HYP undergrads vs. HYS 0Ls Forum

[imchuckbass58]

And FWIW, I've heard at least one HYPS person here at UVA acknowledge that the people here are much brighter and more impressive than the people at their UG. I think that judgment is pretty much universal.

I'd actually disagree with this to a certain degree.

I was HYP undergrad and am in CCN for law school (so not exactly the title of this thread, but similar enough).

My personal impression is that the undergrads I went to school with were, on average, smarter than the kids I'm in law school with. That said, I think a lot of the smart kids in undergrad were smart in different ways - for example math or music prodigies who wouldn't necessarily do well on the LSAT. Second, I think it's unequivocally true that people in law school work a lot harder than people did in undergrad.

So I wouldn't dispute that the average CCN student could outperform the average HYP undergrad in law school, both because of hard work, and a natural aptitude for/inclination towards law over other fields. That said, I'm not sure the CCN kids are "brighter" in the pure sense of the term.

[CordeliusX]

Part of the reason I posted is that I've always been in "awe" over HYP (Ivy in general) undergrads and I, for whatever reason, have never felt reverence for law students. Which is funny because I aim to be one soon

For example, the fact that H's LSAT median is 166 or whatever - that blows my mind because so many people here beat it. I always assumed the smartest kids ever! were found in HYP exclusively so the fact the median is relatively low to many in TLS is a non-compute for me.

[elmagic]

And FWIW, I've heard at least one HYPS person here at UVA acknowledge that the people here are much brighter and more impressive than the people at their UG. I think that judgment is pretty much universal.

I'd actually disagree with this to a certain degree.

I was HYP undergrad and am in CCN for law school (so not exactly the title of this thread, but similar enough).

My personal impression is that the undergrads I went to school with were, on average, smarter than the kids I'm in law school with. That said, I think a lot of the smart kids in undergrad were smart in different ways - for example math or music prodigies who wouldn't necessarily do well on the LSAT. Second, I think it's unequivocally true that people in law school work a lot harder than people did in undergrad.

So I wouldn't dispute that the average CCN student could outperform the average HYP undergrad in law school, both because of hard work, and a natural aptitude for/inclination towards law over other fields. That said, I'm not sure the CCN kids are "brighter" in the pure sense of the term.

I pretty much agree with this. I'll be HYP to HYS, so I can't speak for my peers in law school, but I knew a lot of people at my UG who wouldn't even consider taking the LSAT because they are interested in other fields of study unrelated to law.

I'm pretty sure someone from HYP is more likely to do well at HYS than a kid from a state-school who had identical numbers. Bear in mind that a lot of kids at HYP are ridiculous when it comes to soft factors, Rhodes scholars etc. Personally of about ten people I know of who applied to law schools in the past two years from my UG more than half are attending HYS. A small sample size but I don't think it's uncommon.

[rayiner]

I'm pretty sure someone from HYP is more likely to do well at HYS than a kid from a state-school who had identical numbers. Bear in mind that a lot of kids at HYP are ridiculous when it comes to soft factors, Rhodes scholars etc. Personally of about ten people I know of who applied to law schools in the past two years from my UG more than half are attending HYS. A small sample size but I don't think it's uncommon.

About 1/3 of people from Yale go to law school matriculate at YHS: http://www.yale.edu/visvi/students/grad ... wstats.pdf

Also, the first statement is amusing. The ridiculous soft factors aren't helpful in law school at all.

[DoubleChecks]

Part of the reason I posted is that I've always been in "awe" over HYP (Ivy in general) undergrads and I, for whatever reason, have never felt reverence for law students. Which is funny because I aim to be one soon

For example, the fact that H's LSAT median is 166 or whatever - that blows my mind because so many people here beat it. I always assumed the smartest kids ever! were found in HYP exclusively so the fact the median is relatively low to many in TLS is a non-compute for me.

but its...the median lol, thats like the highest median LSAT score of ANY college in the US (or near highest?)

so kinda are the "smartest kids ever" in that sense haha, no other school's LSAT takers, as a whole taken from a median perspective, are better

[09042014]

Part of the reason I posted is that I've always been in "awe" over HYP (Ivy in general) undergrads and I, for whatever reason, have never felt reverence for law students. Which is funny because I aim to be one soon

For example, the fact that H's LSAT median is 166 or whatever - that blows my mind because so many people here beat it. I always assumed the smartest kids ever! were found in HYP exclusively so the fact the median is relatively low to many in TLS is a non-compute for me.

Undergrad admissions are based on high school academic record (which is ridiculously easy) and the SAT. Being a cocky dbag and doing poor at 14 years old will keep a brilliant person out of HYP. High school GPA, and SAT are a horrible judge of the overall intelligence of a person. Also undergrad admissions value soft factors very highly. This makes a more rounded class but not a more intelligent or hard working one.

Then there are other reasons why even people who could get into HYP would choose a lower ranked school. The primary one is money. Undergrad is not worth 200K dollars. And most American's families cannot afford it. Financial aid is getting there, but only recently did it get anywhere near good.

And there is self selection. I didn't know one person in high school who applied for HYP. And I went to a fairly well off suburban high school in the Midwest. I knew one person who applied to MIT.

It seems like outside the Northeast, the "elite school or failure" idea isn't ubiquitous.

[kittenmittons]

Part of the reason I posted is that I've always been in "awe" over HYP (Ivy in general) undergrads and I, for whatever reason, have never felt reverence for law students. Which is funny because I aim to be one soon

For example, the fact that H's LSAT median is 166 or whatever - that blows my mind because so many people here beat it. I always assumed the smartest kids ever! were found in HYP exclusively so the fact the median is relatively low to many in TLS is a non-compute for me.

Undergrad admissions are based on high school academic record (which is ridiculously easy) and the SAT. Being a cocky dbag and doing poor at 14 years old will keep a brilliant person out of HYP. High school GPA, and SAT are a horrible judge of the overall intelligence of a person. Also undergrad admissions value soft factors very highly. This makes a more rounded class but not a more intelligent or hard working one.

Then there are other reasons why even people who could get into HYP would choose a lower ranked school. The primary one is money. Undergrad is not worth 200K dollars. And most American's families cannot afford it. Financial aid is getting there, but only recently did it get anywhere near good.

And there is self selection. I didn't know one person in high school who applied for HYP. And I went to a fairly well off suburban high school in the Midwest. I knew one person who applied to MIT.

It seems like outside the Northeast, the "elite school or failure" idea isn't ubiquitous.

Besides state school girls are hotter/easier.

[crackberry]

High school GPA, and SAT are a horrible judge of the overall intelligence of a person.

Oh, but someone's UGPA and LSAT score are perfect indicators of intelligence?

[EijiMiyake]

High school GPA, and SAT are a horrible judge of the overall intelligence of a person.

Oh, but someone's UGPA and LSAT score are perfect indicators of intelligence?

Perhaps they're better because they're taken more seriously, people are more mature and focused, etc.

[Na_Swatch]

High school GPA, and SAT are a horrible judge of the overall intelligence of a person.

Oh, but someone's UGPA and LSAT score are perfect indicators of intelligence?

lol

[crackberry]

Also, I can't link to it because I have it as a PDF on my computer but here are the numbers for Stanford UG law school applicants to YHS in the 2007-2008 cycle:

Yale: 103 Applicants, 20 Admits, 11 Enrollees (19.4% acceptance rate)

Harvard: 155 Applicants, 38 Admits, 16 Enrollees (24.5% acceptance rate)

Stanford: 163 Applicants, 42 Admits, 25 Enrollees (25.8% acceptance rate)


I believe Stanford UGs' mean LSAT is 164 or 165

[georgina]

High school GPA, and SAT are a horrible judge of the overall intelligence of a person.

Oh, but someone's UGPA and LSAT score are perfect indicators of intelligence?

Perhaps they're better because they're taken more seriously, people are more mature and focused, etc.

not always, and not necessarily even usually. i was more focused in high school (why? i don't know. high school was silly.). my ugpa is terrible. my sat and lsat still correlate very well, though. obvi i will be focused in law school. oh and i went to HYP(S). (why the lack of respect for s? sorry, crack.)

they're all faulty metrics!

[crackberry]

oh and i went to HYP(S). (why the lack of respect for s? sorry, crack.)

It's a traveshamockery.

[09042014]

High school GPA, and SAT are a horrible judge of the overall intelligence of a person.

Oh, but someone's UGPA and LSAT score are perfect indicators of intelligence?

Not at all. It's why bottom of Columbia gets beaten by top of Cornell.

[09042014]

High school GPA, and SAT are a horrible judge of the overall intelligence of a person.

Oh, but someone's UGPA and LSAT score are perfect indicators of intelligence?

No, but I think its a better judge than HGPA and SAT if a person is fluent in English.

The SAT is part reading comprehension (which I think is useful), part vocabulary (doesn't say a lot about intelligence), and math (which says nothing because you can use a calculator, and math is entirely learned).

ACT is even worse.

[Na_Swatch]

High school GPA, and SAT are a horrible judge of the overall intelligence of a person.

Oh, but someone's UGPA and LSAT score are perfect indicators of intelligence?

No, but I think its a better judge than HGPA and SAT if a person is fluent in English.

The SAT is part reading comprehension (which I think is useful), part vocabulary (doesn't say a lot about intelligence), and math (which says nothing because you can use a calculator, and math is entirely learned).

ACT is even worse.

Eh, in reality I think the SAT is actually a better judge of intelligence.. the LSAT is much too narrowly focused on one subject while the SAT is broader (especially the older SAT before they removed the analogies due to everyone's complaints).

[09042014]

High school GPA, and SAT are a horrible judge of the overall intelligence of a person.

Oh, but someone's UGPA and LSAT score are perfect indicators of intelligence?

No, but I think its a better judge than HGPA and SAT if a person is fluent in English.

The SAT is part reading comprehension (which I think is useful), part vocabulary (doesn't say a lot about intelligence), and math (which says nothing because you can use a calculator, and math is entirely learned).

ACT is even worse.

Eh, in reality I think the SAT is actually a better judge of intelligence.. the LSAT is much too narrowly focused on one subject while the SAT is broader (especially the older SAT before they removed the analogies due to everyone's complaints).

Having it test math knowledge destroys any intelligence credibility with me. LSAT isn't very good either, but it requires less knowledge.

[tomhobbes]

Having it test math knowledge destroys any intelligence credibility with me. LSAT isn't very good either, but it requires less knowledge.

The LSAT isn't anywhere near perfect, but it comes closer to measuring our ordinary definition of intelligence than any other test I know of, including IQ tests.

[09042014]

Having it test math knowledge destroys any intelligence credibility with me. LSAT isn't very good either, but it requires less knowledge.

The LSAT isn't anywhere near perfect, but it comes closer to measuring our ordinary definition of intelligence than any other test I know of, including IQ tests.

Given equal study time and study materials I'd agree.

[adameus]

This whole thread is rancid anti-Stanford UG trolling.

this coming from the guy who puts HYPS as his undergrad. Why not just put Stanford? Anyone from one of HYP would just put HYP, only someone from stanford would put HYPS....

[crackberry]

This whole thread is rancid anti-Stanford UG trolling.

this coming from the guy who puts HYPS as his undergrad. Why not just put Stanford? Anyone from one of HYP would just put HYP, only someone from stanford would put HYPS....

I've never hidden the fact I went to Stanford. Saying "HYPS" just makes it abundantly clear that I think S is every bit as good as HYP (which it is).

[adameus]

This whole thread is rancid anti-Stanford UG trolling.

this coming from the guy who puts HYPS as his undergrad. Why not just put Stanford? Anyone from one of HYP would just put HYP, only someone from stanford would put HYPS....

I've never hidden the fact I went to Stanford. Saying "HYPS" just makes it abundantly clear that I think S is every bit as good as HYP (which it is).

I was just trying to raz you a little bit I'm sure S is on par with HYP for undergrad It just seemed to me like you were trying to conceal your undergrad, but obviously you weren't

[crackberry]

I was just trying to raz you a little bit I'm sure S is on par with HYP for undergrad It just seemed to me like you were trying to conceal your undergrad, but obviously you weren't

Oh no, I'm the biggest Stanford UG troll on this board.

[kosherboy2]

take what you want from it.


http://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/profile.htm

[Na_Swatch]

Oh, but someone's UGPA and LSAT score are perfect indicators of intelligence?

No, but I think its a better judge than HGPA and SAT if a person is fluent in English.

The SAT is part reading comprehension (which I think is useful), part vocabulary (doesn't say a lot about intelligence), and math (which says nothing because you can use a calculator, and math is entirely learned).

ACT is even worse.

Eh, in reality I think the SAT is actually a better judge of intelligence.. the LSAT is much too narrowly focused on one subject while the SAT is broader (especially the older SAT before they removed the analogies due to everyone's complaints).

Having it test math knowledge destroys any intelligence credibility with me. LSAT isn't very good either, but it requires less knowledge.

Seeing as how Math is one of the main topics taught throughout our entire lower education system, testing your ability at it seems reasonable for testing a person's intelligence no? I'm pretty sure people like Einstein or Curie would have a score that does not indicate their true intelligence if they hadn't taken a test similar to the LSAT while any results from the SAT would be much more accurate.

Further, the fact that you can do very well on the SAT (more so than the LSAT) without any preparation seems to make it a better test of pure intelligence in my opinion.