Help! My Grades

<p>While I agree that the fact that only 19% of Yale prelaws who applied to YLS got admitted is a rather amazing and interesting statistic, what I find to be even more interesting is all those Yale prelaws who applied to lower-tier law schools... and got rejected. For example, according to the same link I posted above, of the Yale prelaws who applied to Brooklyn Law School, 62% were admitted, which means that 38%, or well over a third of them, got rejected. Similarly, of the Yale prelaws who applied to Benjamin Cardozo/Yeshiva Law, only 57% got admitted, which means that almost half got rejected. I would also point out again that this data obviously deals only with those Yalies who actually apply. Some Yalies would love to go to even a no-name law school but don't think they have a reasonable shot at getting in, so they don't even bother to apply. </p>

<p>The takehome point is that nobody, not even a Yalie or any other Ivy Leaguer, has guaranteed admission to law school in the bag. Just because you're in the Ivy League doesn't mean that you can slack off, especially if you want to gain admission to a top-flight law school. Let's take, say, Boston College Law School, which is a very good, but certainly not an elite law school (i.e., not at the level of YLS, HLS, or Stanford). Only 42% of Yale prelaws who applied to BC Law School got in, and those who were admitted had an average GPA of 3.6/4.</p>

<p>I applied to (and was accepted to) Brooklyn, and know a bit about it - so I'll throw in a bit of info for reference.</p>

<p>BLS is ranked around 55 in USNews. Their placement in NYC firms is fourth, to Columbia, NYU, and Fordham. The acceptance rate hovers around 25% - so the 62% Yale admit rate isn't too bad. I believe that the GPA/LSATs for Yalies admitted is about average for BLS. They have an early decision option - binding acceptance if you apply in October. I think that they also tend to take people who want them - I talked to admissions officers, visited twice, applied in October, did the cover letter thing, and was accepted when I called to enquire about my app (in May). Keep that in mind when you see the Yale stats.</p>

<p>Finally - the Yale stats should remind y'all that getting into law school is rough - for anyone. There really are no guarantees.</p>

<p>Hi Gatsby,</p>

<p>You're right, it could be that there are fewer applicants to law school. I get the impression a lot of Dartmouth students go into investment banking... strong econ department.</p>

<p>While you make some valid points, I think you are also drawing some incorrect inferences. </p>

<p>One interesting thing is that the Yale data does NOT tell you how many Yale applicants didn't get into ANY law schools. There may not be any..but your messages imply there are. You can't look at the matriculated #s, because lots of the successful applicants chose to do other things. In some cases, people who got into law schools deferred. Some deferred to work on the election. I'd hazard a guess that at least a couple of people who got into Harvard or YLS from Yale UG won fellowships for study abroad and deferred for that reason. Others applied to both law and grad school and ultimately decided to pursue a Ph.D. rather than a J.D. </p>

<p>Second, there are about 185 ABA accredited law schools. Of the schools listed which actually ended up with Yalies ENROLLING in them, Brooklyn Law is the lowest ranked. It's still within the top one-third of all ABA-accredited law schools. So I don't think you've really proven that you aren't guaranteed that you can get into AT LEAST ONE law school from Yale. If someone really, really wants to be an attorney, there are about 125-130 ABA accredited law schools ranked below BLS to which they can apply. </p>

<p>Third, not every law school applicant applies to all the top law schools in the nation and goes to the best which admits him/her. There are plenty of people who are only interested in applying to schools in certain regions of the nation or even particular cities. In some cases, this is because they are married to/living with/romantically involved with someone and don't want to more across the country. Double that if they have kids. Some people also have elderly or ill parents or just are close to family and friends and don't feel like being half way across the country. So, don't assume that Yalies--or people from any other college-- who don't apply to YHS "probably" couldn't get in. A lot of the Yalies and Yale alums who apply to Columbia but not to HYS do so because they are only willing to go to LS in New York. (If, for example, your spouse or partner is in med school in New York, you're NEVER going to see each other if you go to school in another city. Add to that that while he or she is a resident, he/she HAS to live in med school housing--which means you can count on getting it. So, if you really, really want to go to HLS instead, add in a LOT more money to rent a second place for yourself for 3 academic years and study up on matrimonial law.If you think well, med/law student marriages are rare, think in terms of a job. Somebody with a good job in NYC isn't guaranteed an equally good one in Palo Alto or Boston. ) And, as for Brooklyn Law in particular, it has a NIGHT law school. Believe it or not, there may be a few alums who live in New York and are only interested in night law schools. If you can't get into Fordham's program, Brooklyn's probably your best bet. </p>

<p>If you still think everyone just applies to all the top-ranked law schools, look at the Yale link. You'll note that lots more Yalies apply to Yale and Harvard Law than to UChicago. Do you think that's because they think they have better odds of getting into Yale or Harvard than UChicago? Obviously not, because the median gpa of those who apply to UChicago is substantially below that of those who apply to H&Y. </p>

<p>I know I may "sound" as if I'm disagreeing just to argue with you, but I think you really are over doing it. I know a lot of Yalies, and I've never met one who wanted to go to law school who couldn't get into ANY. Looking at the Yale data, it seems to me that people in the middle of the class can get into UCLA--one of the top 16 law schools in the nation. Indeed, people in the middle of the class with good LSATs are getting into UChicago. So, yes, going to an Ivy doesn't guarantee you'll get into HYS or CCN, but if you want to be an attorney, you can be.</p>

<p>Let me take each of your points in turn. I have had to write 2 responses, because there is a limit to how long 1 response can be. </p>

<p>Point one - strictly speaking, you are right, I haven't formally proved that there are Yale prelaws who couldn't get into any law school. And the reason for this is simple - Yale refuses to show us this data. I'm sure you've seen the probability charts listing GPA on the top and LSAT on the bottom and then collating all the applicants who have a particular GPA and LSAT combination, and what is the percentage chance of each combo to get into law school. Yale will not publish this data. Nor will Yale publish anything that talks about the overall admittance rate or so forth. </p>

<p>So I agree with you that I am making an inference when I say that some Yale prelaws won't get into any law schools. Nevertheless, I think it is a safe inference to make, for two reasons. First of all, statistically speaking, it is a near-certainty that a few Yale prelaws don't get in anywhere. According to the data, the lowest-tier law schools that Yalies are applying to are American, Brooklyn, and a few others. As you can see, none of these law schools have anywhere close to a 100% acceptance rate. And just from a statistical standpoint, it is almost assured that some Yalie applied to all these law schools and just had the bad luck to get rejected from all of them. If you are arguing the converse - i.e. that every single student who got rejected from Brooklyn Law School, every single one of these students, must have been admitted somewhere else - you must agree is highly highly improbable. It's mathematically improbable. Hence, it must be true that it is almost certain that there are a few guys who didn't get in anywhere. </p>

<p>Secondly, you have to consider the fact that many students who would like to go to law school don't even apply. I agree with you that the data doesn't explicitly show information regarding those who apply who don't get in anywhere. On the other hand, you must agree that the data also doesn't explicitly say anything about people who never apply in the first place. And let's face it. Although Yale is a rather grade inflated school, there are some students who end up graduating with bad grades (i.e. a 2.5 or lower). Some of these students, I'm sure, would like to go to law school but know that their grades will most likely prevent them from doing so, so they don't even bother to apply. And of course, there are some Yalies who end up bombing the LSAT. If you do terribly on the LSAT, there is a greater chance that you won't apply anywhere.</p>

<p>However, I am afraid that the other point you made in your second paragraph is not applicable. You talk about some people who apply and then defer. I presume you are talking about people who get admitted and then choose to defer. That's neither here nor there. The data I presented has to do with who gets admitted. If you get admitted and choose to defer, that doesn't change the data - you were still admitted. So is you get admitted, then go work for some election, then for the purposes of the data, you are still counted as an admittee. It doesn't change the admission data at all. It changes the matriculation data, but I wasn't talking about the matriculation data. I was only talking about the admission data.</p>

<p>Now, to deal with your third and fourth paragraphs. </p>

<p>You raise a point that a Yale prelaw would be able to get into one of the 185 accredited law schools, so a Yale prelaw should be able to get into at least a lower-level law school. My rejoinder to that is that first off, we will never know if that's true or not because according to the data, Yale prelaws don't apply to the truly lower-tier law schools. And second off, I don't think it matters anyway. This gets to a subject that may be off-topic but I think may be important to discuss because I've seen it over and over again. The fact is, from a psychological and social standpoint, it is difficult for many people to graduate from a place like Yale only to end up at a truly no-name law school. Things like personal pride and social stigmas start playing a role. Essentially speaking, the brutal truth is, a lot of Yalies simply think they're just 'too good' to go to a truly lower-tier law school, so they'd rather not go at all. </p>

<p>I think back to a guy I know who, while he was a Harvard undergrad, had no problems taking odd jobs to pay the bills - walking dogs, washing cars, waiting tables, and so forth. But now that he's graduated, he won't do those jobs anymore. Why? Because now he's a Harvard graduate, so he's got it in his head that those kinds of jobs are beneath him. His Harvard degree has basically created within him a strong psychological aversion to doing low-level labor. At the same time, the guy is having difficulty getting a 'real' job, so he's been sitting around at his parent's house doing nothing for 6 months now. Can't get a job that he wants, won't take the jobs that he can get (even though he had no problem in doing those jobs just a year ago). Now, to be fair, to some extent, I can see why he feels the way he does. He told me that he would feel ashamed about working one of those jobs only to have one of his old classmates see him working that job. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, you might say that the Harvard degree has actually been bad for him (at least, temporarily) because at the present time he is now actually less productive than he was without the Harvard degree. This same phenomenom has been extensively written about by Thomas Sowell, who has noted the unusually high unemployment rate among young college educated people in the Third World and Europe - often times, significantly higher than the rate of young people in those same countries who are not well educated. Sowell has noted again and again and in country after country how when people get educated, they develop a strong aversion to taking certain low-level jobs. Many of these newly- educated people evidently would rather take no job than take a low-level job that is an affront to their educated dignity. It is this false pride that actually detracts from the value of the education. As Sowell himself once said, whether the increased productivity created by education compensates for the change of attitudes as regards low-level work that the education creates is an empirical question. </p>

<p>I would extend this example back to Yale prelaws. The data indicates that they don't apply to truly low-level law schools. You might say that Yalies could go to a low-level law school if they really wanted to, but I would contend that they don't want to. That's what the evidence suggests - they're not even applying to the truly low-level law schools. And I would argue that it has to do precisely with what I just said - a lot of Yale prelaws would be ashamed to go to a truly low-level law school, just like the Harvard guy I know is ashamed to wait tables. Not all Yale prelaws feel this way. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, the data indicates that, for some reason, nobody from Yale is applying to these low-level law schools. So clearly something is going on. I would posit that a lot of Yalies would rather go nowhere rather than go to a low-level law school. Yet that only goes toward proving the crux of my original point, which is that just because you go to Yale doesn't mean that you're going to be able to go to law school. That's either because you can't get in anywhere, or because the places you can get into, you might feel ashamed to be going because you're a Yalie. Either way, the point still stands. </p>

<p>Now, if you disagree with the premise, then that's fine. But you have to agree that because nobody from Yale is applying to those low-tier law schools, something is clearly going on.</p>

<p>Part 2</p>

<p>Now as far as your fourth paragraph, that really only adjusts the final conclusion slightly. You say that some people have personal circumstances that restrict where he/she might end up going to law school. My first response to that is, that's true of people anywhere. A guy who graduated from SW Missouri State might also have personal circumstances that restrict where he might go for law school. Those restrictions don't really matter. You might say that some Yalie has something in his personal life that makes him only be able to go to law school in, say, Boston. But then what happens if he can't get into any of the law schools in Boston? It turns out to be the same thing - just because he went to Yale, he still wasn't able to get into law school. Sure, you might say he might have gotten in in some other law school outside of Boston, but that's really neither here nor there. The point still stands - he went to Yale and now he can't get to law school. </p>

<p>Nor do I believe this is a matter of simply changing the goalposts. It's like the SW Missouri State guy who also can only go to law school in Boston, and then finds he can't get into any law school in Boston. It turns out to be the same thing. From a relative standpoint, these two guys end up in the same place. Neither one ends up being able to go to law school. Hence, the general point stands that the guy from Yale is no better off, in terms of law school admission , then the guy from SW Missouri State. Sure, maybe it's not the fault of the Yalie that he can't leave Boston, just like it's not the fault of the guy from SW Missouri State that he can't leave Boston. But that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that both guys end up not being able to go to law school, hence the Yale guy ends up with no law-school admissions advantage over the SW Missouri State guy. </p>

<p>Having said that, I can now deal with your fourth and fifth paragraphs. You noted that more Yalies apply to Columbia than to YLS/HLS, and you attributed that to Yalies perhaps being restricted to study in New York. But then you also noted that more students apply to YLS and HLs than to Chicago, but you don't attribute that any possible geographic reason. Now, you must agree that geography might also play a role here I agree with you that some people will apply to Columbia and not to YLS because they want to be in New York. However, you must agree with me that some people will apply to YLS and not Chicago also for geographic reasons. </p>

<p>At the end of the day, geography plays a role no matter what. Some people have to go to New York for personal reasons. On the other hand, some people have to go to Chicago for personal reasons. Some people have to go to Boston for personal reasons. This is nothing more than an extension of the 'personal circumstances' discussion we just had. So really, it's a wash. What I am saying is, Yalies have personal circumstances just like somebody from SW Missouri State has personal circumstances. Controlling for that, it is still true that you might be a Yalie who doesn't get in anywhere.</p>

<p>Now, your last paragraph, I am afraid to say, has quite a whopper. You say that somebody who is in the middle of the class in Yale should be able to get into UCLA Law. Now, that's incorrect. What you should have said is that those people who are in the middle of those Yalies WHO APPLY TO LAW SCHOOL should be able to get into UCLA Law. And that's a gigantic difference. Look, Yale is grade inflated, but I'm fairly certain that the average GPA at Yale is not 3.6. I know it's high, but it's not THAT high. Case in point - the latest data indicates that Harvard's average GPA is about a 3.4 - <a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/harvard.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gradeinflation.com/harvard.html&lt;/a>. I think Yale's average GPA is similar. There's a big difference between a guy with a 3.4 and a guy with a 3.6. The fact is, the set of Yalies who apply to law school is better than the set of all Yalies. Those who apply have self-selected to be skewed towards those students who have done well. Even Yale has some students who have done really really poorly. These students are most likely not applying to law school. Which is, again, another way of saying that going to Yale does not guarantee that you will be getting into law school.</p>

<p>This will be my last post in this thread. I think you are leaping to wholly unsubtantiated and illogical claims. The information you are giving is at least in part untrue. You are making statements about information that Yale has "refused" to provide with NO basis in fact whatsoever for your statement that Yale "refused" to do so. (The fact the information isn't available on one particular webpage doesn't mean Yale has "refused" to provide the information.) You are also distorting several points I made. </p>

<p>For example, you claim that Yalies don't apply to lower tier law schools. You also say that you personally know why they don't, based primarily on your knowledge of one Harvard College grad who won't take a job walking dogs and a study that Sowell (who FYI is not regarded highly by most social scientists, even conservatives)did about people in Third World countries and Europe. Even if the study is outstanding, it doesn't say a thing about where Yalies go to law school. You psychoanalize Yalies you've never spoken to and "know" why they won't apply to lower tiered schools. I don't think you've proven your case, to put it mildly. Reality is that you ASSUME that Yalies don't apply to lower tier law schools. </p>

<p>The fact that in ONE year the lowest ranked law school a Yalie applied to was Brooklyn Law does NOT prove that NO Yalie EVER applies to a lower ranked school. So out of curiousity, I did a google search to find out whether there were any Yalies currently enrolled in tier 3 and 4 law schools in US News--those who aren't in the top 100 of 185 law schools. Answer: yes. There is at least one Yale College grad in the U of Pacific Law School (McGeorge) (tier 3) and at least one in the University of Akron (tier 4). (There may be others; not every law school gives a full list of undergrad institutions represented in its student body on line-- at least in a way that came within the parameters of my google search.) So, obviously you've reached a faulty conclusion based on incomplete data. We now KNOW that there ARE Yalies who are enrolled in tier 3 and 4 schools-- and therefore presumably apply to them . So your assumption based on your friend and Sowell's wholly unrelated study is just plain WRONG. </p>

<p>Geography IS relevant. I wasn't trying to claim that it's any more relevant for Yalies than any other group. I just said that your statement in an earlier post that Yalies applied to Columbia Law but not to Yale, Harvard or Stanford "probably" because they thought they couldn't get into HYS is also a sweeping generalization which may not be true. I would hazard a guess that there are a lot of Stanford grads who only apply to Stanford and Boalt and not to Harvard or Yale, and that too may not be due to the fact that they probably can't get into either of them, but due to their desire to stay in California. (Note that you have NOT compared Yale's data with that of any other undergraduate college. So the argument about geography being a "wash" is out of left field.) The REASON I cited the # of applicants to UChicago was to PROVE that GEOGRAPHY may well be the reason WHY people apply where they apply. I AGREE wtih you that fewer Yalies apply to UChicago law school because it's in Chicago. </p>

<p>Yale's median gpa is nowhere near 3.6. I know that, for a fact, because I know what the cut-off for cum laude (top 30% at most) at Yale was for the Class of '03. Based on it, the median wasn't any 3.6. But I also don't think the median gpa at Harvard is any evidence whatsoever of the median gpa at Yale--or Princeton or Columbia or any other school. That "deduction" is almost as logical as the conclusion that one Harvard grad who won't work as a dogwalker proves that Yalies can't acccept going to a lower-ranked law school if they can't get into a better one. </p>

<p>I think you've got the cart before the horse as to law school applicants from Yale being "skewed towards those students who have done well." I think there are a lot of Yalies who study their rear ends off BECAUSE they want to go to a top law school. In other words, they don't apply to law school because they've managed to get grades good enough to do it. They get good grades because they study harder than average because they want to go to law school. </p>

<p>You say "These students (who did poorly grade -wise) are most likely not applying to law school. " My main point is that that is A GUESS on your part. You don't know. And, you know what? I suspect that the guy who went from Yale to U of Akron Law School probably wasn't Phi Beta Kappa. But I ADMIT I do not KNOW either. That's the POINT. </p>

<pre><code>Again, I won't post again and you can insist that you are right and I am wrong. However, please use better logic than "my friend who graduated from Harvard won't walk dogs" proves that Yalies won't go to lower tier law schools if that's the only chance they have to go at all. Oh, that's probably true of some Yalies, but it's probably not true of others.
</code></pre>

<p>Just a dinner with a laywee (a Yalie) who did not go to a top tier law school. Of course, I had to wipe the drool off his lower lip....</p>

<p>I do think we have whipped this horse raw. Perhaps it is time to get back to the OP's question.</p>

<p>Thanks, CD</p>

<p>No, jonri, I think you are the one who is leaping to illogical conclusions.</p>

<p>First of all my point was not that Yalies never go to lower-tier law schools. The real point is that you know as well as I do that disproportionately few Yalies go to lower-tier law schools. Looking around and finding one or two guys who did go to a lower-tier law school out of the many people who have ever graduated from Yale does not disprove the basic point any more than finding one guy who did win the lottery disproves the point that buying lottery tickets is a bad investment, or finding one guy who lives to be a 100 yet smokes 2 packs of cig's a day disproves the point that smoking is dangerous. At the end of the day we both know that relatively few Yalies will go to lower-tier law schools. Take some no-name undergrad program, look where their prelaws go, and then compare that to where the Yale prelaws go, and I think even you would not seriously dispute that the statistical distribution of the former would basically be congregated in lower-tier law schools than the latter would. I happen to personally think that it's an interesting question why that is the case, which is why I went off on a tangent (and I admitted it was a tangent). If you don't think it's interesting, fine. But the point is, at the end of the day, you and I both know that far fewer Yale prelaws are going to apply to and matriculate at lower-tier law schools than do prelaws at a no-name undergrad program. That was my basic point. I was looking at statistical distributions and where the datapoints congregated, not whether you could find one guy among hundreds or perhaps thousands who went against the grain. </p>

<p>By the way, whether you happen to like Sowell or not or agree with him politically is neither here nor there. There is still the open question as to why is it that Yalies rarely apply to and matriculate at lower-tier law schools. You said that if Yalies did do so, they would probably get in. I think that's probably true, but it doesn't really matter. The fact is, very few of them are applying to such schools, and if you don't apply, you obviously can't get in. Hence, at the end of the day, some Yalies aren't getting in anywhere, and whether that's because they really aren't good enough to get in anywhere, or because they are good enough to at least get into lower-tier law schools but don't want to go to such schools (and for whatever reasons they might decide not to go to such schools), it doesn't affect the basic point which is that they aren't getting in. </p>

<p>Now about your geography contention - again, I never said that ALL Yalies who applied to Columbia but not to YLS/HLS/wherever were restricted by geography. But that's not the point. The point is that it cuts both ways. Some Yalies will apply to Columbia but not HLS because of geography, because some people need to be in New York On the other hand, some Yalies will apply to HLS but not Columbia also because of geography - some people need to be in Boston. In THAT sense, geography washes out. What I mean is that a fair thing for me to do is 'subtract' those Columbia applicants who need to be in New York, and then also 'subtract' those Harvard applicants who need to be in Boston, and then compare what remains. The point is that if you want to compare the relative number of Columbia to HLS applications, then geography cuts both ways and hence washes out. </p>

<p>Now, I think you fundamentally misunderstood a point I made before, or else I have misunderstood you. I already said that the median GPA of Yale was not 3.6. You are acting as if I assumed that I had said that. I did not. Read my post again. You said that a person with qualifications in the middle of Yale's class was good enough to get into UCLA Law. I said this is false - a person who is in the middle of Yale's prelaws who apply to law school is good enough to get into UCLA Law - but the fact is, those people are on average, better than Yalies in general. The former does indeed have a median GPA of 3.6, as the data indicates. The latter does not. </p>

<p>I posted the median GPA of Harvard because, frankly, I couldn't find the data for Yale. But my point is not that it is the same as Harvard's, but that I think I'm safe in saying that it isn't far off. Case in point. Harvard's is 3.4 Stanford's is 3.44. Princeton's is 3.4. These are all peer schools to Yale. Hence, I think I'm on safe ground when I say that Yale's GPA is probably around 3.4-3.44, simply because I think that it would be close to its peers. Yale has the same reputation of grade inflation and basically the same quality of students as these 3 schools, so I think it is a perfectly reasonable inference. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/stanford.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gradeinflation.com/stanford.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/princeton.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gradeinflation.com/princeton.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, I don't disagree with you that Yalies who know they want to go to law school are studying their ass off. Of course they are. But so are prelaws at any school. Admissions is a game of relativity. You don't get admitted because you present a certain set of qualifications in a vacuum. You get admitted because your qualifications are better than somebody else's. Hence, it's all relative. Hence, your notion that Yale prelaws are studying hard is not particularly relevant. As I'm sure you are aware, lots of prelaws across the country study very hard, and yet still can't get into not only the law school they want to go to, but in some cases, can't get into any law school period. Why would Yalies be any different? Surely you're not saying that a Yalie who studies hard is assured of getting into law school, but a guy from SW Missouri State who studies hard is not assured.</p>

<p>Now, as to your last 2 paragraphs proves what I have been talking about. Is it a guess on my part that those Yalies with low grades probably aren't applying to law school. Of course it is. But it is, I think, a very safe one. You know as well as I do that there are in fact Yalies with mediocre grades - i.e. below a 2.5 How many of these people are applying to law school? Probably not a lot. Yet how many of them want to go to law school, especially an elite one? Probably more than are actually applying. Case in point ,take some Yalie's with 2.5's. How many of them are applying to HLS? Few- perhaps none. Now (magically) offer them admission to HLS. I think we can both agree that many if not most of them are going to accept. That obviously means that many of them want to go (for otherwise, why would they accept), yet they don't apply because they don't think they will get in, so they're not going to waste their time. But if somebody handed it to them, they would take it. That illustrates the point that people only apply if they think they have a reasonable chance of getting it. My real point is that just because you don't apply doesn't mean you don't want it. Hence, the Yale prelaw admissions data (and all prelaw admissions data, for that matter) is skewed in the sense that it doesn't show those people who want to go to law school but don't apply because they don't think they can get in. The TRUE prelaw population is everybody who wants to go to law school, not just those people who apply to law school. The latter is a subset of the former.</p>

<p>But anyway, looking at your 2 paragraphs, you basically said it yourself - it's all based on statistics. You said that it is true of some Yalies but not true of others that they won't go to lower-tier law schools. Yep, that's exactly my point Just like I said that some Yalies with low grades are most likely not applying to law school. And if you look at the data, that's exactly what it shows. The average GPA of Yale prelaws who apply is about 3.5 That seems to very strongly indicate that the Yale prelaws with low grades aren't applying (otherwise that 3.5 would have been pulled down). I admit I obviously can't show this with 100% certainty. But that's not the point. Statistics is demonstrative.</p>

<p>And finally, as to your last paragraph, I think you need to read my post again. I never said that my example of the dog-walker proves anything about Yale prelaws. It was just an analogy that I thought of, and obviously every analogy breaks down at some point. There is no perfect analogy. The point I was making is that for some reason, a strikingly small number of Yale prelaws don't apply to no-name law schools. Whatever you might think as to why that is the case, it doesn't take away from the fact that it is the case. And furthermore, whatever reasons you might come up with don't take away from the real point which is that just because you go to Yale doesn't mean that you're automatically assured of getting into law school. </p>

<p>Finally, while I don't want to be harsh, I have to say that I am afraid that you are the one that needs to use better logic. You should have been able to tell that this is an argument based on statistical distributions. I don't understand why you are going around, finding one Yalie who went to a no-name law school. That doesn't disprove the basic point that in general, Yalies don't apply to no-name law schools. Just like finding one guy who smokes and has perfect health doesn't disprove that smoking is dangerous. You have to look at where the trend lines are, not where a few data points happen to be. And the trend is that Yalies by and large don't apply to low-level law schools. Also, the trend is that while Yalies do get into top-tier law school at a higher proportion than the national average, they clearly aren't guaranteed such a thing.</p>

<p>sakky - I think the point jonri is making is based on the fact that NYC has a larger population than Boston (and ostensibly, more Yalies from NYC than from Boston).</p>

<p>So it is not a "wash."</p>

<p>I do agree with your point on yalies ruling out opportunities like lower-tier law schools because of changed expectations. I believe Yale has a culture of achievement, and in that culture, "settling" for a lower tier law school is not deemed as high an achievement as going into another profession.</p>

<p>Why do I feel as if this thread was hijacked? Thanks everyone who stayed on topic.</p>

<p>Ericmeng, I can agree with you that perhaps it's not a 'complete' wash, but it is something of a wash. For example, take the case of YLS. New Haven is only 80 miles from New York. It's really not that far away, and certainly not impossible to arrange your life to take care of family responsibilities in New York while still going to YLS. I can agree that some people indeed have life circumstances that absolutely compel them to be in New York, no if's, and's, or but's. On the other hand, I would argue that other people are flexible enough to put up with the inconvenience in return for going to a place like YLS. Yet the fact is, far more Yale prelaws apply to Columbia than to YLS.</p>

<p>The real subpointpoint I'm making is that people will tend not to apply to schools that they don't reasonably think they have a chance of getting admitted into. If you end up with a 2.5 from Yale, you're probably not going to apply to YLS. It doesn't mean that you don't want to go to YLS. You're just not going to apply because you don't think you're a viable candidate. And that's part and parcel to my main point is that the prelaw applicant numbers greatly understate the number of people who actually who would want to go to a particular law school. Just because only X number of people apply to a particular elite law school doesn't mean that only X people want to go. Yes, other people may want to go but cannot because of bona-fide geographic reasons. Fine. On the other hand, other people also want to go and don't have any geographic problems in going. Their problem is that they don't think they can get in, so they don't apply. If somebody offered them automatic admission, they would jump on it. But they're not going to apply because they think their chances of surviving the admissions process are so small that it isn't worth going through the bother and expense of completing the application. </p>

<p>So let's get back to the OP. The OP asked about Ivy League prelaws who are trying to get into top law schools. Not just any law schools. The OP specifically asked about top law schools. The takehome message is, just because you go to an Ivy League School doesn't mean that admission to a top law school is in the bag by any means. That's why I trotted out the Yale prelaw data. Look at all the Yale prelaws who applied to top law schools, and didn't get in. Furthermore, look at the stats of the Yale prelaws who did get into the top law schools - they're very high. The evidence shows that if you want to get into a top law school, you have to get very high stats, even if you go to Yale. </p>

<p>So the OP's question was is he screwed for top law schools because of his not-so-high grades. And my answer to that is look at the Yale prelaw data, that should answer your questions. The answer is, if you don't bring your grades up, you're probably not going to be able to get into a top law school. Don't think that you're just going to be able to trade off your Ivy League status, and that's all you need to do. Admission to top law schools is a tough game.</p>

<p>I know a number of CMU graduates with 3.0 type averages which is not bad at a tech school who did very well on the LSAT and did not get into Pitt Law school. The gpas are sometimes give some consideration as to where you got the grades but not a whole heck of a lot. Worse, yet, if the student is majoring in the tech type course that have a tough grading curve, he is not given much latitude or consideration over someone taking a much lighter load at a school where the grades tend to be inflated. My understanding is that Yalies tend to have better grades overall than most if not all of the tech type schools; HPY are not schools where the grading is considered tough. </p>

<p>To the OP, a 3.0, first term is only 1/12th of your grades. You can bring it up considerably, but, yes, continuing with that gpa could hurt your chances of getting you into law school and you will need a much a higher LSAT score to be in the running as most law schools use the LSAT score and the gpa as combined and individual factors most heavily considered.</p>

<p>Also those CMU students that I mentioned, did get into law school after working a couple of years and taking bridge or graduate level courses to bring that gpa up. In a sense that is what my son is currently doing. He is taking night courses as he works at a job since his undergrad gpa is not even a 3.0 and he would not be a viable candidate for many graduate programs. He needs to get an A for all of those Cs he got and for half of the B's to jack that average up. He also has a couple of D's that will need a double A dose. He'll also need to really do well on whatever test that the program would ask-GMAT, LSAT, GRE.</p>

<p>Preliminarily, Brown is on a semester system. Thus, the gpa for first semester is roughly 1/8th, not 1/12th of grades and is thus harder to bring up. Second, Brown gpa's are VERY high. It's just as hard to get an A or B at Brown as any other top school, but you can take as many courses as you want on a S/NC basis, so most students, with the exception of pre-meds, tend to take any course they feel they risk getting a C in on a S/NC basis rather than for a grade. Moreover, there are NO required courses outside your major at Brown. At other schools, it's common for grades in courses taken to meet distribution requirments to lower gpa's. That doesn't happen at Brown because there are no distribution requirements. While the # of courses taken for grades at Brown varies wildly from student to student, VERY few people have sub 3.0 gpa's at Brown.</p>

<p>Next, the LSDAS (the official) compilation of gpa's is based SOLELY on your undergraduate gpa. You can NOT improve it ONE IOTA by taking classes after you graduate. Yes, individual law admissions officers may take a look at a transcript of a student with a low undergrad gpa and high graduate gpa and cut him/her some slack on the ground that he/she has simply grown up. They are more likely to do it if that low undergrad gpa is accompanied by a high LSAT score. But in all those charts which law schools publish--and which are used to rank them--the 25/75 gpa range refers SOLELY to UNDERGRADUATE gpa. Thus, law schools are FAR less likely, in my experience, to overlook weak UG grades because of high grad school grades than are other graduate programs.</p>

<p>Jonri, you are right that not all school are on the same system so the 1/12 does not always hold. But I can assure you that over my 30 years I can compile a pretty long list of kids who did terribly as undergrads and continued onto to grad/professional programs with extra courses. And yes, law school is one of those places. I have a name and face for each of those CMU students, and I am an example of a someone with a poor undergrad record who took many other outside courses, business, education and actuarial courses and got into a number of top 50 law school including the U of Chicago. My undergrad gpa was not a 3.0 with some nasty grades in there. And I know some kids right now who are in law school at Columbia and BU who have done this in the past 5. Anecdotal, yes, but enough to give it a go. A poor undergrad record is not necessarily a permanent albatross around the neck. Many overcome it and are in med school, grad school, and yes, law school. </p>

<p>Also the OP can certainly enroll in a good summer program and bring up that gpa for the first year. He can also pick his courses a bit more carefully to make sure his gpa is high, not a course of action I like to recommend as the undergrad experience should not be for grade grubbing but kids who have law, med school in their sights need to think twice about taking that Quantum Physics class that interests them if the kids in there are Physic/engineering majors and that grade curve is steep. A "C" can cost them. Heck, my attorney was a "gentlemen's C student" who went to UVA law school after taking some bridge courses. And his son just did the same thing a few years ago.</p>

<p>I admit that MANY people DO get into law schools with less than stellar undergraduate gpa's. But the point is those courses do NOT count in your official gpa for LSDAS purposes. That is FROZEN in time as soon as you get your BA/BS. If you don't believe me, go to the official Law School Admissions Council Website which will state the same thing. Your message implies that the OP can take other courses later to boost his gpa...that's just NOT true. Yes, they will be considered, but they are most definitely NOT weighted the same as undergraduate courses. </p>

<p>Summer courses DO count in your LSDAS gpa, though, even if your own college doesn't count them, so taking a few is a good idea.</p>

<p>Again, please understand I'm really not trying to just annoy you, remember grading was a lot different when we went to school that it is today AND it was a lot easier to get into LS than it is now. I also clearly said that individual law schools will overlook low undergraduate gpa's and admit people despite them...just that that's less true in law than in other fields.</p>

<h2>Here is a portion of the explanation of how LSDAS (the Law School Data Assembly Service, which almost all ABA-approved law schools use). It clearly states that grades received after you receive you BA/BS are NOT included in your gpa. (Portion within dashed lines is from the website itself.)</h2>

<p>Grades Excluded from Conversion </p>

<p>Withdraw, Withdraw/Pass—only if the issuing school considers the grade nonpunitive</p>

<p>Incomplete—only if the issuing school considers the grade nonpunitive</p>

<p>Those given for remedial courses only if the transcript clearly indicates they are remedial</p>

<p>Those awarded after the first undergraduate degree was received</p>

<p>Those assigned no measure of credit by the granting institution, regardless of the grade. Physical Education, Practical Art, Practical Music, and ROTC courses that are assigned credit will be included in the LSDAS summary even if the granting institution does not include these courses in its calculation of a GPA.</p>

<hr>

<p>PLEASE CHECK THE LSAC WEBSITE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING WHAT INFO IS NOT INCLUDED IN YOUR GPA. </p>

<p>You are required to submit all graduate school transcripts to LSDAS as well and they will be sent to law schools, but the LSDAS gpa will NOT include them, so the 25/75% data is for undergraduate grades ONLY.</p>

<p>AthenaNY, check out Dartmouth's data about the percentage of As, Bs, Cs, etc. awarded. It should be available somewhere. You should also talk with a pre-law advisor at your school. I haven't heard Dartmouth's name dropped very often in the grade-inflation debate, but I know that the ones that are famous for resisting grade inflation are Swat, Bryn Mawr, Williams, etc., a bunch of the tiny LACs. I heard from one of my deans that law schools usually have a list of what a "good" GPA is for various schools ... for instance, a 3.6 at Swat could probably get into HLS, but a 3.6 from Stanford might have a harder time.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gradeinflation.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>