<p>I was just looking at the preprofessional data stats from MIT and it seems it is a disadvantage to get into a top law school after undergrad at MIT despite the fact that an MIT education is extremely analytical and rigorous. For example, only 3 out of 42 were accepted to Harvard Law and only 3 out of 23 were accepted to Yale Law. So is it really a disadvantage to be applying to law school from MIT?</p>
<p>What's the rate from comparably selective schools?</p>
<p>It's likely a function of the low GPAs at MIT. probably not "fair" to take a 3.8 history major from Yale over a 3.2 from MIT but that's how it goes</p>
<p>The Yale acceptance rate is just under 7%, while MIT fares at a rate of 13%. Harvard's acceptance rate is just under 12%, while MIT fares at a rate of about 7%. So going by numbers alone, it doesn't look like you can draw real conclusions. Yale is known for looking at great numbers plus great "extras," while Harvard is known for being more numbers-and-only-numbers driven. To continue relying on generalities, MIT students are probably more likely than most applicants to have high LSAT scores (LSAT score breakdowns by major usually have math, CS, and various types of engineering at the top of the list), but also more likely than most to have below-average GPAs.</p>
<p>So going by raw numbers and stereotypes alone, the information makes near perfect sense. </p>
<p>I certainly haven't presented any groundbreaking or scientific info, but the OP's claims don't strike me as too surprising.</p>
<p>So what exactly are the "extras" Yale looks for? At least for internship and work experiences, do law schools care the nature of the internship? For example, if I choose to intern at an investment firm or innovation/information technologies company like Google, Microsoft, IBM, will law schools favor experience at an actual law firm?</p>
<p>concentrate on getting a high LSAT. For H-Y, you pretty much need top<br>
1 % LSAT which is 172 or better (I think). If you are not in the top 4 % of LSAT takers receiving 168 or higher, even walking on water may not be enough to get you into Harvard or Yale.</p>
<p>someone once posted the average LSAT scores from the leading colleges. Even at Harvard and Yale, the average LSAT score was about 166 which is top 6 %. So even the AVERAGE Harvard grad might have trouble getting into H-Y Law school. (but my guess is their alma mater, gives their own kids a bit more wiggle room in the admission process than the rest of the applicants)</p>
<p>Law Schools will take work experience into account, (especially Northwestern), but without top LSAT's it may still not be enough to get a T-14 acceptance.
I suggest you take the LSAT's sometime soon to get a more accurate feel as to what schools you should apply to. Work experience does help, but you still need the basic GPA and LSAT scores to be admitted to top schools.</p>
<p>Yale has a rather peculiar admissions process. Simplifying a bit...after you make an initial cut, which for MOST folks is based on the LSAT and GPA, your application is read by 3-4 faculty members. They rate it a 2,3, or 4. There are NO standards for how they rate it. They can do whatever they want. Professor Plum may think it's all about the LSAT and give 4s to folks with a 175+. Professor Mustard may think anything above a 165 is just fine and weigh ECs heavily. Prof Crimson may think what Yale needs is intellectual diversity, and thus gives a 4 to anyone who is obviously a political conservative. They do not have to explain why they gave anyone a certain mark. They do , I think, have a general requirement that when they're through, an equal number will be in each of the 2, 3, and 4 stacks.</p>
<p>3 faculty read your app. You get +1 added to your score if you are a URM or a Yale LAW legacy. If you get a 12 or better, you are in. If you get an 11, your app is usually read by another prof who also rates it a 2,3, or 4. Almost always, all those with a total of 15 after this second read get in. But in theory it's possible that some year the class will be filled by those who get 12 or 13 or theorectically a 14. Any prof can effectively veto you by giving you a 2. He doesn't have to explain why to anyone. In an article years ago in The New Yorker, Stephen Carter (the one who writes novels) admitted that one year he ran out of time and went through the last dozen files and wrote :2,3,4,2,3,4,etc. WITHOUT READING them! He no longer reads files as a result, but it does illustrate that nobody checks to see if the rankings make sense. </p>
<p>In the Sunday NYTimes, there was an article about Elizabeth Wuerzel, who wrote, among other things, "Prozac Nation." The article says she had a 160 LSAT. At the time, she wrote in a weblog that she had something like a 158. Obviously, at least three profs were willing to overlook that LSAT because she is now in her last semester at Yale Law and according to the Times will be going to work at Wilmer, Cutler, a difficult job to get. </p>
<pre><code>I knew a group of 4 friends who applied to YLS. All attended the same college and majored in the same subject. All had the same primary EC. None were URMs. All had GPAs of 3.7+. Their LSATs were all above 175, with one having a perfect 180. All had some chance of getting into YLS. They agreed on the order in which YLS would take them:1, 2,3,4. In other words, they might all get in, nobody might get in. But if YLS only took one of them, it would be 1, etc. End result? 3 and 4 got in and 1 and 2 were both wait-listed. I assure you it made NO sense. The one with the 180 was wait-listed. The one with the lowest GPA among the 4 was accepted. I STILL think if the same 3 people had read all 4 of their files, the outcome would have been different. But it's almost certain that DIFFERENT faculty members read their files. Different faculty members may have --MUST have--reacted differently to the same major and/or the same ECs.
</code></pre>
<p>Bottom line: do what you want to do. Remember that the acceptance rate for Yale Law is about 6-7%. So, some very well qualified folks get rejected. Don't waste your time trying to figure out "what Yale wants."</p>
<p>In general, if you are aiming for top LSs as a group, get a high LSAT, have a high undergrad GPA, have glowing recs from at least 2 profs, have some substantial (not extraordinary, just substantial) ECs, including, if possible some community service, and spend your summers doing something meaningful. A bit of work experience is of help at the margins. Peace Corps, TFA,etc. helps a bit more.</p>
<p>great post jonri</p>
<p>what are some examples of meaningful summer experiences? i was planning on working (if possible) at the local courthouse, or get an internship at a film studio. meaningful, or yuppie?</p>
<p>If you had a 3.0+ GPA from MIT, you're going to rock the LSAT. Just concentrate on getting a 175+ to offset the GPA and I think you'll be perceived just as well as a 3.8/170 humanities kid.</p>
<p>I remember from reading law school discussion forum the lsat college means of;</p>
<p>Columbia College: 163
Dartmouth: 164
MIt: 163</p>
<p>MIT has a much greater swing in the median LSAT from year to year because fewer people take it. One year, the median LSAT at MIT was 169. The next it was 163. When 400 people from the same school take the LSAT, those sorts of swings are unlikely.</p>
<p>Acceptance rate for a school doesn't say anything about how that school's alumni are perceived. It just reflects how many weaker vs. stronger candidates choose to apply. Also, of course, the sample sizes are too small and the results don't particularly support your conclusion.</p>
<p>Certainly with the same GPA and LSAT you will do as well as anybody else (because MIT is known as a great school and because your undergrad doesn't matter significantly anyway). On the other hand, it may be a valid concern that it is harder to get a high GPA at MIT than at many schools.</p>
<p>My experience with the top law schools is that there is little room for error. You will need both an excellent GPA and LSAT. For this reason, its an advantage to go to a school with minimal deflation, i.e. stanford, dartmouth, brown, or harvard, that also continually pump out students with high LSATs yet inevitably allow for higher GPAs.</p>
<p>Speaking as an MIT student, I think you guys are missing an important point: Law school applicants are a self-selecting group. Few people at MIT are interested in law school as comparison with MIT's peer institutions; most undergraduates are aiming for engineering research/industry, medical school, consulting/finance, and entrepreneurship. Those who are applying to law school are generally not doing very well in their majors in comparison to their peers (not all, of course, just generally speaking). Thus, Harvard has lots of its top students in history, government, philosophy, etc applying to law school whereas MIT would have much fewer of its top engineering, business, biology, etc students applying.</p>
<p>OMG, im sorry but this is really ****ING ME OFF!!</p>
<p>Wat does CS, and OP stand for?? some1 plz help</p>
<p>"Computer Science" and "Original Poster."</p>
<p>Google that ****, as they often say.</p>