<p>Which school has better placement for law schools such as Stanford, Berkeley, or UCLA? Which school do law schools favor more?</p>
<p>Thanks in advance.</p>
<p>What an odd combination of choices. Why don't you go to school in California?</p>
<p>from UCLA LAW website</p>
<p>The top represented schools by number of students enrolled for fall 2005 are: UCLA, UC Berkeley, Stanford, Harvard University, UC San Diego, University of Southern California, Brigham Young University, UC Irvine, University of Pennsylvania, Arizona State University, Boston University, Northwestern University. </p>
<p>i guess for UCLA, i would say Northwestern</p>
<p>Your undergrad hardly matters for law, especially comparing Brown vs. Northwestern. go to the one you like better</p>
<p>Just a general overall ranking thing</p>
<p>According to the Wall Street Journal, Brown has better placement than Northwestern does(it actually mentions law under Brown's area). Keep in mind, these rankings are for graduate schools overall (not just law...business and medicine).</p>
<p>for that stat above, keep in mind that northwestern has 1,500 more undergrads than brown.</p>
<p>id say to just go to the school you like more, it wont make a difference</p>
<p>Yeah, and apparently those stats are based on students who actually decide to matriculate to a graduate school, so they don't count those who are accepted but choose not to go.</p>
<p>Brown is pretty much better for acceptance into any graduate school, although your GPA and LSAT matter much more than your school.</p>
<p>I don't see how Brown is "better"......</p>
<p>It's not. Of all types of graduate school, undergrad matters the absolute <em>least</em> for law. Yeah Harvard or MIT are going to have an edge over East Mississippi State, but really, law schools are pretty much pure numbers whores.</p>
<p>Better for getting in. A 3.8 172 from Brown will have a higher chance of getting into pretty much any law school than a 3.8 172 from Northwestern. That's because it's more selective and more prestigious. That certainly doesn't make Brown a better school.</p>
<p>" 3.8 172 from Brown will have a higher chance of getting into pretty much any law school than a 3.8 172 from Northwestern."</p>
<p>-Yeah, keep telling yourself that.</p>
<p>"That's because it's more selective and more prestigious"</p>
<p>-According to whom? YOU? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>-Yes, I realize the admissions rate at Brown is lower than Northwestern, but fewer people apply to Northwestern and it also admits twice as many people as Brown. This does not make it more selective, it just has a larger pool of people from which to select (Im sure some will say this is the very meaning of selectivity, but I do not agree). As for the prestige factor, thats a question of whom you ask.</p>
<p>Anybody who choses one over the other for undergrad to get into law school clearly does not have the appropriate reasoning or judgment skills required in the legal profession.</p>
<p>I'm not "choosing one over the other for undergrad to get into law school." I was just curious and it's called a question. Please get over yourself.</p>
<p>I did not say that you were. That would require a host of assumptions on my part which I did not make. I was very careful in saying anybody who would....That may or may not include you. But, the statement stands regardless of whether you fit into it even if you don't like it. </p>
<p>However, If you do happen to fall into that subset of anybody, I would certainly think twice about it if only for you own good. I speak from a position of knowledge on the subject which I am sure you do not about whether I am in fact over myself. I await your apology.</p>
<p>But thanks for the replies everyone...</p>
<p>Is Brown pretty good for getting into law school then? The WSJ rankings says that it's the sixth-ranked ivy for law (which is third to last)... but could that just be because less Brown students go to law school in general? Where can I find statistics on this?</p>
<p>You still owe me that apology, I'm serious.</p>
<p>In any event, I won't let your pettiness lead you to a misinformed decision</p>
<p>WSJ methodology is flawed because </p>
<ol>
<li><p>It only covers alums over the past year as opposed to a running average over the past 5,10 or 15. Year-to-year these admissions do vary considerably in tandem with the changes in the applicant pools. </p></li>
<li><p>It only counts top 5 biz, med and law schools [so dubbed at WSJ]. If I understand correctly, it does not cover Graduate Studies. Further, it ignores the percentages of people taking a nontop5 slot with money</p></li>
<li><p>It discounts students who eventually return to school a few years after graduation. </p></li>
<li><p>In Brown's case I'm not sure how S/NC is handled. </p></li>
<li><p>I can't say for sure, but I would imagine that at some schools like U.Chicago or Penn more pre-biz applicants would exist than at Brown which isn't factored into the numbers. </p></li>
<li><p>The incoming diversity of Reed and Swarthmore are probably far different numerically. This probably has something of an effect on input and output</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I don't know...it actually says that Brown is tilted towards law in the WSJ pdf file.</p>
<p>exigent, thanks for pointing that out. I definitely misread that.</p>
<p>another question:</p>
<p>If you major in econ at Brown and you want to go into law, is it harder when you're competing against IR majors, etc?</p>