<p>I agree with your point that there are other factors to consider that may be more important. Hwoever, one would have to do a lot of extrapolation to get that from your first post.</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>***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>I know that I may be stating the obvious, however I see the following 2 major flaws in the data presented (excuse me if I am having a spaz moment)</p>
<ol>
<li><p>In any given year it is safe to say that ~75% of the # of enrolled undergrad population is not applying to law school. So to say that 360 harvard graduates out of their 6649 enrolled students is essentially meaningless (or maybe its just me and I don't see the point in all of these numbers).</p></li>
<li><p>I agree with Greybeard and think that you have to look at the enrolled numbers in context to the number of students that are applying to law school in any given year as a) not entire senior class is applying to law school and b)not all graduating plan on attending law school right after graduation.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>this data still doesn't provide insight into the following scenario.</p>
<p>"I am a bright student accepted into Rutgers and Princeton that wants to attend a top law school after u-grad. What is the better choice?"</p>
<p>I think these numbers just show that , on average, smarter people go to one school or another (ex Princeton students >> Rutgers students means that more people from Princeton get into top schools). </p>
<p>However, I would think the person would actually be better off at Rutgers:
-Higher GPA
-Less fear of a challenging major (which law schools like)</p>
<p>The only caveat could be that since Princeton is a higher-ranked school, the student would get a more rigorous education , hypothetically leading to a higher LSAT. </p>
<p>However, I think that last point is bull. At Princeton, said student probably would be scared to death to try a Math major (for example). But at Rutgers, it could be reasonable. And, by doing the harder major, they both improve their LSAT prep AND impress ad-comms.</p>
<p>Keep in mind the law school rankings are highly numbers-based (GPA/LSAT). Therefore schools have little incentive to "normalize" (ex say a 3.9 at Rutgers=3.7 at Princeton) as they want to keep their average numbers, and thus their ranking, high. Thus its in your best interests to go to a school where you are confident you can get a 3.9. And I don't think anyone can really say that about Princeton etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
** Therefore schools have little incentive to "normalize"
[/quote]
**
Really.....ever hear of LSAC or LSDAS? Choose your undergrad by whether it awards A+.....get the bump.
<a href="http://www.lsac.org/LSAC.asp?url=/lsac/faqs-and-support-lsdas.asp#9%5B/url%5D">http://www.lsac.org/LSAC.asp?url=/lsac/faqs-and-support-lsdas.asp#9</a></p>
<p>Multiply those numbers by four and you'll have the odds about right. Remember, each year only 1/4 of the enrollment graduates.</p>
<p>To give you some idea, about 5% of my Harvard College class (1999) went to Harvard Law within 5 years. Throw in Yale and Stanford Law, and you get to around 8% of my graduating class. When you consider that only a minority of the graduates enter law school, the numbers for the top schools are very high.</p>
<p>What, if anything, this means for high school students choosing a college is another question altogether.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can go to HYP for free if your parents income is less than 60K and pay 40K in Berkeley or Michigan as outstate student.
[/quote]
Is this a joke?</p>
<p>If your parental income is between 100-200K it's quite possible private school is still not even an option. It depends what your families expenditures are, where you live, small business owner or not. I know many kids with families in this range who went to publics exactly for this reason (but then again, I'm from an extremely high cost of living town).</p>
<p>to hazmat, sorry i was unclear.</p>
<p>i think we are in agreement. </p>
<p>what im saying is that an A at UMASS is an A at Harvard. IE they dont say A at UMASS= A- at Harvard.</p>
<p>By normalize i meant accounting for the "prestige or quality" of the school to figure out a modified gpa. Therefore it might actually be in your best interest to go to a "lesser" school and get a higher GPA</p>
<p>-BosEng</p>
<p>Keep in mind, though, that even though LSAC "normalizes" GPA by combining all of your grades from community college, summer courses at the local state university, as well as classes from your 4-year school, law schools will ultimately see all of your transcripts and will know at which schools you earned each of your grades. Law schools will know where you went to school and what you major was. When reviewing your application file, law schools will have a sense of how difficult your coursework was, who your classmates were and how hard you had to work for your GPA.</p>
<p>I don't know for sure whether it makes a difference in admissions, but the fact is that a disproportionate number of students from top undergrads attend the top law schools in this country, even though, percentage-wise, there are probably as many students earning 3.9 GPAs at Ohio State as there are at Princeton.</p>
<p>I am still looking for matriculation data on many of the top law schools, eg, NYU, Columbia, Georgetown (I have only one year now), U Penn, Duke, Vanderbilt (only one year now), U Texas, U Chicago, Northwestern, U Michigan, Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, etc.</p>
<p>Let us know if you find any.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote:
You can go to HYP for free if your parents income is less than 60K and pay 40K in Berkeley or Michigan as outstate student. </p>
<p>Is this a joke?
[/quote]
[quote]
Earlier this year, Harvard University eliminated the parental contribution for students from families making under $60,000
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am still looking for matriculation data on many of the top law schools, eg, NYU, Columbia, Georgetown (I have only one year now), U Penn, Duke, Vanderbilt (only one year now), U Texas, U Chicago, Northwestern, U Michigan, Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why? What good will it do you to have those numbers? Will they tell you a single meaningful thing you don't already know?</p>
<p>bluedevilmike, that's not what I meant was a joke.</p>
<p>68% accepted at Georgetown from UF? wow. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
68% accepted at Georgetown from UF? wow
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Post # 12 states</p>
<p>**
[quote]
Here are the stats for Georgetown undergraduates:
[/quote]
**</p>
<p>No, it means of the 19 students who attended Georgetown who applied for admission at the University of Florida Law School, 13 Georgetown students or 68% of them were accepted at UF.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote:
You can go to HYP for free if your parents income is less than 60K and pay 40K in Berkeley or Michigan as outstate student.</p>
<p>So what? In state tuition is a lot lower. And most middle class kids ain't getting a free ride a Harvard. Check out the financial aid board.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is in-state tuition always a lot lower? I know 2 guys who had gotten into their state flagship schools but also got into Harvard, and then found out that it would actually be cheaper for them to go to Harvard than to their state school despite paying only in-state tuition, once the hefty Harvard financial aid package was factored in. Basically, Harvard was offering them completely full rides whereas the state schools were offering only partial rides and hence still wanted them to take out some loans.</p>
<p>I will always remember one of them mordantly joking that as a kid he had always dreamed of going to his state flagship school, but he couldn't afford it, so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard. He was quite the deadpan joker.</p>
<p>The first paragraph of Hawkette's post is wrong, IMO. Yes, law school advise people to take a year or two off between law school and college. That doesn't mean that work experience has a lot of impact on law school admissions. That's like saying that because Harvard College is now recommending students take a gap year before college, it's what you do during your gap year that determines whether you get into Harvard College. That's VERY rarely true. </p>
<p>With the exception of Northwestern, top law schools care very little about work experience. Many of those who have been out of college for a few years have been in school or doing a foreign fellowship--not working. Some have been in public service type actitivies--and those help more than work experience in law school admissions. To really help you get into law school, work experience in the private sector should be of at least 5 years duration.</p>
<p>The 33% figure is misleading in that this is when people STARTED law school, not when they were accepted. There have been years in which almost 40% of Yale Law's entering class deferred at least one year. In most of these cases, the students applied to and were accepted at YLS as college seniors, but chose to defer and do something else. These students will not be among those who went directly to law school from college, but they didn't get in because of what they did during that year. </p>
<p>On to the stats...</p>
<p>As others have said, the relevant number is not the size of the graduating class, but the number applying to law school. That information is readily available and should have been used, IMO. Here is the link. I think when you look at it, you'll see why using class size is wholly inappropriate:</p>
<p>Moreover, not all top law schools are equally top. I don't see why USC and Vanderbilt are included in the list at all--they are NOT top 14 law schools. It may sound obnoxious, but a student who goes to Harvard College who ends up at Vanderbilt Law is not regarded as having been especially successful in the LS admissions process. </p>
<p>UVa is a top 14 law school. It is not, however, the equal of YHS. Nor is it the equal of CCN. Most --though not all--folks who have a choice between UVA and Harvard are going to pick Harvard. If 5 students from Old Widget LAC go to YLS, 10 to HLS, 3 to Stanford and 1 to UVa, most folks would view that as a better record than that at New Trends LAC (with the same number of students) where 20 go to UVa--but Hawkette's system tells us otherwise. I think some sort of weighting system is needed. </p>
<p>Again, as someone else pointed out, some law schools are public and some of the publics limit the number of out of state students they have. Without a weighting system, I would expect that William &Mary, a very good state school, will look surprisingly good because many of its students are Virginia residents who will be able to get into UVa law. It is in fact #23 on Hawkette's list. The picture might look very different, however, if you looked at results without including UVa. If you are NOT a resident of Virginia, I wouldn't look at the data INCLUDING UVa Law to assess how much attending W&M (or UVa, for that matter), will help you get into a top law school. </p>
<p>All in all, I think Hawkette's assessment is meaningless. </p>
<p>In answer to a question previously asked, UMichigan gives NO preference in admission to state residents. As far as I know, it's the only public law school which doesn't.</p>
<p>If the link in my post doesn't work, roll over the DATA on the site until you see the link to the top 240 feeder colleges to ABA accredited LSs.</p>
<p>Okay--out of curiousity, I looked at the real numbers for Yale for those applying for the fall of 2006. (They are available on line.) Hawkette came up with 3.86% of the class attending H,Y, and UVa LSs and said that this should be a good approximation. </p>
<p>Using the real numbers from Yale for the class of '06, I looked ONLY at matriculated data. In some ways, these underestimate because some folks defer, and this won't include them. Nor will it include folks who decided to go to grad school instead. </p>
<p>There were a total of 443 applicants. Of those, 72 matriculated to YHS. 43 matriculated to CCN, with 21 going to Columbia. 57 matriculated at 7-14, including 10 at UVA. </p>
<p>So,if my math is right, a total of 172 out of 443 applicants matriculated at a top 14 law school. Again, if my math is right is right, 38.8% of Yalies who applied to LS ended up at top 14 LSs. I'd still argue though that the % getting into YHS matters as well. </p>
<p>I think that Data is much more meaningful than Hawkette's.</p>