True, but it also shows, without too much surprise, that the schools that dominate the list are the same ones listed always on this site as the gold standard of undergrad schools—in their order of representation–Y-H-S-P-C (columbia that is)-B.
“Kind of misleading to use raw numbers. Virginia, Vanderbilt, Middlebury, and Pomona all have 3 students at YLS, so they might all appear equal…but UVA and Vandy have about ten times as many students as Middlebury and Pomona, so the latter two are getting a much higher percentage (of overall students, not necessarily applicants) admitted.”
It doesn’t show anything of the sort. The relevant marker is what % of those applicants from a particular school get in - not what % of the admitted pool is from a given school.
For all you know, every KU student who applies gets in but only 1 out of every 10 Harvard students who apply get in. But lots more H students tend to apply. But there’s this continued innumeracy on CC who people look at horizontals and not rates.
@pizzagirl Sorry, but the logic is analogous to saying most the of the guys that play in the NBA, is because there is large group of folks that are interested in being professional basketball players are over 6’5. I go back to my original posit on this subject, Ivy schools provide a distinct advantage in this “particular field” because they have the greatest density of students who can achieve the most upper margin in test taking. Again, the average score at Y-S-H law schools is 173 or the top 1% of all test takers. The four most represented schools in the aforementioned schools are Y-S-H and Princeton.
So, of the 21,000 plus students that took the LSAT in 2014, the ones that scored in the 173+ range were a very small group of people, that numbered in the hundreds. An over-representation of those folks came from the above-mentioned schools.
@Pizzagirl that’s exactly why I added the parenthetical statement that it was not necessarily a higher percentage of applicants.
You’d think that would have saved such a response, but apparently not.
"Ivy schools provide a distinct advantage in this “particular field” because they have the greatest density of students who can achieve the most upper margin in test taking. "
But that’s irrelevant to any given student. The question is whether a student with x.x GPA and xx LSATs has an advantage from a certain school. Not whether there is a heavier density of such students.
@pizzagirl The fact that all of the top 3 schools, Y-S-H, have as the most represented group, their own undergraduates, then followed, quite mysteriously, by all of the previously mentioned schools–dilutes your stement. By your very logic, if the most basic binary evaluation tool is merely GPA and LSAT score, why does it still follow the same sequence of represented schools? Why–obviously, there is an institutional bias or comfort, some would say, for these schools. You can’t tell me Princeton has more applicant to these schools than the entire UC system, but yet they had more admitted students…
@boolaHI That’s not the point of my question though. I’ll give you an example of what I was asking.
Student A has a 3.95 GPA from UC Santa Barbara as well as a 175 LSAT Score.
Student B has a 3.95 GPA from Columbia University as well as a 175 LSAT Score.
They are both of the same undergrad major, ethnicity, gender and have about the same amount of work experience. Does student B have a significant advantage of getting into a top 3 Law School over student A?
^^They both get into HLS.
For the other two, with much smaller class sizes, it’s a matter of EC’s. The professional skydiver gets in over the ‘average’ Columbia student.
“Why–obviously, there is an institutional bias or comfort, some would say, for these schools.”
You don’t know how the applicant pool is distributed. Let’s say Yale undergrads make up 10% of YLS. You don’t know if the applicant pool was only 5% Yale undergrads but they love 'em, or if the applicant pool was 35% Yale undergrads and they “under accept” but there are so many of them they still wind up forming 10% of the class. The horizontals are inconclusive without the horizontals of the applicant pool.
The top undergrads do not give a boost in admission to law school. They are disproportionately represented at good law schools because they look at the same criteria, high GPAs and test scores, 4 years earlier. Inevitably, they collect all the hard working, good test takers in one place, and those people remain good test takers with solid GPAs when it comes time to apply to law school. Your undergrad institution plays no other part in the law school admission process.
@ Demosthenes49 Sorry, that is not true in my experience. I have been on admissions committees for 3 law schools. Two public and one private. In every instance there was a bump, albeit small, for the home institution. Further, when evaluating similar candidates, invariably a nod was given to the student from say an Ivy plus school, in which they had similar GPAs to those from many state instiutions–less so for comparable LSATs.
@boolaHI: Sure, back in the day. In today’s cutthroat law market, with a massive decline in applicants and a huge need for good test scores to maintain USNWR rank? I don’t think so.
Well, my experience is just from the three institutions I had previous association. That said, these particular schools, at minimum, ratios of 6 to 1, of applicants to admitted seats–and one, a ratio of closer 12 to 1–thus making it still keenly competitive. So, it might be just the area in that area of the country where the legal market was still thriving and the particular school
I do believe this to be correct. Undergrad institution (perhaps top ~15/20, not just the Ancient Eight) can play a role for GPA tie breakers, particularly over Podunk State. (Of course, part of that is mitigated by the fact that the private have a bunch of smaller classes, so obtaining meaningful recs is easier.)
This discussion again?
I have blocked Demosthenes so I cannot see the text of the posts, but they’re probably, “due to US News rankings, law schools use GPA/LSAT to the exclusion of other factors” or the like.
This topic has been discussed ad nauseam and there is a mountain of evidence that while GPA/LSAT may be the main criteria, undergrad school (and other factors such as work experience) certainly play a role. One reason is placement, which is very important in US News rankings; having a fancy undergraduate school on a resume will help even in law firm hiring.
@RHSclassof16, be sure to consider the sources of the advice that you’re getting in this thread. For example, if you’re getting advice from someone who served on 3 law school admissions committees, I’d say that advice is pretty strong. Most of us in this thread have posted extensively about our backgrounds, too.
Where you go to college certainly matters in a legal career; it’s a very academic-focused career path. Going to Columbia over somewhere like Iowa State, Kansas State or Northwestern might not necessarily result in a different law school admissions decision, but where you go to college matters at least somewhat, both in law school admissions and law firm hiring.
IMO, the three most overrepresented schools contain kids who likely scored at the top of the SAT heap before even considering law school. Those same kids have also scored at the top of the LSAT heap. The rest of the hoi polloi include dozens who also scored high on the SAT but, for whatever reason, choose different colleges. In short, not all smart kids attend HYSP for college. But they get in because they score well on standardized tests. TTTs and second tier law schools are full of kids who went to HYSP but who scored poorly on the LSAT (e.g., Hastings, Suffolk, Loyola, GW, BU, etc.).
Seattle makes an excellent point. Even Harvard’s undergrads only average ~166 on the LSAT; thus, the “average” Harvard undergrad, as accomplished as he or she might be, has a low chance at admission to HLS absent stellar grades. (HLS’s bottom quartile starts at 170.)
The best preparation for actually becoming a lawyer – and therefore important to your selection of an undergraduate college – may be integrated practice in writing. USNWR’s Writing in the Disciplines list comes in handy for this. The eleven schools:
Brown
Carleton
Clemson
Cornell
Duke
George Mason
Hamilton
Harvard
Princeton
UC-Davis
Washington State
Since UC-Davis may be an option for you, I think you could confidently choose it and not look back. Your efforts there would then determine your law school admissibility.
@merc81: I have no idea what “integrated practice in writing” is.