Top Law Schools

False, HYPS is not worth .3 GPA points.

When an adcom looks at your GPA there are two things they can do with it. On the one hand, they can take the number at face value. This allows them to make straightforward comparisons between students and make sure the entering class hits their target median.

On the other hand, they can try to take a deeper look and predict if you will succeed in law school. In order to do this they have to consider the strength of your undergrad, your major, your grade trend, if it appears you took hard or easy classes, if there are a handful of bad grades in an otherwise pristine transcript, and whatever else. The trouble with this is that you can't compare two students objectively. Student A is a math major with a 3.4 from MIT but has an upward grade trend, Student B has a 3.6 in English and History from a small liberal arts college. It's apples and oranges. It's not like the LSAT which is designed so that you can easily compare students. This makes it hard for them to give a boost to elite undergrads because they would also have to give a boost to grade trends and difficult majors.

charlesjd wrote:

lshopeful3232 wrote:fwiw, i went to a top 10 ug and i really think it's one of the main reasons i was waitlisted and not flat our rejected at some of the schools i applied to since my numbers were below medians. so while i dont think it allows me to have lower numbers, it definitely has helped keep me in the running at some places i think

Maybe a reason, not a main reason. If it were between you and another with exactly the same numbers, and he went to TTTT state school, then yeah. All that really matters is that the school you go to is not online and is accredited lol. It is ALL numbers..... Duh.

i realize it is all about numbers, hence why im discussing being waitlisted. clearly my ug was not enough of a boost to get me admitted. but im just saying that i think it did keep me from getting rejected completely. though in no way as good as a urm boost, being able to say that their students come from my ug in their class profile is probably desirable to law schools.

legalnoeagle wrote:The LSAT comment was a quoting mistake, and anyway, it's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Everyone gets their panties in a knot whenever this issue is brought up (perhaps because it hits too close to home), but really, if all measures of performance (UG is graded on a curve, LSAT on a curve, LS performance on a curve) are relative, then why should a school whose candidate pool averages 160 on the LSAT NOT be put at disadvantage vs. a school whose candidate pool averages 165? Especially when it comes to figuring out how well that person performed (or will perform) vs. his classmates.

The 3.3/3.8 analogy was extreme, but I think my original hypo isn't too ridiculous.

Oh, my bad about the quoting mistake. The LSAT does matter though in this conversation, as I could do better on a test than the average student from any school in the world even with my implied TTTT stupidity.

Again you are making the assumption that all schools are graded on equal curves. My classes are curved "the rare ones that are" to a C. So nothing like B or B+ curves at Top UGs. You have already been given credit by grade inflation for the increase competition you are trying to get more credit for.

I would put my knowledge and expertise up against anyone, including HYSP. In fact I’ve done it several times with various standardized tests and never scored below 95th percentile.

charlesjd wrote:

lshopeful3232 wrote:fwiw, i went to a top 10 ug and i really think it's one of the main reasons i was waitlisted and not flat our rejected at some of the schools i applied to since my numbers were below medians. so while i dont think it allows me to have lower numbers, it definitely has helped keep me in the running at some places i think

Maybe a reason, not a main reason. If it were between you and another with exactly the same numbers, and he went to TTTT state school, then yeah. All that really matters is that the school you go to is not online and is accredited lol. It is ALL numbers..... Duh.

I don't think this is true.

If you have two candidates -- both with a 3.7/172 -- the one who went to Yale will get into CCN over the one who went to a TTT directional school every time. These are prestigious law schools who are into such things.

Now if the guy from Yale has a 3.6/168, it won't matter. Your numbers have to be in the ballpark. But at the borders, I think it absolutely makes a difference. I think it's one of the best softs you can have, IMHO. (One that I don't have, by the way).

legalnoeagle wrote:

oneforship wrote:depends on who you ask and which side of the argument benefits them.

Well, assuming that the top 25-30% of every class gets A/A-, which is about right, even for HYPS, shouldn't AdComms control for the overall competitiveness of the student body? Hell, they could even use average LSAT scores as a proxy.

As in, if school X has an average LSAT of 165, whereas school Y averages around 160, then that 3.5/3.8 difference should be mitigated.

I know that in a world of US News rankings this would never happen, but I wonder if this is something they consider.


Edit: Hell, with that LSAT difference, the equalizer should be a 3.3 from School X.

One major problem with trying to standardize by average LSAT is that certain majors self select into taking the test. If you weight the GPA in this way, by and large, it's going to be based on how smart the PoliSci, English, History, Philosophy, and Economics majors are. If you're a Civil Engineer it doesn't mean very much.

Not that the current system makes any sense or fails to discriminate against numerous people...

HYP have serious grade inflation. So a 3.7 from HYP is no better (may even be worse) than a 3.7 from another good school with little grade inflation (like my LAC with a strict 2.9 curve). However, a top 5% rank from HYP may be more valuable than a top 5% rank from my LAC.

Unitas wrote:

legalnoeagle wrote:The LSAT comment was a quoting mistake, and anyway, it's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Everyone gets their panties in a knot whenever this issue is brought up (perhaps because it hits too close to home), but really, if all measures of performance (UG is graded on a curve, LSAT on a curve, LS performance on a curve) are relative, then why should a school whose candidate pool averages 160 on the LSAT NOT be put at disadvantage vs. a school whose candidate pool averages 165? Especially when it comes to figuring out how well that person performed (or will perform) vs. his classmates.

The 3.3/3.8 analogy was extreme, but I think my original hypo isn't too ridiculous.

Oh, my bad about the quoting mistake. The LSAT does matter though in this conversation, as I could do better on a test than the average student from any school in the world even with my implied TTTT stupidity.

Again you are making the assumption that all schools are graded on equal curves. My classes are curved "the rare ones that are" to a C. So nothing like B or B+ curves at Top UGs. You have already been given credit by grade inflation for the increase competition you are trying to get more credit for.

I would put my knowledge and expertise up against anyone, including HYSP. In fact I’ve done it several times with various standardized tests and never scored below 95th percentile.

What % of the students in this class receive As? At my HYP the average was about 20-30%: and this was before the crackdown on grade inflation.

And what percentile is your current GPA?

legalnoeagle wrote:

Unitas wrote:

legalnoeagle wrote:The LSAT comment was a quoting mistake, and anyway, it's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Everyone gets their panties in a knot whenever this issue is brought up (perhaps because it hits too close to home), but really, if all measures of performance (UG is graded on a curve, LSAT on a curve, LS performance on a curve) are relative, then why should a school whose candidate pool averages 160 on the LSAT NOT be put at disadvantage vs. a school whose candidate pool averages 165? Especially when it comes to figuring out how well that person performed (or will perform) vs. his classmates.

The 3.3/3.8 analogy was extreme, but I think my original hypo isn't too ridiculous.

Oh, my bad about the quoting mistake. The LSAT does matter though in this conversation, as I could do better on a test than the average student from any school in the world even with my implied TTTT stupidity.

Again you are making the assumption that all schools are graded on equal curves. My classes are curved "the rare ones that are" to a C. So nothing like B or B+ curves at Top UGs. You have already been given credit by grade inflation for the increase competition you are trying to get more credit for.

I would put my knowledge and expertise up against anyone, including HYSP. In fact I’ve done it several times with various standardized tests and never scored below 95th percentile.

What % of the students in this class receive As? At my HYP the average was about 20-30%: and this was before the crackdown on grade inflation.

And what percentile is your current GPA?

Not to disturb you two's conversation.
20-30% is awfully high. At my LAC it was at most 10%. (I had a 3.7ish and was in the top 4%).

violinst wrote:

legalnoeagle wrote:

Unitas wrote:

legalnoeagle wrote:The LSAT comment was a quoting mistake, and anyway, it's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Everyone gets their panties in a knot whenever this issue is brought up (perhaps because it hits too close to home), but really, if all measures of performance (UG is graded on a curve, LSAT on a curve, LS performance on a curve) are relative, then why should a school whose candidate pool averages 160 on the LSAT NOT be put at disadvantage vs. a school whose candidate pool averages 165? Especially when it comes to figuring out how well that person performed (or will perform) vs. his classmates.

The 3.3/3.8 analogy was extreme, but I think my original hypo isn't too ridiculous.

Oh, my bad about the quoting mistake. The LSAT does matter though in this conversation, as I could do better on a test than the average student from any school in the world even with my implied TTTT stupidity.

Again you are making the assumption that all schools are graded on equal curves. My classes are curved "the rare ones that are" to a C. So nothing like B or B+ curves at Top UGs. You have already been given credit by grade inflation for the increase competition you are trying to get more credit for.

I would put my knowledge and expertise up against anyone, including HYSP. In fact I’ve done it several times with various standardized tests and never scored below 95th percentile.

What % of the students in this class receive As? At my HYP the average was about 20-30%: and this was before the crackdown on grade inflation.

And what percentile is your current GPA?

Not to disturb you two's conversation.
20-30% is awfully high. At my LAC it was at most 10%. (I had a 3.7ish and was in the top 4%).

I'm including As and A-s... Don't know what the numbers look like now.
A 3.7 would put you in the 15-20% of one of HYP. What was the 50th percentile LSAT of your LAC?

Wait, so do you guys actually think UG quality means nothing in LS admissions, even if we're talking about HYPS and MIT UG and HYS, Chicago law schools? Or were you all joking?

legalnoeagle wrote:

violinst wrote:

legalnoeagle wrote:


What % of the students in this class receive As? At my HYP the average was about 20-30%: and this was before the crackdown on grade inflation.

And what percentile is your current GPA?

Not to disturb you two's conversation.
20-30% is awfully high. At my LAC it was at most 10%. (I had a 3.7ish and was in the top 4%).

I'm including As and A-s... Don't know what the numbers look like now.
A 3.7 would put you in the 15-20% of one of HYP. What was the 50th percentile LSAT of your LAC?

161

crackberry wrote:Wait, so do you guys actually think UG quality means nothing in LS admissions, even if we're talking about HYPS and MIT UG and HYS, Chicago law schools? Or were you all joking?

No. Quality matters. But absolute GPAs are not as telling as class ranks.

violinst wrote:

crackberry wrote:Wait, so do you guys actually think UG quality means nothing in LS admissions, even if we're talking about HYPS and MIT UG and HYS, Chicago law schools? Or were you all joking?

No. Quality matters. But absolute GPAs are not as telling as class ranks.

Yes, and class ranks should be equalized by how talented their pool is. A 10% difference in median lsat percentiles (I think 166 is around 50th percentile at my HYPS) is hardly insignificant, so perhaps your 3.7 should be discounted vs. a HYPS graduate's gpa and class rank, regardless of grade inflation?

The grade inflation argument would have more credence if the inflation weren't skewed towards the bottom end of the scale. Sure, it's not easy to flunk out of HYPS, but getting As/A-s is by no means a given.

violinst wrote:

crackberry wrote:Wait, so do you guys actually think UG quality means nothing in LS admissions, even if we're talking about HYPS and MIT UG and HYS, Chicago law schools? Or were you all joking?

No. Quality matters. But absolute GPAs are not as telling as class ranks.

I don't think many (if any) of HYPS publish class rank.

lshopeful3232 wrote:fwiw, i went to a top 10 ug and i really think it's one of the main reasons i was waitlisted and not flat our rejected at some of the schools i applied to since my numbers were below medians. so while i dont think it allows me to have lower numbers, it definitely has helped keep me in the running at some places i think

Depends. What school? Some schools just rampantly waitlist everyone for the fun of watching them suffer (see: UVA).

Anyway, no discernible difference. A 3.7 from HYP is about equivalent to a 3.8 from the University of Phoenix in law school admissions. Use whatever scale you want to make up the difference, but that amounts to a 3.7 from HYP being basically the same as a 3.701 at a T15-20 UG.

Maybe double the scale difference for Chicago and Penn.

my first instinct is to say that it's pretty smug of you to say only 4 schools in the entire country deserve special consideration. especially when adcomms have the LSAT as an impartial (or as close to it as possible) indicator of intelligence. but, i would have to agree with earlier posters that certain law schools care about where you did your UG. Penn is absolutely one of them. just look through its viewbook.

fortunately, not every school is inclined to consider ug quality. it wouldn't be fair. there are only so many seats at these schools, and there is an abundance of exigencies to consider (family income, geographic location, interest in a different school's faculty or programs specifically). i'm thankful most law schools don't consider ug quality, at least not to the point that it would preclude someone like me from living the dream and going to my top choice for free. my ug does not have lay prestige. i can guarantee you've never heard of it. but here i am. if that's not fair, it's no more unfair than someone getting accepted on the strength of his/her undergrad institution's reputation and not on merit. the discussion has to do with whether gpa at these schools is deflated. i'm not buying that. many of my friends went to penn ug, and i know A's get handed out there like candy, just like every other school (swarthmore excepted).

legalnoeagle wrote:

violinst wrote:

crackberry wrote:Wait, so do you guys actually think UG quality means nothing in LS admissions, even if we're talking about HYPS and MIT UG and HYS, Chicago law schools? Or were you all joking?

No. Quality matters. But absolute GPAs are not as telling as class ranks.

Yes, and class ranks should be equalized by how talented their pool is. A 10% difference in median lsat percentiles (I think 166 is around 50th percentile at my HYPS) is hardly insignificant, so perhaps your 3.7 should be discounted vs. a HYPS graduate's gpa and class rank, regardless of grade inflation?

The grade inflation argument would have more credence if the inflation weren't skewed towards the bottom end of the scale. Sure, it's not easy to flunk out of HYPS, but getting As/A-s is by no means a given.

GPA and class rank should not be grouped together here.

I would say that my 4% class rank should be discounted when comparing to the same rank at HYPS. But, given HYPS' grade inflation (I know that Y's average is around 3.53), my 3.7ish GPA from a 2.9 curve may not need to be discounted at all (the difference between 3.53/2.9 is greater than 166/161. But of course this is just a rough way of estimating the differences).

There is the difference between absolute values and relative values, and the latter is always more telling.

crackberry wrote:

violinst wrote:

crackberry wrote:Wait, so do you guys actually think UG quality means nothing in LS admissions, even if we're talking about HYPS and MIT UG and HYS, Chicago law schools? Or were you all joking?

No. Quality matters. But absolute GPAs are not as telling as class ranks.

I don't think many (if any) of HYPS publish class rank.

You can get it from your LSAC academic report. You can even find the GPA distribution of the LSAT takers from your own school. It's not entirely accurate, since it only measures those who decided to take the LSAT, but you can still get the general picture.

violinst wrote:

crackberry wrote:

violinst wrote:

crackberry wrote:Wait, so do you guys actually think UG quality means nothing in LS admissions, even if we're talking about HYPS and MIT UG and HYS, Chicago law schools? Or were you all joking?

No. Quality matters. But absolute GPAs are not as telling as class ranks.

I don't think many (if any) of HYPS publish class rank.

You can get it from your LSAC academic report. You can even find the GPA distribution of the LSAT takers from your own school. It's not entirely accurate, since it only measures those who decided to take the LSAT, but you can still get the general picture.

I think the underlined represents a pretty serious flaw. I went to Stanford, where, according to LSAC, my 3.89 put me in the 89th percentile of GPAs. But there is no way a 3.89 is 89th percentile at Stanford, where a ton of really smart engineers who don't even know what law school is get 3.3s despite working 80 hours a week.

BenJ wrote:

lshopeful3232 wrote:fwiw, i went to a top 10 ug and i really think it's one of the main reasons i was waitlisted and not flat our rejected at some of the schools i applied to since my numbers were below medians. so while i dont think it allows me to have lower numbers, it definitely has helped keep me in the running at some places i think

Depends. What school? Some schools just rampantly waitlist everyone for the fun of watching them suffer (see: UVA).

Anyway, no discernible difference. A 3.7 from HYP is about equivalent to a 3.8 from the University of Phoenix in law school admissions. Use whatever scale you want to make up the difference, but that amounts to a 3.7 from HYP being basically the same as a 3.701 at a T15-20 UG.

Maybe double the scale difference for Chicago and Penn.

From what i've seen on LSN, the GPA outliers for some of the top schools have one of the following (besides being URM): 1) Engineering major or something similar or 2) HYP.

If I was coming from HYP my cycle at CCN might have gone much differently.

I would say HYP can give someone .1 and even potentially as high of a .2 bump GPA-wise. I think this applies more to schools in the T-14 though.

crackberry wrote:

violinst wrote:

crackberry wrote:

violinst wrote:
No. Quality matters. But absolute GPAs are not as telling as class ranks.

I don't think many (if any) of HYPS publish class rank.

You can get it from your LSAC academic report. You can even find the GPA distribution of the LSAT takers from your own school. It's not entirely accurate, since it only measures those who decided to take the LSAT, but you can still get the general picture.

I think the underlined represents a pretty serious flaw. I went to Stanford, where, according to LSAC, my 3.89 put me in the 89th percentile of GPAs. But there is no way a 3.89 is 89th percentile at Stanford, where a ton of really smart engineers who don't even know what law school is get 3.3s despite working 80 hours a week.

Stanford is big enough to have departments with different grading curves, in which case knowing those specifics would be very helpful (but almost impossible for adcom).

A 3.89 surely deserves to be in the 11% at Stanford, but you yourself, because of all those smart engineering students getting 3.3s, may not. (I am just trying to digest your statement, since I believe that you put the wrong evidences together to support your otherwise sound argument. No offense to you personally at all!)

kittenmittons wrote:

crackberry wrote:No, this is wrong. At the top law schools (HYS and Chicago most notably, and also Penn apparently), UG prestige definitely means something. It's not a magic bullet, but it's definitely a solid soft and I do think there is a small boost.

One of these does not belong

I read through the rest of the thread and literally the only thing I could think of was, "which one of these doesn't belong?" Can someone enlighten me to what I'm missing?

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:

BenJ wrote:

lshopeful3232 wrote:fwiw, i went to a top 10 ug and i really think it's one of the main reasons i was waitlisted and not flat our rejected at some of the schools i applied to since my numbers were below medians. so while i dont think it allows me to have lower numbers, it definitely has helped keep me in the running at some places i think

Depends. What school? Some schools just rampantly waitlist everyone for the fun of watching them suffer (see: UVA).

Anyway, no discernible difference. A 3.7 from HYP is about equivalent to a 3.8 from the University of Phoenix in law school admissions. Use whatever scale you want to make up the difference, but that amounts to a 3.7 from HYP being basically the same as a 3.701 at a T15-20 UG.

Maybe double the scale difference for Chicago and Penn.

From what i've seen on LSN, the GPA outliers for some of the top schools have one of the following (besides being URM): 1) Engineering major or something similar or 2) HYP.

If I was coming from HYP my cycle at CCN might have gone much differently.

I would say HYP can give someone .1 and even potentially as high of a .2 bump GPA-wise. I think this applies more to schools in the T-14 though.

For P, it does. Princeton practices active grade deflation, so I would expect the top schools to be a bit more lenient with their graduates for having lower GPAs. (Median GPA at Princeton is around a 3.2 against about a 3.5 at the rest of the Ivies/most other top schools.)

But I don't really see the trend of outliers for HY, anyway. For the tough majors, sure (and this then draws in schools like MIT, CalTech, Georgia Tech, etc. that have low GPA medians).

Like I said, there is a tiny difference. But it is tiny. Enough that it might be noticeable if comparing an applicant from Harvard to one from Appalachian State, but still small even then.

Also, we're sort of discounting the counseling available at top schools that probably make applicants from top schools generally turn in more "polished" applications, much like those high school students from elite UG feeder schools turn in better applications without being any smarter than anyone else, and often dumber.

violinst wrote:

legalnoeagle wrote:

violinst wrote:

crackberry wrote:Wait, so do you guys actually think UG quality means nothing in LS admissions, even if we're talking about HYPS and MIT UG and HYS, Chicago law schools? Or were you all joking?

No. Quality matters. But absolute GPAs are not as telling as class ranks.

Yes, and class ranks should be equalized by how talented their pool is. A 10% difference in median lsat percentiles (I think 166 is around 50th percentile at my HYPS) is hardly insignificant, so perhaps your 3.7 should be discounted vs. a HYPS graduate's gpa and class rank, regardless of grade inflation?

The grade inflation argument would have more credence if the inflation weren't skewed towards the bottom end of the scale. Sure, it's not easy to flunk out of HYPS, but getting As/A-s is by no means a given.

GPA and class rank should not be grouped together here.

I would say that my 4% class rank should be discounted when comparing to the same rank at HYPS. But, given HYPS' grade inflation (I know that Y's average is around 3.53), my 3.7ish GPA from a 2.9 curve may not need to be discounted at all (the difference between 3.53/2.9 is greater than 166/161).

There is the difference between absolute values and relative values, and the latter is always more telling.

The statistics for GPA and class rank I'm getting from the LSDAS Academic report generated for my school. Such that there is a difference between relative GPAs and ranks between schools, I still think that the median LSAT of law school applicants (from a particular school) should factor more heavily in an AdComm's evaluation of either class rank or GPA (as reported by LSAC)--at least more than LSN and anecdotal evidence would indicate.

I'm not sure how you can know any of the HYPS GPA averages; each administration has gone great lengths to conceal them, and the only numbers that exist are from student polls, which are obviously self-selective. If there is a difference in the LSAC reported numbers and the real averages, I'm sure the LSAC data probably overstates inflation, what with the majority of applicants being of the less rigorous liberal arts variety.

TheBigMediocre wrote:

kittenmittons wrote:

crackberry wrote:No, this is wrong. At the top law schools (HYS and Chicago most notably, and also Penn apparently), UG prestige definitely means something. It's not a magic bullet, but it's definitely a solid soft and I do think there is a small boost.

One of these does not belong

I read through the rest of the thread and literally the only thing I could think of was, "which one of these doesn't belong?" Can someone enlighten me to what I'm missing?

Uh, really?