Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=163250
SUNY Ithaca is.KevinP wrote:Wait... I didn't realize state schools could be IVYs.freestallion wrote: But... Penn is warmer. And an IVY
Lol.. I am from Jersey so everyone there knows what Penn is, and Michigan is just thought of as a far-away-cold-placeminnbills wrote:Michigan has more lay prestige than Penn IMO.
See I'm from Minnesota, people get Penn confused with Penn St. Everyone here knows about Michigan though.freestallion wrote:Lol.. I am from Jersey so everyone there knows what Penn is, and Michigan is just thought of as a far-away-cold-placeminnbills wrote:Michigan has more lay prestige than Penn IMO.
I thought that Penn was part public like Cornell; I thought that only Wharton was Ivyfreestallion wrote:But... Penn is warmer. And an IVY
Tiago Splitter wrote:As someone who has never visited either school, I'd take Penn over Michigan based on placement.
Virginia also deserves credit for the big-time GPA median. Reverse-splitter gold.
anstone1988 wrote:I thought that Penn was part public like SUNY Ithaca; I thought that only Wharton was Ivy
I actually met a guy who said that to me... I just thought he sounded like a pretentious d-bag4910 wrote:yeah i used to live in pennsylvania and even there ppl confusued upenn and penn state. from now on, everyone from upenn needs to say "i go to upenn, the ivy league" instead of just saying "i go to penn".
in your defense, that is an objectively douchey thing to sayfreestallion wrote:I actually met a guy who said that to me... I just thought he sounded like a pretentious d-bag4910 wrote:yeah i used to live in pennsylvania and even there ppl confusued upenn and penn state. from now on, everyone from upenn needs to say "i go to upenn, the ivy league" instead of just saying "i go to penn".
I was just thinking about this. I'm wondering if the top schools were less picky among applicants with stellar numbers this past year. For instance, they were perhaps willing to take more of the applicants with great numbers regardless of their softs. In years past, Harvard and Yale had their pick of the litter, and they could be picky about undergraduate representation, past experiences, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of their students with prior work experience declined, for instance. I also wouldn't be surprised if they had fewer Truman Scholars, Goldwater Scholars, etc.KibblesAndVick wrote:Anyone want to speculate on how Harvard had 1,200+ fewer applicants but managed to keep their LSAT 25/75 unchanged and raised their GPA 25/75? Was the drop in applicants primarily from less qualified candidates? Did they use more splitters to game the numbers? Are college GPAs continually rising due to grade inflation?
Also, if anyone can find/reveal Harvard's new medians it would be much appreciated.
Which begs the question - what would the rankings look like if they were lay prestige based?minnbills wrote:Michigan has more lay prestige than Penn IMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_th ... dern_usageKremeCheez wrote:Which begs the question - what would the rankings look like if they were lay prestige based?minnbills wrote:Michigan has more lay prestige than Penn IMO.
Princeton Law would no doubt be in the top 5...
People who matter, know the difference.4910 wrote:yeah i used to live in pennsylvania and even there ppl confusued upenn and penn state. from now on, everyone from upenn needs to say "i go to upenn, the ivy league" instead of just saying "i go to penn".
The very significant rise in the increase in straight-through kids lends support to your conclusion.Real Madrid wrote:I was just thinking about this. I'm wondering if the top schools were less picky among applicants with stellar numbers this past year. For instance, they were perhaps willing to take more of the applicants with great numbers regardless of their softs. In years past, Harvard and Yale had their pick of the litter, and they could be picky about undergraduate representation, past experiences, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of their students with prior work experience declined, for instance. I also wouldn't be surprised if they had fewer Truman Scholars, Goldwater Scholars, etc.KibblesAndVick wrote:Anyone want to speculate on how Harvard had 1,200+ fewer applicants but managed to keep their LSAT 25/75 unchanged and raised their GPA 25/75? Was the drop in applicants primarily from less qualified candidates? Did they use more splitters to game the numbers? Are college GPAs continually rising due to grade inflation?
Also, if anyone can find/reveal Harvard's new medians it would be much appreciated.
It seems logical that they would sacrifice softs before student numerical quality for as long as possible. Eventually, though, their medians will have to drop if test takers continue to drop (and people start heeding the advice coming from so many sources).
24% for the Class of 2014 vs 28% for the Class of 2013; looks like a decrease to me.r6_philly wrote:The very significant rise in the increase in straight-through kids lends support to your conclusion.Real Madrid wrote:I was just thinking about this. I'm wondering if the top schools were less picky among applicants with stellar numbers this past year. For instance, they were perhaps willing to take more of the applicants with great numbers regardless of their softs. In years past, Harvard and Yale had their pick of the litter, and they could be picky about undergraduate representation, past experiences, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the number of their students with prior work experience declined, for instance. I also wouldn't be surprised if they had fewer Truman Scholars, Goldwater Scholars, etc.KibblesAndVick wrote:Anyone want to speculate on how Harvard had 1,200+ fewer applicants but managed to keep their LSAT 25/75 unchanged and raised their GPA 25/75? Was the drop in applicants primarily from less qualified candidates? Did they use more splitters to game the numbers? Are college GPAs continually rising due to grade inflation?
Also, if anyone can find/reveal Harvard's new medians it would be much appreciated.
It seems logical that they would sacrifice softs before student numerical quality for as long as possible. Eventually, though, their medians will have to drop if test takers continue to drop (and people start heeding the advice coming from so many sources).
Yeah actually I think its more of the fact that 7000 v. 8000 students isn't that much of a difference in terms of a class of 550. You're going to be able to pick pretty easily out of that based on whatever metrics (numbers and softs) that you want.1988AndX wrote:24% for the Class of 2014 vs 28% for the Class of 2013; looks like a decrease to me.r6_philly wrote:
The very significant rise in the increase in straight-through kids lends support to your conclusion.
Does the increase in emphasis on WE mean that it's getting harder for splitters w/o WE to get in, or does it mean that 3.95+/175+'s w/o WE are getting dinged more often as well?Nom Sawyer wrote:Yeah actually I think its more of the fact that 7000 v. 8000 students isn't that much of a difference in terms of a class of 550. You're going to be able to pick pretty easily out of that based on whatever metrics (numbers and softs) that you want.1988AndX wrote:24% for the Class of 2014 vs 28% for the Class of 2013; looks like a decrease to me.r6_philly wrote:
The very significant rise in the increase in straight-through kids lends support to your conclusion.
For example Class of 2012 and earlier were much closer to 50% straight out of college, but Class of 2013 had 28% straight through and now Class of 2014 had only 24% straight through. This fact (which seems to be influenced by JR's choices in admits) combined with the rising medians seems to suggest that Harvard is still putting a decent amount of consideration towards softs once a certain numbers bar has been met.