<p>How many cc students or Podunk U students get 170 in LSAT?</p>
<p>I really hate this elitist crap attitude. Some kids start off at community college or Pudunk U for financial or other reasons.
Yes, I would agree that kids at the more competitve schools have a better shot at getting a 170 LSAT (brilliant observation).<br>
but also don't rule out that there are kids who started at community college and are now attending T-14's.</p>
<p>marny1,</p>
<p>No one is being elitist. The fact is that higher ed is much more stratified these days than in years past, mostly along economic lines. Unfortunately, these economic issues correlate pretty highly with academic and exam performance.</p>
<p>Yes, there are many exceptions, but among the many thousands attending CCs or lesser known colleges, they are all too rare. It is not elitist crap. It is reality.</p>
<p>Yes, Marny, there are plenty of kids at top law schools who graduated from schools not on any of the top CC lists or on anyone's top list. There are also plenty of kids who graduated from top colleges who end up at what some would call "podunk" law schools.</p>
<p>right- so we don't need attitude around here when community college kids come to these boards and ask about admission to law school.</p>
<p>I'd like to think that our future lawyers and leaders have a bit more "class".</p>
<p>To answer the question..</p>
<p>Someone who goes to a CC and does extremely well can get into a top law school. However, based on anecdotal evidence--including the results for a former poster on this site---the CC student who gets into a top law school applies after college graduation and takes a year between college and law school. </p>
<p>I'm certainly not opposed to that--quite the contrary. However, from what I've seen, the student from a 4 year college can apply to and be accepted by top law schools based on his/her gpa earned during the first 3 years of college. The CC student who transfers to a college, even Harvard, doesn't get into the same kinds of law school if
(s)he does the same thing. Law schools really seem to want to see at least 2 years of college grades from a 4year college. </p>
<p>We had one poster here who went to a CC. She transferred to Cornell. She applied to top law schools as a senior. She listed her gpa and LSAT on this website. She got into some good law schools--but her results were really disappointing--definitely a lot worse than you would expect from someone with her gpa and LSAT. </p>
<p>So, I would not discourage anyone from applying to a top law school just because they went to a CC. I would strongly urge them though to wait until after college graduation to apply. </p>
<p>If someone went to a CC got a 4.0, transferred to Harvard and got a 4.0 there too, then I think (s)he would do as well as a classmate with a 4.0 from Harvard for all 4 years and the same LSAT score. But the second kid would do a LOT better if they both applied as Harvard seniors.</p>
<p>And, no, I can't point you to anything that says that in writing, but this has come up on this site several times and everyone who knew someone who HAD actually done it concurred.</p>
<p>jonri- you just made an excellent point.<br>
It very well may be helpful to get 4 full years GPA calculated into law school admission. If one applied at the beginning of senior year, their GPA would cover the 2 year community college GPA and only one year from the 4 year University program. To have 2 full year's GPA from a 4 year school and maybe a bit of work experience, may make the student a stronger candidate. </p>
<p>and folks- it wasn't the info that was being passed along. It was the snarky way in which it was said!!</p>
<p>I've flirted with the idea of law school for a while. </p>
<p>Some things that surprised me as I've come to terms with the info in this thread:</p>
<p>Wow, I'll have to be extremely cautious about my course selection - I have to balance my interests with my capability very carefully, with no room for adventure. I'm not quite sure how anal I'll have to become about GPA (I never worried about it in high school, i.e. easy grading system).</p>
<p>I'm confident I can get a high LSAT, but it still perturbs me a bit about the GPA, especially since I was given the opportunity to attend a much less rigorous school that would have been a better financial value.</p>
<p>I'll be going to Swarthmore next year. Who would have thought I'd be the one seeking a more holistic admissions system.</p>
<p>edit - question: if admissions are so numerically-driven, how come T-14 schools aren't saturated with high-GPA students from the many lower UG colleges that heavily outweigh top UG colleges in number? It really does not make any sense that all 3.9's at Louisiana State U would get in over a 3.6 at Yale (someone earlier said a .3 difference was a deal-breaker for any college in the world). Or is LSAT's a sufficient confounding variable?</p>
<p>Don't lessen your undergraduate experience for law school. Experiment - take what interests you and who knows where it will lead - maybe to some place more interesting than law school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
edit - question: if admissions are so numerically-driven, how come T-14 schools aren't saturated with high-GPA students from the many lower UG colleges that heavily outweigh top UG colleges in number? It really does not make any sense that all 3.9's at Louisiana State U would get in over a 3.6 at Yale (someone earlier said a .3 difference was a deal-breaker for any college in the world). Or is LSAT's a sufficient confounding variable?
[/quote]
LSAT in indeed the variable you are not factoring in. Why do the students at top schools get in? They have ECs and all that noise-but that also have high standardized test scores. They are the students who tend to do well on tests. This carries over to the LSAT. The average score for Ivy students is 166, which is well above average. LSAT> GPA in every case. So a students at LSU who gets a 3.9, but gets a low LSAT has no shot at the top 14, but an student with a high LSAT can overcome a low GPA. If you browse Law School Numbers and Top Law Schools.com this quickly becomes apparent. Not to mention the fact the average LSU student does not even think of applying to HYS or the other top 14s.</p>
<p>As a graduate of a T15 law school who worked at a Top 5 national law firm (back in the day), I am somewhat alarmed at the prospect of UG students taking less challenging or less interesting courses based on their desire to attend law school.</p>
<p>What students don't realize is that law firms value new attorneys who have backgrounds in more technical and "difficult" majors such as statistics, econ, and engineering. Yes, these attorneys' UG GPAs were probably not as high as their colleagues who majored in Far Eastern Studies and International Relations. So what! </p>
<p>The law firm's clients are going to want attorneys who can work up their damages case along side the damages experts. Attorneys with a background in econ, accounting, stats, etc., will be better able to grasp key concepts and increase the chance of a litigation victory for the client.</p>
<p>Intellectual property attorneys with technical backgrounds are much more appealing to law firm clients than IP attorneys without such backgrounds. I could go on and on.</p>
<p>My point is this: if you truly desire to major in a more "difficult" major (read: harder to earn high GPA), then do it! If you want to go to UC Davis to get a better education than you would at SJSU, then do it!</p>
<p>When you start working at a law firm, you quickly realize that the top performing attorneys come from a wide range of law schools. Especially in litigation, I've seen Harvard attorneys get their booties kicked in the courtroom by Podunk U. attorneys and vice versa. Juries are the "great equalizers" and you better not just be wicked smart, but a real human being too. Otherwise, they'll find a way to stick it to you and your client simply because they don't like the way you carry yourself in the courtroom.</p>
<p>I think people are missing out on the fact that if you are going to a top school, you likely are getting a better education than someone as a not-as-good school. It is no coincidence that many famous scientists, lawyers, and doctors went to very good schools for both undergraduate and graduate school. Schools would not be prestigious if there was no corrolation between success and school.</p>
<p>I did notice this, too, while browing through Columbia Law's faculty. The vast majority of them attended excellent undergraduate schools, not just excellent law schools.</p>
<p>lex's point is very valid. Having been on at least 3 juries, I really couldn't give a hoot if the attorney was from Harvard or Brooklyn law. If the attorney could not relate to the jury and come across as a mensch (or a real human being for those not familiar with the term) the Harvard JD wasn't much of a help. The HYS degree may impress your golfing buddies, but it may not help you in the courtroom.
I've seen enough snarky comments on these boards to figure out, that some of you guys better mature real quick or think twice before you go into a courtroom with a jury of real people..</p>
<p>The arrogant Ivy leaguer or HYS grad with attitude often doesn't play well in Podunk USA or NYC too.</p>
<p>Isn't that what aggravated some people about John Edwards? The UNC law grad probably did kick the booty of Harvard and Duke grads in the courtroom.</p>
<p>Merriam-Webster offers the following definitions for "snarky":
1 : crotchety, snappish
2 : sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner</p>
<p>My my count, Post#54 includes at least three or four snarky comments.</p>
<p>That said, I concur with Marny1's basic point, which is that law school pedigree has little to do with courtroom success.</p>
<p>could have been a bit sarcastic- but not directed towards one of the kids who asked for advice.</p>
<p>just trying to give some insight as to how a typical NY juror might re-act to a lawyer's presentation.</p>
<p>I do not think all of us who wish to attend top law schools desire to practice in court room. I do not. I want to work for a biglaw firm in NYC. New associates DO NOT go into court at these firms, and even partners do not have to do so. All you have to do is bill enough hours to justify your starting salary of 160,000$. This does not include the bonuses you will receive. Many lawyers will never argue a case in their entire careers.</p>
<p>ee33ee - I just finished my first year at Swat. Remember that the first semester IS pass/fail, so if you want to toy with pre-med, try out Bio 001 or Chem 010(H) and see how you do. The first semester is a great time to mess around and see what may be good for you and what may cause you some trouble. Furthermore, you DO have four other pass/fail classes you can take throughout your career, and it really makes sense to use them within your freshman and sophomore year; these pass/fail designations, again, can be used for messing around. Finally, a dean informed me that students can often take more than four classes pass/fail throughout their career if they find that to be necessary. </p>
<p>I'm sorry guys that this post adds little to the thread at hand. Though taking courses in 'easy' majors is ill-advised, taking classes that you're naturally good at is not so myopic because, as "Freakonomics" author, Stephen Levitt points out, you're likely to enjoy such subjects most anyway. I guess sometimes it's a hard reality to face that while everyone has a talent, these talents don't range across all areas; some people are good in a subject, and some are not. Nonetheless, such a realization is an important step to take, as such a thought process will advance individuals in their respective fields and, hopefully, will pave the way to admission to a top law school. :)</p>
<p>According to this, now 10+ years old, Boalt Hall used to adjust for perceived difficulty of gpas from some schools relative to others (not a matter of "prestige" or "selectivity" outright, but looking at the list, there does seem to have been some correlation to selectivity)</p>
<p>If memory serves, Boalt did this based on a regression (possibly an informal one) to predicted Boalt grades. If Harvard undergrads with 3.8's did better at Boalt than CSU undergrads with 3.8's, then Harvard GPAs got a bonus during future admissions processes.</p>