<p>But your point was not well supported and I do not agree with you. The data you provided is useless when one considers size. UChicago has a class size of around 1,200 students; UF, over 7000. The fact that Chicago sends just as many students to HLS as UF is not something that favors your theory. If anything, I think you are trying to dilute the value of the undergraduate institution too much. True, one can do well at a less prestigious school and, with the right stats, go to a T6 law school, but regardless of the cause, a far higher percentage of students are admitted into top law schools from more reputable undergraduate schools than those that you argue for.</p>
<p>Soulinneed: these forums do have a quote function.</p>
<p>I used MIT as example, because education is oriented to hardcore science, math and engineering, and to get a gpa of 3.5+ is harder than at UF. In real numbers 13/7000 students from UF couldn't compare against 46/1500 of Columbia or 56/1200 of Princeton. According to this, the probability of a student from Columbia is 16 times larger than the probability of student from UF (Princeton 25 times).</p>
<p>The reason why prestigious institutions are highly represented is because students with high LSAT scores, which is the biggest factor in law school admissions, are more likely to come from those schools. It is more likely that the kids with the 175+ LSAT scores are from schools such as Chicago and MIT, than UF. I agree with you that undergrad prestige has some value in that if an adcom were to choose between an applicant from MIT and UNC, holding everything else constant, he will choose the applicant from MIT. However if the UF student has a 175 LSAT and the MIT student has a 170, the adcom will choose the UF grad. Also, when looking at ratios, you have to look at the total number of students who actually applied to the law school, not the whole undergrad population.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, when looking at ratios, you have to look at the total number of students who actually applied to the law school, not the whole undergrad population.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes. This is information I wish I could get my hands on...then it would be easier to come to some sort of conclusion.</p>
<p>That's much less important. What you'd need is some kind of reasonable understanding of what the LSAT and GPA are of those kids. Meaningless speculations ("Oh, I think the MIT kids have a 3.5") is preoposterous.</p>
<p>College2go: that list isn't too helpful as it includes ALL grad programs. We are talking about law school here. It is a fact that undergrad school is important for other programs such as the MBA, where a prestigious institution will get you a IB/Consulting job, which leads to a higher chance of getting admitted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yes. This is information I wish I could get my hands on...then it would be easier to come to some sort of conclusion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You mean then it would be possible to come to some sort of conclusion. Claiming that because Florida is larger than Chicago it should have greater representation at top schools if UG prestige doesn't matter is just poor reasoning.</p>
<p>If you re-read what has been posted, you'll see that I have not come to any sort of a conclusion other than the fact that undergrad matters to an extent. </p>
<p>The difference between the words "easier" and "possible" is irreleveant in this situation since easier does not imply that a conclusion has been made. ;)</p>
<p>"According to this, the probability of a student from Columbia is 16 times larger..."</p>
<p>either you are restating the fraction in a different form or you are trying to assess some sort of relationship. if you are looking for any kind of causation, then that is just wrong. the students are different, the environments, etc. the problem with that is that it describes the student behavior but not possibility, even reasonable possibility. i don't see how anybody will conclude much, if anything, from these numbers. what if nobody has ever gone to HLS from the school you go to? do you have "zero" probability? like i said, if you are trying to apply it to an individual, it doesn't work, and if you aren't, then you are restating the numbers in a misleading form.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what if nobody has ever gone to HLS from the school you go to? do you have "zero" probability?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. When I looked at those numbers and saw that several schools I was considering, including Bates College in Maine, did not send anyone to Harvard, I realized the absurdity of using HLS numbers to determine the proficiency of a school's law placement.</p>
<p>"I realized the absurdity of using HLS numbers to determine the proficiency of a school's law placement."</p>
<p>There's middle ground here. The list can't tell you what's going to happen to you if you choose a particular college. But that doesn't mean that it's totally useless information, particularly on the high end. If a school sends ~3% of its graduates to Harvard Law every year, you can be pretty sure that the school's law placement is good across the board.</p>
<p>did you just make up that number? there is no school that does that except Harvard. that is very useful. now we know one school that has good placement at Harvard Law.</p>
<p>from the second page, 113 for yale over 3 is 38, divided by one fourth of their undergrad class equals 2.85 and no other school except Harvard sends 3% or more. this arbitrary standard is not useful and is still completely ad hoc. you looked at the data and came up with something to explain that, rather than the other way around.</p>
<p>What I really like about the Yale PRE-Law website is that it actually has the average stats of Yale students who get into a place like HLS.</p>
<p>You know what's surprising? The average falls perfectly in the range of the median GPA/LSAT; moreover, the percentage admitted is only sightly higher than Georgetown's! </p>
<p>I can only conclude one thing from this: the Ivys do not get as much as a break when it comes to LS admissions as people think they do. The only other possible conclusion is that Georgetown is as good as the Ivys in placing students in a school like HLS, but I refuse to buy that, as self-aggrandizing that may be.</p>
<p>"this arbitrary standard is not useful and is still completely ad hoc."</p>
<p>What? It's not a "standard." It's one example of a way to glean valuable information from the data set. Does a statistic have to tell you your precise odds of being admitted to HLS to be "useful" in your view? It's clear that Yale is doing a fantastic job of placing its students in the best law schools. Judging by the numbers, you can't make that statement about Bryn Mawr -- maybe the school is doing a poor job, maybe something else is causing the students to make other choices -- but you should probably seek more information before enrolling if a top law school is your goal. On the other hand, there is a group of schools where you can rest assured that you don't have to worry about law school placement. That distinction is useful to me.</p>
<p>this is not even worth discussing, but you claimed that the top feeder to HLS has "good" law placement. we all know this and i don't dispute that. you didn't glean any information; you claimed that the top feeder to HLS, which is Harvard, has good law placement. big deal. yale is also good. big deal. you say "judging by the numbers" but the only way you have set out to do that is some ridiculous high percentage that only 1 school (harvard) reached and 1 school (yale) came close. there is a group of schools that place well for many reasons. apart from the general consensus that these schools are good and an occasional glance at Harvard's undergrad list to confirm these feelings, there is nothing to this "information" that affects a student at ANY school.</p>