HYP undergrads vs. HYS 0Ls Forum

[DoubleChecks]

Harvard's average SAT score is 1480/1600. Does that mean a 1480 on the SAT roughly equal to a 166 on the LSAT? Or does the average Harvard student study much harder for the SAT than for the LSAT?

Or is the group of Harvard students who take the LSAT substantially different from the average Harvard student?

lol this +1

[Stringer Bell]

for what it's worth, my lsat teacher swears more than anything else that one's lsat "potential" (for higher scorers) is within 1-2 points of their equivalent verbal sat score...kind of...it's easier to explain with examples

720 = 172

690 = 169

600 = 160

you get the idea. he strongly discourages his students from actually taking the exam unless their practice tests are right around if not above what their score "should" be, according to their verbal sat

This is not even close in my case. My LSAT score destroys my SAT score on this scale.

[Unemployed]

These days, Harvard's mean LSAT is 167. Yale has 166, and Princeton has 165.

But yeah, most HYP undergrads couldn't get into YHS.

[booby87]

.

[Nom Sawyer]

for what it's worth, my lsat teacher swears more than anything else that one's lsat "potential" (for higher scorers) is within 1-2 points of their equivalent verbal sat score...kind of...it's easier to explain with examples

720 = 172

690 = 169

600 = 160

you get the idea. he strongly discourages his students from actually taking the exam unless their practice tests are right around if not above what their score "should" be, according to their verbal sat

This is not even close in my case. My LSAT score destroys my SAT score on this scale.

+1 to the bolded. I think your LSAT teacher is full of it

you guys are WRONG... clearly his teacher is correct...

because based on that assessment my LSAT score should have been 180.. i like that

[englawyer]

for what it's worth, my lsat teacher swears more than anything else that one's lsat "potential" (for higher scorers) is within 1-2 points of their equivalent verbal sat score...kind of...it's easier to explain with examples

720 = 172

690 = 169

600 = 160

you get the idea. he strongly discourages his students from actually taking the exam unless their practice tests are right around if not above what their score "should" be, according to their verbal sat

This is not even close in my case. My LSAT score destroys my SAT score on this scale.

+1 to the bolded. I think your LSAT teacher is full of it

+1 what a joke. The SAT verbal section is a vocabulary test ??

[CordeliusX]

OP's question is a dumb one. At every single school in the country the law students are going to be brighter, on average, than the undergrad population.

I don't think this is necessarily intuitive. HYP prides itself on having "cream of the crop" "best of the best" etc. Whether that is true is part of my question. For one thing, I was curious if only the "losers" do law school while everyone else goes off to banking or med school or whatever...

[vanwinkle]

I don't think this is necessarily intuitive. HYP prides itself on having "cream of the crop" "best of the best" etc. Whether that is true is part of my question. For one thing, I was curious if only the "losers" do law school while everyone else goes off to banking or med school or whatever...

Many HYP grads go to non-HYS law schools. That should tell you something right there.

[whitman]

I guess I'd better hold out for a 176 then. I wish I'd known...

[DallasCowboy]

720 to 172. It worked for me, surprisingly.

[crackberry]

This whole thread is rancid anti-Stanford UG trolling.

[parker09]

http://www.yale.edu/career/students/gra ... wstats.pdf
Third column, the % admitted.

Obviously this only looks at Yale undergrads who apply to law schools (as opposed to whether ALL Yale undergrads) and who think they are competitive for those law schools to which they apply (as opposed to a 3.0/165, for example, who probablu wouldn't apply to YLS).

Anyway, take that for what it's worth.
Also keep in mind the cross-applications (for example, a good chunk of the 210 who applied to HLS probably are the same people as a good chunk of the 212 who applied to CLS) and cross-admits.

[Reinhardt]

Woah, 45% of Y undergrad applicants get into SLS.

[blueballa]

Woah, 45% of Y undergrad applicants get into SLS.

i noticed that too, but when you look at the actual numbers listed for stanford (33 admits out of 137 applicants), that's nowhere near 45%.

[Chichaca]

My take: College applicants are high school children. The cream of the crop of high school children are not the same people as the cream of the crop four + years later, just because people hit their peak at different times.

[parker09]

Woah, 45% of Y undergrad applicants get into SLS.

i noticed that too, but when you look at the actual numbers listed for stanford (33 admits out of 137 applicants), that's nowhere near 45%.

Haha, Yale Career Services mathfail. Nice catch.

[Reinhardt]

I think it's subtle SLS trolling on their part.

[englawyer]

OP's question is a dumb one. At every single school in the country the law students are going to be brighter, on average, than the undergrad population.

I don't think this is necessarily intuitive. HYP prides itself on having "cream of the crop" "best of the best" etc. Whether that is true is part of my question. For one thing, I was curious if only the "losers" do law school while everyone else goes off to banking or med school or whatever...

i suspect that law school could probably be the backup option for a number of people. however, those people are still quite smart to begin with.

Person 1
-my dream job is mckinsey/bain/boston!
-they get the interview because of a really high GPA and great test scores
-goes to interview, strikes out
-"might as well go to law school rather than some TTT consulting firm"

Person 2
-i want to be a doctor!
-wait a sec...organic chemistry sucks / don't want to see blood
-"hmm might as well go to law school"

Person 3
-aces English undergrad
-professors urge he/she to go PhD program since he/she is the best
-gets to phd program and realizes that research sucks
-"might as well go to law school"

[narkizopoint]

yay for person 3!

[parker09]

OP's question is a dumb one. At every single school in the country the law students are going to be brighter, on average, than the undergrad population.

I don't think this is necessarily intuitive. HYP prides itself on having "cream of the crop" "best of the best" etc. Whether that is true is part of my question. For one thing, I was curious if only the "losers" do law school while everyone else goes off to banking or med school or whatever...

i suspect that law school could probably be the backup option for a number of people. however, those people are still quite smart to begin with.

I don't think only the "losers" go to law school either, or that's it's necessarily a backup. The three quoted scenarios could of course happen, and probably do (especially Person B), but taking the LSAT is a pretty big investment (time and $$$), and applying to law school is a pretty big investment (time and $$$), and both take at least a little planning ahead (signing up for the LSAT, which is only administered 4 times a year), so it's not exactly an easy fall-back...

That being said, I'm not saying it's NOT a backup either. Just that it's not ONLY the "losers" who go to law school after they've failed elsewhere, but that it runs the range of motivations and caliber of student.

[Flanker1067]

I'd expect Harvard kids in general to do better on the LSAT than kids at Suffolk or Northeastern, but that's not the same as saying I expect every Harvard kid to get a 179 and be eligible for HYS just because Harvard is one of if not the best UG in the nation.

HAHAHA, I love seeing people make fun of Northeastern. Seriously, I have no illusions about myself, I was a slacker in high school and I found college at NEU pretty easy, but I got a 171, (so eff Harvard). I don't mean this offensively Van, you are right, mean at NEU is 151)

[kittenmittons]

This whole thread is rancid anti-Stanford UG trolling.

To be fair, it's not even ivy.

hth

[RVP11]

OP's question is a dumb one. At every single school in the country the law students are going to be brighter, on average, than the undergrad population.

I don't think this is necessarily intuitive. HYP prides itself on having "cream of the crop" "best of the best" etc. Whether that is true is part of my question. For one thing, I was curious if only the "losers" do law school while everyone else goes off to banking or med school or whatever...

No, it's not true.

HYP has athletes with lower academic credentials. HYP has legacies with lower academic credentials.

Many/most at YHS law schools were top 1%, or damn close to it, in undergrad, and top 1% on the LSAT. These are people who are winners at life, not just at high school or the genetic lottery or at what fancy prep school Mom and Dad sent them to or at rowing, tennis, or what have you.

The holy trinity is chock full of folks who were the best of the best at their undergrad. Many people who were academic all-stars at their state schools. And no one who was subpar at their undergrad, even if that undergrad was HYPS, is getting into YHS for law school. So yes, it's a fairly obvious inference that the people at YHS are more impressive than the UG kids at HYPS.

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.

[englawyer]

I don't think only the "losers" go to law school either, or that's it's necessarily a backup. The three quoted scenarios could of course happen, and probably do (especially Person B), but taking the LSAT is a pretty big investment (time and $$$), and applying to law school is a pretty big investment (time and $$$), and both take at least a little planning ahead (signing up for the LSAT, which is only administered 4 times a year), so it's not exactly an easy fall-back...

That being said, I'm not saying it's NOT a backup either. Just that it's not ONLY the "losers" who go to law school after they've failed elsewhere, but that it runs the range of motivations and caliber of student.

there are certainly some people going to law school as choice #1. surely folks interested in politics might choose law. also people that read "to kill a mockingbird" or something and were inspired. there are certainly a myriad of reasons for going into law.

my point was just that it can be a backup option, and while the points you mentioned are true, the flipside is that it takes little planning aside from registering for the LSAT. any major from any school can go to law school provided they do well on that one standardized test and were extremely successful academically in college. for example, in my case, i didn't consider law school AT ALL during undergraduate, but yet here I am attending next fall.

[imisscollege]

for what it's worth, my lsat teacher swears more than anything else that one's lsat "potential" (for higher scorers) is within 1-2 points of their equivalent verbal sat score...kind of...it's easier to explain with examples

720 = 172

690 = 169

600 = 160

you get the idea. he strongly discourages his students from actually taking the exam unless their practice tests are right around if not above what their score "should" be, according to their verbal sat

This is not even close in my case. My LSAT score destroys my SAT score on this scale.

+1 to the bolded. I think your LSAT teacher is full of it

Ya it might destroy I think it is qualified with "at least." I just forgot to put that part.

Also I don't think he's arguing that they necessarily relate to each other, but more that they both relate to intelligence/test taking ability and that in turn relates to both of them.