A. Nony Mouse wrote: BigZuck wrote: RodneyRuxin wrote:
BigZuck wrote:I too went to a prestigiousish UG like dsn's and I think I have also outperformed my numbers but TLS tells me I'm wrong so I'm probably wrong.
Thanks for that.
NP brobro, hth.
My problem with this argument is that people will try to glean something from LSN that says prestige matters and TLS screams "sample size." Then a bro who goes to Vandy will come back with data from his prelaw counselor that says his classmates outperform their numbers and TLS screams "sample size!" Then a Georgetown bro comes back with similar data and TLS screams "sample size!" Then a UVA bro, etc., etc.
I agree that sample size, URMs, etc could mean that one school's example might not tell the whole story. But if a number of different prestigious schools are reporting similar results I think we should give credence to the notion
Also I agree that the epicness of this cycle might account for some outperforming their numbers. But we have barely seen the epicness yet (I think that comes near the end of the cycle, especially with waitlist movement). And I personally feel I have been outperforming my numbers for two cycles now in regards to acceptances and especially scholarships. But who am I to question TLS so I'm probably wrong.
I guess I just want to know where these people are? I haven't seen anyone (else) say their prelaw counselor says that at their school people outperform their numbers - the vast majority of people say their school didn't make a difference, and the ones who do simply say they believe that their school made the difference, not that someone with data told them their school outperforms. Which prestigious schools are reporting these similar results?
(In any case, it's not like most people can change their UG by the time they're applying to law school, and relying on the UG to make up for deficiencies in grades/LSAT seems a poor move.)
I've seen the data on Harvard and Stanford undergrads, and there does appear to be a modest boost...the matriculant medians from Harvard and Stanford are lower than the overall matriculant medians. Also, schools with GPA floors will sometimes drop their floor for non-URM HYPSM grads...the only non-URMs I have known who went to HLS with below a 3.7 were all Harvard undergrads. I say 'appear to be a boost,' though, because HYPSM tend to take people with great softs, and they put people in a position to get a great job after college, both of which may boost people's applications, so it may not be that schools boost for the undergrad itself but for the things that come with it. I personally think it is okay to give somewhat of a boost for it because it is crazily hard to get into those schools and is a big accomplishment, but when it is, like, 3.9/179 state U guy versus 3.5/168 HYP guy, obviously state U guy should win out.
I have never heard anyone make those kinds of claims about UVA, Vandy, or GT, though. I thought it was more or less reserved for HYPSM, particularly when you are an HYS undegrad applying to your own college's law school.
Just want to clarify, in the case of OP, I heartily agree with this assessment as I don't think there is much of a boost for non-HYP schools:
The OP to this thread, at least, had the choice of a state school that was a good fit and a private "prestigious" school that caused a lot of apprehension. The only thing that OP seemed to like about the expensive private school was the prestige. In this case, I would definitely recommend the state school. And in reality, I think it'd be very difficult to prove that prestige of undergrad is more important than around .05 in GPA or 1 LSAT point, so it seems ill-advised to pay, in most cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars more to attend the private school.
doing_it_in_a_car wrote:sorry to hijack - but could anyone comment (or refer threads) on the weight given to undergrad reputation/prestige in biglaw hiring? I assume that by far, the most important factors are grades/law school attended/law review - but all things equal, how much of an edge would attending an ivy undergrad help
Thriller is wrong. In fact I am pretty sure he is not in law school yet. Caliber of law school, grades, and law review are more important than undergrad prestige, but undergrad prestige is not 0. Law firms are prestige-oriented. They want to be able to put on their website that you went to HYP or whatever. In fact, the whole profession is overly prestige-oriented, and the people interviewing you spend 60-70 hours a week on average with other people obsessed with prestige. It rubs off on you even if you aren't like that normally. Also, a lot of interviewers went to prestigious undergrads or their law school counterparts, so it gives you something easy to talk about and bond over. I would say that undergrad prestige, especially if you did well at the undergrad, can be a factor in some hiring decisions. It will vary wildly based on the people making the decisions. That is why you can't say it will categorically be zero. I know from personal experience that it can make a difference, but it isn't make-or-break. If grade onto law review and went to an unprestigious undergrad, you don't need to worry that the Yale grad at the bottom of your law school class will pull the mat out from under you.