Reputation of Undergrad.. Considering a transfer

Graduate School Law School
21

<p>Apology accepted.</p>

<p>On the numbers you quoted, you're wrong. The Harvard grad with those numbers is more attractive. (I'm absolutely certain of that for the Harvard grad and believe the same re the Michigan grad, though I'm less familiar with the relative weight given by top law schools to Michigan than I am vis a vis Harvard.) There are number spreads that will be large enough to get to the point where you might be closer to right, but in that case the result may just be that neither gets in. The Luther grad is always going to face an uphill battle getting into a school like HLS regardless of the numbers. There's a reason there's only one in the entire school (i.e., spanning three years).</p>

<p>In any event, for any given applicant, the LSAT number is a constant. The OP isn't going to score higher on the LSAT if he/she stays at Luther rather than transferring to Michigan. So if you take the LSAT as a constant, the question is whether the GPA the OP can get at Luther will be enough higher than the GPA the OP can get at Michigan to overcome the differential in the strength of the two institutions. And my guess is that, if the OP can get a perfect GPA at Luther (which is what it would take to have a good shot at a top law school - again, assuming the LSAT score is competitive), the OP is likely to be able to get a good enough GPA at Michigan to end up with better odds of getting into a top law school than staying at Luther. (Of course, if the OP's GPA goes into the tank at Michigan, then you're right - he/she would have been better off staying at Luther.)</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
Reed College

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Reed is damn prestigious, and might even help you as much as some lower Ivies as a soft factor in law school admissions.</p>

<p>Also, why do you assume that the LSAT score is constant? Of course, each person's mental capacity falls into a certain range. But perhaps being in a "smarter" environment would help you consistently score in the top of that range, at least more than being in a "dumber" environment would?</p>

<p>How much would the spread have to be, cosar? It's now publicly known, due to the affirmative action cases going to court, how much of a LSAT boost equivalent being a Mexican gives you. What about going to Harvard?</p>

23

<p>well, cosar, you do have a point. if the OP wanted to do everything possible to get into a top school, he or she would benifit from going to the most prestigious school possible.</p>

<p>I think we disagree on how much it would help. In my mind, one could easily make up a deficiency in UG prestige by boosting your other soft factors.</p>

<p>I know with more certainty that schools outside the T25 give little weight to UG prestige.</p>

<p>but maybe its different in the t14. maybe they get so many applicants with strong LSAT and gpa scores, that to weed some out, they look more strongly at UG prestige.</p>

24

<p>Thanks for the info nspeds - I will pass the info on to her though I am sure she has checked it all out. It is just as her mom I would like to run things by her just in case. I was just curious about the advantage GU students had getting into GULC. Thanks for clarifying.</p>

25

<p>cosar, i think you are right about the bad advice. but you are utterly misguided to delude yourself that yours is somehow not among them. what you are doing is essentially some strange estimates of outcomes, not causality. what if only 1 applicant applied from each one of those schools and that one applicant got accepted? on the other hand, what if 2000 michigan applicants applied? then, your analysis falls apart...of course the numbers that i provided are hypothetical though very likely close to the truth given the size of the schools. you need to know something about the size and quality of the applicants from these schools to law school, adjust for their demographics, lsat scores, to be able to establish causality. </p>

<p>but using terms "a no brainer" when it is not at all a no brainer, is providing bad advice. </p>

<p>p.s. there are two ohio wesleyan grads at HLS (both are transfers so that's why they don't show up).</p>

26

<p>I think it is dangerous and misleading to try to draw conclusions as to what might or might not affect an individual student's chances of admission at a top law school from statistics about the overall student body at a school. Top law schools could probably fill their entire classes with ivy league grads if they wanted to -- they presumably don't.</p>

<p>I attended a large public college that each year generally sent a couple of grads to the top law schools. I got in to and attended YLS. When I got there, I found quite a number of other students who were also their college's sole representative there. Would each of us have gotten in if we had chosen to attend an ivy league college instead of the lesser known schools we did attend? Would we then have just been lost among the dozens and dozens of ivy applicants with nothing to distinguish us? Or did the fact that we may have truly stood out at our respective colleges help us? And the truth is that for most people the choice isn't between an ivy league school and a lesser known school for undergrad -- its a choice among different levels of non-ivies - is the potential difference in HYS Law admissions great enough to warrant it effecting a student's choice of college? Unless and until admissions officers from the top law schools answer those questions, I don't think we really know.</p>

<p>I do think undergrad college can have an influence in the sense that it gives admission officers a frame of reference -- ie they can think: "Ivy U grads have always done well here, so if we admit more Ivy U grads they will also probably do well here." But again, given that top law schools could probably fill their entire classes with ivy league grads, I, personally at least, can't believe that this is the end of it. Not do I personally believe that for any given individual student their chances of getting into a top law school will be necessarily be improved by attending a higher ranked school -- there are just too many other variables at play (eg. how will a different school affect gpa, how will effect the student's goals in life, how will effect a student's relationships with his/her profs?)</p>

27

<p>You're both probably right that I made my point too strongly (though I don't know about "utterly misguided" and "deluded" - that's a bit harsh). And as I said in a prior post, there are many factors that go into the decision of whether to transfer, a point the OP made as well.</p>

<p>But my reaction was to the assertion that undergrad institution doesn't matter, which is absurd. Of course it matters. And admissions officers have answered this question. A number of top law schools state expressly on their admissions websites that they take into account the strength of an applicant's undergrad institution. Admissions officers will say the same thing. I never said that LSAT and GPA don't matter - those are obviously crucial factors. But every top law school takes the strength of the applicant's undergrad institution into account in a significant manner as well. </p>

<p>I would also point out that the OP's original question assumed that everything else was held constant. On that assumption, and focusing only on the question of the odds of getting into a top law school, I still think transferring is a no brainer. Whether the assumption is a reasonable one, and whether there are many other factors that should go into the decision, are different questions. And I guess I'd also acknowledge that increased "odds" doesn't necessarily mean that the proposition will be true in 100% of the cases. But I think that those who believe that the strength of the undergrad institution "doesn't matter" are the ones who are deluding themselves.</p>

28

<p>jeesh-</p>

<p>i don't care what anyone above says - the place where you get ur undergrad degree means almost nothing when it comes to law school admissions. sure if it comes down to 2 students - 1 from MIT one from transylvania college, the MIT most likely will get the nudge, but how often is that happening - most likely never because as we know, admissions offices don't put 2 people next to each and say "which one are we going to take."</p>

<p>i don't have any numbers, but lets use some common sense here. Only 1 person from Luther college goes to harvard but 23 from michigan go there? hmm lets see, how many of the smart kids from your high school went to michigan - how many went to luther? how many luther kids scored 1400 on their sats...how many michigan kids did? how many people are even applying to harvard from luther...and how many from michigan?</p>

<p>please people.</p>

29

<p>two points: </p>

<p>(1) "And admissions officers have answered this question". Could you provide a specific reference coming from a law school admissions officer for that statement? like a URL should do. if it is true, then i concede...if an admissions officer has a preference for some undergrad schools over others, then there is nothing more to argue about here. </p>

<p>(2) One important other question related to the whole issue deals with the culture and the size of the undergrad school: the quality of a student relative to the quality and culture of other students in the undergrad school is being missed here. The crux is, do you want to be a "big fish in a small pond" or a "small fish in a big pond". In other words, if you have the same intellectual potential, it is 100 times easier to shine if you are at Wooster than if you are Harvard. Then think about the psychological impact of "not shining" and being at the bottom? This will affect your GPA, class rank at Harvard while it may not do so with the same degree in a more supportive undergraduate environment that subscribes to a different approach on teaching.</p>

30

<p>bizymom: But top law schools can not fill their ranks with ivy league grads only, statistically. I forgot who proved this here before. Was it Sakky?</p>

31

<p>eric -- are you talking about t14, or HYS (which often seems to be what people focus on here)? i would think as you go down from those 3, yes, the schools have less ability to completely load up on ivies. </p>

<p>but if anything, to the extent that the law schools have to be looking at non-ivy candidates, the possibility of really shining at a lesser known college versus being one of the pack at a higher level college makes it harder, i think, to conclude that you're in a better position being one the pack. i don't think you can look at usnews ranking and expect there to be a direct correlation between where your college falls on their list and what your personal chances of law school admission are. but clearly my views are biased from my own personal experience. ;)</p>

32

<p>A couple of quotes from the admissions websites for the two top public law schools - Michigan and Virginia. (The top privates tend to have a bunch of pablum on their sites about the admissions decision being a holistic process - they don't even acknowledge the paramount importance of GPA and LSAT.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
From what schools does the University of Michigan Law School accept students? We accept students from a wide variety of undergraduate schools, with almost 250 distinct institutions represented in the student body. While the strength of an undergraduate institution is certainly a factor we consider in the admissions process, our commitment to maintaining the excellence of our student body does not limit the wide range of educational institutions from which our students hale. There most assuredly is no accredited school whose graduates we would be simply unwilling to admit. (And for the record, contrary to popular belief/persistent and intractable rumor, students who attended the University of Michigan for their undergraduate studies are not at any disadvantage over students from other schools. Go Blue!) <a href="http://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivestudents/Admissions/faq.htm%5B/url%5D%5B/quote%5D"&gt;http://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivestudents/Admissions/faq.htm

[/quote]
</a>

[quote]
Rigid standards based simply on a combination of an LSAT score and cumulative undergraduate grade-point average cannot be the only criteria for selecting an entering class. Members of our admissions committee, assisted by admissions professionals, assess each applicant as an individual. This assessment takes into account not only LSAT scores and undergraduate grades, but also the strength of an applicant’s undergraduate or graduate curriculum, trends in grades, the maturing effect of experiences since college, the nature and quality of any work experience, significant achievement in extracurricular activities in college, service in the military, contributions to campus or community through service and leadership, and personal qualities displayed. <a href="http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/prospectives/jdapp.htm#apps%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/prospectives/jdapp.htm#apps&lt;/a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And a quote from a prelaw guide:</p>

<p>
[quote]
The Law School Admission Test (LSAT) is used by most schools as a common measurement of potential for success in law school. The undergraduate grade point average (GPA) offers admissions committee another numerical basis for comparing applicants. It is examined in relation to the perceived strength of the applicant’s undergraduate institution and the level of difficulty within the applicant’s course of study. <a href="http://www.providence.edu/prelaw/admission.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.providence.edu/prelaw/admission.html&lt;/a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A couple of other personal data points: </p>

<ol>
<li><p>I've seen LSAT/GPA grids for Harvard undergrads at a couple of the top law schools and for any given LSAT/GPA box (at least within the range where they're admitting anyone at all), the admit rate for the Harvard undergrads is higher than the overall admit rate.</p></li>
<li><p>In the course of a conversation I had with a dean of a top private law school, the dean made it clear that the strength of the undergrad institution, particularly if it's one of the top dozen or so, is a real factor in their admissions decisions. (I'm not going to go into any more detail to preserve the confidentiality of the conversation.)</p></li>
</ol>

<p>And with that, I think I've already spent too much time in this thread, so I'm going to bow out. For anyone still not convinced, there's not much point in my continuing to try.</p>

33

<p>That Harvard Law list of where there students come from is very interesting. It could almost be used to rank all fo the undegrad programs. One surprise to me - strong showing by BYU.</p>

34

<p>cosar, interesting but I'm still skeptical.</p>

<p>of course there going to pay lip service to the importance of one's institution, and how they won't focus too much on the lsat.</p>

<p>I once talked to an adcom who preached to me about how it isn't all about the lsat. they take a holistic approach and look for well rounded individuals. </p>

<p>i think its all a bunch of BS. they worship the LSAT and GPA (and with GPA they have no method to weigh it accordingly to the difficulty of one's UG school. so they take it at face value and try to increase it for US NEWS rankings).</p>

35

<p>cosar, you have convinced me a little. before this discussion I thought UG was absolutely irrelevant. now i think it matters a little.</p>

36

<p>cosar,</p>

<p>cirriculum by no stretch of the imagination means school. i think it means were you a basket underweaving major vs a nuclear physics one, etc. </p>

<p>the first quote is also rather ambiguous as well. if an admissions officer wants to say that a 4.0 gpa from "university a" may be comparable to a 3.5 gpa from "university b" then the statement that you quote will be one way of saying that. this is not equivalent to saying that if you come from third tier institution, all else equal, your probability of getting accepted is lower. </p>

<p>your first point, shows and interprets a correlation. what if the harvard undergrads did 1,000,000 other things (like started a firm or were in a high leadership position or something else of high importance) that in process of which they acquired exactly those factors that are important for admission. will your statement hold true? of course not. </p>

<p>your second point is rather blaze. if i were to say "In the course of a conversation I had with a dean of a top private law school, the dean made it clear that the strength of the undergrad institution, particularly if it's one of the top dozen or so, is not a real factor in their admissions decisions" would you use that as a proof to anything? i doubt it. </p>

<p>before one establishes causality, one needs to look at the data, be skeptical of its quality and run a regression model with a well-defined identification strategy. else it is a qualitative back-and-forth that proves nothing.</p>

<p>my hunch is that it probably does but in conjunction with the gpa variable. if you are a 3.5 student from harvard, you may be given the benefit of the doubt all else high. if you are a 3.5 student from missouri eastern state university, then maybe not.</p>

37

<p>Thanks for all of the responces. I am sorry I did not realize this had been discussed so much in the past. I am very appreciative of the conversation it has generated. This was only one of many factors that I based my desire to transfer to Michigan. If anyone has any expierence going from U of M undergrad to U of M law is the process harder/easier/ or totally indifferent. Does U of M prefer to admit their own students or do they prefer to admit other students of different undergraduate backgrounds or are they indifferent.</p>

<p>Thanks for all of the discussion on this topic. I appreciate it and have looked in previous threads on this forum as well as other places on the internet.. It appears that many people hold different opinions on this issue.</p>

38

<p>Remember, part of what affects the ranking of unverisities by USNews is the quality of the student body--a very, very important part.</p>

<p>Its a chicken and egg situation where universities are "good" because they attract the best students and these students end up making the university look better because they go on to top grad programs. There are a lot of dynamic interaction from going to a good university that can improve your chances of getting into a good law school (Better peers means more knowledge about the admissions process to top schools, better professors mean better edges when applying to top schools compared to other candidates, better student body means lower grades will be given the benefit of the doubt compared to someone who went to community college), but these things are marginal at best. </p>

<p>I think a thorough study would show that the best schools send more people on to to the best grad programs merely because they are attracting the type of students who are destined to do well gpa and lsat wise; the main determinants of law school admission.</p>

<p>Like most things in life, it all falls upon the individual student doing well.</p>

39

<p>
[quote]
merely because they are attracting the type of students who are destined to do well gpa and lsat wise

[/quote]

So basically you're saying it's just as easy to be that one admitted student from John Doe State as it is to be that 240 admitted student from Harvard?</p>

<p>I would think that being among the 240 at Harvard is probably easier.</p>

40

<p>Aurelius, you are basically asking the same question that Alan Krueger (mind you not a discussant on CC but an economics professor at Princeton) showed empirically in 1998...that "higher earnings piled up by graduates of elite schools were attributable to elite individuals, not their college education". replace higher earnings with probability of getting into a good law school. i think the causality is structurally the same. </p>

<p>see, <a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Departments/elearning/?article=elitecollege%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Departments/elearning/?article=elitecollege&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>even among economists, this is a highly controversial issue...so until it is settled, there is only one answer: we don't know. :-)</p>