I'd rather take solace in the fact that I got the same LSAT as the median Harvard kid, than be disappointed at missing out on T14 (though I have Cornell not deciding yet). I scored 99th percentile on the ACT and GRE, but only 94th on the LSAT. Oh, noes, I must have cut off the oxygen to my brain between taking the first two and the latter. Or, I didn't take TLS seriously and study hard for the LSAT, which really only means I took the test on a level playing field with the majority of testers (who also likely didn't do much beyond a few PTs). Or I'm just plain bad at LGs (working through two LG Bible worksheets once on a Saturday morning wasn't enough
). Or diarrhea.
Either way, I transferred to and paid full price at a directional state school that had a great faculty in English, and I loved the experience and the learning. So my resume will suck compared to Harvard kid - which is fine.
If median Harvard kid lands at William & Mary or Emory or Minnesota, that's hardly a fall from grace. That's a smart kid going to a very good school because of (legitimately) superior numeric qualifications. If the ego blow is too much, then that's sad.
However, all one needs to do is look a bit below Harvard and see that the median LSAT at MIT is 163, and Johns Hopkins is 159. Thus, the average MIT (with a 3.25 median GPA) grad will probably end up paying sticker at Case Western or Missouri, and the average Johns Hopkins kid might sneak into Hofstra or New Mexico.
UG is easier to gain admission to by far, even at the top. For law school, you are competing against the pool of college graduates who also have further ambitions. Thus, it is much harder to get into a T14 law school than to get into Harvard or Stanford UG.