<p>You're overrating Harvard by a long stretch. Where you went is a tipping point. It doesnt 'make' your application, nor does it guarantee ANYTHING. Everything depends on LSATs and GPA is certainly looked at. You cant just strut in and say I went to HYPS, etc. and think you're automatically in wherever you want because of where you attended. That's ridiculously wrong.</p>
<p>If it's so "obvious," why did you start a whole thread asking about it? If you're just going to make repeated, unsubstantiated assertions based on your completely uninformed view of how the admissions process works, why ask for advice?</p>
<p>@ loslobos
Sure, GPA and LSAT are supposed to be the most important factors in admissions, but you can't disregard the fact that of all the students currently enrolled at Harvard Law, 241 came from Harvard, 113 from Yale, 54 Princeton, 48 Brown, 45 Cornell, 35 Dartmouth, 45 Columbia, 57 Upenn. (to give comparison, a school like UC Berkeley with 4x the population of Brown, managed to produce just 48 students to Harvard Law) Maybe the students at Ivy's are driven towards elite East Coast Schools, maybe they all managed to pull 3.8+ GPA's, or maybe going to an Ivy League allows admission officers to make favorable assumptions about you. At the very least, going to an Ivy League seems to increase your chance of Law School Admission--whether its the peers you'll be surrounded by or the counseling you get, what matters most in the end is the thick envelope you will (hopefully) receive in the mail.</p>
<p>I dont think going to an Ivy league as an undergrad necessarily increases your chances. </p>
<p>The reason Harvard is law is mostly comprised of Ivy undergrads is b/c they went to a particular undergrad school, but rather that those people admitted to those Ivy undergrads tend to work harder (higher GPA) and are "smarter" (higher LSAT) than their national counterparts. Thus, it cannot be said that it is simply the undergrad school that made the difference. It <em>may</em> have, but it more likely that its just that the student body at those schools work harder and are "smarter" (according to the LSAT). </p>
<p>And you cant use the example that UC Berkeley has fewer of its grads than Brown at HLS for several reasons. Most Berk students (myself included) would choose to go to Boalt Hall or Stanford over Harvard anyday (simply because they are similar in quality and i wouldnt want to go to the East Coast). So, if you look at Boalt or other top West Coast schools, you'll see that many more of its students went to Cal than if you lookat East Coast schools like HLS</p>
<p>Ab_med</p>
<p>I agree that the quality of the undergrad body of students makes a huge difference and might account for the disparity, but in the end this is just another advantage the Ivy's have. Sure, two equally smart kids at Harvard and UCLA might end up at the same law school, but the one at Harvard will have access to a body of peers whose achievements, academic brilliance, work ethic, career goals will be far more inspiring than many of the students at UCLA. It's not to say that UCLA or the non-Ivys aren't excellent schools; just that the peers they offer are, on average, different from the peers you'll find at any Ivy in terms of achievements or excellence. And peers can make all the difference in creating learning environments or pushing you to study those extra hours for the LSAT, to seek out your prof for questions, to study abroad, or apply to that one law school you would otherwise write off as a hopeless reach.</p>
<p>And you're probably right about west coast students preferring a similiar environment, though I think it's important to remember that in terms of grad school placement among universities Berkeley ranks in the 30's while Brown in 12th. Sure, the WSJ survey has problems, but you'd be hard pressed to find a survey that ranks Berkeley above any Ivy apart from Cornell in terms of law school placement. Here, I think the disparity can also be attributed to the difference in counseling, faculty attention, research opportunities, etc between a small private and a large public undergrad institution. After all, Williams and Amherst are famous for sending its graduates to top law schools, probably the combination of an intellectually motivated class and small, intimate class settings.</p>
<p>Btw, does anyone know if Stanford releases the undergraduate intistutions their law school students attended?</p>
<p>Don't forget Pomona College! :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
And you're probably right about west coast students preferring a similiar environment, though I think it's important to remember that in terms of grad school placement among universities Berkeley ranks in the 30's while Brown in 12th. Sure, the WSJ survey has problems, but you'd be hard pressed to find a survey that ranks Berkeley above any Ivy apart from Cornell in terms of law school placement. Here, I think the disparity can also be attributed to the difference in counseling, faculty attention, research opportunities, etc between a small private and a large public undergrad institution. After all, Williams and Amherst are famous for sending its graduates to top law schools, probably the combination of an intellectually motivated class and small, intimate class settings.
[/quote]
Top publics simply can not be compared to privates as their student body is much more diverse in abilities. Berkeley has a much wider spread in SAT score than most top privates. A function of having a top tier engineering school (building a nice peak) and other middling programs (to lower the average).</p>
<p>"Btw, does anyone know if Stanford releases the undergraduate intistutions their law school students attended?"</p>
<p>I've never seen numbers. Anecdotally, Stanford is usually the #1 feeder, and after that the student body looks proportionally very much like the (widely publicized) HLS and YLS student bodies.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And you cant use the example that UC Berkeley has fewer of its grads than Brown at HLS for several reasons. Most Berk students (myself included) would choose to go to Boalt Hall or Stanford over Harvard anyday (simply because they are similar in quality and i wouldnt want to go to the East Coast). So, if you look at Boalt or other top West Coast schools, you'll see that many more of its students went to Cal than if you lookat East Coast schools like HLS
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While I don't have the data, I very strongly suspect that you will find more Harvard undergrads than Berkeley undergrads at Stanford Law School. That may even be true of Boalt. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The reason Harvard is law is mostly comprised of Ivy undergrads is b/c they went to a particular undergrad school, but rather that those people admitted to those Ivy undergrads tend to work harder (higher GPA) and are "smarter" (higher LSAT) than their national counterparts. Thus, it cannot be said that it is simply the undergrad school that made the difference. It <em>may</em> have, but it more likely that its just that the student body at those schools work harder and are "smarter" (according to the LSAT).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One thing that I will say gives the Ivies a direct advantage over Berkeley (or most public schools for that matter) is the grade inflation. Simply put, with the possible exception of Cornell, it's practically impossible to actually flunk out of an Ivy. As long as you do the work, you're going to pass. You might not get an A, but you're going to pass. You can't really say that about Berkeley, especially about the more difficult majors. There is the real chance that you will flunk out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You might not get an A, but you're going to pass.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My Harvard/Stanford friends refer to this as the "B vortex". Their explanation is that you have to really excel to get an A and really screw up to get a C.</p>
<p>Sakky, the dean of admissions at Boalt, Chris Edley, has spoken at several events that i have beent to and each time repeated that most students who attend Boalt are Berkeley undergrads. I dont have the data, but I take the dean's word.</p>
<p>That can't possibly be exactly correct, as "most of" implies not just a plurality but a majority.</p>
<p>Didn't you read the post earlier, Harvard has an average LSAT of 166.
The National average is ~150.</p>
<p>Obviously, members comprising a group of people averaging out to 166 are going to fare better in law school admissions, regardless of what undergraduate school they went to. This is true of Harvard, as well as other top schools. (Or any assortment of people who have a 166LSAT average, regardless of UG)</p>
<p>Harvard Undergrads don't get in because they are from Cambridge, they get in on the same things that got them to such a good school for undergrad in the first place (intelligence, motivation, a knack for acing standardized tests, etc.)</p>
<p>Berkeley will also put out higher numbers in top schools, because Cal graduates classes of 7000. Within which there are probably a higher number of 178+ LSAT scorers, and 4.0+ GPAs (Berkeley has A+'s). These people get into top law schools. Though more plentiful in number at Berkeley, there is a higher concentration of them at, say, Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona, etc. This is why these smaller schools trump Berkeley on the WSJ feeder school ranking, because it (rightfully so) takes into account the size of the school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley will also put out higher numbers in top schools
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At least for medical school placement, Duke not only beats Berkeley in percentages, but it edges them out in total numbers, as well.</p>
<p>PS: "Edges" is a bit of a euphemism... posts #44 and #45 here:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=283354&page=3%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=283354&page=3</a></p>
<p>bluedevil, i made a typo...i didnt mean "most," but rather the highest in raw numbers</p>
<p>Let's compare admission statistics for Yale graduates vs. all applicants:</p>
<pre><code> Yale alumni(2005) - All apps
</code></pre>
<p>Yale----: 172.4/3.81 - 173/3.91
Stanford: 171.5/3.84 - 170/3.87
Harvard-: 173.2/3.76 - 172/3.86
N.Y.U---: 171.5/3.72 - 171/3.75
Columbia: 170.2/3.67 - 172/3.7</p>
<p>From this, it would appear that even a top school's effect is insignificant (a bit easier at Yale and Columbia and a bit harder at Stanford, but likely random fluctuation), and I think it's pretty safe to take that as a general truth. The same numbers will still mean the same thing, whether you went to Yale or a TTT.</p>
<p>Let's look at some other numbers.</p>
<p>There are approximately 4,300 chairs available for first year students at the consensus top 14 law schools.</p>
<p>Approximately 13,625 received undergraduate degrees from Ivy League schools this year. How many of them will eventually apply to law school? At Yale, the number is about 38%. If the number for the Ivy League as a whole is, say, 33%, that would still leave about 200 of them standing when the music stops playing at the top 14 schools.</p>
<p>Of course, they're also competing for those seats with graduates of Stanford, Duke, Chicago, Vanderbuilt, top liberal arts colleges, the military academies, top graduates of flagship state universities, other famous schools, and lots of brilliant people who chose schools you may never have heard of for any number of reasons.</p>
<p>Law school admissions committees generally try to pick the brightest candidates in the pool, as revealed (first) by their LSAT scores, and by their undergraduate records. The varying quality of undergraduate institutions, and the varying rigor of the courses people take there, make GPA an imperfect indication of achievement. But they all took the LSAT.</p>
<p>"From this, it would appear that even a top school's effect is insignificant"</p>
<p>The fact that Yale undergrads, at least that year, effectively got a free .1 GPA boost at Harvard and Yale and two free LSAT points at Columbia, is pretty significant in my book. That's the difference between being waitlisted and being admitted. Yes, there could be year-to-year fluctuations, but the groups admitted to HLS and Columbia are pretty big groups, big enough that I think the effect is real. That's particularly true in light of the fact that the data for Harvard alumni applying to law school in 1998 look almost identical to these data for Yale alumni almost a decade later.</p>
<p>It doesn't mean that everybody ought to go to Yale and Harvard whether they want to or not. But the truth is, if you're a HYP undergrad and you plug your numbers into the LSAC calculator, you can expect to do a little better than pure numbers predict.</p>
<p>The numbers I'd really like to see -- tho I'm pretty sure they do not exist -- are the stats of people who get into YHS from West Nowhere State schools. I bet that you'd see the same effect in reverse: the kids who get into HLS from West Nowhere will mostly have 3.95+ GPAs. I can't prove this, and my anecdotes are way too few to be reliable, but I bet that it is true.</p>
<p>You're really reaching if you think those numbers show an advantage for getting into Harvard. The difference of 1.3 points in LSAT at least balances it out, although probably neither is a real difference. Columbia superficially has a marked difference, but then, Stanford seems to have an effect in the other direction. There may be some small bonus (and it seems only logical that there would be), but it's certainly no more signficant than getting 1 more question on the LSAT.</p>