than he would at Harvard. Hence I believe your first premises are flawed. </p>
<p>I would refer you to the following website, where you can see for yourself:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/</a></p>
<p>Yes, public schools tend to be easier in the sense that the student bodies tend to be of lower average quality than the Ivies. On the other hand, public schools are less afraid to give out bad grades.</p>
<p>Furthermore, while we are talking strictly of law school admissions specifically, but I would broaden that scope, if slightly. The first prerequisite to getting into law school is graduting from college in the first place. Your chances of getting into law school are effectively zero if you can't even graduate with your bachelor's. And the fact is, if you get into Harvard, then as long as you do the work, you're basically assured of getting your degree. Generally, only those people who really don't want to graduate or who find something better to do (like Bill Gates) won't graduate. Everybody else who puts in a bonafide effort is going to complete thd degree. Maybe you won't get top grades, and maybe you'll have to change majors to something easy, but you're basically guaranteed to graduate. This is a far cry from many if not most of the publics were flunking out is a serious possibility. Look at the graduation rates of each public comparatively to the rates of equivalent private schools (i.e. private schools of equivalent academic quality) and you will notice that graduation rates of those publics tend to be conspicuously lower. And that's not just because the quality of the student bodies at the publics tend to be lower. The fact is, at many publics, you can do all the work, put in a reasonable effort, and still flunk out. Hence, going to Harvard and taking advantage of the virtual-guarantee of graduation keeps you 'in the game' of law school admissions. It obviously doesn't guarantee your admission, but hey, it's better than flunking out of a public school.</p>
<p>Hey, Sakky. </p>
<p>The link you posted confirms that both public and private schools appear to suffer from significant grade inflation. Therefore, it actually supports the general idea that grade inflation is fairly universal. (I don't think any public university professor who's been teaching for several decades would disagree.) </p>
<p>The link does indicate that private schools have worse grade inflation than public schools, but I've already stipulated this with regard to Harvard. </p>
<p>The real question is whether the grade inflation at Harvard outweights the stiffer competition level, and I agree the answer to this is unclear. That, in fact, is my entire point -- that we can't categorically say it's easier to get into HLS from Harvard just because Harvard has high grade inflation, and/or because many Harvard kids end up attending HLS. </p>
<p>Now, I might believe that the moderate competition level + moderate grade inflation at most public schools outweighs the high compeition level + high grade inflation at Harvard. You might believe otherwise. Both views would be reasonable -- it's difficult to determine. I'm just trying to explore a different view on the matter. </p>
<p>As someone who attended at top public university, I agree with much of what you say. I'm sure in many ways it's easier to coast through Harvard with B's or C's, as opposed to doing the same at a public university. My impression is that you're basically spoon-fed your education at a top private school, while you pretty much have to fight for it at a large public. No one's going to hold your hand. </p>
<p>And you may therefore well be right that for an average student, going to HLS will greatly increase their chances of getting into a law school. (Even if you got an average 150 on your LSAT, half-decent grades (say a 2.5 - 3.0) along with the prestige of a Harvard diploma would almost certainly get you in somewhere.)</p>
<p>However, my point was solely focused on the relative chances of an actual Harvard student, if he had instead attended a public university, of getting into HLS. In that case, I would submit that it is highly unlikely that at a student with top high school grades and honors, and a 1500+ SAT score, would tend to flunk out of any liberal arts program. Rather, I would expect them to do very well, and probably get better grades than they would at Harvard, despite lesser grade inflation. (Just my opinion.) </p>
<p>Therefore, given that I would expect such students to be in the top 10-15% of their class at a public university, the GPA benefit I project could easily exceed any intangible bonus attending Harvard gives. (Whether it actually does or not, of course, is open to question.)</p>
<p>(Note: The above analysis would obviously not apply to legacy, etc. admits that get in with lower admissions criteria than most Harvard students. Such students are clearly advantaged by their admission to Harvard, and would probably be seriously harmed if they had to study elsewhere.) </p>
<p>We do know that Harvard takes pride in the academic and geographic diversity of it's students, so it would presumably be happy to select kids with sky-high numbers from various public universities that are not currently (or as) represented in the class. </p>
<p>The main weakness to this argument, in my opinion, is the assumption that LSAT will remain unchanged regardless of where you attend school. Some may say that a "less rigorous" education at another school will mean lower LSAT scores than if the same person attended Harvard. However, I again agree that the actual education can be just as rigorous at a good public school, if not more so. I therefore believe that LSAT scores would remain fairly constant. </p>
<p>My argument is essentially just a statement of meritocracy. Given that tens of thousands of highly qualified and talented students are rejected from Harvard each year, it's important for them to realize that they can still meet or exceed the Harvard admits, in pretty much every area. My argument was originally expressed in the context of admission to all top law schools, and I think it's stronger in that context, given that Harvard may in fact have some quirky preferences for its own students. However, we know this preference isn't overwhelming, as most students at HLS are not in fact Harvard graduates. There are in fact many public school grads at HLS, and many Harvard grads at lower-ranked schools. The bottom line is that you if you have the abiilty to peform well on standardized tests, and a very solid work ethic, you have an excellent chance at attending schools like HLS, regardless of where you go to undergrad. You may even have a better chance, in some respects. And I think it's important for students to remember this, especially if they don't go to Harvard. Otherwise, they may end up limiting themselves due to exaggerated myths and stereotypes.</p>
<p>Susan777, I think our opinions are fairly close to each other. I don't fundamentally disagree with anything you have said.</p>
<p>However, I would extrapolate on the following point, that, again, it's practically impossible to flunk out of Harvard College, whereas at public schools, flunking out is a perennial danger. Nor can the chances of flunking out be attributed solely to academic ability. The fact is, a lot of 17-18 year olds may be extremely talented academically, but are also not completely mature. Let's face it - college is a psychologially traumatic experience. For many if not most students, this is the first time they will live away from home. This is the first time where they will basically have to take care of themselves without the intervention of mom & dad. </p>
<p>And the fact is, lots of people who otherwise have the academic ability to do very well will end up doing quite poorly anyway. At every school, you will have some students who will tend to withdraw, either because they're bored, or because they don't like the environment, or because they're homesick or whatever. In college, you don't really have to go to class if you don't want to. Nobody is going to take your attendance, and nobody is going to otherwise require you to attend. If you want to stay in your dorm and watch TV and play video games all day, every day, and never study, you are free to do that.</p>
<p>What Harvard and many of the other private schools can offer that public schools can't or won't offer are the safety mechanisms necessary to help students get through the rougher psychological moments. Let's face it - it's far far easier to fall through the cracks if you are attending a public school where quite honestly, nobody really cares if you flunk out. Happened to several people I know who went to a public school and through various acts of immaturity, managed to flunk out. Public schools will absolutely not hesitate to stick your permanent academic record with a whole bunch of bad grades and they will not flinch in throwing you out for poor academic performance. You're having problems in adjusting to college life at a public school? Too bad, that's your problem. If the work isn't getting done, then nobody will care about why, they will just give you an 'F'. Now you might say that that's really the fault of those students for being immature, but the point is that I know very well that if they had attended one of the elite privates, they would have been given second and third and fourth chances that they never got at their public school. At the end of the day, these guys would have been far far better served had they went to a private school. Maybe they wouldn't have done well there, but at least they'd have their degrees now, which is a lot more than I can say about the situation as it is today. Not only were they expelled at the public school they were at, but few other schools want to take them because few colleges want to admit a transfer student who flunked out of his previous college - not when there are other available transfer candidates with pristine academic records. So basically, these guys will have great difficulty in ever getting any college degree from any school. </p>
<p>Going to Harvard College obviously doesn't guarantee your admission to Harvard Law School or any other law school for that matter. But it at least largely prevents you from suffering that sad fate I just talked about. It's obviously worlds better to graduate from Harvard with a completely mediocre GPA that prevents you from going to law school than it is to be thrown out of a public school.</p>
<p>it seems much is being made of the percentages of harvard students that go to HLS. if 80 harvard grads per year attend HLS, we can assume that maybe 85-90 got accepted per year. that number is 20-25% of those harvard grads that apply to HLS. now, using 80 as the number of acceptees (to deliberately underestimate) and 25% as the percentage accepted, that puts the number of applications per year from harvard to HLS at 320. in a class of 1650, that is almost 20% of the graduating class applying for HLS (19.39% to be exact). meanwhile, the 80 attending is 4.8% of the entire graduating class. both of these are pretty big numbers.</p>
<p>try to run the numbers at any other school - including the other ivies (except maybe yale) - theyre not even close. whether its due to grade inflation, school favoritism, or the phases of the moon, these numbers dont lie- there is clearly a preference for harvard grads at HLS- just as theres one for yale grads at YLS, cornell grads at CLS, etc etc.</p>
<p>Sakky -- I generally agree with your last post. As someone who went to a top public university for college, I remember being amused, when applying to certain law schools, when people asked if I was intimidated by the fact I'd be facing Ivy grads at those schools. I pretty much have the same impression you do -- once you get in, there's probably not much to getting by.</p>
<p>Hey, Northrams. </p>
<p>To begin with, neither number you cite (20% or 4.8%) seems suprisingly large or excessive. One would expect at least 20% of any top school class to consider law school, and those that do will certainly apply to Harvard if they have decent numbers, and are from Harvard college. Moreover, the fact that less than 5% of each class is able to get into HLS indicates that any preference is less than overwhelming. More students get into HLS from the other ivies, overall -- in fact, more students get into HLS from public schools. </p>
<p>In terms of absolute numbers, it's clear that more Harvard students get into HLS. However, we can't be sure there's an actual advantage until we know exactly how many students apply from other schools, how many are accepted, and what their respective numbers are. Until we do, it's pretty much conjecture. (More UVa students probably get into UVa law than Harvard grads, but that doesn't mean that necessarily mean that UVa strongly prefers UVa students -- it could just be that UVa studetns prefer UVa Law. </p>
<p>In the end, it may be true that there's a slight preference at HLS for Harvard grads, and that you'd be better served by going there (for that purpose) than by going to another Ivy. However, again, the size of this advantage can't really be determined until you can at least compare LSAT scores of the relative applicants. (One nice thing about the LSAT, unlike the SAT, is that it's not really subject to inflation.) And given the relative advantages of attending a public school, I still think the same person might be better off coming from a decent public. Again, a less competitive pool will probably outweigh extra grade inflation (in my opinion), and HLS will generally prefer higher numbers to Harvard undergrads. (Bottom line -- you're not getting into HLS without a 169+ LSAT, and most Harvard grads can't get this.)</p>
<p>Allright, let me try to shed some light here. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, Harvard refuses to publish its prelaw admissions data online (I have it here, but only in hardcopy, so clearly it's difficult for us to have a conversation about data that only I can see). Basically, you have to go to one of the Harvard College houses and request the prelaw data if you want to see it.</p>
<p>However, I do have Yale College data, so here it is.</p>
<p>As you can see, in 2003, 225 Yale grads applied to Yale Law, and 42 got in, for an admissions percentage of 19%. This might seem to be strong evidence of favoritism of YLS to Yale College graduates, as the admission percentage of all applicants to YLS, according to USNews, was about 8%. </p>
<p>However, let's back up. the admissions percentage of Yale College graduates into Harvard Law was 27% (as opposed to about 14% for all HLS applicants). The admissions percentage was to Stanford law was about 18% (vs. about 11% for all Stanford Law applicants). Hence, across the board, Yale College graduates are getting into the top law schools at a higher rate than the general applicant pool is. </p>
<p>Moreover, as you can see from the numbers, more Yale grads are getting into HLS than YLS (70 vs. 42) from both an absolute basis and from a percentage basis (27% vs. 19%). Now obviously, this can be explained by the simple fact that YLS is a significantly more selective school than HLS, not just for Yale grads, but for everyone. </p>
<p>Now I do have to disagree with the last sentence that susan777 posted. The data indicates that the average LSAT score of admitted Yalies at YLS and HLS is 172. That is a strong indication that unless the statistical distribution of LSAT scores of those applicants was unusually bunched together, that clearly means that some (not a lot, but some) Yalies are getting into YLS and/or HLS was an LSAT score lower than 169. Furthermore, according to USNews, the 25/75 percentile LSAt numbers for HLS admittees was 167-172. So clearly a significant percentage of admittees are getting in with LSAT scores below 169. </p>
<p>Hence, the waters are muddled. It is not clear to me that there is any evidence of "old-school favoritism" beyond the simple facts that Ivy candidates tend to be high-achievers and would therefore be strong candidates anyway. </p>
<p>However, it does seem to me that what I said before still holds - the Ivies are less risky simply because they will give you the second, third, and fourth chances to get your life together that the publics simply won't. If something bad happens to you at a public, whether because of immaturity or bad luck or whatever, that's it. You're finished. They have little hesitation to tag your record with bad grades and then throw you out. The Ivies, on the other hand, basically ensure that you are going to graduate. Lest you think that that's not a valuable thing, tell that to the guys I know who went to public school and got themselves expelled for poor academic performance. I don't think they'd mind getting that graduation guarantee. </p>
<p>The other advantage that Ivies have over public schools is that you can basically coast in the Ivies and for the most part (meaning except for maybe Cornell) still get good grades. At the publics, where there is less grade inflation, you are going to have to always put in the work to get good grades. If you want to take a few classes "off", or even take a few whole semesters off, you are going to be hurt far less at the Ivies than you would at the publics. Or, put another way, a bad semester at an Ivy is far less damaging than a bad semester at a public, where that bad semester really might lead to your being put on academic probation, or even being thrown out. A bad semester at an Ivy might be one with straight B's. So if you have a semester where you have a really bad breakup with your boyfriend/girlfriend, or something bad happens to your family, or your apartment burns down, or whatever it might be, you are far more likely to survive that semester intact at an Ivy than at a public. Like I said, public schools will not hesitate to stick your record with bad grades and then expel you for poor performance, and they won't really care about why you're not performing, they just know that you're not performing. </p>
<p>However, it is fairly clear also that those students who do get royally screwed in law-school admissions are those students who choose tough majors at tough schools - i.e. electrical engineering at MIT. I think we can all agree that law-school adcoms prefer high numbers, and the fact is, it is extremely difficult to obtain high numbers if you go to a tough school and complete a tough major. And the adcoms don't seem to care. All they care about is whether you have the numbers or not. The sad conclusion is that law-schools don't really care about how hard-working you are, or about your intellectual potential - they care about high numbers, whether or not it required hard work or a lot of intellect to get those numbers.</p>
<p>"As you can see, in 2003, 225 Yale grads applied to Yale Law, and 42 got in, for an admissions percentage of 19%. This might seem to be strong evidence of favoritism of YLS to Yale College graduates, as the admission percentage of all applicants to YLS, according to USNews, was about 8%."</p>
<p>Except, again, Yale grads are likely to have far higher LSAT scores than the average applicant. So it's not clear if this really reflects favoritism, or simply different applicant pools. </p>
<p>"However, let's back up. the admissions percentage of Yale College graduates into Harvard Law was 27% (as opposed to about 14% for all HLS applicants). The admissions percentage was to Stanford law was about 18% (vs. about 11% for all Stanford Law applicants). Hence, across the board, Yale College graduates are getting into the top law schools at a higher rate than the general applicant pool is."</p>
<p>First off, this indicates that Yale students get into HLS at a higher rate than Harvard students, and thus apparently disproves the idea of Harvard advantage. (You should post the specific corresponding Harvard number if you have it -- we'll trust you.) </p>
<p>And again, given that Yale students tend to do much better on standardized exams, we would expect them to get into top schools at a higher rate. </p>
<p>"Now I do have to disagree with the last sentence that susan777 posted. The data indicates that the average LSAT score of admitted Yalies at YLS and HLS is 172. That is a strong indication that unless the statistical distribution of LSAT scores of those applicants was unusually bunched together, that clearly means that some (not a lot, but some) Yalies are getting into YLS and/or HLS was an LSAT score lower than 169. Furthermore, according to USNews, the 25/75 percentile LSAt numbers for HLS admittees was 167-172. So clearly a significant percentage of admittees are getting in with LSAT scores below 169."</p>
<p>I would submit that the LSAT distribution of Yale grads is in fact highly bunched together. This only makes sense: The SAT's of these students are highly bunched together, at the top of the scale. (mostly 1400 +) If we use the rough shorthand (stated by some admissions officers) that LSAT tends to equal SAT Verbal, minus the zero, and with a "1" in front, then the average LSAT of Yale (and Harvard) students should be around 170. Since only the top 1/4 applicants from each school get into HLS, then most of these probably have an LSAT well above 170. HLS could apparently easily fill its Yale/Harvard slots with students scoring over 170, so it's unclear why they would go any lower. </p>
<p>(Again, the fact that a number of HLS admits have LSAT scores below 169 really tells us little about Yale/Harvard admits. What's relevant are the numbers of Yale/Harvard applicants, and it appears there's probably more than enough Yale/Harvard students over 170 to fill up their respective slots. Therefore, while it's certainly possible that a Yale/Harvard student would get in with a score below 169, it's probably unlikely, or extremely rare. In this sense, Yale/Harvard students are probably disadvantaged vs. their public school counterparts -- it becomes far harder to stand out, even in terms of LSAT numbers.) </p>
<p>I do think there is probably some old-school favoritism at most law schools, but this is probably diluted by factors like the above, and the more moderate competition levels at many other schools. I do agree the single most important factor is the ability/achievement level of the individual. </p>
<p>And I certainly agree that going to an Ivy is a more "safe" strategy all around. It's simply much easier to get a job, period, from an Ivy. Placement and alumni services are simply far stronger. Any small school will give you much more personalized attention and care. There are many obvious benefits to attending such a program. </p>
<p>However, I will add that many law schools do take into account the greater rigor of engineering, etc. degrees. I know engineers with 3.0, 163's, that got into top-10 law schools -- and history majors with 3.6, 168's that were rejected by the same school. There may be a greater bias towards numbers today, due to USNews, but it's not absolute by any means.</p>