<p>I am a highschool senior, and will be a college freshman next year. If I don't get into any of the "good colleges" I am applying to, I am probably going to end up going to the University of Arizona, and then go to law school after I graduate. My question is: Do I have any hope of getting into any of the top law schools (columbia law, harvard law, etc.) if I do really well in school, or are applicants from semi-decent state universities out of the question?</p>
<p>It’s perfectly fine. Just keep in mind that CLS and HLS are very selective schools, and what’ll hold you back–if anything–is either your grades or your LSAT, not really your school.</p>
<p>Isnt ASU the US’s #1 ranked party school?</p>
<p>Gsmax6,
I am currently a student at the U of A. The other day I was talking to my economics professor about law school. He told me that he had a number of students go to top law schools over the time he had been there (Stanford, Northwestern, UCLA, USC) as well as a number that stayed in Tucson for law school.</p>
<p>Arent there any outstanding Public Law schools?</p>
<p>I think private education is a tragedy. The state should run such schemes soley on merit.</p>
<p>Michigan, Virginia, and California all have excellent law schools. At least at California, the public law school is not very much cheaper than the private ones.</p>
<p>And that’s wrong.</p>
<p>Big state, equality-that’s my buzz word.</p>
<p>? I don’t understand what post #7 is saying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the truth is, state schools (at least in the US) aren’t exactly completely meritocratic either. It has become something of a national joke that many state schools are notably and infamously willing to modify admissions standards to build winning sports programs: of the AP top 25 ranked FBS college football teams in the country, only 4 (USC, TCU, Stanford, and BYU) are private, and similarly of the current AP top 25 Division 1 college basketball teams, only 4 are private (Duke, Villanova, Butler, and Portland). Oklahoma State - the currently #23 ranked football team in the nation - is the school of former NFL All-Pro Dexter Manley who admitted after his playing career that he didn’t even know how to read. That star athletes are subjected to lower admissions standards was parodied in the movie Forrest Gump where the eponymous character was amazed to find that, he could attend college - at the University of Alabama, a state school - despite his mental disability simply because he could run like the wind while carrying a football. </p>
<p>To be fair, star football or basketball skills is a type of merit in a sense. But it isn’t exactly the type of merit one would normally associate with academics. A similar analogy would be if Oxbridge were to admit David Beckham, Wayne Rooney, or John Terry just for their soccer skills. </p>
<p>Similarly, many state schools, including top ranked ones such as Michigan and Virginia, provide preference to legacy admissions. It is also of course a well-worn fact that practically any school - whether private or state - will admit you if your family donates sufficient funds and/or if you are sufficiently famous. Is it really a coincidence that so many of the Kennedy’s earned their law degrees at the University of Virginia Law School? {Especially in the case of Ted Kennedy, who had been expelled from Harvard for cheating on his exams.}</p>
<p>Sadly, reality means that things arent always 100% meritocratic, although obviously one wishes they were. </p>
<p>With respect to teams etc, correct me if I am wrong, but about 75% of US students attend state institutions, right? Ergo, they will have many many good athletes to pick from leading to good teams. The odd admission for sporting excellence is acceptable.</p>
<p>I find it sad that education has become a commodity, the preserve of the affluent. I know the top schools [HYP et al] are generous with assistance, but I think its morally wrong to have private universities meant to keep out those who cant pay.</p>
<p>I admire much, very much, about America. But the lack of a fatherly state is a sad feature of your great country.</p>
<p>Only about half of Americans attend college at all, and most of the premiere, big-sport athletes would not be among that half. (This may sound low, but unbelievably it is actually higher than most other developed nations.)</p>
<p>If you are a good test taker you have a chance. You are going to need close to a 4.0 and an LSAT close to a 170.</p>
<p>@ BDM,</p>
<p>College attendance rates here are about 40%, not sure how many of those graduate with Honours degrees. I’d assume about a fifth of those probably dont. [Our system is slightly different re: Honours etc].</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not how the ‘big money’ college sports such as football and men’s basketball works. Players are almost never ‘picked’ from the existing student body. Rather, star players are recruited from high school, often times quite heavily. It is actually an integral part of the job of a college coach to convince the best high school players across the country to choose his school (as opposed to, say, a rival school), and numerous media organizations will then rank the recruiting successes of each school. For example, the University of Texas currently holds the #1 position in terms of the quality of incoming high school football recruitment prospects who are expected to matriculate in next year’s class. {In fact, of the top 25 schools as ranked by 2010 football recruiting classes, only 3 - Stanford, Notre Dame, and USC - are private schools.)</p>
<p>[Rivals.com</a> Team Rankings](<a href=“http://rivals100.rivals.com/teamrank.asp]Rivals.com”>http://rivals100.rivals.com/teamrank.asp)</p>
<p>It is extraordinarily rare for an existing student at one of the top-ranked sports schools to join (i.e. “walk on”) the team and become a major contributor, much less a star. Almost every one of the top athletes had been recruited from high school. Tim Tebow, the star Heisman-Trophy winning quarterback at the University of Florida, was a high school legend, having won the Florida Player of the Year Award twice and was named among the top 33 high school football players in the entire history of Florida. Tebow was the subject of a major recruiting war between the University of Florida and their arch-rival University of Alabama. Hence, it is not as if Tim Tebow first decided to attend the University of Florida and then decided to join the football team. He had already been anointed as the team’s future star quarterback - and had a full-ride athletic scholarship waiting for him - before he had ever set foot in Gainesville. Almost the entire UFlorida starting team - as is true of nearly every other top-ranked team - were recruits from high school with almost none being walk-ons. </p>
<p>As far as how acceptable it is, well, I suppose it depends on whether it affects you or not. I suppose it would not be pleasant to be the applicant rejected from, say, Berkeley because Berkeley decided this was the year to launch a revamp of the basketball program by recruiting superstar high school players such as Jason Kidd who everybody knew was not really interested in academics - people used to say that he ‘majored in basketball’ - but was simply using Berkeley as a temporary waypoint to the NBA. Heck, Kidd didn’t even bother to graduate, preferring a pro paycheck. Neither do many other star athletes. {Neither Matt Stafford nor Blake Griffin - the most recent #1 draft picks of the NFL or NBA respectively - actually graduated from the University of Georgia or University of Oklahoma.}</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And are the US state schools that much better? Many of the top state schools, such as the University of Michigan, aren’t exactly cheap either, even for instate students, and certainly not for out-of-state students. The vast majority of Americans do not live in states with strong flagship state schools, and are hence forced to pay pricey OOS costs (or pay for a private). Furthermore some of the cheapest schools are actually the private schools, even putting financial aid aside. For example, Cooper Union, a private school, charges a tuition of precisely zero to everybody, rich or poor. BYU, a private school, is one of the cheapest schools in the country, cheaper than even instate tuition at the arch-rival University of Utah. </p>
<p>Personally, I think one of the great strengths of the US is that it has a vibrant private education sector that provides such a wide range of choice. Sure, many private schools are expensive, but hey, nobody is forcing you to go there. You can have a dirt-cheap and high quality private school education at BYU.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that serves to bolster my point. As BDM pointed out, about 50% of Americans attend college. If 75% of them attended a public school (as you asserted), that means that even if private schools never existed at all, 37.5% of Americans would still attend college. Of course, in reality, many of those “lost” private school students would not be lost at all, but would have simply shifted to public schools. {For example, surely all of the students at the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Duke, Chicago, etc. could have easily gone to a public school.} Hence, the ‘true’ US college attendance rate in a world without private schools would still probably be around 40%. </p>
<p>What the presence of the private schools then does is that they boost the overall college attendance rate higher than what it would be normally. Furthermore, private schools provide crucial competition to the public schools. Let’s be perfectly honest: a school like Berkeley would not be as strong as it is without the competition of the nearby Stanford juggernaut.</p>
<p>Quickly, a couple of ridiculous things I noticed in this thread:</p>
<p>gsmax: Yes, it’s possible. Law-school admissions is almost entirely based on GPA and LSAT score. If you get a 4.0 from Arizona and a 180 (doubt it), you can go anywhere (except maybe Yale. They tend to look at soft factors more…since they kind of HAVE to).</p>
<p>walteral: You named one top law school. Possibly two. Neither UCLA nor USC are in the top 14, which is really all that matters in this economy (with some allowance for regional practice…such as UT-Austin degrees working well in Texas). If you want a better California school, Boalt at Berkeley is much higher. Northwestern is #10, but if the OP is talking top 4-5 (YHSCN), NW isn’t in the same league.</p>
<p>UKdude: . . . . not sure where to begin, exactly. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that English is your second language. Unfortunately, that tends to make it difficult to understand a word of what you’re saying.
I was accepted into several good private UGs, as well as the highest honors program at my state school. Even with some minimal scholarships, my state school would’ve cost more than every single one of those private schools. All of them. You’re underestimating how good financial aid is at private schools.
Finally, refrain from using phrases like “Big state, equality” unless you know what you’re talking about. Inequality makes the world go 'round, so you better get used to it. Our government is inefficient, bloated, and overly bureaucratic as it is. Go ahead. Make it bigger. See what happens.</p>
<p>TominVT: he’ll need higher than a 170. To get into the top 4-5, you need a 172 or better just to make you competitive.</p>
<p>/rant</p>
<p>Another thing, son’s profile says Duke 13-so this cat is an undergrad? LOL.</p>
<p>Too funny.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Much of what you say above is inaccurate or just flat out wrong. I recommend doing a bit more research (and possibly having some experience) in the admissions process before handing out advice authoritatively.</p>