<p>the_prestige:</p>
<p>Thank you for taking the time to look up the numbers and do the math for the back of the napkin per capitas. I know that took you a while. I appreciate the effort.</p>
<p>Don't you just love when people are full of ideas on how you could spent another couple of hours or days or weeks doing the calculations the way they want?</p>
<p>I tell 'em, "Be my guest, feel free to go through school by school and substract the nursing students...."</p>
<p>Looking at the amount of Law School Admits as a percentage of a university's graduating class is not a good indicator of preparation for law school for both large publics (Cal, UMich) and schools with a significant amount of technical majors (Cornell).</p>
<p>A better way to measure preparedness is to see the amount of admits to a particular law school compared to the amount of students of that university that applied to any law school be it the top law schools or the bottom ones. </p>
<p>If only we could get this information then we would have a better comparison.</p>
<p>interestdadd,</p>
<p>People raised valid points. Nobody is asking anyone to redo the math. They were just pointing out why the math was flawed. Hope you see the distinction.</p>
<p>Sam:</p>
<p>I think it would be more beneficial they rolled up their sleeves and contributed additional data to the conversation rather than grousing about the effort that the_prestige put into it.</p>
<p>interested dad - LOL... thanks for that... i actually had a database for most of the school's class size from my earlier rankings matrix (the one which was a combined weighted USNWR, Revealed Preferences and WSJ Feeder Rank):</p>
<p>at any rate, i think the HLS per capita ranks give a basic "raw" picture - its not perfect (and not meant to be) but i think it serves its purpose as a quick and dirty look at trying to at least attempt a basic "apples to apples" comparison (in other words, normalizing for school size). At any rate, I also ran the numbers for Yale Law School:</p>
<p>Yale Law School Per Capita Ranking:
Rank Name YLS Ratio
1 Yale University 15.36
2 Harvard University 18.43
3 Princeton University 36.15
4 Stanford University 38.88
5 Dartmouth College 82.62
6 Brown University 84.65
7 Columbia University 92.17
8 Duke University 132.62
9 University of Chicago 171.86
10 Brandeis University 184.75
11 Georgetown University 221.57
12 University of California-Berkeley 256.31
13 Northwestern University 278.86
14 University of Notre Dame 280.86
15 University of Virginia 311.20
16 Emory University 314.75
17 Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 332.00
18 Rice University 361.00
19 University of Pennsylvania 425.33
20 College of William and Mary 448.00</p>
<p>Harvard Law School Per Capita Ranking:
Rank Name HLS Ratio
1 Harvard University 6.80
2 Yale University 11.69
3 Stanford University 20.67
4 Princeton University 22.76
5 Brown University 29.98
6 Dartmouth College 30.69
7 Columbia University 36.07
8 Rice University 40.11
9 Duke University 42.05
10 University of Pennsylvania 44.77
11 Georgetown University 48.47
12 Brandeis University 67.18
13 Cornell University 69.07
14 Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 71.14
15 University of California-Berkeley 85.44
16 Emory University 89.93
17 University of Chicago 92.54
18 Northwestern University 97.60
19 University of Notre Dame 98.30
20 University of California-Los Angeles 113.38</p>
<p>*Couple of notes:</p>
<p>1) Top 10 for both Harvard Law School (per capita) and Yale Law School (per capita) are almost 100% identical - only differences are no. 8 for HLS (Rice) and no. 10 for HLS (Upenn) vs. no. 9 for YLS (UChicago) and no. 10 for YLS (Brandies)</p>
<p>2) The Top 7 schools are IDENTICAL for BOTH Harvard Law School AND Yale Law School... basically all of the Ivies (less Cornell and UPenn) + Stanford:</p>
<ul>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
</ul>
<p>3) For both lists, once you starting looking significantly past the top 10/15, it starts losing statistical significance - particularly for Yale (which has a smaller law school) - i.e. all of those schools near the top 20+ area are only fielding anywhere from 3, 4 or 5 students per school.</p>
<p>4) This validates something I've long argued about Brown - that it is way underranked by USNWR - even though it is always squarely in the Top 10 schools in terms of sheer overall selectivity, ranked no. 7 in the Revealed Preferences survey and (as the rankings above show) ranks right after HYPS in terms of graduate placement into the Top 2 law schools in the country.*</p>
<p>interestedadd,</p>
<p>That's true only if they are available. Until then, making people aware that nothing is conclusive is more "beneficial" than being silent. If you happen to have GPA vs LSAT vs acceptance rate from all different schools, please show us. Note that such stats wouldn't involve any calculation. LOL! That would end the controversy as that's the real "apple to apple" comparisons (sorry, prestige, yours is still "apple to orange" one). After all, what some people really try to prove here is someone with 3.8 GPA, 170 on LSAT at school A has a better chance to get into HLS than someone with the same stats from school B (such as Brown vs Duke).</p>
<p>with all due respect Sam, as interesteddad says, put up a better ranking:</p>
<ul>
<li>the proof is in the pudding</li>
<li>the 2 best law schools in the country: Harvard and Yale</li>
<li>the Top 7 schools are IDENTICAL for both</li>
</ul>
<p>is that a statistical coincidence? an anomaly? or could it be that those 7 schools are definitely amongst the best schools in the nation (IMO the best) for students looking to matriculate into the elite law schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A better way to measure preparedness is to see the amount of admits to a particular law school compared to the amount of students of that university that applied to any law school be it the top law schools or the bottom ones.
[/quote]
That's not better either, because that would depend on how many applied based on what chances they had. For example, if the school magically disallows you to apply to schools that you don't have a good chance at, that would artificially raise the acceptance rate dramatically.</p>
<p>Those schools (among other things) have the highest concentration of students capable of ultra high scores on the LSAT - so its not just bias against lower Tier schools</p>
<p>the_prestige,</p>
<p>HY are 2 of the top-3 law schools in the country and they are in similar location. They likely have very similar applicant pool. What's so special about the top-7 being identical? Technically, they aren't really "identical". The order isn't the same. I suspect HYPS applicants on average have the highest LSATs, just like they did on SAT before they went to these colleges. If that's the case, it would make perfect sense more of them end up at both HLS and YLS simply because of their higher LSAT. There's nothing special about that. You don't need the college names to help get that result. The bottom line is your list doesn't prove a person with the same stats from, say, Brown is better than someone with the same stats from Duke/Berkeley/Rice (in reality, it's probably harder to get high GPA at Berkeley than at Brown; so in that sense, going to Brown would help).</p>
<p>- the proof is in the pudding
- the 2 best law schools in the country: Harvard and Yale
- the Top 7 schools are IDENTICAL for both</p>
<p>is that a statistical coincidence? an anomaly? or could it be that those 7 schools are definitely amongst the best schools in the nation (IMO the best) for students looking to matriculate into the elite law schools.</p>
<p>Id have to question the methodology behind these statements. To say that Harvard and Yale are the 2 best law schools in the country creates- in my opinion- a huge statistical bias. Why not look at the three best schools? Why not the 5 best? Why not 14? Why not 1? Why arbitrarily say that Harvard and Yale are the 2 best law schools (I know there are rankings backing this up) and then use data from their class profiles to make sweeping claims? </p>
<p>Because the schools that are in the top 7 (random cutoff) are the same, does not really work to classify them as the best schools to gain admission to elite law schools, especially when many of the subsequent spots differ so greatly.</p>
<p>Look at the differences from spots 8-20:</p>
<p>Chicago has an 8 place difference at 9 and 17.
Pennsylvania has a 9 place difference at 10 and 19.
Rice has an 8 place difference at 18 and 8.
Northwestern has a 5 place difference at 13 and 18.
Cornell is 13th on the list for Harvard, but isnt even on the list for Yale.</p>
<p>Granted, there are some that are close on both lists: Berkeley, Emory, MIT, but when were trying to establish which schools are the best at getting people into top grad schools, we cant overlook data like these that tend to tell us that the method were using is not correct. Id think that any school within the top 20 would be good for helping people gain admission to elite law schools. The first thing we have to do, however, is define an elite law school, and from there decide what kinds of data were going to use to create a list of best colleges for law school preparation. I.e.: is there really any data that support a statement that students with identical LSAT scores and GPAs will have an advantage when applying from Brown than from Penn?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The bottom line is your list doesn't prove a person with the same stats from, say, Brown is better than someone with the same stats from Duke/Berkeley/Rice
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sam, with all due respect, you are waaay losing the forest for the trees my friend. I mean, how many people actually apply, how many people don't, GPA, LSAT, what else do you want to throw into the mix? height and weight? Don't you think Harvard Law School and Yale Law School look at GPA and LSAT? Do you think they select their students based on looks? Those things you mention must have been taken into account.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the end results SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES - after HYPS:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Brown, Dartmouth, Columbia are the best represented schools on a per capita basis at BOTH Harvard Law School and Yale Law School. Period.</p></li>
<li><p>Berkeley? Cal doesn't even come close.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Sam, what is your contention exactly? That HYPS, Brown, Dartmouth and Columbia are crap schools when analyzing representation at HLS and YLS and that Cal is better if you want to go to Harvard and Yale Law? I'm sorry, but the numbers say otherwise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To say that Harvard and Yale are “the 2 best law schools in the country” creates- in my opinion- a huge statistical bias.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well facts are facts - take a look at the rankings my friend. Which one? Pick one - any reputable law school ranking. These two law schools are absolutely considered the Top 2 law schools - with Stanford rounding out the Top 3 (but I don't have undergrad data for Stanford Law School). Harvard, Yale and Stanford. Those are the best three law schools in the nation by any reasonable measure.</p>
<p>Furthermore, Yale Law School's yield is also consistently the highest -> beating out cross admits to even Harvard Law and Stanford Law.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the schools that are in the top 7 (random cutoff) are the same, does not really work to classify them as the best schools to gain admission to elite law schools, especially when many of the subsequent spots differ so greatly.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How does that disprove the Top 7? If anything, the ones that have a lot of deviation at the lower rankings kind of proves that those are the schools that don't offer consistency across both Harvard AND Yale. Put another way, HYPS comes up in a lot of rankings no matter how you slice it (Revealed Preference, USNWR, etc. etc.) doesn't that say something about HYPS? What you are saying is something akin to: "well, HYPS isn't really that special since AFTER HYPS you get some massive deviation across those other rankings"...Huh??? THAT IS THE POINT --> The deviation after HYPS across so many different rankings / criteria is EXACTLY why HYPS is so good.... </p>
<p>So in this case, for Harvard Law and Yale Law, its : HYPS + Brown + Dartmouth + Columbia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The end results SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES - after HYPS:
Brown, Dartmouth, Columbia are the best represented schools on a per capita basis at BOTH Harvard Law School and Yale Law School.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who says they aren't the best represented schools? I didn't. Nobody says the YLS ratio for Yale isn't what you calculated. LOL! Looks like you are the one who doesn't know what the real point being discussed here. Let me repeat this once again: your list doesn't prove a person with the same stats from Brown has better chance to get into HSL/YSL than someone with the same stats from Rice or Duke. That's what others were trying to say to you. It's quite simple. But I guess it's getting late in the east coast. LOL!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Chicago has an 8 place difference at 9 and 17.
Pennsylvania has a 9 place difference at 10 and 19.
Rice has an 8 place difference at 18 and 8.
Northwestern has a 5 place difference at 13 and 18.
Cornell is 13th on the list for Harvard, but isn’t even on the list for Yale.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, as I mentioned in the above response to your previous post, this says much more about Chicago, Rice, Penn, Northwestern, Cornell than it does about any other school (HYPS or otherwise).</p>
<p>In other words, what does that list above (and the variance) tell you (if anything) about HYPS's ranking? Absolutely nothing. What does the above tell you about BCD's (Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth) rankings? Absolutely nothing.</p>
<p>Your pointing out the statistical variance for the schools outside the Top 7 only strengthens my point if anything. The fact that there IS significant variance outside the Top 7, yet the Top 7 remains the same across both Harvard and Yale IS in itself statistically significant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who says they aren't the best represented schools? I didn't.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you. You can go on speculating hypothetical situations to the nth degree of absurdity all you like my friend. (might as well add in the price of tea in China or if eating green eggs and ham makes any difference while you are applying...)</p>
<p>I'll stick to the facts. The numbers speak for themselves.</p>
<p>Cal just isn't going to get there, I'm afraid, no matter how you slice it, dice it, and put it through the flux capacitor.</p>
<p>My point is: you can’t claim that having the same schools in the top 7 means one thing, but then assume that deviance from spots 8-20 means another. It doesn’t make sense to say that because the lists are similar in one aspect means that they are correct, but then try to deny that their huge deviance does not also mean the opposite.</p>
<p>Meaning, if you are going to claim that because HYSPBCD are all represented on the lists as the top seven, the lists are pointing to those as being the best for law school admissions, then you also have to be prepared to explain why and how the lists can vary so drastically in the subsequent slots. Thus, if one list has Cornell represented and the other doesn’t, one could begin to question just how relevant juxtaposing both lists is. </p>
<p>After all, if as you claim, Harvard and Yale are the top 2 law schools in the country, and since Cornell doesn’t appear on one of them, could one argue that Cornell is not a good school for getting people into elite law schools? Could one by extension argue that because Notre Dame is on the list for Yale and Cornell isn’t, that Notre Dame is “better” at getting students into elite law schools?</p>
<p>And again, the top 7 are the same schools, but they are not in the same order. This fact says a lot about what you are arguing.</p>
<p>Also, using an argument by induction is flawed. Just because this is how the lists compare this year, does not mean this is how they shall compare in future years. For example, the number of students at HLS from Duke dropped from the 50’s to the 40’s. Does this mean that Duke is any less able to get students into HLS now than it was before? No it does not.</p>
<p>Also, if Duke only varies one spot, why are you not championing it like you are with Brown, Columbia, and Dartmouth?</p>
<p>the_prestige's rankings look totally solid and make a very strong case for Brown, Dartmouth and Columbia and I completey agree that those numbers speak pretty loudly.</p>
<p>BUT of course the Cal folks ain't havin' it.</p>
<p>interesteddad makes an excellent point. people love poking holes when things don't turn out the way they want. it's very simple people: COME UP WITH A BETTER RANKING instead of being a total whiner.</p>
<p>
[quote]
since Cornell doesn’t appear on one of them, could one argue that Cornell is not a good school for getting people into elite law schools?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's clear for everyone to see that Cornell is not as good as HYPSBCD vis a vis admission into Harvard Law School and Yale Law School. Period.</p>
<p>Take from that what you will.</p>
<p>I think it's clear for everyone to see that Cornell is not as good as HYPSBCD vis a vis admission into Harvard Law School and Yale Law School. Period.</p>
<p>-Again, arguments by induction are inherently flawed. If Cornell has a surge of students at HLS and YLS next year and Brown, Columbia, and Dartmouth all have lower numbers of students attending those schools, does that mean that Cornell is now better than the other schools at getting people admitted? No, it does not. All one would have to do is look at the pervious year to see that this is not the case. Again, Duke has about 10 fewer students in HLS this year. Does this say anything at all about its ability to get students into that school? Nope, it says nothing at all.</p>
<p>Im not arguing that this year Cornell doesnt have a smaller percentage of its graduates in those schools than BCD, but I am arguing that you claim- without just cause- that it is thus inherently less able to get its students admitted to those law schools. The answer, I believe, is much more complicated than that, and thus cant be found by simply looking at per capita numbers.</p>