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

<p>Really, why this so impt. (esp. since it wasn't your post)? </p>

<p>But if you really must know - I quoted sakky just to show that the data we have available is pretty limited.</p>

<p>HBS is just one of the 15 schools WSJ used.</p>

<p>k&S, WSJ did do a ratio calculation. That's why Berkeley was ranked #31 while Williams was ranked #5 in that list. But still, the data are very limited, too.</p>

<p>"And I am sure it did exist even before you applied MBA, Gellino" I'm not sure what makes you so sure of that, biztogo. Unlike the Ivy League or other sports conferences, it doesn't really even exist now, except for websites like this. I had many friends who were only willing to consider Harvard or Stanford and none of them referred to this name or the concept. </p>

<p>From what I can tell, it seems as if it's an offshoot of the law school T14, since the order of the top 14 law schools in the couple of rankings for them hasn't changed in about 15 years. For MBAs, someone cleverly made it half the number, but there are many more followed rankings where what is in the top 7 has changed considerably over the same time period.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Really, why this so impt. (esp. since it wasn't your post)?</p>

<p>But if you really must know - I quoted sakky just to show that the data we have available is pretty limited.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It wasn't important until you started denying that there was any linkage. I merely pointed out the fact that you quoted Sakky's post (which was data from an HBS database) and then you immediately write this whiny post right underneath Sakky's quote about how the WSJ feeder data is limited. </p>

<p>Anyone with half a brain cell would deduce that you are trying to link those two things. I merely pointed out that Sakky's post / data had nothing to do with the WSJ data. Period.</p>

<p>All you had to do was say, "oh i see". But no, you had to try and play it off like there was absolutely no linkage there... which obviously begs the question, "why the heck would you put it in quotes right above your post".</p>

<p>remember here was your initial response:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I know - I wasn't referring to sakky's post, but just stating things in general.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>if you weren't REFERRING TO IT (which is totally FALSE since you directly quote Sakky) what is that quote doing above your comments then?</p>

<p>CB: So we know that the Deans of the M7 business schools meet regularly. Will you have bragging rights at the next meeting?</p>

<p>DS: Well, we do talk about the rankings. I talked to Deepak Jain (Dean of the Kellogg School of Management). He and I are good friends. We have taken the view that having the two best business schools here in Chicago should be the headline. I will tell you though, without breaking any confidences, that I got the impression from my first M7 meeting back in 2001 that the group felt that I had the toughest job among the group. It does feel great to have Chicago GSB this position. I definitely won't brag about it, but it does give me a chance to express how I feel about the school. </p>

<p>Link: </p>

<p><a href="http://media.www.chibus.com/media/storage/paper408/news/2006/10/26/GsbLife/On.Being.Number.One.In.The.Businessweek-2407371.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://media.www.chibus.com/media/storage/paper408/news/2006/10/26/GsbLife/On.Being.Number.One.In.The.Businessweek-2407371.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So, m7 meeting started 2001 or earlier.</p>

<p>biztogo,</p>

<p>interesting article, i particularly liked this exchange:</p>

<p>
[quote]
CB: Everyone in this room right now agrees that the GSB is the best business school in the world. When do you think most of the world will agree with us?</p>

<p>DS: Probably never. Harvard and Stanford have such a huge brand name capital advantage over us. Our objective is to focus on a smaller set of people; people in the know, people who influence careers; people that will create opportunities for you. If you go back in time people put Chicago, Harvard, and Stanford at top 3. And lot of people just focused on Harvard and Chicago.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ummm, what happened to Wharton? What a total pompous @sshole.</p>

<p>
[quote]
It wasn't important until you started denying that there was any linkage. I merely pointed out the fact that you quoted Sakky's post (which was data from an HBS database) and then you immediately write this whiny post right underneath Sakky's quote about how the WSJ feeder data is limited. </p>

<p>Anyone with half a brain cell would deduce that you are trying to link those two things. I merely pointed out that Sakky's post / data had nothing to do with the WSJ data. Period.</p>

<p>All you had to do was say, "oh i see". But no, you had to try and play it off like there was absolutely no linkage there... which obviously begs the question, "why the heck would you put it in quotes right above your post".</p>

<p>remember here was your initial response:</p>

<p>Quote:
I know - I wasn't referring to sakky's post, but just stating things in general. </p>

<p>if you weren't REFERRING TO IT (which is totally FALSE since you directly quote Sakky) what is that quote doing above your comments then?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>sigh!!!!</p>

<p>prestige - I wasn't responding to sakky's post specifically, I merely just used it as an EXAMPLE of how limited these data sets are - hence, my post which consisted solely of general commentary and which didn't refer to anything specifically about what sakky had posted.</p>

<p>I could have just as easily quoted someone who had posted the WSJ feeder data or any other such available data.</p>

<p>capiche? Or is this too difficult for you to understand? </p>

<p>Talk about "whiny"!!! Not to mention making a big brou haha over basically nothing.</p>

<p>i capiche ... i've made my point and you've made yours... let's move on shall we?</p>

<p>I have updated the data for one year of students for USC and Georgetown (although Georgetown’s data is a few years old). Overall, there is data on the following schools included in the numbers below:
Yale Law-3 years
Harvard Law-3 years
U Virginia Law-3 years<br>
Vanderbilt Law-1 year
USC Law-1 year
Georgetown Law-1 year (from Class of 2007)</p>

<p>As a result of this sample, one would expect Yale, Harvard and U Virginia to be somewhat stronger than what you would find in a full sample of fifteen schools or more. This is true also with the other data-providing schools although only year of data is included for them so the “home school undergrad” effect is less. </p>

<p>If anyone has additional info on top law schools, please post it and I will continue updating these “rankings” of top feeder schools to top law schools. </p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard (360 graduates, enrollment of 6649, 5.41% of its enrollment)</li>
<li>Yale (243, 5409, 4.49%)</li>
<li>Amherst (38, 1623, 2.34%)</li>
<li>Swarthmore (38, 1479, 2.34%)</li>
<li>Princeton (1114, 4906, 2.32%)</li>
<li>Stanford (140, 6576, 2.13%)</li>
<li>Williams (35, 2017, 1.74%)</li>
<li>Dartmouth (68, 4110, 1.65%)</li>
<li>Georgetown (90, 6719, 1.34%)</li>
<li>Brown (81, 6176, 1.31%)</li>
<li>Duke (79, 6534, 1.21%)</li>
<li>Columbia (80, 7319, 1.09%)</li>
<li>U Penn (89, 9841, 0.90%)</li>
<li>Rice (25, 3185, 0.78%)</li>
<li>Pomona (11, 1533, 0.72%)</li>
<li>Middlebury (16, 2455, 0.65%)</li>
<li>Wesleyan (17, 2764, 0.62%) </li>
<li>Bowdoin (10, 1666, 0.60%)</li>
<li>U Virginia (82, 14213, 0.58%)</li>
<li>Cornell (77, 13,515, 0.57%)</li>
<li>Wellesley (13, 2331, 0.56%)</li>
<li>Northwestern (45, 8023, 0.56%)</li>
<li>Notre Dame (43, 8275, 0.52%)</li>
<li>Vanderbilt (33, 6400, 0.52%)</li>
<li>W&M (29, 5594, 0.52%)</li>
<li>U Chicago (24, 4671, 0.51%)</li>
<li>Brandeis (16, 3267, 0.49%)</li>
<li>Emory (32, 6510, 0.49%)</li>
<li>Davidson (8, 1683, 0.48%)</li>
<li>MIT (18, 4066, 0.44%) </li>
<li>UC Berkeley (104, 23482, 0.44%)</li>
<li>Haverford (5, 1168, 0.43%)</li>
<li>Carleton (8, 1959, 0.41%)</li>
<li>UCLA (102, 24811, 0.41%)</li>
<li>Tufts (18, 5078, 0.35%)</li>
<li>Caltech (3, 913, 0.33%)</li>
<li>USC (46, 16897, 0.27%)</li>
<li>Wake Forest (11, 4263, 0.26%)</li>
<li>Wash U (18, 7466, 0.24%)</li>
<li>U North Carolina (33, 16764, 0.20%)</li>
<li>NYU (41, 20,566, 0.20%)</li>
<li>Boston College (20, 9019, 0.18%)</li>
<li>U Michigan (46, 25467, 0.18%)</li>
<li>Vassar (4, 2378, 0.17%)</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon (9, 5623, 0.16%)</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins (9, 5678, 0.16%)</li>
<li>Brigham Young (44, 30,798, 0.14%)</li>
<li>U Texas (51, 36878, 0.14%)</li>
<li>U Washington (18, 27488, 0.07%)</li>
<li>Lehigh (3, 4679, 0.06%)</li>
<li>U Rochester (2, 4696, 0.04%)</li>
<li>U Wisconsin (13, 30106, 0.04%)</li>
</ol>

<p>^^^ this is great information... just a suggestion, but it might be helpful to split the list up into two lists:</p>

<ul>
<li>National unis</li>
<li>LACs</li>
</ul>

<p>
[quote]
The problem w/ the feeder data (that is available) is that they are often for a limited no. of school (doesn't take into account any geographic considerations) or for only 1-2 years (too small of a sample size since can fluctuate greatly from year to year) or don't take into account the size of the undergrad pop. of the feeder school (say Berkeley v. Williams).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sure, but you do some of these mental corrections yourself. </p>

<p>For example, if you want to compensate for geography, you can note that far far more Harvard College grads get MBA's from HBS than do grads from BC (259), BU (201), or Northeastern (121)... in fact by more than an order of magnitude. All of these schools are local schools. Similarly, almost twice as many Stanford grads (1167) get MBA's from HBS than do Berkeley grads (535), despite Berkeley having more than triple the undergrads. To be far, it should also be noted that there is far more Berkeley representation than from any other UC (the closest being UCLA with only 198, despite Berkeley having fewer undergrads than UCLA). </p>

<p>The point is that you can do mental adjustments to compensate for various factors. But large differences cannot be easily explained away.</p>

<p>hawkette,
May be you can redo your % ranking based on Arts & Science enrollment rather than the entire UG student body. That would be a fairer comparison.</p>

<p>The importance of going to a "top" law school depends on the kind of law that you want to practice. One place that you will seldom find a "top" law school grad is in a courtroom.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Coz Sakky's data are worse than WSJ's data, I guess </p>

<hr>

<p>HBS is just one of the 15 schools WSJ used.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know that my data is any better or worse, just different. WSJ looks at more schools. Mine looks at longer periods of time.</p>

<p>sakky or anyone,
Do you know the specific schools used by the WSJ in its analysis? As I recall, there were only 5 schools from each of Law, Medicine and Grad Business.</p>

<p>from WSJ report:</p>

<p>
[quote]
We focused on 15 elite schools, five each from medicine, law and business, to serve as our benchmark for profiling where the students came from. Opinions vary, of course, but our list reflects a consensus of grad-school deans we interviewed, top recruiters and published grad-school rankings (including the Journal's own MBA rankings). So for medicine, our schools were Columbia; Harvard; Johns Hopkins; the University of California, San Francisco; and Yale, while our MBA programs were Chicago; Dartmouth's Tuck School; Harvard; MIT's Sloan School; and Penn's Wharton School. In law, we looked at Chicago; Columbia; Harvard; Michigan; and Yale.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The omission of Stanford from the law school list (long a consensus number three after Y & H) is a glaring error. Michigan (though a fine school) does not belong. As for the rightful contenders for the last two spots, opinions vary as among Columbia, Chicago, NYU. But any two of those three would be defensible.</p>

<p>~~~~~~~~~~
[quote]
**Permanent Residence:
20% Northeast: NJ, NY, PA
15% Far West: CA, HI, NV
12% Great Lakes: IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI
10% Midsouth: DC, DE, KY, MD, NC, TN, VA, WV
11% New England: CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT
7% Southeast: AL, FL, GA. MS, SC, PR
7% South Central: AR, LA, OK, TX
4% Mountain West: AZ, CO, ID, NM, UT, WY
3% Mountain West: IA, KS, MO, NE
3% Northwest: AK, ID, OR, WA</p>

<p>8% Foreign Citizens
Countries Represented: Argentina, Barbados, Belarus, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Colombia, Egypt, Ghana, India, Israel, Jamaica, Mexico, Moldova, Nigeria, Senegal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Korea, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom

[/quote]
**</p>

<p>WesDad, I agree that those 15 schools aren't "perfect".</p>

<p>But given what data they COULD get, its just about the best grad school "feeder" ranking out there. In an imperfect world, its better than nothing.</p>