<p>Jamie, you’re just being silly now. Making bombastic statements and ridiculous generalizations only diminishes your already weak credibility. However, there’s nothing to be gained by arguing with someone who simply makes statements of opinion as though they were assertions of fact. You’ll notice, if you bothered to read any of my prior comments that I think there’s nearly no qualitative difference in education from any of the top 15-20 schools. I even admitted that there may be SOME SLIGHT difference in perceived prestige between the two schools discussed here. However, the reason I take up your argument is that people like you do a great deal of harm to young impressionable college applicants who think these tiny differences in relative prestige matter in any way whatsoever - other than to people like you. A student will be MUCH happier (and therefore, more successful) at a school where they fit, rather than the school with a perceived higher prestige. The point I continue to make is that the relative difference here is so slight that it shouldn’t be the determining factor.</p>
<p>^ Right. To demonstrate that Williams is not just marginally stronger but “much, much better” for a pre-law student, show us the evidence that law schools consistently prefer Williams over Middlebury students with the same (or higher) grades and scores.</p>
<p>It’s not 1962 anymore. A “gentleman’s C” at Williams won’t carry you over the threshold to Harvard Business School or Yale Law. You’ll need top grades and LSAT scores; you’ll be competing with students from many other colleges who have them.
([Undergraduate</a> Colleges](<a href=“http://www.law.harvard.edu/prospective/jd/apply/undergrads.html]Undergraduate”>http://www.law.harvard.edu/prospective/jd/apply/undergrads.html))</p>
<p>A few comments (from a Williams guy, obviously, who also happened to attend one of the law schools the OP is interested in, so I have a good idea what I am talking about). </p>
<p>First, if you have, say, a 3.7 from Williams or Middlebury, with the same LSAT scores, the odds are you will get accepted at the same schools. Law schools care about LSAT first, GPA second, and undergrad reptuation third, but school only will compensate for a SLIGHTLY lower LSAT or GPA if you are Williams vs. say, the 50th ranked liberal arts schools, rather than one in the top ten. The odds of choosing Midd over Williams having any affect on whether you get into Yale Law are too infinitismal to really matter. You are going to need at LEAST around 3.8 and 172 plus at either (or from Amherst) for Yale unless you bring something really unusual to the table. And you’ll need at least around a 3.6 and 170 plus for UChicago. </p>
<p>Second, whoever cited working at Skadden or Cravath as indicia of anything, the only thing that indicates to me is that those particular graduates are wasting their intellectual gifts :). </p>
<p>Third, I would ignore Jamie folks, sounds like a classic ■■■■■. </p>
<p>Fourth, the difference between Williams folks attending HY law schools vs. Midd folks attending those folks is almost surely entirely explained by the slightly higher average LSAT of Williams students, which correlates with their slightly higher average SAT’s (remember, Midd’s reported SAT scores over the years are deceptive as fewers students report them to Midd for the years you are looking at). A two or three point different in average LSAT will have a big impact, in the aggregate, on distribution of law schools attended by grads of any particular LA schools (and by the way, I woudn’t sweat Williams’ one year aberration at Yale, these numbers fluctuate over time, but Williams is also number 1 or 2 in terms of LA representation there, when you average over a number of years). Assuming you would score the same on the LSAT regardless of whether you attend Williams or Midd (seems to be a safe assumption), the fact is, there won’t be any material advantage fo choosing Williams, at least in this regard. </p>
<p>Fifth, I do think there are some advantages to Williams over Midd (although not so many that someone with a clear preference for Midd should instead pick Williams, I’d only let Williams’ slight edge in prestige and more substantial edge in resources be the deciding factor if it was a true toss-up), law school admissions just happens not to be one of them.</p>
<p>Agree with those who say it makes not a whit of difference for law admissions if you choose Midd or Williams. And I’ll add another perspective.</p>
<p>I got my undergrad degree from one of the less prestigious public Big Ten schools after tranfering from an Ivy after freshman year. I was accepted (back in the day) to two “top five” law schools. I actually think it helped that I applied from the boonies, and to this day I find it amusing that I know of two former classmates at my Ivy who had similar GPAs and LSAT scores as mine and who were rejected by these same law schools. My guess is that the top law schools receive plenty of stellar LSAT scores from Ivys (and Midd, Williams…) and not so many from my humble university. Not that I’m advocating this as a strategy, but in the end I think you’ll be better off by attending the school you like more and doing as well as you can. Good lord, you’ll get a fantastic education at either Midd or Williams, but then again you can get a fantastic education almost anywhere if you have the right frame of mind.</p>
<p>I have to agree with sunmachine. I attended law school with graduates from many of the top LACs and many of the top national U’s including all the Ivy’s. Not one of them/us was first in our class - that spot was reserved for a graduate of a not very prestigious state university on the west coast.</p>
<p>“I’d only let Williams’ slight edge in prestige and more substantial edge in resources be the deciding factor if it was a true toss-up”</p>
<p>Agree with this. The distinction is fine enough that a student with a clear personal preference should follow it – if there isn’t one, might as well go with the powerhouse.</p>
<p>"First, if you have, say, a 3.7 from Williams or Middlebury, with the same LSAT scores, the odds are you will get accepted at the same schools. Law schools care about LSAT first, GPA second, and undergrad reptuation third, but school only will compensate for a SLIGHTLY lower LSAT or GPA if you are Williams vs. say, the 50th ranked liberal arts schools, rather than one in the top ten. The odds of choosing Midd over Williams having any affect on whether you get into Yale Law are too infinitismal to really matter. You are going to need at LEAST around 3.8 and 172 plus at either (or from Amherst) for Yale unless you bring something really unusual to the table. And you’ll need at least around a 3.6 and 170 plus for UChicago. "</p>
<hr>
<p>Exactly. Thanks for posting and saving me the time. </p>
<p>Also keep in mind that you may think you may know what you want to do in future but that could change multiple times in a few short years. However, you should at least have a darn good idea WHY you want to go to a school like Williams and Middlebury. If you think they are a good fit, say no more. If you think you want to be in an academic challenging grind, that’s fine too. But, unfortunately as far as law school goes, IF you are a strong standardized test scorer, you might be better off going to a less competitive school and getting a better G.P.A. (big fish in smaller pond theory) then slugging it out at Williams/Middlebury for a potentially lower G.P.A. As the poster said, G.P.A. is much more important than where you went to college. That’s just the harsh reality of Law School rankings.</p>
<p>Middlebury is just as good as Williams/Amherst. </p>
<p>/s/ Middlebury Alums</p>
<p>“you might be better off going to a less competitive school and getting a better G.P.A. (big fish in smaller pond theory)”</p>
<p>I agree with this. I would hate to see any 18-year-old make such a cynical choice and put all the eggs in the law basket, but going to a decent school where you expect you can breeze to a 4.0 would be a very effective strategy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right! Why should we pay any attention to people who have spent four years at one of the two colleges in question? They obviously know nothing about the relative merits of the education they received, and are in no position to speak knowledgeably about their alma mater. The nerve of them!</p>
<p>Instead, let’s listen to people who have never set foot on either campus, who probably still are in high school, who have never had a full-time job in their lives, and who learned everything they know from USN&WR and anonymous Internet chat rooms. Indeed!</p>