<p>I currently attend Northeastern University in Boston, MA - not exactly the top of the barrel. I belong at a more prestigious school (i have the SAT scores and the GPA to prove it). I am considering applying to Cornell and Boston College as a transfer student. I plan on attending law school after gradauation, and I was just wondering if a transfer is worthwhile...will having an undergrad degree from Cornell be signifcantly more beneficial than Northeastern in regard to getting into a good law school or getting a job later in life? What about BC? Further, how much more beneficial is going to Cornell than going to Boston College in the job market? I love Boston and don't want to leave, but I would consider it for an ivy. The catch is that I transfered to Northeastern after my freshmen year, and I don't know if two transfers will decrease my chances at law school admissions as well. Any advice?</p>
<p>The prestige of your undegraduate college is not that significant in law school admissions. Applying from a prestigious college supposedly only gives one a slight advantage. A 3.5 GPA at Cornell or Penn will be looked upon more favorably than a 3.5 GPA from State University. But in the end, GPA and LSAT make or break the application. Plenty of undergraduates from lesser known colleges with great GPAs and LSATs do well in the law school admissions process.</p>
<p>Transferring does not hurt your chances for admission.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The prestige of your undegraduate college is not that significant in law school admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Correction: while the prestige is not significant more most law schools, the climate dramatically changes for schools in the top 6, where there is overwhelming evidence that the school does matter..</p>
<p>Why the top 6, nspeds? Why not the top 3 or 14 or 25? In other words, where does your conclusion come from?</p>
<p>I do agree that where you go to school undergrad can have a positive effect on where you will be admitted to law school, though I'm not certain the extent to which it matters. I can tell you, anecdotally, that in my experience in law school and in my experience recruiting on campus for a top law firm, I found that a very high percentage of students at top law schools do come from well known and well regarded "top" undergraduate schools, especially the Ivies (Ivy equivalents, too). Does this happen because students in the Ivy league, for example, are more likely to apply to top law schools or more likely to be good test takers and do well on the LSAT? Perhaps. In any event, it is a fact that at each of the T14 law schools, you will find that much more than a majority of the students there come from a small set of highly regarded undergraduate schools, though there will certainly be one or two students from each a wide variety of other undergraduate schools as well. I'm sure that your on campus career office will have information for you on what law schools recent graduates have attended.</p>
<p>You should weigh very carefully the risks of transferring for a second time may have on your grades and on your ability to graduate in four years (financially, especially) versus any benefit you may or may not achieve from the transfer. Cornell is a wonderful school, and I know that many students from Cornell go on to extraordinarily successful careers in law, but if you are as intelligent as you say, I'm sure that you will be at the very tippy top of your class at Northeastern, which may also serve you well in law school admissions. If you did as well on your SATs as you suggest, you are probably a good test taker and should do well on the LSAT. Also, if you love Boston, Ithaca may just not be the city for you. Make sure to visit before you make up your mind.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why the top 6, nspeds? Why not the top 3 or 14 or 25? In other words, where does your conclusion come from
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I only said that because those are the schools about which I am positive that one's undergraduate institution matters. I am unsure about how the institutions matter beyond the top 6.</p>
<p>I think that Nspeds is saying that it's very, very difficult to get into a top 6 from a school like Slippery Rock. Almost all of the students at those schools come from solid, respectable undergraduate schools.</p>
<p>For someone from say, a top 25 liberal arts school (where I'm too far into it to transfer out), do you folks think that there would be a significant disadvantage when applying to law school as opposed to say, an Ivy or other higher ranked school, or is that "good enough" that it will mostly be scores and gpa?</p>
<p>Would it be okay to go to a college like the Catholic University of America?</p>
<p>EconMajor08 - Macalester is a great school, you are at no disadvantage. I transfered from St. Thomas in St. Paul (I would have gone to Macalester but my extremely republican family wouldn't fund such a liberal minded education). I wanted to get out of MN, so, maybe foolishly i came to northeastern because i was attracted to their co-op program. if i could do it again i would just transfer straight to BC...I met with my pre-law advisor this morning, though, and he told me its basically a LSAT/GPA game. If you have the same LSAT scores as some one who went to Harvard, then it shows that you are as intelligent as them. He encouraged me to go to BC if i wanted to, but doubted it would help much in the admissions process</p>
<p>"I met with my pre-law advisor this morning, though, and he told me its basically a LSAT/GPA game. If you have the same LSAT scores as some one who went to Harvard, then it shows that you are as intelligent as them."</p>
<p>Unfortunately, while this statement made by your advisor regarding intelligence may actually be true (and assuming that the LSATs measure intelligence, when my understanding is that the LSAT is designed to measure probable success during the first year of law school, a not unrelated but different thing than intelligence), you cannot overlook the fact that the majority of students at T14 law schools went to very selective colleges that would largely be considered top schools. Graduates of the ivies, in particular, are prevalent and overrepresented at top law schools. Furthermore, top law schools in particular do look at more than just your LSAT score and GPA in making admissions determinations (keeping in mind, too, that a strong GPA from a very selective school may be given more weight than a similarly strong GPA from a school where the student body may not be as academically competitive). That said, if you have excellent grades and a very strong LSAT score from any college, you will have a solid chance at admission at a T14 law school. </p>
<p>It might be helpful to you to ask your pre-law advisor for some information about where graduates of your college go to law school, including what kinds of GPAs and LSAT scores those alumni had. That will certainly give you a better idea of how similarly situated students have done in the law school admissions process than anything any of us here on the law school forum can tell you.</p>
<p>My best advice to you would be to stay put and work hard to end up with a high GPA. If you can throw a high LSAT score in for good measure, all the better for you. Make sure along the way to get to know a couple of professors who will write recommendations speaking to what an outstanding student/person/potential lawyer you are. Getting some good work/extracurricular/volunteer experience that will lend itself to a strong personal statement would be great too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
my understanding is that the LSAT is designed to measure probable success during the first year of law school, a not unrelated but different thing than intelligence
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, the test prep folks and my law school advisor told me the exact opposite -- that the LSAT is a terrible indicator of success in 1L. Odd, that we hear such different thing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
a strong GPA from a very selective school may be given more weight than a similarly strong GPA from a school where the student body may not be as academically competitive
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I absolutely agree with this statement though. In fact, there are charts out there showing various grade inflation stats at different univeristies. Interestingly, LS adcomms may factor not only UG degree difficulty into the equation but also the degree of grade inflation represented in your UG institution over time. </p>
<p>A great source of your odds at various T14 schools will be <a href="http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com%5B/url%5D">www.lawschoolnumbers.com</a>. It has self-reported (I know, not error proof) data on admissions charted for each school with LSAT and UG GPA plotted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, the test prep folks and my law school advisor told me the exact opposite
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They did not say the "exact opposite" at all. Sally claimed that the LSAT is designed to measure probable success during the first year of law school, your buddies are claiming that the LSAT is not fulfilling what it was designed to do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but also the degree of grade inflation represented in your UG institution over time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...too bad top institutions, institutions known for having the worst grade inflation, are still overwhelmingly overrepresented at top law schools.</p>
<p>I should also mention that "grade inflation" is grossly misunderstood on this forum. Recall that the median GPA into Harvard Law School is a 3.82. No system of grade inflation at any top school will carry you to a 3.82! From what I have seen, most top institutions (or at least Georgetown) are generous in handing out B+s, and maybe A-s, it depends on the professsor. The former grade, however, is a 3.33, and the latter is a 3.67. Even if you do have grade inflation, the preponderance of your grades must be As if you want a chance at Harvard, Stanford, and Yale.</p>
<p>In other words, you need to work hard.</p>
<p>Edit: My apologies. 3.82 is the median GPA of students accepted into HLS from Georgetown, but my point still stands.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They did not say the "exact opposite" at all. Sally claimed that the LSAT is designed to measure probable success during the first year of law school, your buddies are claiming that the LSAT is not fulfilling what it was designed to do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I stand corrected. You are almost making me want to actually go to LS next year as your post reminds me why I hated that stupid LSAT prep course so much :)</p>
<p>And you are right, grade inflation alone will not get one a 3.82 or higher. It just helps a whole heck of a lot. Let's just say that my 4.0 UG GPA ten years ago means a LOT more than a 3.82 today :)</p>
<p>The hardworking people in law school admissions offices across the country, and particularly at top law schools, know their business. They know which schools have grade inflation and deflation, they know which colleges are tough academically, both because of the coursework and because of the competitiveness of the student bodies, and they know which majors are the most challenging. </p>
<p>If you have top grades, a high LSAT score, good recommendations and something else going on in your life (work, extracurriculars, etc.) that shows that you are not someone who just studies 24 hours a day, you will have a great shot at getting into a good law school. Remember, though, that even someone with a 176 LSAT and a 3.8 GPA from a top college will likely not get into every T14 law school. That's just they way it goes.</p>
<p>Agreed :) But hey, go for it! It is always worth a $75 shot!</p>
<p>Ooohooohh Just got my fee waivers from Northwestern and Duke in the e-mail! :) YAY!</p>
<p>Scottieut: did your fee waiver from Duke say anything about being in a "priority group" that will get an answer within 10 days of applying? My D got one of those, and I am trying to figure out how meaningful it is. A 10 day turnaround seems like an exceptional promise.</p>
<p>At Yale I know that school is probably only helpful in tie breakers. There are tons of students from no name schools. There are so many that its surprising. I think if you go to Harvard/Yale/Princeton then maybe it helps as a tiebreaker. Otherwise, you better have tip top grapes, excellent LSAT, incredible life experiences, and validation of skills and acheivements from other sources.</p>
<p>About Duke, I don't remember there being a special priority group turnaround. Stanford's turnaround was 7 days for me from the day I went complete until the day I got accepted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Scottieut: did your fee waiver from Duke say anything about being in a "priority group" that will get an answer within 10 days of applying? My D got one of those, and I am trying to figure out how meaningful it is. A 10 day turnaround seems like an exceptional promise.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes they did. Not sure about importance or not. I have corresponded with the Associate Dean for Admissions who sent the letter, and he is pretty responsive to e-mails, so I guess you could ask him.</p>
<p>Also, you can wander over to <a href="http://www.lawschooldiscssion.org%5B/url%5D">www.lawschooldiscssion.org</a> and check out their Law School Admissions forum. There are lots of folks there speculating about the Michigan and Duke waivers. </p>
<p>Congrats to your daughter on her great scores and grades to be sought after by Duke.</p>
<p>The OP may want to take a look at this prior thread on a similar topic:</p>