Hi All,

This question is directed at people who graduated from a lower-tier UG to a t14 and vice-versa.

I am wondering if you can tell the difference of motivation/work ethic/intelligence/goals in life/social skills/reliability of your peers between your top tier school compared to your lower tier (if you can somehow subjectively discount the difference between UG and LS)? If so, how does it compare?

you want someone to compare average to below average undergraduate students to law school students who are defined by the fact that they were superior undergraduate students? What in the world would this comparison provide?

I am just curious whether those people at the "elite" schools are "better" by many people's claims.

This is not always the case, especially on this board which seems to attract a fair number of super splitters. As for the original question I don't think there is much of a difference in the people I know. There are some people who went to state schools because of a full scholarship but had the numbers to get into a Harvard or Princeton.

.

do you mean people who graduated from a not-s-great UG and went to a T14?

difference between getting into a good UG and a "shitty" UG is a small tiny degree of effort in HS. HS was easy, way easier than law school. If I tried a little tiny bit harder in HS, instead of not doing any homework, and cramming for every test the night before, I might have gotten into a better UG school. Had I tried 5% harder during UG instead of not going to class and having lan parties every night, then I may have gotten a better GPA and gotten into a better LS. I finally got in in gear and worked my ass off in LS, and xferred from TTTT to T20.

The people are not that different, you will always have the gunners, the ppl that are full of themselves, and the losers that just like to drag everyone down. You will never notice most of it though. People in higher ranked schools just did the right thing earlier on. People who "jumped ranks" just realized what to do and started doing it.

Comparing people's UG is not a very good metric imo because of the inherent self-selection bias. It's not like people who went to HYP for UG are inherently smarter, but on the average they probably studied more and were more active in HS. Thus, those that end up at elite UGs tend to be those that are self-motivated. Does this mean that a HYP graduate will inherently do better than someone who went to a no-name UG? Certainly not. Are you likely to see lots of HYP graduates succeed in law school? Definitely, because people who get into HYP on the average are very self-motivated people.

It's completely and utterly meaningless.

This. If you have the numbers to get in, your intelligence, drive, and capability is no less high than someone from HYP. I would say close to 1/3 of my class went to mid/lower tier state schools and no-name liberal arts colleges. As a group, we fared just as well as our piers with more prestigious undergraduate pedigrees.

Remember, even coming from Harvard, the average applicant has only a borderline shot at breaking into the T14.