What do you guys think? Should someone attend a school that admitted him/her with UGPA & LSAT both below 25th % ??? If everyone else's #'s are much higher, might you just be making it harder on yourself than it should be?

There is actually a theory about this built from many studies. It is called "the mismatch theory." It states that if URM-1 and URM-2 have the same #'s, but URM-1 goes to a "reach" school and URM-2 goes to a lower ranking school, then URM-2 has a significantly higher chance of passing the bar the first time he/she takes it. It also states that URM-1 will learn less in LS than URM-2 will learn at a lower ranking school. The rational behind this is based on the class presentation.

At a top ranked law school, almost all students were in the top 10% of both their UGPA and THeir LSAT scores. Thus, the material is presented at a level of detail and at a speed to challenge these people. At a lower ranking school, almost all students were only in the top 50% of both their ugpa and their LSAT scores. Class presentations detail & speed is catered to this crowd differently.

The lower bar passage rate for "mismatched" URMs suggests that they learn less at a top ranking law schools than similarly qualified URMs who attend lower ranking schools. Knowing that "mismatching" is likely and that low LS ranking is possible, why would a potentially mismatched URM attend a high ranking LS?

For more on Mismatch theory (Sometimes called, "Mismatch effect") see links below:
1) http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la- ... -rightrail
2) http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic ... rFINAL.pdf
3) http://www.lalegalpad.com/2007/10/ucla-professors.html

I think you might need to list specific schools.

we are all so jaded from seeing these comments for the past few months every day we can't be helpful so i am going to bed and never oggin on again peace

OK,

Loyola Law School, Hastings, UC-Davis vs:
1) Cornell
2) UPenn
3) Vandy
4) UCLA

I'll be honest, I didn't read any of those theories, but mostly because I doubt they apply at this level. If you're getting in Penn, you'll be passing the bar. If you're getting in Hastings you'll be passing the bar.

You don't want to making decisions based on some abstract theory, because the pay difference will be a lot more real and tangible.

Go to the best school you can get in while considering scholarships, location, quality of life, family stuff, etc. Don't waste time on those theories unless you are actually thinking that you would have trouble passing the bar.

In which case, Penn might not be the right school, anyhow.

I hope that's helpful information for you. And don't worry about Kevin Socks, I think he's just tired.

Oh go cry someone a river.

I think the theory and underlying rationale makes total sense and I'd believe it without any hard evidence.

Think about it: if a low-performing URM went to a prestegious LS where 90% of her peers were smarter, she would feel like the soar thumb. Other high-performing peers would naturally accelerate forward, leaving her far behind and causing a notable drop in confidence, motivation, and study group opportunities. On the contrary, she would feel more comfortable and naturally perform better in a class where neighbooring peers were on a similar performance level.

It would be wasteful to drop a gifted child among average children and likewise to drop an average child among a class of idiots. There is nothing new about this socio-psycho phenomenon and it would be naive to argue otherwise.

I disagree.

If you were admitted to a higer ranked school than your numbers suggest, then something other than your URM status prompted the committee to act favorably on you. Think about how many other URMs with similar numbers probably apply to the same school. They saw a potential in your file to succeed. After that, it comes to you to make the best of your opportunity. If the class is going too fast for you, invest in a tape recorder so that you dont miss anything. Take better notes, study outside of class.. do everything in your power to make up any percieved gap.. I seriously doubt the professional motivations of a person who can, say.. get into Georgetown but decides to attend Tulane or Penn State so that they can 'feel comfortable'. Its all about competitiveness of schools, and both the bar and potential employers are going to be looking at where you graduated from. Even the bottom 10% at a T14 school fares better than a student at a T2 or TTT. its simply the nature of the game... you get into a higher ranked school, you deserve to be there and you GO.... this whole idea of some obscure study factoring in to a person's descison is saddening.. and trying to scare the already nervous people on this board out of going to thier 'reach' school. Its very wrong.

And to add to the above comment, I don't think that your law school grades necessarily reflect your "smarts". Intellect and natural abilities are importnat, but is just as much learning how to write, knowing how to study, and developing good time management skills.

I, for one, think if you can get in a school, you can do well there. I'm fairly certain that GPA and LSAT are not the sole determiners of your performance in law school.

No, it isn't smarter to go elsewhere. Would you tell a non-URM to go elsewhere if they snuck into Harvard with numbers below the 25%? Of course not.

I would forgo going to a school where my lsat is quite below their 25 percentile. Just because of my own dignity but that is just my opinion. I do believe the lsats have a significant correlation with intelligence and I'd want to belong there. I understand where the OP is getting at.

Possibly- the same idea applies there. If you sneak in somewhere that will have everyone else a level ahead of you it means you aren't as likely to do well there as somewhere you would be in the to half of those admitted.
That said, I wouldn't tell anyone, URM or not, to not go to Harvard. If they got into Harvard but their numbers indicate they should only have gotten into Hastings- they're still the type that is likely to pass the bar the first time. Yeah- they'll have to bust their butt to rank highly at Harvard- but even if you rank last in your class at Harvard you're opportunities will be as great as if you ranked in the top quarter at Hastings.
Now, if you were comparing a school ranked low in tier 1/high in tier 2 to one ranked low in tier 2 where it looks like the student could be at the top of one but the middle of the other it's a much harder decision. I think you'd be much better off being top quarter at Rutgers or Oklahoma than bottom half at BYU. (Which is one reason why if BYU lets me in, it's going to be a tough decision for me for reasons beyond not wanting to go to school in that restrictive of en environment.)

Can you please fix the thread title? TIA!!

The one thing that bothers me about Sanders theory is that the higher up you go in the rankings, the higher the bar passage rate and the lower the attrition rates. (To check my idea I compared GA State, U GA and Emory as well as NYU, Brooklyn, St. John's and New York Law. This generally held true although I believe G State had the highest bar passage rate last year in GA).

Although I am sure that there are urms who feel that they may be "out of their league" (as far as pride, lack of a support system depending on their backgrounds, etc...) I would think that being at a higher ranked school is just better for you. For one, in many top ranked schools the level of competition is a little less fierce than lower ranked because of the little to no ranking of students and the unique grading systems in these schools. Not to mention the greater guarantee of a job.

Supposing that Sanders is accurate and most of the minorities at T14s are below the 25% (based on LSAT distribution of various minorities overall v. published 25% data of T14s for instance) they are still going to do better at a higher ranked school because the odds seem to be working in their favor. Even if they make up the entire group of people who drop out, that is still such a small number (<2% at top schools) that I think they may have a higher probability of leaving at the lower ranked schools with fiercer competition and less guarantee of good jobs. It just seems to me that if urms get plugged in to some sort of support system to help them adjust, if necessary, they only stand to gain by going to the higher ranked school (T1).

CAVEAT: I highly doubt that most of the urms making it into the T6 are scoring <160 with a substantial legitimate reason that demonstrates the inaccuracy as a predictor of their scores. I cannot speak at all as to LSAT score in T1. A few are, but generally speaking this is probably untrue. I wouldn't mind seeing data on this.

edited for "repetitive redundancy" (stole that from someone on here but I forget who)

Is there ever a point to even applying to a reach then? Or does it depend on how you define reach?

I guess everyone defines a reach differently. But I'd only apply to schools where my lsat is at least the 25 percentile. Of course this is my opinion since my gpa isn't stellar. Lsats are the most objective way of sorting out where a student is competitive. For example I was an engineering student so I am not going to compare my gpa with a business major in determining how competitive I am. I'll look at the lsats for that.

So I have an honest question. Are we basing this all on LSAT? Is that the predictor or is it a combination of both with this theory? With a 159, Cornell's 166 25th percentile would mean that I wouldn't do well? I just want to know how this would work...

How did you do on the SAT, OP, and how did your SAT score compare to the school's average?

I did poorly on the SAT, went to a school where I was below the average SAT. I rocked my first year (and the rest of the years) with ease while other kids with higher scores than me struggled and failed. Some of them weren't as bright as they thought they were, others let themselves get distracted.

I'm not saying that this will happen to me again in law school, but I refuse to let a standardized test score limit me. If you go into law school thinking that everyone is smarter than you because they have better LSAT scores and that you will do poorly, then you very well might do poorly, but not because others really are more intelligent. I will happily take my 156 to UIUC or UCLA if I can get off the wait list and I will do the best that I can.

I took it without studying got a 1090, my soccer coach told me a needed a 1150 for a scholarship upgrade, studied the night before got a 1160 the second time... I'm assuming that means I don't test highly and that doesn't bother me... I did really well in UG. But they say LSAT is a great predictor of law school...

So, if given the chance, you wouldn't go to Harvard or Yale?

I'm not sure what this theory has to say about it, but I think LSAT is a better predictor of law school success than UGPA, and LSAT and UGPA combined is a better preditor than LSAT alone (according to some studies LSAC has done over the years). Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

None of this is to say you can't do well with a low LSAT or whatever, of course.

They also say the SAT is a "great predictor" of first year grades in college as well, you know. It's the same thing.

Oh ok, thanks. Being Canadian, I didn't really research much before going to university. Whichever ever school had the right combination of offering me money and acceptance into law school was good enough. If they wanted me, I was going. I'm trying to do better this time around so that helps. Thanks

Well college is a behemoth of an institution so there is going to be a wide range of sat scores at the school. Other things are factored in such as extracurriculars in college admissions. Law schools is mainly based on merit so people are going to hover more closely together in aptitude. Plus not all majors are equally difficult. If you majored in engineering or physics and you rocked your classes then yes I would say your SATs underestimated you. But if you majored in business then I think hard work can overcome a lot.





No, because then I know I did not get in with my own merit

No if you get admitted to your reach you should go there especially if it is T14 your career prospects will be much better than at a lower ranked school. You will just have to buckle down because the other people there will most likely be smarter.

Your statement indicates the problem with beliefs: a belief doesn't have verifiable evidence or support but rather relies on faith. With certain statements, verifiable evidence doesn't exist. However, data about the correlation between LSAT, undergraduate GPA, and first year performance in law school does exist.

The following website has information about the LSAT and its predictive value of first year grades: http://www.napla.org/LSAT.htm. LSAC also has done studies and you can find some through the lsac.org site. One of the main conclusions is that, while the combination of LSAT and UGPA is the best predictor of first year performance, it is not necessarily a great predictor. There is about a .5 correlation between first year grades and the combination of LSAT and UGPA. Although the LSAT and UGPA are obviously important, there are many other things that account for first year grades.




Quick answer: Go to the school that you enjoy and that presents the best opportunities for your goals. Higher ranking schools often do offer more mobility and employment opportunities.

Surprised no one cited this:

http://www.law.ucla.edu/sander/Systemic ... rFINAL.pdf

Only compares white and black because that was the main issue back in the 90's but I think it's a prretty in-depth analysis by a fairly unbiased source (Caucasian male married to AA female with biracial child).

I'll just add this link instead of going into my personal views of URM status, affirmative action and the original question at hand...

But - the fact that you took the SAT (a fairly important exam for college entrance and scholarship, as you learned) without studying the first time and your "studying" the second time was abysmal at best, the amount of work required to "keep up" with your smarter peers in a better law school seems too demanding for your study habits. Pledging to change them is dissuading considering it seems you didn't for the LSAT (or if you did, studying isn't necessarily the problem).

My college is not a behemoth of an institution. It is a fairly small private college, and without stats how can you say that my school has a wide range of SAT scores?

Not to mention that no SAT study says that the test only predicts your performance in certain "hard" majors, it is supposed to be predictive of freshman grades in general--and freshman grades tend to be those general education classes that span different areas of study including humanities, not just math or science courses.



Actually, that is the study the OP is talking about, but his links are expired. And being a Caucasian male married to a black woman with a biracial child does not make the man unbiased (I don't have black people, I have a black friend!)--there have been plenty of scholars out there decrying his study and suggesting that there are some biases.