<p>The point of the OP was to show which undergrad school you go to matters A LOT. The list doesn’t show just ranking but also the seemingly huge difference. You sorta contradicted yourself. You mentioned the proximity is a factor but earlier “guessed” the level of interest is not “all that different”. </p>
<p>I guess I just have a much higher standard for tigher analysis.</p>
<p>“I’d guess the level of interest in YLS is not all that different across peer schools.
So yes, “imprecise” is probably a more precise (and fair) characterization than “faulty and flawed”.”</p>
<p>I wouldn’t assume that at all. Especially comparing schools in the NE where students already live in the area and it involves minimal dislocation, to schools in the west.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tighter analysis would be great. Where is the data to support it? </p>
<p>You’re right, I (sorta) contradicted myself. No, I really don’t know if students at all peer colleges are equally interested in the same law schools; nor do I know how much geography might affect the level of interest. We’re missing comprehensive application numbers, which does makes it hard to interpret the significance of the matriculation numbers. Even if we had the application numbers, we still would not necessarily be comparing apples to apples.</p>
<p>Blue, </p>
<p>Harvard’s undergrad population is only 6,655, not 10k.
Stanford has 6,878.
Yale has 5,275.
And, Princeton has 5,113.</p>
<p>BTW, will someone post HLS’ data?</p>
<p>SMCguy:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think this is it at all.</p>
<p>It could be a seasonal thing. But another possibility is that YLS is putting students under the University of California, Berkeley umbrella rather than the rest of the UC’s, including UCLA. </p>
<p>A short notation of “University of California” without the location is always defaulted to Berkeley. </p>
<p>I’ve seen publications note the education of other non-UCB grads by saying … “[this person] graduated from the University of California [sic, per example] in 2000 and subsequently enrolled at University of Pennsylvania Law School graduating in 2003.”</p>
<p>I’ve seen this numerous times. Whether this is the answer is up for grabs, of course. Generally, though, especially for specific, prestigious L-schools, UCLA grads will match Cal’s for representation, with of course, some cases being better in rep and sometimes not as good, both schools producing a lot of attys … possibly UCLA a bit more.</p>
<p>RML:</p>
<p>I thought Harvard’s looked high, but the source was IPEDS:</p>
<p>[College</a> Navigator - Harvard University](<a href=“College Navigator - Harvard University”>College Navigator - Harvard University)</p>
<p>Perhaps IPEDS includes the HES program and everything else? But if so, it would still be correct such graduates of special programs could also apply to YLS.</p>
<p>^ with 29% part time students, the data is clearly showing HES as well as Harvard College.</p>
<p>correct, but those part-timers can apply to law school. For example, HES is very attractive to those seeking a post-bac to apply to med school, and even has a certificate program in that area.</p>
<p>And generally in comparing top privates … Harvard, Yale, etc against top publics … Cal, UCLA, Michigan, UVa, etc in top national L-schools’ undergrad representations:</p>
<p>1) Public u grads will most often choose L-schools that are of their geographic origin, ie, localized, over more prestigious national ones, and may less consider national L-schools in their app process. </p>
<p>2) Public u grads will often consider cost of L-school more than private u grads because, generally, the latter are of more wealthy origins.</p>
<p>2b) Public u grads will probably more often consider attending L-school while working concurrently. And we know that the more regionalized ones offer part-time extended programs.</p>
<p>And of course YLS and HLS are native to those who’ve done undergrad at H and Y, so naturally both will blow everyone else away. If one wants to best pad his/her probability in attending HLS and YLS, then, absolutely, attend H and Y for undergrad. But we know in a regionalized setting … say, CA, Boalt, UCLA, Hastings, UCSD, UCI, USC, Santa Clara, LMU, etc, are all good enough.</p>
<p>^^Conversely, those who do have the stats for YLS & HLS can receive lotsa merit money from those law schools a few notches down. Big money from CCN/MVP, or full ride at UCLA? Hmmmm</p>
<p>These #s are interesting, but given the relatively small sample size for schools below HY, are not terribly indicative. Using the % of attendees to total applicants, even for schools right below the top tier like Brown or Dartmouth, only the the top 2-3% of their law school applicant pool gains admission. It is safe to assume that all of these people have 3.9+ GPAs and 175+ LSATs. The admission decisions at that point are probably driven by applicant-specific intangibles more so than the undergrad school itself. That’s why some applicants from say Wisconsin are accepted while similar stat applicants from B/D are rejected. Obviously, B/D produce more of those applicants, hence the higher “placement” numbers.</p>
<p>I imagine that it is not any easier to get in from H or Y, except that those schools attract a much higher proportion of superstar applicants to begin with. Looking at the numbers, even when taking into account yield, one has to be in the top 20-25% of the applicant pool from H or Y to get accepted. The top 20-25% of those schools are the no-brainer applicants that are accepted into any undergrad with little doubt. They very rarely go to Brown/Dart/etc and hence H/Y get credit for “placement”. The “marginal” H or Y student is unlikely to materially benefit from any of this supposed halo effect. </p>
<p>It is also worth looking into the overall focus of the schools. Many of the best students at Stanford/Princeton/MIT etc. are focused toward science/engineering. That does not mean the schools somehow hurt their applicants chances vis-a-vis H/Y.</p>
<p>baywatch:</p>
<p>If a propective L-student applied to top tier as well as lower, then he/she obviously is willing to at least consider traveling a bit, and thus, my ‘and may less consider national L-schools in their app process’ statement for top-tier pub-u grads. </p>
<p>If one wants to work in CC, then absolutely, UCLA L-school is way more than good enough. In fact, the place crawls of both UCLA undergrad-educated and L-school-graduated alumni. This is the regional-quality-for-regionally-educated-alumni-is-good-enough statement.</p>
<p>If one wants to practice nationally location as of yet unbeknownst or maybe even aspires to the benches of federal courts, then absolutely go to HLS or YLS.</p>
<p>if anyone wants harvard law school’s data, buy a book called ‘higher education?,’ there is a cool chart in there</p>
<p>the data is similar to yale’s. ivy league/top LAC’s (amherst, williams, swarthmore)/top tier schools are the most represented</p>
<p>The sample size is far too small. Do it for Yale, Harvard, and Stanford law schools and you may be on to something (they are the undisputed top three, and while Yale prob has a slight edge over H and S, there are a not insignificant # of top students who either choose H or S over Y or don’t apply to Y (but do apply to one or both of H and S). I would wager that you’ll get similar results (the top ~3 unis followed by the top ~3 LACs), but you’ll know that with much more confidence. Ideal would be to do that over a three or five year period–when you’re talking about such small numbers (4 versus 7 for the LACs) the variation is more likely do to year-by-year blips than anything else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder which LAC has more representatives than either Berkeley or Michigan at HLS and YLS…</p>
<p>SMC,</p>
<p>UCLA’s applicant pool for law schools is more than double of USC’s, and if I remember correctly that UCLA’s medical school applicants outnumber USC more than 3:1. Just some facts (and old memories:).</p>
<p>here is the chart i was referring to, if anyone has the book ‘higher education,’ it is on page 69.</p>
<p>How Harvard Law School Rates the Colleges
Undergraduate colleges of 3,714 Accepted Applicants, 2002-2008. Index takes account of size of colleges’ graduating classes. Top College=1000.)</p>
<p>School Name (# of Accepted Applicants) Index Score</p>
<p>Harvard (499) 1000
Yale (259) 685
Princeton (144) 467
Stanford (166) 340
Amherst (38) 340
Columbia (118) 315
Cornell (117) 282
Duke (98) 277
Brown (114) 272
Dartmouth (74) 261
Williams (33) 228
Rice (46) 203
Swarthmore (19) 195
Pomona (18) 178
Georgetown (75) 162
U Penn (125) 160
Chicago (34) 104
Brandeis (23) 102
Barnard (16) 94
Wellesley (15) 94
Northwestern (47) 84
MIT (27) 84
Vanderbilt (29) 74
Bowdoin (9) 74
Emory (30) 69</p>
<p>there are about fifteen or so other schools that are lower on the list, but i don’t have time to type all of them, lol</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>HLS</p>
<p>Berkeley</p>
<p>2010 53 9 8 174 3.95
2009 53 8 6 173 3.95
2008 46 7 4 169 3.90</p>
<p>8+6+4 = 18</p>
<p>Michigan</p>
<p>2010 111 14 9 172 3.96
?
?</p>
<p>9+</p>
<p>Amherst</p>
<p>2010 58 14 11 171 3.72
2009 50 9 6 174 3.77
2008 44 10 9 172 3.80</p>
<p>11+6+9 = 26</p>
<p>kwu, Cal’s numbers are incomplete. Michigan enrolled 16 students into Harvard LS in 2009 and 8 in 2008. So the total for Michigan is 33. I am fairly certain Cal is at least as high if not higher. </p>
<p>Not that it matters, since comparing such figures from a LAC such as Amherst to those of a major public university such as Cal does not make sense. First of all, the ratio as Amherst or Williams students who apply to law school is significantly higher than Cal or Michigan (15% at the latter and 25% at the former). Secondly, being so much smaller and free of any obligation to their communities, Amherst and Williams tend to be more selective. Finally, Cal and Michigan have many very gifted and qualified undergrads who don’t apply to Harvard Law school, choosing instead to apply only to their own alma matter, both of which have top 10 Law schools. In the case of Michigan, undergrads at the University with 3.8+ GPAs are encouraged to apply to the Law school by not having to submit their LSAT. I knew a several prelaws at Michigan with ~4.0 GPAs who applied only to Michigan Law school, knowing that their chances of admission were very high.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Berkeley has ~25K undergraduates to Amherst’s ~1700.<br>
About 75% of Berkeley undergrads are in the College of Letters and Sciences (~19K students). Suppose only 15% of Berkeley students apply to law school v. 25% of Amherst students. Suppose we count only the Berkeley L&S students (even though many engineers, etc., must be applying to law school). Based on these assumptions, Berkeley must have roughly 700 law school applicants per year compared to about 100 at Amherst.</p>
<p>Even though the Berkeley law school applicant pool is apparently at least 7x larger than the Amherst law school applicant pool, its current 1L representation at YLS is only about 2x greater (if we accept the OP’s numbers). The 3 year gap may be much smaller (or even favor Amherst) if we accept kwu’s numbers or Alexandre’s.</p>
<p>We’re throwing around a lot of little numbers that may not completely reflect reality. However, it does appear to me that several selective LACs significantly out-perform Berkeley in per capita (if not absolute) YLS representation, for whatever reasons. Self-selection no doubt plays a big role, along with LSAT scores.</p>