<p>The trend (as far as data I can see) is much clearer in medical school admissions, where there are some undergraduate schools which report much lower-than-average GPAs among their admits, while others have much higher-than-average GPA's. It's actually not prestige which plays this role, interestingly, because some very prestigious schools seem to receive a penalty. So the fact that school-to-school variation exists is pretty clear; what's not clear is why. The things I've observed, too, cover a very different school list in med school admissions.</p>
<p>Anyway, I also just noticed this:
[quote]
I would also posit that URM status may be a larger factor than just 10%... and it may reduce the other categories' percentages when accounting for admissions.
[/quote]
It's been a long time since I've done enough econometrics to feel authoritative on the subject, but my guess is that what you're seeing is a very large effect on a very small population -- that URM status may well account for 50% of the decision in 20% of the pool, or something like that. Again, it's been a long time since I've done a logistic regression (which is what I assume this analysis would have to be) much less analyzed one with any reasonable depth.</p>
<p>To the extent that law schools factor in the difficulty of your UG, they do it by comparing the LSDAS median GPA and distribution with the median LSAT. As Mike has shown in other threads, the results aren't always the commonly accepted wisdom.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's been a long time since I've done enough econometrics to feel authoritative on the subject, but my guess is that what you're seeing is a very large effect on a very small population -- that URM status may well account for 50% of the decision in 20% of the pool, or something like that. Again, it's been a long time since I've done a logistic regression (which is what I assume this analysis would have to be) much less analyzed one with any reasonable depth.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, the 80-10-10 breakdown was mainly for non-URMs. I think URM is an extremely important factor and can even be equivalent to 10 points on the LSAT (depending on which group in particular), but that's not from any real analysis, just observations from people I've known. So the breakdowns would probably be significantly different.</p>
<p>I was just rereading my analysis, which is completely wrong if they're doing the sort of regression I think they're doing. I have no idea why it's only 10%.</p>
<p>I feel all this is hearsay. No one- as a previous poster mentioned- has an exact idea on how school matters. But while observing grad school admissions in my school- I signed some stuff saying I shouldn't mention anything particular- I noticed that the quality if a school be it columbia, upenn, duke always got a an impressed eyebrow- than say any random school.</p>
<p>So school quality would matter but admission decisions aren't made on a comparative basis. the admission officer looks at every thing and decides. In reality the process is not as clearcut as the % berkeley senior posted and some extracurricular activities matter not just only TFA/Peace corp. Also keep in mind that admission officers try to take students from diverse schools. They wouldn't want all their students to be just from one school</p>
<p>Sefago you are incorrect. Law school admissions is not like that of other graduate programs. I would rather have a 4.0, and a 173 from Podunk U, than a 3.7 and 169 from Harvard.</p>
<p>EC is right, but that's a very large difference (.3 GPA, 4 LSAT points). In situations where the candidates are closer numerically -- especially if the LSAT is the same and the GPA has a gap -- I've seen some undergraduate programs get a bump.</p>
<p>Wait....so your undergrad school doesn't matter? Because i want to attend law school after i graduate and i'm transferring out of CC this year. I can go to either San Jose State, or UC Davis...the whole time i've been planning on UCD because i thought it would give me a better shot at getting into law school. Have i been misinformed the whole time?</p>
<p>Wow...My cousin who just recently was accepted into law school himself was telling me that going to UCD would make me look like a much better candidate as opposed to SJSU. He told me that my GPA would be looked at on a different scale since a UC education is considered more difficult and perhaps "prestigious". So, I'm going to UCD this fall for nothing? Great.</p>
<p>I wouldn't choose an undergrad just for its easiness or the possibility that you will go to law school. Not every plan works out. Then again, I'm somewhat of a prestige-whore. </p>
<p>If you want to go to UCD, go and work hard. Don't think "Oh Ill go to SJS just to get a high GPA" or "Going to UCD is now worthless because it won't make my GPA look more prestigious."</p>
<p>It always pains me, SAX, when I see someone use data from gradeinflation.com to make a point. The sources used for so called "data" by this website are a joke in all too many cases. Just check a few of them out.</p>
<p>Would a person with a 4.0 GPA at a community college have the same exact chance of getting into law school assuming everything other factor is the same than if he went to Harvard and got a 4.0?</p>
<p>Well, the CC grad would then have to spend two years at a real university. If he just presented with his associate's and applied for law school, no.</p>