Ranking For Undergrad With Highest Acceptance Rates To Law School?

College Search & Selection
141

<p>No, that is what you have deduced.</p>

<p>In terms of sheer academic quality, I do believe that HYPSM belongs in a class of its own. Then the next 5-10 schools (including the rest of the Ivies [Brown / Dartmouth / Columbia / Cornell / Penn] + Caltech / Duke / Chicago / Northwestern) are generally the next best "tier" of schools.</p>

<p>So, while MIT / Caltech may not send as many students to law school as a percentage of its class compared to, say, Duke or Brown or Dartmouth, the academic quality at MIT / Caltech is just as strong as any school in the top tier.</p>

142

<p>I agree with the_prestige and believe that those tiers are accurate. Alexandre can tout UMich all he wants, but to say that going to Northwestern as opposed to UMich for undergrad doesn't give you a slight boost at law schools is an outright lie.</p>

143

<p>If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.</p>

144

<p>The error that some seem to be making is the default assumption that strong feeder schools to top tier law schools is somehow an indictment on a school with a heavier math / science leaning. That is your own insecurity showing. No one here (at least I'm not) claiming that those schools are academically superior to the tech heavier programs. </p>

<p>Again, this is a thread discussing law schools. Is it a surprise then that there is an increased discussion involving LACs and LAC-like institutions? If this were a discussion about engineering or comp sci, it follows that the MIT, Caltechs, CMUs of the world would dominate the discussion -- do you think that supporters of LACs would get bent out of shape about that?</p>

145

<p>"Again, stripping away the "top student" argument for a moment, .."</p>

<p>yes I agree that if you strip away all material points of an argument that point in a different direction you will get the results you want.</p>

<p>stripping away oxygen, I cannot breathe.</p>

<p>If a student is more capable to start with , he is likely to do better in graduate admissions. There are a greater proportion of such exceptionally capable students at certain schools.
If you are such exceptionally capable student too, but go to a diferent school- well you have not proved that the result of such student will likely be any worse.</p>

<p>I assume only a top, highly motivated student will get in to Harvard Law school. There are proportionally many top , highly-motivated students at Amherst. A top , highly motivated student from elsewhere, with identical personal characteristics & performance & profile as the Amherst applicants, may well also get in to Harvard. though his school may sport fewer equally top students, while Amherst has many.</p>

<p>This whole thing is similar to those % PhD lists that get trotted out here constantly. Do people think Dartmouth students really have any trouble, relatively, getting into PhD programs, if that's what they want to do? Or that Dartmouth is worse than Bryn Mawr, or wherever, if you decide you want to seek a doctorate? I think it's more the case that more Dartmouth students prefer to go to various professional schools and I-banks, and are able to do so. But those %PhD tables show Dartmouth as "worse" , by the metric of producing a lower % of future PhDs, than a number of schools with clearly lower entrance standards. Are students at those schools really advantaged over a Dartmouth grad, if each applied for a PhD program? Or rather is it merely the case that more students proportionally at these other schools apply to such programs?</p>

<p>So maybe they are better "feeder" schools to Phd programs than Dartmouth, by this measure. But that would have zero consequence to an applicant to Dartmouth who is in no way disadvantaged in seeking a PhD if that's his/ her goal. Though the % table suggest something else.</p>

<p>Similarly, an MIT grad may not be disadvantaged to an Amherst grad in applying to law schools. Despite the fact that more amherst grads apply to law schools, and more wind up in them.</p>

146

<p>
[quote]
Then the next 5-10 schools (including the rest of the Ivies [Brown / Dartmouth / Columbia / Cornell / Penn] + Caltech / Duke / Chicago / Northwestern) are generally the next best "tier" of schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, honestly, you can't put NU and Cornell in that group there by not including Cal. </p>

<p>I believe Caltech is in a notch above all the schools in group 2.</p>

<p>*
2006-2008 TOP TIER™ College Rankings
Academic Peer Assessment; Employer Assessment (Upper Level Management); Graduate and Professional School Admissions Officer Assessment; Quality of Student Body by SAT / SAT II; Quality of Student Body by GPA / Class Rank; Resources / Expenditure Per Student; Graduate /Professional School Attendance; Wage and Employment; Number of Applications / Desirability of School</p>

<ol>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Massachusetts Inst. of Technology</li>
<li>California Inst. of Technology</li>
</ol>

<p>Columbia
Penn
Chicago
Northwestern
Cornell
Johns Hopkins
Brown
UC Berkeley
Duke
NYU
Michigan
University of Virginia
Dartmouth</p>

<p>Univ. of Southern California
UCLA
Carnegie Mellon
Emory
Rice
Notre Dame
Vanderbilt
Georgetown
University of North Carolina
Tufts
William and Mary
Washington (St. Louis)
Wisconsin (Madison)
University of Texas
Wake Forest
Case Western Reserve
*</p>

<p>Source: College</a> Rankings</p>

147

<p>monydad, i understand where you are coming from.</p>

<p>the point i am trying to convey is that for certain schools / programs there is at least -- at the margin -- some benefit for those students aspiring to attend a top law program. whether it's the curriculum itself, whether there already exists a self-selecting set of students who chose said undergrad program precisely because of its strong pre-law record, whether its the fact that there is an established pre-law resource / counseling with advisors who know the ins / outs of the admissions process, which professors have clout with admissions committees (whether it be for the subject matter they are teaching or perhaps as an influential recommendation), whether its a network for students to participate in extra-curricular programs / internships, whether its a pre-existing and extensive alumni base to leverage and reach out to -- all of these things can add up to make a difference vs. a school that may not offer these advantages to their student body.</p>

<p>So, while I agree that the "top student" faces a lower hurdle in achieving post-graduate aspirations (be it law school or what have you) this neither proves nor disproves what you or I am arguing -- because the "top student" should presumably achieve success regardless of where he / she is coming from (e.g. top grades, top recommendation, top board scores, etc.)</p>

148

<p>"Alexandre can tout UMich all he wants, but to say that going to Northwestern as opposed to UMich for undergrad doesn't give you a slight boost at law schools is an outright lie."</p>

<p>Ring<em>of</em>fire, attending Northwestern as opposed to Michigan for undergrad does not give one even a "slight boost" at law school. Not the slightest. Attending Harvard, Princeton and Yale, and maybe even Stanford, may indeed give law school applicants a slight edge. Beyond those four universities, I have never seen any evidence that proves that attending one top 15 university like Brown, Dartmouth (or Northwestern since you brought it up) gives an undergrad a "boost" when applying to Law school over attending another top 15 school like Cal or Michigan. If you have actual admissions rates into top Law schools that proves otherwise, feel free to share them. So far, it would seem that Cal, Cornell and Michigan have nearly identical admission rates into top Law schools:</p>

<p>Cal:
Yale: 2 admitted, acceptance rate of 13%
Harvard: 7 admitted, acceptance rate of 15%
Stanford: 2 admitted, acceptance rate of 6%
Columbia:17 admitted, acceptance rate of 35%
Berkeley: 17 admitted, acceptance rate of 20%
Chicago:13 admitted, acceptance rate of 37%
Penn: 5 admitted, acceptance rate of 19%
Michigan: 9 admitted, acceptance rate of 32%
UVA:3 admitted, acceptance rate of 13%
Cornell: 4 admitted, acceptance rate of 18%
Duke: 11 admitted, acceptance rate of 42%
Georgetown: 24 admitted, acceptance rate of 43%</p>

<p>Cornell applicants to N14 Law schools:
Harvard: 14 admitted, acceptancerate of 10%
Columbia: 31 admitted, acceptance rate of 17%
NYU: 40 admitted, acceptance rate of 22%
Berkeley: 18 admitted, acceptance rate of 14%
Penn: 31 admitted, acceptance rate of 20%
Chicago: 23 admitted, acceptance rate of 23%
Michigan: 28 admitted, acceptance rate of 21%
UVA: 32 admitted, acceptance rate of 25%
Duke: 50 admitted, acceptance rate of 34%
Cornell: 70 admitted, acceptance rate of 32%
Georgetown: 66 admitted, acceptance rate of 27%</p>

<p>Michigan:
Yale: 3 admitted, acceptance rate: 9%
Harvard: 17 admitted, acceptance rate: 16%
Stanford: 6 admitted, acceptance rate: 11%
Columbia: 22 admitted, acceptance rate: 17%
NYU: 25 admitted, acceptance rate: 19%
Berkeley: 13 admitted, acceptance rate: 11%
Chicago: 17 admitted, acceptance rate: 16%
Penn: 23 admitted, acceptance rate: 13%
Northwestern: 23 admitted, acceptance rate: 17%
Michigan: 91 admitted, acceptance rate: 28%
Virginia: 25 admitted, acceptance rate: 26%
Cornell: 22 admitted, acceptance rate: 28%
Duke: 28 admitted, acceptance rate: 29%
Georgetown: 39 admitted, acceptance rate of 20%</p>

<p>As one can clearly see, there is very little difference in the admissions statistics between Cal, Cornell and Michigan. I seriously doubt other top universities like Brown, Dartmouth or Northwestern have significantly higher acceptance rates into N14 law schools. If you have actual statistics similar to those provided by Cal, Cornell and Michigan, please share them.</p>

149

<p>Sorry to burst your bubble, "prestige," but I think the bulk of this thread is complete horse manure. </p>

<p>It was true once upon a time that the perceived quality of the undegrad pedigree had a lot to do with a candidate's likelihood of getting into a top law school. That era is long gone. Even more than undergraduate admissions, law school admissions is now driven by an obsession with US News rankings. Law schools deans live in mortal terror of having their chief competitors get an edge in those rankings, which depend not one whit on where the law school entering class went as undergraduates, and a great deal on what their undergrad GPAs and LSAT scores were. What matters in law school admissions is undergrad GPA and LSAT scores, and to a lesser extent gender and racial diversity. At the margins a 3.9 from a prestigious undergraduate institution might weigh a little more heavily than a 3.9 from Podunk U, but not necessarily. Law school adcoms have a pretty good idea where the grade inflation is, and a 3.9 from an easy-grading Ivy might actually be less impressive than a 3.9 from an undergraduate institution with a harsher grading curve. </p>

<p>Believe me, I've known LOTS of people who have served on adcoms at top law schools. They frankly don't distinguish between a Harvard or a Stanford on the one hand, and a Cal or a Michigan on the other--these are all top tier schools as far as they're concerned. A candidate with a 3.9 GPA and a 175 LSAT from any of those schools is going to be just as much sought after. And a candidate with a lower GPA and/or lower LSAT score from a Harvard or Stanford will be less sought after than the candidate with the higher GPA and higher LSAT score from Cal or Michigan. But that says nothing in particular about Cal or Michigan, because the candidate with a higher GPA and higher LSAT score from Iowa State will be more sought after than the lower-stat candidate from any of these schools. It's only when "other things" are truly "equal"---i.e., when the adcom is choosing between candidates with identical or near-identical stats---that the candidate from the top-tier school may have a slight edge. But that's the rare case. </p>

<p>If candidates from top-tier colleges do better statistically in law school admissions, it's mainly because those colleges select for exactly the same traits law schools do---their students are, collectively, marginally better standardized test-takers. But that's not anything they learn in college; it's what got them into elite colleges to begin with.</p>

150

<p>^^^ Very nice strawman argument. Kudos to you.</p>

<p>Who said that a candidate with lower GPA / lower LSAT from Harvard / Stanford is going to get the nod over a candidate with a higher GPA / higher LAST from Cal or Michigan? Not me. If you claim so, I challenge you to cite the exact post number. Good luck with that.</p>

<p>Sorry to burst your bubble "bclintonk", but I think the bulk of your post is complete horse manure.</p>

151

<p>
[quote]
Attending Harvard, Princeton and Yale, and maybe even Stanford, may indeed give law school applicants a slight edge. Beyond those four universities, I have never seen any evidence that proves that attending one top 15 university like Brown, Dartmouth (or Northwestern since you brought it up) gives an undergrad a "boost" when applying to Law school over attending another top 15 school like Cal or Michigan.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Except for the WSJ Feeder ranking, of course.</p>

152

<p>


</p>

<p>Well, if that's NOT your claim, then I don't understand what your claim is. Is it that by virtue of attending Harvard or Stanford, a student will score better on the LSAT? Preposterous. Is it that by virtue of attending Harvard or Stanford, a student is likely to have a better undergrad GPA by the time she's applying to law schools? Well, that could be, but there's a name for that---it's called "grade inflation," and as I suggested law school adcoms are just as likely to compensate for it as to reward it. And if it's NEITHER of those, and if it's also NOT that an applicant from Harvard or Stanford with a lower GPA and/or LSAT score will somehow nonetheless have an edge in law school admissions . . . then just what IS it that you're claiming?</p>

153

<p>
[quote]
Well, if that's NOT your claim, then I don't understand what your claim is. Is it that by virtue of attending Harvard or Stanford, a student will score better on the LSAT? Preposterous. Is it that by virtue of attending Harvard or Stanford, a student is likely to have a better undergrad GPA by the time she's applying to law schools? Well, that could be, but there's a name for that---it's called "grade inflation," and as I suggested law school adcoms are just as likely to compensate for it as to reward it. And if it's NEITHER of those, and if it's also NOT that an applicant from Harvard or Stanford with a lower GPA and/or LSAT score will somehow nonetheless have an edge in law school admissions . . . then just what IS it that you're claiming?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Start by reading and comprehending.</p>

154

<p>^ This is a completely bogus non-answer.</p>

155

<p>^ I'm afraid if you haven't grasped the point(s) by now, you never will. Sorry.</p>

156

<p>


</p>

<p>Oh, get real. The WSJ "feeder school" ranking has been so thoroughly debunked so many times it's a laughingstock. Look at the selection of "prestigious grad programs" in their sample. Four of five "prestigious medical schools" on the East Coast. Four of five "prestigious MBA programs" on the East Coast. Three of five "prestigious law schools" on the East Coast. Oh, and of the 15 programs in the sample, 3 are named "Harvard", 2 are named "Yale", and 2 are named "Columbia". That's pretty darned near half the sample right there. Can anyone say "geographic bias"?</p>

<p>Small wonder, then that 9 of the 10 "top feeders" are . . . on the East Coast! And 16 of the 20 "top feeders" are . . . on the East Coast! And coming in #1 and #2 are . . . Harvard and Yale, sending lots of graduates to their own graduate programs! (Poor Columbia underperforms, however, coming in a lowly #11 despite the obvious bias in its favor). </p>

<p>So bottom line, we can conclude from the WSJ survey that if you want to go to a prestigious medical, business, or law school on the East Coast, then you're statistically more likely to end up there if you go to college . . . on the East Coast! And if you want to go to Harvard or Yale for a graduate medical, business, or law program, your best bet is to go to college at . . . Harvard or Yale! Surprise, surprise! Of course, it tells you absolutely zilch about your statistical prospects as a percentage of the total number of your classmates who aspire to those very same prestigious East Coast medical, business, and law schools. That could very well be higher at some other institution that has fewer aspirants to these particular graduate programs, but sends a far higher percentage of those who do apply.</p>

157

<p>


</p>

<p>The point is, if you concede that attending H/S doesn't give you an advantage in admissions to top law schools if your GPA and/or LSAT score are lower than those of a competing candidate from another school; and if you further concede that attending H/S will not contribute to your earning a higher LSAT score or a higher GPA; then the putative "edge" you get from attending H/S is an empty set. In other words, you're talking about absolutely nothing, just blowing hot air.</p>

158

<p>why does it have to be higher or lower? what if everything else is equal?</p>

<p>that's just one of a dozen things missing in your ASSumptions. this is the limitation of your rather narrow, biased one-dimensional view of the arguments at hand -- when the issues are at least three-dimensional.</p>

<p>So, really I have nothing further to add as you don't seem to be able to grasp simple concepts and arguments.</p>

159

<p>

Haha, no you're preposterous if you DON'T believe this is true. Even though Harvard and Stanford students are already better test takers than Michigan students before entering college, this difference is further exacerbated by the higher quality of education offered at H and S in comparison to UMich IN ADDITION to the higher quality of the student body, which would conceivably motivate a student to work even harder because his classmates are so intelligent.</p>

<p>In addition, a student who goes to a lower ranked school may be driven to hang out with the "wrong crowd" and ruin his gradees and LSAT preparations. This would never happen at Stanford and Harvard because everyone is passionate about academics and will buckle down at some point or another, even if certain students are party hardy.</p>

<p>You and Alexandre continue to debunk every study out there that doesn't tout Michigan as being directly before the Big Five, even when a majority of the data out there confirms that private schools besides HYPSM have a slight advantage over Michigan.</p>

160

<p>ring<em>of</em>fire</p>

<p>Both my parents have gone to Stanford and they don't speak the way you do. They're not condescending like you are. In fact, they've really never encouraged us, their children, to follow their footsteps in attending Stanford.</p>