<p>"The same people who wanted to be in North Carolina for undergrad probably want to be there for law school too. There’s an inherent tension in your position: if Duke Law wants the highest LSATs such that they’re willing to pay for them, why would they also want to give extra admissions points to Ivy undergrads? "</p>
<p>It’s not surprising that Duke students are 10% of Duke Law. I was just pointing out that it was basically a hard cap set at 20 seats/10%. Duke undergrads are basically competing against other Duke undergrads for these 20 seats, not against the rest of the national population. They just take the 20 highest LSAT’/GPA combos, with emphasis on the LSAT. 164 = fail. 170 = win.</p>
<p>I’m talking about when you get the same score combination from the Ivy and the non-Ivy, you offer to the Ivy first, the non-Ivy goes on the wait-list. If the Ivy goes to Columbia, you offer to the non-Ivy <em>who had the same score combo</em>.</p>
<p>If you look at that questionable dot chart, think of the Ivies as the greens and the Non-Ivies as the yellows in the <em>upper right section of the graph</em>.</p>
<p>And by “Ivy”, I mean “Prestige schools”, which does not include BU, so the original poster does not lose anything by not attending BU for T-14 purposes.</p>
<p>I know you were talking about the “hard cap.” That’s what I’m talking about too. It makes absolutely no sense. If 20 students from Duke are competitive, they may get in, but why would we think they’d get in over a kid with better numbers from UCLA? Or even 20 kids with better numbers from U. Wis? And if there were 25 kids with great numbers from Duke, why would Duke cut out 5 in favor of worse numbers from somewhere else? Basically, Duke Law has absolutely no interest in providing any kind of quota or cap for Duke undergrad students. Nevertheless, you posit they have one, not only for Duke, but for Ivy schools in general. That is totally implausible and there isn’t any evidence for it that I’ve seen.</p>
<p>As for Ivy as a tie breaker between otherwise completely equal students, sure, I could see that. When are you ever going to get completely equal students though? Even when people have the same GPA/LSAT, they’ll have better distinguishing factors like work experience or undergrad major. Those factors would probably matter more to the law school because they can matter for employment. USNWR grades schools on the incoming students’ GPA/LSAT but on the outgoing students’ 9 month employment figures.</p>
<p>the only thing to keep in mind is that even if you attend a not so reputable college, if you have good grades and high test scores, you will get into a top law school. those arguments around ‘Harvard Law gives .1 gpa booster points for applicants from Harvard undergrad’ are just dumb. if that is the case (which I doubt), so be it. Just go attend a cheap, easy state school and get a 4.0 gpa with less than half the effort and brain it takes to get 3.5 gpa at Harvard. then, you are set.</p>
<p>If you haven’t been challenged academically and intellectually and getting As without effort at podunk state, why would you think that you are able to rise to the challenge of competing with top students from prestigious undergrads assuming you got into a top law school ?</p>
<p>When we hear stories on unemployed lawyers from top law schools, perhaps we can assume that they were top performers who graduated from podunk state and thus ending up at the bottom of top law schools.</p>
<p>There is probably a reasonable correlation between SAT scores and LSAT scores. So, the average LSAT score coming out is probably higher at undergrad colleges with high average SAT scores coming in. What is less clear is if attending a more selective school, which may be more rigorous, also tends to lead to higher LSAT scores, and if it leads to being more successful in a rigorous law school. Personally, I suspect that a more rigorous undergrad program is likely to help somewhat in those regards, but I have no evidence to support it. </p>
<p>I think that point is really relevant to the OP’s question. I don’t think BU is prestigious enough to make a difference for an elite law school admissions officer to give a tip to the BU student just because of the name of the undergrad. But I suspect that a lot higher percentage of BU students attend law school than for U Mass Boston. That might possibly lead to better pre-law advising. And the higher rigor of BU might help a student get a better LSAT score, and be better able to handle the rigors of law school. Countering that, BU’s grade deflation might lead to a lower GPA, which is also a factor in law school admissions. It seems that LSAT is weighted more however. </p>
<p>It really comes down to how important the amount of debt is to the individual family. $30k in debt to one family could be a bigger deal than $100k in debt to another family.</p>
<p>I’ve heard that a key element of preparation for law school is writing. So, I would suggest that the OP look into how much writing is done in classes at UMB. I’ve heard that some large U’s tend to assign very few writing assignments because of the large burden for the instructors to give careful feedback, grade multiple revisions of a paper, etc. Law school exams are all writing, so undergrad students need to get a lot of practice writing.</p>
<p>“I’ve heard that a key element of preparation for law school is writing. So, I would suggest that the OP look into how much writing is done in classes at UMB. I’ve heard that some large U’s tend to assign very few writing assignments because of the large burden for the instructors to give careful feedback, grade multiple revisions of a paper, etc. Law school exams are all writing, so undergrad students need to get a lot of practice writing.”</p>
<p>No, the key element of law school is issue spotting.</p>
<p>In fact, the entire first year grade is essentially how well you spot issues in the one exam given at the end of the semester.</p>
<p>Writing is secondary.</p>
<p>Just make sure that you put your issues in complete sentences.</p>
<p>“When we hear stories on unemployed lawyers from top law schools, perhaps we can assume that they were top performers who graduated from podunk state and thus ending up at the bottom of top law schools.”</p>
<p>Your comprehension of the actual employment marketplace for actual practicing attorneys is breathtaking. </p>
<p>Lawyer employment has to do with your ability to generate a $2,000,000 book of business.</p>
<p>One of my friends, who is very good at practicing law, was recently tossed onto the associate scrapheap because of his inability to generate business.</p>
<p>Honestly? They can read Getting to Maybe, but that’s about it. You can’t even really practice issue spotting because doing so requires already having law knowledge. The best time to start practicing is a month from finals on your professor’s old exams. There’s really no prep you can do beforehand, and definitely none you can do in undergrad.</p>
<p>Reading some of your posts in this thread makes me question if you practice law at all, or if you even attended a law school for that matter.</p>
<p>Ability to sell work and bring in revenues to the firm only matters when an associate is being considered for partnership at a law firm.</p>
<p>Ability to sell work won’t get you into a Biglaw firm to begin with. You can be the most charismatic and tactful salesman there is, but if your law school rank and grades are garbage, you won’t ever get to sniff an ounce of air inside a Biglaw office. </p>
<p>Also remember that TONS of ex-biglaw attorneys end up at in-house counsel or government attorney positions, for which you don’t need the skills of ‘generating $2mil book of business’.</p>
<p>Having gone to a top college may be of advantage in the sense that people from such schools are ‘conditioned’ to work hard under tough class competition / curves. </p>
<p>However, I personally believe that LSAT is a better indicator of one’s raw intelligence and law school success potential compared to what college one attended, or what one’s college GPA was.</p>
<p>I mean, having a LSAT score of 172 tells me more about an individual’s general competency and intellect, much more so than a 4.0 in Psychology or Poli Sci, even from a top Ivy college.</p>
<p>Not to mention, most people attending top law schools are much more of a ‘gunner’ or motivated group, compared to most people attending top colleges, as a whole. People in law schools are well aware that their grades at law schools make or break their career, and many of them have six figure law school debt to motivate them to do well.</p>
<p>OP, you are asking questions that nobody will be able to answer entirely correctly. no one here is able to tell you how much more of ‘academic rigor’ you will be exposed to at UMass honors program vs Boston U, or whatever. </p>
<p>Just do what you want to do, as long as finances are within means.</p>
<p>you have all the answers you need at disposal. in conclusion, what college you attend does NOT matter in law school admissions. what matters is your raw intellect and work ethic. I can guarantee that you can attend the lowest ranked college that there is in the U.S. and still easily get into Harvard Law, as long as you get a 3.9 gpa with 173+ LSAT. 100% guaranteed. </p>
<p>Just make sure you don’t attend somewhere ridiculous like U of Phoenix. </p>
<p>@preamble1776: I mentioned several posts back that the colleges themselves will have metrics of law school applicants, GPA, LSAT scores, and outcomes. Those are far more valuable than our guesses as to what admissions officers will do.</p>
<p>If law school is important to you, then take the time to collect that information and analyse it.</p>
<p>Just tell me how in your first 7 years as an associate, do you generate $2M book of business??</p>
<p>I think I have a better idea than you about big law firms and the path of successful lawyers.
Brother and sister are both partners in top 5 law firms.
Son-in-law is a 7th year associate in top 3 NY law firm.</p>
<p>First you need to define what intelligence is.
The LSAT is not designed to measure intelligence. It’s designed to predict law school performance. Its only measure is of your ability to do well on the LSAT.
There are many people who are smart but won’t do well in LSAT because they just aren’t good with logic problems. They can build robots, treat diseases, do advanced math,write complex software, yet still screw up on logical reasoning because they aren’t great readers.</p>
<p>“I think I have a better idea than you about big law firms and the path of successful lawyers.
Brother and sister are both partners in top 5 law firms.
Son-in-law is a 7th year associate in top 3 NY law firm.”</p>
<p>Somehow I doubt that, but I’ll agree with you if it makes you feel better.</p>
<p>“First you need to define what intelligence is.
The LSAT is not designed to measure intelligence. It’s designed to predict law school performance. Its only measure is of your ability to do well on the LSAT.
There are many people who are smart but won’t do well in LSAT because they just aren’t good with logic problems. They can build robots, treat diseases, do advanced math,write complex software, yet still screw up on logical reasoning because they aren’t great readers.”</p>
<p>I think that “intelligence” generally means what is measured by the WAIS-IV.</p>
<p>There are four index scores representing major components of intelligence:
Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI)
Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI)
Working Memory Index (WMI)
Processing Speed Index (PSI)</p>
<p>I came across something on TLS that I wonder what others here think.</p>
<p>I think these statements are uncontroversial:
Graduates of prestigious undergrad colleges are more likely to be accepted to and attend prestigious law schools than graduates of unprestigious undergrad colleges, which is largely influenced by the fact that prestigious undergrads only accept students who are good test takers, generally smart and motivated, etc., while less selective undergrads accept a wider range of students
Law schools care a lot about their USNews rankings, which depend in large part on GPA, LSAT, and employment outcomes of their graduates</p>
<p>Here is the more questionable part:
A law graduate’s undergrad college can have an influence on getting a first law job. Law firms that publish info about all of their lawyers on their websites include both the undergrad and law school. So, these employers will be more likely to hire Ivy undergrad + T14 law school grad at the x-th percentile of the class, than they will be to hire Podunk U undergrad + T 14 law school grad at the x-th percentile of the class.<br>
So, although undergrad college name does not directly impact USNews rankings, since that is not something that is reported, it does indirectly affect rankings through employment outcomes of their graduates. Hence the undergrad name may affect law school admissions. </p>
<p>The notion that GPA and LSAT scores are major determinants of top law school admission can be reasonably argued against mathematically. There were about 120,000 LSAT takers for 2013 admission. A 173 is the median score at Yale and Harvard. A 99+(173) percentile translates to about 1200 potential applicants. Yale only needs to take in about 100 to satisfy its LSAT medium. Harvard needs about 300. So, one out of 12 of the 173+ applicants makes it into Yale and 1 out of 4 into Harvard. </p>
<p>The notion that success is equated with BigFirm offers is simply not true at the top schools. If it were then Columbia will rank supreme. Less than half of Yale graduates would go to BigFirm. The public interest jobs and clerkship are desired by many. Note that it is not because these are in the bottom half of the class. Yale has no class rank. </p>