Undergraduate schools-Which are most commonly found at top Law Schools?

College Search & Selection
21

<p>***Clarification on these numbers. I want to withdraw any suggestion that I might have previously made that these numbers are absolute rankings. I am listing the numbers for the USNWR Top 35 or so National Universities (plus a few select others like BYU, U Texas, U Washington which have pretty high placement numbers) and the Top 10 or so of the LACs. This "ranking" is only for schools in that universe and thus is NOT intended as an absolute ranking of law school placement. Other schools from outside of that universe may have higher placements and higher % of their undergrad enrollment than several of the listed colleges and if someone else wants to do the work on those other schools, then be my guest. </p>

<p>Here is an updated list including the numbers for Vanderbilt Law (for one year only) and for Yale, Harvard, and Virginia Law (for all three years of students). Not much change from the prior list. </p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard (342 graduates, enrollment of 6649, 5.14% of its enrollment)</li>
<li>Yale (215, 5409, 3.97%)</li>
<li>Princeton (102, 4906, 2.08%)</li>
<li>Amherst (33, 1623, 2.03%)</li>
<li>Stanford (126, 6576, 1.92%)</li>
<li>Williams (33, 2017, 1.64%)</li>
<li>Dartmouth (61, 4110, 1.51%)</li>
<li>Swarthmore (19, 1479, 1.28%)</li>
<li>Brown (67, 6176, 1.08%)</li>
<li>Duke (65, 6534, 0.99%)</li>
<li>Columbia (70, 7319, 0.96%)</li>
<li>U Penn (72, 9841, 0.73%)</li>
<li>Pomona (11, 1533, 0.72%)</li>
<li>Georgetown (47, 6719, 0.71%)</li>
<li>Rice (22, 3185, 0.69%)</li>
<li>U Virginia (75, 14213, 0.53%)</li>
<li>Wesleyan (14, 2764, 0.51%) </li>
<li>Vanderbilt (31, 6400, 0.48%)</li>
<li>Brandeis (15, 3267, 0.46%)</li>
<li>Middlebury (11, 2455, 0.45%)</li>
<li>U Chicago (21, 4671, 0.45%) </li>
<li>Notre Dame (37, 8275, 0.45%)</li>
<li>Cornell (59, 13,515, 0.44%)</li>
<li>MIT (17, 4066, 0.42%) </li>
<li>Bowdoin (7, 1666, 0.42%)</li>
<li>W&M (23, 5594, 0.41%)</li>
<li>Wellesley (9, 2331, 0.39%)</li>
<li>Northwestern (31, 8023, 0.39%) </li>
<li>Emory (24, 6510, 0.37%)</li>
<li>Carleton (7, 1959, 0.36%)</li>
<li>UC Berkeley (70, 23482, 0.30%)</li>
<li>Haverford (3, 1168, 0.26%)</li>
<li>Tufts (12, 5078, 0.24%)</li>
<li>Davidson (4, 1683, 0.24%)</li>
<li>Caltech (2, 913, 0.22%)</li>
<li>UCLA (52, 24811, 0.21%)</li>
<li>Wash U (14, 7466, 0.19%)</li>
<li>Wake Forest (8, 4263, 0.19%)</li>
<li>U North Carolina (29, 16764, 0.17%)</li>
<li>Boston College (14, 9019, 0.16%)</li>
<li>Brigham Young (44, 30,798, 0.14%)</li>
<li>NYU (26, 20,566, 0.13%)</li>
<li>Vassar (3, 2378, 0.13%)</li>
<li>USC (22, 16897, 0.13%)</li>
<li>U Michigan (31, 25467, 0.12%)</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon (7, 5623, 0.12%)</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins (6, 5678, 0.11%)</li>
<li>U Texas (38, 36878, 0.10%)</li>
<li>Lehigh (3, 4679, 0.06%)</li>
<li>U Washington (15, 27488, 0.05%)</li>
<li>U Rochester (2, 4696, 0.04%)</li>
<li>U Wisconsin (9, 30106, 0.03%)</li>
</ol>

22

<p>
[quote]
I don't think the relative prestige and selectivity of the top LACs has changed since the 1960s. The acceptance rates today are pretty similar to where they were during the last demographic bulge in the late 60s. In terms of prestige, those schools have always been viewed as roughly similar to schools like Dartmouth, Penn, Brown, etc.

[/quote]
I didn't necessarily mean the very top LACs, but LACs as a class. I would suggest (admittedly based on anecdotal evidence) that in recent years, "feeder school" rankings (such as those in this thread) have significantly raised awareness of LACs outside of their traditional strongholds in the northeastern US.</p>

<p>For example, I can remember when the Wall Street Journal's "feeder</a> school" rankings were published in 2003. I had well-educated colleagues in California who were bewildered that Berkeley was ranked behind schools that they had literally never heard of, like "Macalester" or "Bates." I've met Asians who had never, ever heard of "Williams" until they saw it (to their great surprise) grouped with Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford at the top of the same rankings.</p>

23

<p>Surprisingly high on the list: Georgetown, Brandeis, MIT (didn't think they'd have much representation)</p>

<p>Surprisingly low: Carleton, WashU (both more hard science & med school focused?)</p>

<p>Numbers for Vandy & UVa (and H, Y) are of course somewhat inflated due to their law schools being among the 4 sampled. I'm actually not too surprised by BYU, as I sometimes wondered whether I was in Utah during law school with the numerous Mormons ;-)</p>

24

<p>Corbett:</p>

<p>I think that is reflective of the increased brand-name awareness in higher education. Before WW II, almost all of the "prestige" schools were the sole province of a small slice of America, concentrated in the wealthy neighborhoods of the northeast corridor. Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore were well known to that customer base, because their kids went there from Exeter, Andover, and Germantown Friends. </p>

<p>Think about it. The only schools to have a national reputation at the end of WWII were Northeast schools. Eventually, you saw regional powerhouses like Chicago, Stanford, Duke, Emory, Vanderbilt, UWash gain national recognition on the backs of post-war growth outside the northeast corridor. However, these were well known in their regions before that. For example, growning up in the South, I knew Davidson and Duke and Vanderbilt and Emory. I think it is hard to over-state the northeast bias in "prestige", a bias that is now institutionalized in the form of endowment size.</p>

<p>As for the LACs, it's also important to note that the northeast is the only place where signficant percentages of students attend these schools. Any three of them represent a drop in the bucket -- Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams among them have fewer undergrads than one smallish private university. However, the northeast LACs in total represent a pretty significant chunk of the aristocrat-class students in the northeast. So, they've always been a visible part of the scene here. That issue is related to the emphasis on private schools in the northeast versus the emphasis on public universities in the rest of the country. There is no up and coming competition for UMich, UC-Berkeley, or UNC-Chapel Hill in New England.</p>

25

<p>big universities have huge departments of 'useless' degrees....most popular majors are typically psychology, english, history...
Just because you go to a big uni doesnt mean you will be any more marketable than someone at a tiny LAC in the middle of nowhere</p>

26

<p>"I don't think the relative prestige and selectivity of the top LACs has changed since the 1960s. The acceptance rates today are pretty similar to where they were during the last demographic bulge in the late 60s."</p>

<p>Here's a home-cooked "Laissez-Faire" type ranking, Using SATs, admissions % & yield at the time, of the class of 1969 or 1970:</p>

<p>1 Yale
2 Harvard
3 Cal Tech
4 Swarthmore
5 Amherst
6 Stanford
6 Brandeis
8 MIT
9 Haverford
10 Dartmouth
11 Princeton
12 Columbia
13 Rice
14 Cooper Union
15 Wesleyan
16 Brown
17 Harvey Mudd
18 Williams
19 Middlebury
20 Cornell
21 Bryn Mawr
22 Oberlin
23 Bowdoin
24 Pomona
25 Hamilton
26 Tufts
27 Wellesley
28 Sarah Lawrence
29 University of Chicago
30 William and Mary
31 Vassar
32 University of Pennsylvania</p>

<p>I, for one, DO see some changes, both absolutely and relatively. For one example, to say there's no movement in the relative selectivity of the top LACs is to say that Pomona is not a top LAC.</p>

<p>Here are some of the admit %s back then:</p>

<p>Yale 17%
Brandeis 20%
Haverford 24%
Dartmouth 29%
Columbia 34%
Brown 24%
Williams 26%
Cornell 36%
Pomona 35%
Sarah Lawrence 21%
U Pennsylvania 41%
Bard 69%
Notre Dame 68%
NYU 72%
Washington U 81%</p>

27

<p>Very interesting data. Thanks.</p>

<p>Do you have anything like this regarding Top MBA?</p>

28

<p>No I don't.</p>

29

<p>"big universities have huge departments of 'useless' degrees....most popular majors are typically psychology, english, history...
Just because you go to a big uni doesnt mean you will be any more marketable than someone at a tiny LAC in the middle of nowhere"</p>

<p>No, but I would put the placement success rates and income for the engineering, business, education, nursing and similar schools up against any midwest LAC. Especially a small one in the middle of nowhere--such as Grinnell where students complain loudly about their terrible job placement. The folks with what you call the useless majors are the ones often going to grad school right away--or joining the Peace Corps, Teach for America etc.</p>

<p>My point is that a good number of big school grads don't Have to go to grad school or law school etc to have a good career. The average Wisconsin business or engineering major is starting around $50K and up. Nurses can get $60,000 and teachers around $40,000 for just 9 months. That's a good start.</p>

30

<p>
[quote]
Here are some of the admit %s back then:
...
Washington U 81%

[/quote]
</p>

<p>oh boy.... WashU should get a gold medal</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
Do you have anything like this regarding Top MBA?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Undergraduate representation at Wharton MBA. This is data from 3-4 years ago.</p>

<h1>1 University of Pennsylvania 50</h1>

<h1>2 Harvard University 35</h1>

<h1>3 Princeton University 30</h1>

<h1>4 Stanford University 25</h1>

<h1>4 Cornell University 25</h1>

<h1>6 Duke University 20</h1>

<h1>7 Columbia University 15</h1>

<h1>7 Dartmouth College 15</h1>

<h1>7 University of California-Berkeley 15</h1>

<h1>7 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 15</h1>

<h1>7 University of Virginia 15</h1>

<h1>7 Yale University 15</h1>

<h1>13 Brown University 10</h1>

<h1>13 Georgetown University 10</h1>

<h1>13 Massachusetts Institute of Technology 10</h1>

<h1>13 University of California-Los Angeles 10</h1>

<h1>13 University of Chicago 10</h1>

<h1>18 New York University 5</h1>

<h1>18 Northwestern University 5</h1>

<h1>18 Pennsylvania State University 5</h1>

<p>Source: Old post by Alexandre: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=2487%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=2487&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

32

<p>Thanks. I guess these are the data WSJ used to rank feeder schools in 2003.</p>

<p>In that list, UChicago is ranked #14 overall, for top 5 MBA, med, and law schools. But here shows that, UChicago is ranked ~#20 in top law, ~#13 in top MBA. And people all said that, due to UChicago's grade deflation, premed, prelaw and top grad school placement is affected badly. But I don't see that from the data, people......</p>

33

<p>I don't know much about U. Chicago, but keep in mind that these numbers don't mean that much in the end because there are so many variables involved. You can get a list of percentages but none of these lists will tell you how "hard" or "easy" it is to place into top programs.</p>

34

<p>I agree with you. These numbers can't tell too much but can be used as a reference at some extent.</p>

35

<p>monydad:</p>

<p>Swarthmore's acceptance rate was 23% for the fall of 1970.</p>

<p>But, that's 23% with no electronic common app and with virtually nobody applying to more than four or six schools. A lot of the decrease we've seen in acceptance rates is just fluff, the result of much less self-selection in the applicant pool.</p>

<p>One reasons that "people" think all these colleges are so much harder to get into now is that half the acceptance slots are going to students who were essentially barred before the 1960s -- black students, Latino students, Asian American students. And, in many cases, women students. So, yeah, it's tougher on the students who populated these schools in the 1960s (white males).</p>

36

<p>you talkin' to me...</p>

<p>I didn't say anything about it one way or another, I just gave people some facts. Each person can decide the truth as they see it, once facts are also introduced.</p>

<p>BTW, Columbia's admit rate this year is under 9%.</p>

<p>The only thing I commented on previously was the proposition that top LAC rankings and relative positions had not changed. Whereas it looked to me like Pomona and Williams have made considerable strides, and Haverford has taken a pretty good hit. Among other changes.</p>

37

<p>Any theories on why Brandeis has seemingly taken a dive in the rankings over the ensuing 35 years or so? Did Jewish exclusion at the top schools still exist in 1970, or was it more a case of most Jewish parents expecting their sons/daughters to apply to Brandeis back then? [I realize that Brandeis is not all Jewish, of course, but these would seem to be the most likely explanations]</p>

38

<p>aurellus,
Two points on your post above about Wharton and undergraduate placement there. </p>

<p>First, matriculation to graduate business schools normally takes place 3-7 years after graduation from college. Three factors drive admissions decisions of graduate business schools. The importance and quality of one's work experience is the most important factor. The GMAT would be next and plays a large role in graduate business school admission. The undergraduate GPA would be the third important factor. The undergraduate school itself would fall somewhere below that. I would argue strongly that the undergraduate institution itself carries little weight in the admissions process for graduate business school. </p>

<p>Second, the numbers for Wharton that you show are for absolute placement numbers and overstate the prowess of some larger schools while missing the placement ability of smaller schools like LACs. UC Berkeley with 23,482 undergraduates (and nearly 5000 graduates annually) and U Michigan with25,467 undergraduates (and nearly 6000 graduates annually) might place # 7 in your numbers, but this number is equal to schools with far smaller enrollments of students and graduates-Dartmouth (4110 students), Columbia (7319), even U Virginia (14,213). I suggest that in future analyses, you include this ratio as part of your evaluation of a school's placement record.</p>

39

<p>LoL! When did I "evaluate" anything? I posted raw data posted by someone else without making any statement about which school is "superior" and you are already defensive.</p>

40

<p>Naw, just a suggestion for the future. Certainly no harm done by your helpful post which was not an evaluation, but a re-posting. Sorry if my comments came out as defensive. Am just trying to put things in proper context.</p>