<p>padad, why would you assume that everyone who “could have” gone to an “elite” school did? Plenty of students who are admitted choose other programs–honors programs at state flagships, LACs or whatever. And again, some institutions tend to produce more kids who WANT to pursue law school than others.</p>
<p>re post 90: It was harder to get into law school in 2005 than it is now. I’m NOT saying that it’s easier to get into the top 3 law schools now; I don’t know, but suspect not. It’s easier to get into at least one ABA accredited law school now than it was in 2005 both because fewer people apply to law school and because a few more law schools have received ABA accreditation.</p>
<p>Hanna:</p>
<p>I ask primarily because such numbers could reflect changes in culture at the feeder schools. Traditionally, UChicago placed quite well at Yale (~3-4 students per class), and Penn placed pretty well too. More recently, however, as both schools are enjoying something of an upswing, their placement at Yale Law has improved (both have between 15-20 students there total now). </p>
<p>The fluctuations don’t mean much in the context of the specific law school, but can give high school applicants some sense of changing undergraduate climates. In the context of a college discussion board, many here are most interested in seeing what schools have those particular climates (featuring, for example, better pre-law advising, more pre-laws, etc.). </p>
<p>So, to sum, if UChicago goes from ~15 students at HLS to ~30-40 at HLS, that doesn’t mean much from the law school perspective as Harvard has ~1600 JD students. That increase though, from the undergraduate perspective (especially if maintained over a few years), is telling.</p>
<p>And I’m interested in seeing whether those cultural changes exist at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>@sally305
I am saying the same thing. Many students that could have gone to elite schools chose state Us for a variety of reasons. I am just saying that it would be disappointing indeed if the HLS class reflects mostly high SAT scorers at these colleges. BTW, many LACs are elite schools and I don’t consider most Ivies in the elite class. So call me an elitist.</p>
<p>“I’m NOT saying that it’s easier to get into the top 3 law schools now; I don’t know, but suspect not.”</p>
<p>I think it is easier, compared to 2005ish. One of the most fascinating data points I’ve run across is that the reduction in LSAT takers has largely impacted the top of the scale. The number of 170+ scores has dropped a lot more than the number of scores in the 140s. In other words, the people deciding not to aim for law school are disproportionately the ones who would have become T14 candidates. What do we know about 170+ scorers? As a group, they went to higher ranked undergraduate schools, they have better options besides going to law school, and (perhaps) they are smarter and more skeptical consumers who did their research before investing time and money in the LSAT process.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I agree with this completely. There are tons of very smart kids who, for a variety of reasons, do not go to high-end colleges. The fact that there are literally thousands of colleges in the US, each with their own set of smart kids, suggests that the number of smart kids who do not go to high-end colleges is far larger than the number who do. </p>
<p>And combining this with tables showing that high-end colleges are waay over-represented in the enrollment of the highest law schools is what leads me to conclude that the law schools must be significantly favoring certain selective feeder colleges as one of their key “soft factors,” after the grades and SAT have been considered. </p>
<p>It just can’t be true that the majority of smart kids interested in law school all go to the Ivy league and a few other high-end universities and LACs. And it also can’t be true that for some reason nearly all those smart kids at solid but undistinguished state schools either choose not to try for a top law school or decide not to apply to law school at all. Thus, something else other than lack of smarts must be keeping graduates of undistinguished colleges in such low numbers or out altogether from the very top law schools</p>
<p>^^^^^^^</p>
<p>This.</p>
<p>If it is all about GPA and LSATs , then there should be tons of kids from the bigger schools - not tons of kids from the Ivy League and other top schools, and none or one or two from the schools with very large student populations, even after taking into account the higher selectivity of the Ivies and other top schools.</p>
<p>When you look at the list of colleges that law school students at Harvard, Yale, and Virginia were from 5 years ago (wish there was more recent data available), coueurs discusison makes sense:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard (339 graduates)</li>
<li>Yale (209) </li>
<li>Stanford (125)</li>
<li>Princeton (97)</li>
<li>U Penn (71)</li>
<li>U Virginia (69)</li>
<li>Columbia (69)</li>
<li>UC Berkeley (68)</li>
<li>Brown (66)</li>
<li>Duke (65)</li>
<li>Dartmouth (59)</li>
<li>Cornell (59</li>
</ol>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/3986135-post1.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/3986135-post1.html</a></p>
<p>You’re both omitting the money piece. The high end law schools don’t provide scholarships and the substantial outlay of money is pretty frightening when you consider that the opportunities to make that money back are fewer than they were in a generation past. Kids who chose merit money over prestige or who chose state flagships as a less expensive educational opportunity on the undergraduate level may also be considering that same factor in choosing where to apply to or attend law school. I know a kid at UVA who was offered a free ride at GWU. He wrestled with that decision and I can easily see that those who don’t have the resources to consider a more elite school would choose the free ride. I also know a kid who was accepted at HLS and has elected not to attend. It’s too expensive and her interests don’t dovetail with that ultimate high salary. </p>
<p>The other variable is where the lawyer intends to practice. It can make very good sense to choose the highly regarded state or more local school over Harvard or Yale. I’ve seen that again and again the local network is more effective in procuring employment from the state or local school than the east coast elite.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, why not, apart from your wanting to hold onto the belief that top law schools discriminate in favor of Ivy applicants even if their objective qualifications are weaker than applicants from other schools? </p>
<p>I actually think it’s pretty compelling that top LSAT scores are as rare as they are. If an LSAT score of 172+ represents the top 1% of LSAT-takers, that means only about 1300 people a year score 172+ on the LSAT, out of 130,000 taking the test nationally. Where are you going to find those 1300 people? Doesn’t it seem likely that most of them will be concentrated at schools where the mean LSAT score is highest—i.e., Harvard (166), Yale (165), Swarthmore (165), Princeton (165), Pomona (165), Stanford (164), etc., rather than at schools where the mean LSAT is lower, e.g., UVA (158), Wisconsin (156), UNC-Chapel Hill (155), Nebraska (154), VaTech (153), Tennessee (152), UConn (152), Purdue (152), South Carolina (150), and on down from there? Of course, there will be some LSAT scores in the 172+ range at these latter schools, but they will be few in number. </p>
<p>Data from UC Berkeley are instructive. </p>
<p><a href=“https://career.berkeley.edu/law/lawStats.stm[/url]”>https://career.berkeley.edu/law/lawStats.stm</a></p>
<p>UC Berkeley actually does quite well in elite law school admissions relative to other public institutions. Its mean LSAT score of 159, although a distinct notch below the elite privates, is tops for any public university (though UVA, Michigan, and Georgia Tech are close, at 158). In 2010, 149 Cal graduating seniors applied to law schools; of those, 128 (86%) were accepted at one or more schools. As a group, they did fairly well at the most selective schools: 53 (or nearly 40% of those applying to any law school) applied to Harvard, of whom 9 were accepted (17%) and 8 matriculated (89% yield). The average LSAT for those accepted at Harvard was 174, and the average GPA was 3.95, impressive stats, but we’re talking about an elite 6% of the Cal law school applicants here. </p>
<p>More Cal seniors applied to Columbia (63) than to Harvard, and more were accepted (11, or 17.5%), but fewer matriculated (3, for a yield of 27%), presumably in part because a number were cross-admits who ultimately chose Harvard. The average LSAT of those admitted at Columbia was a little lower (172), as was the average GPA (3.89).</p>
<p>Also, 62 applied to NYU; even more were accepted there (18, or 29%), but only 5 matriculated (28% yield). Average LSAT of admittees was 173, average GPA 3.87.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, back in California, a whopping 109 applied to UC Berkeley, 24 were accepted (22%), and 9 matriculated (38% yield). Average LSAT of admittees: 170.</p>
<p>From there, LSAT scores drop off:</p>
<p>UCLA: 99 applied, 23 admitted, 5 matriculated, average LSAT 169
Michigan: 42 applied, 5 admitted, 2 matriculated, LSAT 169
USC: 75 applied, 26 admitted, 6 matriculated, LSAT 168
UC Hastings: 99 applied, 34 admitted, 9 matriculated, LSAT 165</p>
<p>Average LSAT scores for Cal admittees to other California law schools: UC Davis 164, Loyola LA 163, U San Diego 163, Santa Clara 161, Pacific-McGeorge 158, USF 158, Golden Gate 157.</p>
<p>A total of 59 Cal graduating seniors ended up at the 11 California law schools in this table, identified as the “top 15 law schools attended by Cal graduating seniors”; interestingly, Stanford doesn’t make the list. A total of 18 ended up at top 10 law schools outside of California (8 at Harvard, 5 NYU, 3 Columbia, 2 Michigan); there could have been a few more at Yale, Chicago, Penn, etc., although in small enough numbers that they don’t make the “top 15” chart.</p>
<p>So what are we to make of this? I’d infer that as few as 15 or 20 Cal graduating seniors applying directly to law school in 2010 had LSAT scores in the 172+ range, i.e., roughly the top decile (or less) of those applying to law school. And keep in mind, this is the strongest public producer of law school applicants—the public university with the highest mean LSAT scores, and producer of the 4th-largest absolute number of law school applicants after UCLA, Florida, and Texas. Numbers of top (172+) LSAT scorer at Michigan and UCLA should be pretty similar, with similar average LSAT scores and similar numbers of law school applicants. But other big producers of applicant like Florida (mean LSAT 154), Texas (156), UNC Chapel Hill (155), Arizona State (152), and Penn State (152), with lower mean LSAT scores, are likely to have correspondingly fewer 172+ scorers. And from there, the numbers applying to law school fall off, so that Penn now produces more law school applicants than Michigan State or Rutgers, and Yale more than Minnesota.</p>
<p>So I think it’s just highly stratified. Interest in law school runs higher at the elite privates (roughly 20-25% of the class at Yale and Harvard apply to law school, as opposed to 3 or 4% at Minnesota), as do the high-end LSAT scores needed to get into the most selective law schools. There will be a smattering of top LSAT scores spread across many schools, but even once you get beyond the elite privates, top LSAT scores are far more likely to be found at the “elite” public institutions than at the more pedestrian ones. And that is perfectly consistent with the distribution of law school matriculants at the small number of elite law schools for which we’ve seen data on this thread.</p>
<p>Edit to removed my response based on my misreading.</p>
<p>I would think Berkeley should not be considered as your typical large state u.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/pdfs/top-240-feeder-schools.pdf[/url]”>http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/pdfs/top-240-feeder-schools.pdf</a></p>
<p>This is what’s most telling - the elite undergrads just have tremendous interest in law school, and most other schools (even flagship state schools) do not. Look at some of the stats - Penn State University Park has about 10,000 undergrads per class (40k total). UPenn, on the other hand, has 2500 undergrads (10k) total. Both schools, though, had roughly the same number of law school applicants (about 400 at Penn, 500 at Penn State). </p>
<p>I think what is more interesting on this list is the range in performance amongst the elite undergrads. As a case in point:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1190895-mean-lsat-score-undergraduate-college.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1190895-mean-lsat-score-undergraduate-college.html</a></p>
<p>The average LSAT between a range of elites - Brown, Dartmouth, UChicago, Northwestern, and Columbia - are quite similar - 161 - 163. The number of apps are also quite similar between the schools (200-300).</p>
<p>Nevetheless, the strength of placement between all these schools are DRASTICALLY different. The ivies in the above group place extremely well (~15-20 a year at Harvard, etc.). NU and UChicago, on the other hand, despite very comparable LSAT scores and grade inflation rising, place much less well. </p>
<p>I’m more curious to know why performance by elite undergrads with comparable avg. LSAT numbers, gpa numbers, and numbers of apps differs so much. Any ideas?</p>
<p>(Also, if anyone has recent placement stats, that would be great. The HLS stats are quite old, and it’s feasible that, for example, UChicago’s performance at HLS - like it’s performance at Yale Law recently - has improved markedly.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely right–it’s not typical at all; that’s just my point. UC Berkeley produces higher LSAT scores and more law school applicants than the typical large state U, and yet the data seem to suggest it’s only producing about 15-20 LSAT scorers in the 172+ range per year. At a school like Minnesota which produces about 1/3 the number of law school applicants as Berkeley and where the mean LSAT score is 155 (compared to 159 at Berkeley), the number of 172+ LSAT scorers is probably in the range of 2-4. And at a school like, say, Ole Miss, which produces roughly half as many law school applicants as Minnesota and where the mean LSAT score is 150, you’d probably be hard-pressed to get 1 or 2 per year in the 172+ range; in many years probably none at all.</p>
<p>Meanwhile at Harvard, with 320 law school applicants per year and a mean LSAT score of 166, it’s not unreasonable to assume that perhaps a quarter of the applicants-about 80 per year–are in the 172+ LSAT range.</p>
<p>bclintok:</p>
<p>Any thoughts on the disparity in performance between certain elites with similar avg. LSATs, avg. GPAs, and application numbers?</p>
<p>You should read Beyond the Ivy. Merit always doesn’t always assure a place at certain schools. Many of the students from the “Ivies” may be legacies at Harvard law.</p>
<p>So true. Well said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Great observations…and very true.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No, it’s more a knowledge that the Ivy colleges didn’t get all or even most of the really smart kids. So if the Ivy law schools are heavily favoring the Ivy college grads then something other the smarts of the applicants must be playing a signficant roll.</p>
<p>Coureur, somehow, though, ivy and like colleges are getting the absolute lion’s share of law school applicants. Look at the numbers I posted above - schools like Amherst and Williams, Penn and Columbia, boast nearly as many applicants as schools 4 to 10 times larger.</p>
<p>Again, for students looking at schools, it may be more of interest to look at how well the school places compared to its avg. lsat score for undergrads - which is the most telling statistic. It shows that, for reasons I wish I knew, some schools with great LSAT averages (Brown, Dartmouth, Columbia) place extremely well, whereas other schools with just about as great LSAT averages (UChicago, Northwestern), don’t place quite as well. This seems to indicate that some schools have better pre-law cultures/climates than others.</p>
<p>Also, of course, finding recent data is key. I tend to think the pre-law climate at UChicago is changing for the better with enhanced law school placement, but I wish there was more data out there on this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, so far we only have figures on how many attended Harvard Law School. An obvious explanation for why the Ivies would send more students to HLS than do schools like Chicago and Northwestern is that fewer Chicago and Northwestern grads might apply to Harvard, and/or Harvard’s yield on acceptance from those schools might be lower.</p>
<p>Look, the University of Chicago Law School is a very elite institution. If you’re living in Chicago, like it there, maybe have a spouse or a partner who wants to stay there, Chicago Law is a perfectly plausible alternative to Harvard. And Northwestern is a very reasonable backup. If you’re in the Northeast, it’s Yale, Harvard, and Columbia, in that order, with NYU standing in the wings. If we had undergrad institution data for the University of Chicago and Northwestern law schools, my guess is it would show far fewer students from the Ivies than from Northwestern and U of C.</p>
<p>I have a family member who was in exactly that situation: he was accepted at Chicago and figured the only law school worth leaving Chicago for was Yale. He ended up at Yale without ever bothering to apply to Harvard. You won’t find many people at Northeastern schools making that same decision.</p>
<p>That’s the problem with trying to extrapolate from admissions data on a single school. People want to take it to stand for patterns of elite law school admissions generally,when in fact it’s only data on a single school.</p>
<p>How would you explain the yield rate of 24% for Chicago versus the yield rate of 67% for Harvard Law?</p>