<p>Well, of course GPA and LSAT are most important–just like for med school, GPA and MCAT are most important. I don’t claim to know anything about law OR med school admissions beyond what I’ve read in this thread, as I haven’t done the research–but the point has been made upthread that law schools (and, to a greater degree than the schools, law firms ) exhibit a stronger preference for prestigious undergrad than do med schools. I believe this point was made based on comparisons of class composition in top law/med schools, but since I haven’t actually made such comparisons nor have I bothered to look through the last 100 posts to check, I don’t make any particular claim to being right.</p>
<p>EDIT: Skimming now through the previous posts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Pizzagirl:
Dr. Fancy Elite Undergrad has <em>zero</em> advantage over Dr. Average State School when the two of them are together in residency. And for all you know, Dr. Average State School becomes the chief resident. Really. It’s time to get a grip. If we were talking law, it would be a different story since top law schools open up opportunities that lower tier law schools don’t. But medicine is different.
</p>
<p>
Dean of Harvard Med: BS: CUNY, MD: Mt Sinai
</p>
<p>
JHS:
[On Supreme Court Justices] Top law schools is an absolute requirement – right now the tally is 5 Harvards, 3 Yales, and 1 Northwestern (the Justice appointed the longest time ago). As for colleges, it’s Princeton (2), Stanford (2), Harvard, Cornell, Chicago, Georgetown, and Holy Cross.
</p>
<p>
coureur:
>>That doesn’t mean it’s a REQUIREMENT. Correlation, not causation.<<</p>
<p>In the case of Supreme Court justices it’s not a coincidental correlation. Where you went to law school is actually carefully considered as part of the vetting process by the congress, by the press, and by the public. Recall that one of the criticisms of Harriet Miers when she was nominated was that she had only gone to law school at SMU - a perfectly respectable law school but apparently not good enough for the rarified heights of the US Supreme Court. As I said, there is no official Supreme Court requirement to go to a top law school, but there certainly is a de facto one.
</p>
<p>
coureur:
They didn’t all go to Ivy for undergrad, but it’s still an impressive line-up of colleges:</p>
<p>Justice College/Law School</p>
<p>Roberts Harvard/Harvard
<p>Recently retired:
</p>
<p>
Bromfield:
I have a close friend who also clerked for a federal judge. She didn’t go to a top-ranked law school or undergraduate school. She was, however, first in her law school class. Her view is that being first in her class is what got her the clerk position and that she’d never have been considered if she didn’t have such a high ranking. After clerking, my friend got a job at an elite law firm in the city where she clerked–she was the first graduate of her law school that the firm had hired–since she was hired (she’s a partner now) there are still only a few people recruited from her alma mater. My friend’s view is that to get in the door for some jobs in the legal field–you need to go to a highly ranked school or be the highest achiever in a school that’s not highly ranked.
</p>
<p>
ellemenope:
Quote:
<p>Agree with the above but will also mention that law firms may hire from known (especially locally known) but lesser ranked law schools, but won’t go deep into the class. Recruiters may invite back someone in the top third of the class from Stanford Law School but may only invite back the top 2 kids from UC Davis Law School, for example.
</p>
<p>I see a lot more evidence for law-related emphasis on prestige than for med-related.</p>