@HappyAlumnus:
I agree that this is the case, but I’m not sure why you think it supports your point. If schools were to focus near exclusively on GPA/LSAT, you would expect to see a disproportionate amount of students from the better schools. This is because the very same students who were excellent test takers and got into the top undergrads remain excellent test takers when the time comes for the LSAT. Now, if you could show me students who did poorly in GPA/LSAT (relative to the school) but still got in, and the only differing factor was the undergrad institution, I would seriously consider your theory.
Personal experience simply doesn’t count for anything. We’re talking about groups in the tens of thousands per year. Knowing a few, even a dozen, is not enough to provide a viable sample.
I don’t make any claims about how law schools used to conduct admissions 20(?) years ago, or whenever you went to school. I only make claims about how they do so now. It may well be the case that law schools used to care about undergrad name. I see no basis for thinking they still do so.
Regarding the thread you linked, if you can provide the data that shows HLS gives a boost for harvard undergrad, I would be very interested. The only evidence in that thread is some poster claiming to have seen such data.
@Spayurpets:
One post at a time please. It’s quite hard to reply otherwise.
There are two reasons. The first I explained in my response to HappyAlumnus above. The second is that Yale actually may care about things like undergrad name. Yale is small enough and selective enough that, among the pool of students with top numbers, it can afford to discriminate on other factors. You must remember, however, that Yale is in the unique position of choosing from the [very top](Recently Updated J.D. Profiles | Law School Numbers).
The only other school I know of that has a third factor is Northwestern, which selects for work experience. However, I am curious if that selectivity will survive the shrinking applicant pool. This year’s data should help figuring that out.
The data set is the best we have, and generally large enough to provide a good sample. You do not need to have every applicant’s data to produce viable results. That is the foundation of statistical analysis. I’m also not sure on what basis you claim the data is “cherry-picked.” There is a good range of students in every category
Ironically, the ad hominem fallacy is tested on the LSAT.
You don’t see the bands? Do you see that diagonal yellow group separating the green and red groups? There are outliers, of course, and it gets fuzzy around the edges, but it looks clear to me. If you can’t see it I’m not really sure how to go further.
As to the former, I don’t know. It may simply be a cluster (e.g., when they applied, whether they sought merit aid). As to the latter, yield protection (for which schools are ranked) springs to mind as the most likely explanation.
You’re absolutely right that these kind of surveys are dependent on people reporting. That’s generally true of all social science though, so I’m not sure why we’d be extra worried here. As for significance, you can run the numbers [url=http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm]yourself[/url], but the size we have looks pretty good to me.
I think the generally accepted figure is 95% (excluding URM). A scattergram can tell us an awful lot. For example, since its plotted against GPA and LSAT, we can see what’s happening with outliers. If undergrad name was so important, you’d expect to see green blips hanging out with the red blips. You do see that, but only for URMs, which I readily agree is an exception to the GPA/LSAT metric.
The data is the only objective criteria we have on which to base a decision. I am unpersuaded by the promises of random internet people that, trust them, they know how it really works even if they can’t show anything to support it.
Also, for all the many posts you made I didn’t see one that actually addressed any of my points. I’ll go ahead and repeat them in case you missed them:
- If law schools really did care about amazing softs, you would expect them to offer scholarships to attract those students. Instead, scholarship money goes directly to the students with the best numbers.
- Law schools are well aware that consumers are totally rankings-driven. Rankings depend primarily on GPA/LSAT (and more recently, employment stats). Why would schools trade for things that consumers don't care about in exchange for something they do?
- Competition for students with top scores is fierce. Schools can't afford to care about anything besides the numbers because good numbers are so scarce.
- Do you have anything substantive supporting your claims that law schools care about things other than GPA/LSAT? So far you've been trying to say that I am wrong and therefore you are right. That does not follow, however, as we could simply both be wrong.
- How is it "nonsense" to say that BigLaw hires differentially from different schools, particularly the T14? Do you have any hiring statistics showing otherwise? I should note that you did sort of address this point by calling me names, but since I assume most people here are no longer in grade school, I was hoping you could address this with something substantive.