<p>the_prestige, that is why (and I am sure you will agree 100% with me on this one as there is no other way) unless universities release their applicants' data (percentage applied to specific graduate programs, percentage admitted into those programs, average GPAs, LSAT/GMAT/MCAT of students admitted into those specific programs etc...) it is impossible to compare universities based on graduate school placement.</p>
<p>I think we got an interesting and perhaps telling start with some schools (Cal, Cornell, Michigan, Princeton, Stanford and Yale) above, but unfortunately, most schools do not share those statistics. It would be interesting to see how schools compare with their admissions rates into N14 Law schools or top 10 MBA programs or top 10 Engineering programs or top 12 Medical schools etc...</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are the ones who have dragged them into this discussion. The only firm takeaways I see is that Pomona and to a lesser extent McKenna are absolutely a great places to go to undergrad if one aspires to attend a top tier grad school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really? Even for those students who want to take up postgrad programs in engineering? lol</p>
<p>I doubt if they're even better feeder schools to top business schools than Mudd, tbh.</p>
<p>I wonder if grads of Pomona, McKenna, Scripps, etc would have a strong representation at MIT, Caltech, CMU, GeorgiaTech, Cornell and Cal, UMich and UCLA engineering dept... Can anyone provide data on this please? I'd like to see how those schools compare against MIT, Caltech, Berkeley, UMich and the like.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wonder if grads of Pomona, McKenna, Scripps, etc would have a strong representation at MIT, Caltech, CMU, GeorgiaTech, Cornell and Cal, UMich and UCLA engineering dept... Can anyone provide data on this please? I'd like to see how those schools compare against MIT, Caltech, Berkeley, UMich and the like.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>gee, why not start a thread about that? </p>
<p>(of course if you did, you'd be hard pressed to get nearly 100 posts and 6 pages like this law school thread has without skipping a beat -- why? because there are way more people who care about which schools are good feeders into Harvard Law School, and by contrast virtually no one cares what schools are good feeders into Georgia Tech's engineering program)</p>
<p>But the_prestige, if you were to tak students at schools like Caltech, Harvey Mudd and MIT as a sample, the interest in GT graduate Engineering programs would be higher than interest in HLS. And at schools like Cal, Cornell, Michigan and NU, interest in top Engineering graduate program would be equal to interst in top Law schools. That is not the case with most top LAcs or schools like Brown and Dartmouth.</p>
<p>the prestige, another truth is most people are afraid of math and have average analytical and mathematical skills. another - eng'g people don't like to argue as much as law aspirants or lawyers do. lol</p>
<p>As for my previous posts, I'm only saying that about half the people at huge schools like Cal, UMich, UCLA and the like don't want to end up as lawyers. therefore, it's senseless and utterly unimaginable to factor them in your ranking when they shouldn't have to be. I'm a comsci grad and I don't want to be a lawyer. Why would my interests affect the general standard of my school? Don't you think that's kind of absurd?</p>
<p>
[quote]
We're not talking about a general standard, we're just talking about how well your school does in law school admissions.
[/quote]
Then you should just look at the number of students admitted versus the number of students applied. If you don't have sufficient data, the next best thing is to compare the absolute number of students enrolled. To compare per capita data is comparing apples and oranges.</p>
<p>Btw, why look at only HLS? Why not YLS or SLS? Is HLS considered the #1 law school? Better yet, why not look at all the top law schools?</p>
<p>
[quote]
We're not talking about a general standard, we're just talking about how well your school does in law school admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's quite simple. All you need to do is to get the number of admitted students and divide that by the total number of applicants of each school. It's just as simple as that. In fact, Alexander has already posted that. </p>
<p>However, I think the prestige was implying something in this discussion. the way i understand him based on the tone of his texts, he equates low performance as a feeder school to lousy academic standard. He though schools like Duke, Rice are better than MIT. Try to analyze what he was trying to say about the topic where I brought up Mudd as an example. I think he was trying to say that Pomona, Scripps and Mckenna are, in general, superior to Mudd simply because of the fact that less people at Mudd are attracted to law schools.</p>
<p>Absolute data the way you define it is deceptive. I don't know: what's more impressive, a high school of 770 that has 20 Harvard admits a year, or a high school of 135 that has 10 Harvard admits a year?</p>
<p>Some people just look at the ranking and don't bother to do the math.</p>
<p>That's Yale, per capita. I agree that we need Stanford numbers. Let's see, if we calculate Per Capita numbers for Stanford, whether the coastal bias argument holds.</p>
<p>"he equates low performance as a feeder school to lousy academic standard"</p>
<p>
[quote]
Btw, why look at only HLS? Why not YLS or SLS? Is HLS considered the #1 law school? **Better yet, why not look at all the top law schools?[/b[
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Correct. Why not look at all the top 14 law schools? after all, many undergrads would rather stay at their prelaw school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the prestige, another truth is most people are afraid of math and have average analytical and mathematical skills. another - eng'g people don't like to argue as much as law aspirants or lawyers do. lol</p>
<p>As for my previous posts, I'm only saying that about half the people at huge schools like Cal, UMich, UCLA and the like don't want to end up as lawyers. therefore, it's senseless and utterly unimaginable to factor them in your ranking when they shouldn't have to be. I'm a comsci grad and I don't want to be a lawyer. Why would my interests affect the general standard of my school? Don't you think that's kind of absurd?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, this is a thread about law schools. It isn't a discussion about engineering schools nor is it about the relative merits of state universities in California nor is it about whether some random CS major cares about getting a law degree.</p>
<p>Here is a simple CC truth: if a thread / discussion exceeds a certain number of posts / pages, you can be sure that the Cal / engineering / science nerds will be coming out of the woodworks to chime in regardless if those views are germane to the discussion at hand.</p>
<p>You say you are a CS grad. Good for you. Is this thread about computer science? No. So what is the point of you bringing that up? Do you see engineering threads getting hijacked by those interested in law school? No. It's as if some dude from trucking school came barging into this thread to share, "who gives a crap about law school? I'm a trucker, what good is a damn law degree gonna do for me?" Great point.</p>
<p>Somewhere out in the far reaches of the net some Cal engineer is hijacking a random discussion board about whether Jessica Alba has lost her looks after having her baby. Absurd you say? Don't get me started.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know: what's more impressive, a high school of 770 that has 20 Harvard admits a year, or a high school of 135 that has 10 Harvard admits a year?
[/quote]
That is not a valid comparison. High schools have more or less the same base ... most graduates go on to college. However, only a small portion of college grads is interested in applying to law school. And that portion can vary significantly among different types of colleges.</p>
<p>The problem is with the way you calculate the base. Using incoming student class size as the base inherently penalizes schools offering a broad range of majors including professional schools. I’ll be more receptive if we use Arts and Science graduating class size as base.</p>
<p>But only if we include all the top law schools. After all, this thread concerns “acceptance rate to Law School”, not just HLS. If we consider only Harvard, Yale and Stanford, we penalize schools with top law programs, turning a positive factor for the school to negative. Ever wonder why Chicago isn’t on your top 20 list? And we penalize schools like Cal twice as California students have significant financial incentives to stay in-state.</p>
<p>Lol 30-40% apply to Law school at places like Dartmouth and Brown!!!! Are you kidding Alexandre. Its 15% tops. Every single placement stat at any top graduate school whether its HLS, y/ale law, Wharton, or Columbia business school shows places like Dartmouth, Brown, and Amherst literally "schooling" places like Michigan and Cal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally, tell me the_prestige, what percentage of students at Amherst, Brown, Dartmouth, Swarthmore and Williams apply to Law school? 30%? Maybe 40% or even higher?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>40% or even higher? Not even close. Slipper's guesstimate of 15% sounds reasonable and I'd be surprised if its even that high.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Here is a simple CC truth: if a thread / discussion exceeds a certain number of posts / pages, you can be sure that the Cal / engineering / science nerds will be coming out of the woodworks to chime in regardless if those views are germane to the discussion at hand.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Heh, heh...just trying to incorporate proper balance for east coast-centric views such as this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
shows places like Dartmouth, Brown, and Amherst literally "schooling" places like Michigan and Cal.