How tough is grading?

<p>This conversation ended in another thread. </p>

<p>I never would believe a school is the most or even a truly significant factor. Never said that. To rephrase your statement, going to Harvard does give you a better chance but that chance can't compensate for low scores (or grades, which is less of a factor given the grade inflation at Harvard). </p>

<p>Med school is different than law as well. I obviously never did medical school admissions but a close relative did and the story I got was that they cared about personality as a factor, that they marked down those ultra-geeks who had excellent grades but who did not function well as people. Or, as the old prep for the admissions interview went, "You'd better answer that you want to be a doctor to help humanity." It's been a while and I don't know much about that game now.</p>

<p>I've never heard a more ridiculous statement than that. You are telling me that a person who graduated a 4.0 from the University of Phoenix online with a 175 LSAT score would be looked at the same had the person graduated from Yale with a 4.0. You are too funny.</p>

<p>It is entirely unclear whose post yours refers to.</p>

<p>aznmatrix.....yes, if someone at lesser school and Yale had the same stats they would have an equal chance of getting in.....nowhere will you find any credible source that proves your college affiliation has ANY effect on admissions.</p>

<p>LSAT</p>

<p>GPA</p>

<p>Personal Statement
Letters of Recs
Extra Cirrics
URM</p>

<p>Lergnom and other people back me up here this kid needs some sense.</p>

<p>Lergnom is using herself as a source, and she admitted her tiny bit of information was from years ago. You are the one asking questions on the law forum now, be a big boy and do your research.. First i dont think Phoenix is an ok comparison because i dont think its accreditation is that of a 4 year bachelors degree.....but you will see, your school has 0 to do with it.</p>

<p>And dont say this kid needs some sense when you are the one COMPLETELY misinformed about the Law School Admissions procedures. You are the senior in high school that is confused here. Your LSAT is what matters, your GPA is next, your school affiliation is utterly worthless....and besides why would you care, with the logic you have displayed on this board I am surprised you could get in to a school in the USNews top 100</p>

<p>besides, no one else here agrees with you other than whacky lergnom....astor solidifies my point......go post where real law school applicants are and you will see instantly how naive you are</p>

<p>You aren't very nice. Not rude enough to report but not nice. And you consistently mischaracterize what is said, as I noted in the other thread that touches on law school. </p>

<p>My tiny bit of information was actually admitting law students to one of the top 5 law schools in the rankings. Your information is misunderstood remarks made in a forum by people you don't know. </p>

<p>BTW, the front page of the University of Phoenix's website lists its accreditations. That took less time to verify than it did for you to insult a high school student.</p>

<p>I'd like to find one person or document that supports what you are saying. Until you find out what that is you are wrong and stop wasting your time.</p>

<p>Since I have the time today . . . </p>

<p>You challenged me for real information. That is too easy. These are the actual stats from Harvard for 2006: 6,810 applicants, 831 accepted, 558 went, GPA range for the middle 50 is 3.72 to 3.95 and LSAT middle 50 was 169 to 175. Those numbers prove my point beyond a doubt. First, LSAT matters more than your GPA - I've explained elsewhere why - but the range in GPA is pretty darn high given a 4.0 scale (and there is another quarter below that range). </p>

<p>By the silly comments made here, Harvard's stats should be a similar LSAT range but a much narrower middle 50 for GPA. The range now is over 2/10ths of a point, which is nearly an entire half step of grade (here, from A- to A). This means they run a pool, that they select people from that pool who have relatively similar scores but with a lot of leeway. Harvard, being private and rich, can accentuate minority and poor as preferences. </p>

<p>But let's cut to the chase: Yale says explicitly that they use a 12 point system. Here is a description:</p>

<p>"Of the over 4,000 applications that are received, about 90 of the top applicants are sent on for final review by the Faculty Admissions Committee chair (essentially a "free ride" to admission). The rest of the hopefuls are divided into two groups, with some 800-1,000 applications separated for consideration in the "first round." These applicants are reviewed by three randomly chosen faculty members, who score each application from 2 to 4. It was reported in 1999 that each of the first two faculty readers receives 80 applicants, giving a 4 to the top quarter, 3 to the second quarter, and 2 to the bottom half. If two faculty members give consecutive 2s, an applicant is rejected; the remaining files go on to a third member of the faculty, who scores 2-4 equally. A score of 12 is guaranteed admission (and the vast majority of 11s as well) while the remainder go into further review."</p>

<p>More absolute proof? Yale rejects a large number of the highest scoring applicants: From Yale's own admissions data for 2003-2005, "Even with a GPA above 3.75 and an LSAT above 175, which places an applicant above the 99.5% percentile of the general pool, a staggering 257 of 439 applicants were rejected over the three years represented. On the flip side, an average of 3 students who had scored below 160 on the LSAT was admitted per year, although an average of 937 students with comparable scores were rejected each year." </p>

<p>There you have it: the most selective law schools in the country use a pool. The most selective law school, Yale, rejects 59% of the highest scoring candidates and, if you look at the numbers at all, over the 3 years of data, this means they admit by far most of the class having lower scores than the top applicants. The other most prestigious law school has a GPA range far greater than a pure numbers game. </p>

<p>I could go through each of the top schools. Stanford, being private, specifically says they look for minority applicants with "unique life experiences." Stanford's entire class is less than 200 and they get over 4000 applicants so you know they could fill the class in a heartbeat with top scorers only. </p>

<p>Here's a statement from Michigan: "We are committed to considering a wide variety of factors in the admissions process and put an enormous amount of effort into assessing applications. Often, students will measure themselves by our median LSAT and GPA and make broad assumptions about the likelihood, or lack thereof, of their admittance — a calculus that can be quite misleading." Their LSAT middle 50 is 164 - 167, which generates a fairly wide overall LSAT range, and their GPA range is 3.45 - 3.78 (lower for in-state and higher for out). Penn is similar and reports a middle 50 GPA range of 3.4 to 3.7. Did you read that? A 3.4 or a 3.45 is not that high a GPA. Virginia is similar. </p>

<p>These schools regularly reject higher scoring candidates. You think they maintain admissions staffs to collate papers and mark off who scores the highest?</p>

<p>Do you even know the admissions rates to law schools? Or their yields? Virginia's admit rate is nearly 20% and their yield is only about 1/3. </p>

<p>I quoted in another thread that you've read other comments that agree exactly with my statements. I took the time to look into the law school forum and found that what was said there is essentially what I'm saying. You misunderstand the tenor and content of many of the remarks. For example, there is not a single poster of repute in that forum who would say school doesn't matter. They would all agree with what I say, that the school generally doesn't matter much because most schools are considered in the same general category. </p>

<p>The major posters in that forum all essentially say again what I've been saying but what you apparently don't get: that schools get thousands of applicants and most fall in a very narrow range. You can't simply pick this one over that by numbers because each rung on your calculated range has lots of people. You think that if there are 50 people on a rung that Podunk State as undergrad is the same as CalTech? </p>

<p>I note that one of you people asked in a forum if Asian counted as a minority and was told it does not. That again is what I've been saying, that points are awarded to minorities. This matter has been the subject of massive litigation - are you aware of this at all? - and there are explicit laws in California and Michigan which govern affirmative action programs in admissions. (Both states are seeing a drop in minority admissions to the top schools at both the undergrad and graduate level.) These laws allow the counting of socio-economic factors and other supposedly race-neutral points systems. </p>

<p>Now, since you call me names and then say I don't offer anything, my challenge is for you to come up with something actual, some actual hard data that refutes what I've just posted. You won't be able to do it.</p>

<p>First I don't think I am "not nice"</p>

<p>Second. I read your post. Yes you qouted Harvard, Yale and Michigan's admissions procedures.</p>

<p>Where did it once say the prestige of your undergrad is a factor in admission. It isn't. That is my point. You will never find a place that says "If you went to HYS you have a better chance as someone equally qualified from anywhere else.</p>

<p>Yes GPA was low for Penn and Virginia, and that shows that LSAT is more of a factor. I never said you need a 4.0 to get into those schools, I have repeatedly said that your Undergraduate school matters 0. Your scores on the LSAT, your GPA, then...your letter of rec, statement, URM matters.....</p>

<p>Please waste your time somewhere else.</p>

<p>This kid is hopeless.</p>

<p>Perhaps you should bring this to the Law School forum where you won't be able to lead other people to believe that your undergraduate college plays no role at all. Let's see how far you can get.</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/law-school/488741-prestige-undergrad-vs-gpa-2.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/law-school/488741-prestige-undergrad-vs-gpa-2.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Thanks for bringing up that thread. Every post either agreed with my statement, reiterated the importance of LSAT, and a few speculated that it plays a tiny roll. Once again there is 0 proof from anywhere that it factors in. Until the day that an Adcom explains UG prestige is factored in, or a school's admissions site states it, I will not believe it.</p>

<p>Yup everyone said that it does matter but not as much as LSAT and GPA.</p>

<p>Give it up: this person is playing the internet game of denial and changing the subject. The argument used to be "it's all scores, nothing else" and now it's become, "well, you said prestige counts" when my comment in my last post was, "school generally doesn't matter much because most schools are considered in the same general category." </p>

<p>Let me put it this way: if you have a 3.6 from Podunk University and a 166 LSAT then you will be viewed in a worse light than someone with a 3.6 from BU (or a host of other schools) and a 166 LSAT. That is, however, unless the kid from Podunk has a life story that's compelling, like being a single mother, like being disabled, etc. </p>

<p>The thing about the internet is people shift their positions because they don't like to be proved wrong even though they're anonymous. </p>

<p>Blunt final word: you hear that law school is a numbers game. It is in the sense that you have to get into the pool to be considered. When you are in the pool, if you for example - as I believe DJ noted - had a bad first year for real reasons (like a death, financial problems) and then show much higher grades you'll get some benefit over another candidate. What's that worth? Well, the only that counts is whether you get in or not so the effect on you is 100%. The effect in the overall scheme of things is small because the vast majority of admissions decisions are made for other factors. </p>

<p>Again, people look at aggregate stats and don't realize what they mean for an individual. If you are in the ballpark for admissions, then you will naturally fall somewhere in the ranking of people who might get in. The key word is "might" because for you the decision is binary, in or out. Any factor that "might" help you be selected over another candidate is useful. </p>

<p>If you then stand back from the pool, you'll see a bunch of applicants with generally the same grades and scores, from a generally similar pool of schools. The data demonstrates that: the pool's gpa might vary by a little over a half a grade, not counting low-end outliers. </p>

<p>I realized this morning that a basic problem in understanding this rather obvious truth is that people don't grasp statistics at all. For example, when someone says that 80% or so of admissions is the LSAT, I'll bet very few people understand what that means, what a confidence interval or standard deviation is. My reading is that people take a percentage to mean there is a strict, hard ranking by numbers that generates a table of results. That's not at all the meaning of statistics. I noted in one of my first posts that GPA range is fairly narrow so LSAT, which has a wider effective range, should be a more statistically important predictor. The problem, which is regularly addressed in statistics, is that you then have to look at the individual case. You can estimate a chance for acceptance using aggregate data but even at the high end of prediction - using the number above - you'd still be missing 20% of the information. That 20% is a lot of information because that 20%, again using the 80% number as true and given, is what divides one candidate from another in the pool.</p>

<p>Undergrad prestige plays a minimal role in law school admissions. It is just as foolish to say it is very important, as it is to say that it doesn't matter at all. It is completely secondary to things such as LSAT score, GPA, extracurricular involvement, leadership, even work experience. Obviously, if you went to Princeton or Yale, that may give you a boost over a low-level school, but anything in the middle is essentially a moot point in admission, won't help you and won't hurt you. BU is considered a top school relative to the admissions process of law schools, as are pretty much all of the top 100 or so universities. Going to BU with a lower GPA might be better than going to a no name school with a high GPA. But comparing BU to any school in the top 100 not named Princeton, Yale, etc, it won't give you any advantage or disadvantage. Once again, prestige of undergrad institution plays a small part in admissions. And BU is a highly reputable name. Also, it is a school that has been historically known for its grade deflation. So a good GPA out of a school like BU can only help you out.</p>

<p>I agree with most of your points here, but again we agree to disagree.</p>

<p>First off Aznmatrix- Not everyone said it matters. You will find that about half the posters claim it doesn't while the other half THINK it matters but have no conclusive evidence.</p>

<p>Lerg- I have not changed my position. I have said since my first post that an applicant going to Harvard is not favored. GPA and LSAT is what matters.</p>

<p>I have repeated this point over and over again.</p>

<p>Off course there are soft factors, but the LSAT and GPA are what matter. Letters and personal statements are mere formailities. Sure an AMAZING letter, or rec, or Extra Cirric can give an applicant a boost, but as I said LSAT and GPA matter.</p>

<p>As you said, we agree to disagree. Especially on your new point about BU. I think it is difficult to compare Harvard with one of the easiest schools to attend in the country (phoenix), but when you compare BU to a "lesser school" I really dont think you can show any conclusive evidence that a BU student with EQUAL stats has an advantage.</p>

<p>Yes more students at Law schools come from the Ivy's and UC's and Stanfords and BU's- but the students at these schools tend to get higher GPA and test higher on standerdized test.</p>

<p>I would love for this arguing to end because innocent children like Aznmatrix get pulled in and hopped up over nothing. I think we both understand the EXTREME importance of the LSAT- and by arguing over "prestige" the notion exists that it is a fairly important role, which I <em>think</em> we can both agree is false.</p>

<p>This argument can really not be proved from either side. Of course no school is going to have a written policy that they prefer students from prestigious schools...but neither do companies when they are hiring. It's just obvious and common knowledge.</p>

<p>It is an unwritten policy to favor students from the nation's top schools. From an admission rep's perspective, a 4.0 at Harvard means a lot more than a 4.0 at say, Arizona State. The fact that a student was even admitted to Harvard in the first place is an accomplishment and is usually indicative of their hard-working nature. Not to say that students elsewhere don't work hard but let's face it, it is very difficult to get in (unless you are a part of a family worth hundreds of millions that donates a great amount).</p>

<p>It can't be the end all be all but it can be safely assumed that Harvard on your resume/application is a definite plus.</p>

<p>So, can someone actually answer my question?</p>