<p>Hey... I def. want to pursue a law degree most probably at an Ivy (Yale or Columbia), and i was wondering if where i go to undergrad will have a significant effect on my chances. I'm currently deciding between Berkeley, University of Chicago, and George Washington (they are ranked by US News 20, 13, and 53 respectively). Will it matter? </p>
<p>p.s. i am an international relations major if that chages anything.</p>
<p>No, though if you do well at the lower ranked school it will be less impressive. Chicago and Berkeley undergrad are equivalent mostly.</p>
<p>Admissions is more a function of your lsat score. People with great ec's, 4.0's but a 165 lsat don't make harvard unless their skin happens to be brown.</p>
<p>doesnt matter- i was just at a function with many yale law students and their academic backgrounds were extremely varied</p>
<p>It can matter, to a lesser extent than GPA and LSAT, but I agree that the difference between Chicago and UCB is marginal.</p>
<p>I really dont think it matters where you go to undergrad in terms of applying law schools. Sure some of your topped tier schools look pretty good on applications but it doesnt mean you recieved a better education than someone who went to a state school like University Missouri-Columbia. As long as your prepared (assuming you were prepared in the college you went to as an undergrad) and got a pretty decent score on your LSAT's, I dont see how it could matter where you went as an undergraduate.</p>
<p>These schools are not just names brands, they do offer a superior education. While schools like Berkley and UC admit students who do well on standardized tests, they also give their students a great education. These factors combined are why so many more students from the top tier schools will score 170+ on the LSATs compared to the student from the University of Missouri. If you have a 4.0 GPA and a 175 on the LSAT it doesn't matter where you went to school. But very few students otuside of the top tier schools are going to score 175 on the LSATs.</p>
<p>PDaddy, I don't agree that "very few" students outside of the top-teir schools will score 175+ on their LSATs. While it may be true that undergraduate students may be better prepared at their top-teir schools, I think performing well on standardized tests really comes down to how determined a student is to do well and how much they are willing to study and prepare for the test.</p>
<p>It depends on how smart the students were in the first place. Let's be honest here, education doesn't make you smarter, it only unlocks your potential. Most of the kids at top ivies are already the brightest in the nation anyways and would've made it anwhere else as sociology studies have shown (people who are admitted but go elsewhere do just as well as those who matriculate).</p>
<p>Even if that is the case green, students with exemplary determination and drive are precisely the same students who tend to end up at top-tiers schools in the first place.</p>
<p>"unless their skin happens to be brown."</p>
<p>Not all minorities have darker skin; love the racist undertone -- not.</p>
<p>"I really dont think it matters where you go to undergrad in terms of..."</p>
<p>Advice in terms of your personal opinion? Or just an opinion? </p>
<p>"but it doesnt mean you recieved a better education than someone who went to a state school like University Missouri-Columbia."</p>
<p>Is this a joke? Let's face it, government work does not, for the most part, have high standards; state schools are not the best comparison. Heck, for all that matters one could get a great education by simply going to the public library and reading selected material in consultation with educated people. But that's not formal education. Much of college "learning" occurs during, and is depending on, the interactions one will have with other students. The brighter the pool of students is, the more stimulation one will, generally, receive. </p>
<p>"students with exemplary determination and drive"</p>
<p>Determination and drive can only take one as far as one's intellect allow. Nonetheless, I agree with this part of your post. </p>
<p>"studies have shown (people who are admitted but go elsewhere do just as well as those who matriculate)."</p>
<p>Infallible studies that account for it all. </p>
<p>It is my understanding that VP Cheney graduated from U of WY after leaving Yale due to academic probation. Is that a good example? </p>
<p>Or, could it be, quite possibly, that many of those students whom decided to go elsewhere had strong support networks -- or wealthy families that assisted them in succeeding -- and even then, how do we define success?</p>
<p>Or, is there a correlation between knowing how to play the applications game for top schools and success later on in life?</p>
<p>OP: I guess what I am trying to say is go to the best school you can. There are too many variables to be taken into consideration. Chances are you wont even apply to law school; you may end up having a rewarding professional career in diplomacy or foreign service without ever needing a law degree. Having said that, if law is a certainty in your future, beware of grade deflation -- and in some cases of grade inflation. GW seems like the best choice in terms of keeping a high GPA and still having enough academic pedigree to look good on an application. Berkeley and Chicago are no-brainers if what you are looking for is a rigorous education.</p>
<p>But I am not an expert. Good luck.</p>
<p>Agree with WF, but...</p>
<p>... go to the school that you click with the most. If you have a good experience, you'll do better. College can be more emotionally difficult than high school - and your family support network isn't there. The people you meet at college end up being your family and your friends - go somewhere that will be home. If you don't click somewhere, you'll be miserable - or just unhappy enough to let things get to you.</p>
<p>If you want to go to law school, the best thing you can do for yourself is to excel in college - to do well, every day. This will help you get in the door and also help you once you arrive. Go to the school that fits you and sets you up to succeed, whichever location that may be.</p>
<p>Following high school, Cheney attended Yale University on an academic scholarship in 1959. After three semesters he put his studies on hold partly because of poor grades. He saved up money and returned to Yale only to leave again the following semester. Cheney returned to college in 1963, matriculating at Casper Community College and then transferring to the University of Wyoming, where he began earning straight A's. He received his bachelor's degree in 1965 and master's degree in political science in 1966, both from the University of Wyoming.</p>
<p>He attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison as a doctoral candidate in political science and completed all required coursework but left and entered politics before completing his dissertation. Cheney was selected for a one-year fellowship in the office of Representative William Steiger, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin</p>
<p>wiki wiki wiki</p>
<p>totally agree with aries. happier the better. do not underrate the social environment like so many high school students do. although the tools to judge how well a school fits you are limited, if i had to do it all over again my attention would be focused almost entirely on that.</p>
<p>"Not all minorities have darker skin; love the racist undertone -- not."</p>
<p>But all the minorities that get the benefit of affirmative action have, by and large brown, skin. And thank you for pointing out how racist affirmative action really is.</p>
<p>"But that's not formal education. Much of college "learning" occurs during, and is depending on, the interactions one will have with other students. The brighter the pool of students is, the more stimulation one will, generally, receive."</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>"studies have shown (people who are admitted but go elsewhere do just as well as those who matriculate)."</p>
<p>"Infallible studies that account for it all."</p>
<p>As I said most people who get in to Harvard, and wherever, are equally successful on average to their counterparts who do matriculate and these accepted students on average do better than those who are rejected and those the populations which attend less prestigious institions. Providing one exception to the rule doesn't change the fact that in aggregate such facts are true. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that you're going to do well once you come to the highest ranked institutions because you already are among the smartest and most motivated.</p>
<p>"Or, is there a correlation between knowing how to play the applications game for top schools and success later on in life?"</p>
<p>Yes. Self-promotion is a critical part to advancement. Thats why you get to have a cover letter and a resume that allows you to exaggerate your own accomplishments.</p>
<p>I would agree to go to someplace where you are happiest and is the best fit for you.</p>
<p>u know whats even more racist than affirmative action? the fact that 'brown' people have to go to rundown/impoverished schools in the ghettoes, while your parents send you off to a decent public and maybe even a prestigious private school. now that is racist. </p>
<p>sorrry though. didn't mean to create a debate. just wanted to point that out to any white students who think affirmative action is racist.</p>
<p>While there is a larger percentage of african-americans below the poverty level, the truth of the matter is that in total numbers there are more whites in this nation below the poverty level than african americans. What about opportunity for socioeconomically disadvantaged whites?</p>
<p>obviously because there is a larger percentage of whites living in the country to begin with</p>
<p>the fact that 'brown' people have to go to *****ty/rundown/impoverished schools in the ghettoes, while your parents send you off to a decent public and maybe even a prestigious private school. </p>
<p>what's even more racist is that you're perpetuating the stereotype that all african-american people are poor and live in the ghetto</p>
<p>the majority are not 'doing so well' does that sound better drew?</p>
<p>its not stereotyping. its called 'speaking of the majority'</p>
<p>and i didn't say ALL brown people. learn how to read.</p>
<p>the majority are not 'doing so well' does that sound better drew?</p>
<p>its not stereotyping. its called 'speaking of the majority'</p>
<p>and i didn't say ALL brown people. learn how to read.</p>
<p>The majority of black people are not struggling on the streets and living in the 'ghetto'.</p>