<p>Where are you getting the idea that I "set" a number? I gave two examples. If I gave a third example, then you'd say I "set" a number so high that only three schools can meet it. Etc. etc. I'm not "setting" anything.</p>
<p>YOU claimed that no one can conclude much, if anything, from these numbers. I said, actually, they have a very important use: they can tell you whether you can rest assured about a school's law placement, or whether you need to be concerned about it. Clearly, at Duke, Princeton, etc., you don't have to be concerned -- they're doing a great job. Whether you cut off that "rest assured" category after the top 5, or 10, or 12 schools may be arbitrary, but that does not mean that the data set is useless.</p>
<p>To put it another way, whether you consider the "top law schools" to include 10 schools or 14 is arbitrary. Furthermore, it could be true that Cooley is the best choice school for an individual student. That doesn't mean that listing the top law schools is useless, or that there are no giant, important differences between schools like NYU and schools like Cooley. There's still a huge difference between being near the top of the list and being near the bottom, and thus the "data set" (i.e. USNews ranking) is a useful and important starting point when you're choosing a school. This data set is useful in the same way.</p>
<p>Students got into HLS because they were great students, not because they went to a prestigeous school. It just so happens that Yale, Princeton, etc.'s undergraduate schools have great students, thats all.</p>
<p>^^^ Given the information from YLS, which I've just seen, this conclusion might be the most accurate.</p>
<p>When one considers the fact that UT-El Paso sent only one less student to Yale than NYU, it raises the question. MIT also only sent 3...does that just mean far less people wanted to go to YLS?</p>
<p>I think it was Mark Twain who said "There are lies, damn lies and statistics." There's a lot of truth in that statement. </p>
<p>That said...here's the #s I'd cite--just because they are readily available. I'd compare the total # of students at top law schools from any given college with the total # of people from that college who registered with LSDAS. That # is available for the top 240 "feeder" colleges to law schools. (It's on the lsac.org website. It's there...I promise. You just have to hunt a little.) </p>
<p>While I'm sure one or more of you will say this stat is meaningless, I think it's a pretty good quick judgment. Obviously, some folks who register with LSDAS change their minds about going to law school and choose another career path. And many students, particularly those at big state schools in places like Indiana might prefer going to law school in state, even if they have the #s for the trinity or CCN. So, it's far from perfect. But, a school like MIT just isn't going to send that many grads to law school, so I think using the # of Techies who register with LSDAS and the # of Techies who go to top law schools--you get to define top--seems more meaningful to me than looking at the total number in a class at MIT.</p>
<p>And let me be politically incorrect and state the obvious. If you are a URM applying to Yale Law School, you get one point added to your application's score. I wonder how many of those UT-El Paso students got that extra point? I don't know and it's certainly possible none did. But if I were a student who wasn't going to get that extra point, I'd find out whether those admitted did before basing my college selection on that stat.</p>
<p>and what are you supposed to think if your school is average? work harder? anybody could tell you that. if your school is fantastic, are you supposed to not worry so much, perhaps to your detriment? maybe this is interesting to play these numbers and see your school sends 0.6% of graduates to Harvard Law. maybe it's a cheap thrill or obsession working its way in and people can't do much about it. that's all fine, but you have to be crazy if you think these numbers actually translate into any sort of strategy, motivation, or remotely accurate description of your situation.</p>
<p>If it turned out that some schools were really truly awful in their law school placement after controlling for the quality of students -- which I'm sure is NOT the case, or if so only very rarely -- then I could see that being a legitimate argument for not going to that school in the first place.</p>
<p>that is REALLY an exception because schools that don't have the law placement one would <em>expect</em> from them (which is you what you are describing, bluedevil) is very rare. that is to say, being awful in law school placement is normally not at all surprising because it is correlated with other negative factors that make it not an attractive school to go to regardless of law school placement. maybe that is a legitimate argument not to go to UChicago or something, although that's a tough decision if you believe that type of school is right for you.</p>
<p>I am 100% sure that you are correct, sreis. I am quite convinced that there are very few schools in the country, if any, that would match my description of a school to avoid.</p>
<p>I just meant that asking the question is not necessarily ridiculous. It happens to have an answer which negates the importance of the question.</p>