Quality of undergrad and success in law school... Forum

[solitarymatch]

It seems that where you went to undergrad doesn't play much of a factor in the law school admissions process.

However, does the quality of your undergrad education strongly correlate with whether one succeeds or flounders at a top-tier law school?

I only ask after observing others nearby go on to reputable schools, only to transfer to lower tiered institutions. I remember in college asking several professors for advice, and the relationship concerning undergrad quality was implied.

[Holly Golightly]

It doesn't matter.

[thequigley]

It doesn't matter.

^^^

[thequigley]

It doesn't matter.

^^^

^^^so much so that I know many who went to great undergrad institutions that are now bottom 15% at TTT.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I only ask after observing others nearby go on to reputable schools, only to transfer to lower tiered institutions. I remember in college asking several professors for advice, and the relationship concerning undergrad quality was implied.

Do you mean this happened in undergrad (people transfering to lower-tiered schools)? Because undergrad admissions and grading are so completely different from law school that you can't really compare. So no, you don't need to go to some elite undergrad to be able to succeed at a top law school.

[ymmv]

It doesn't matter.

[solitarymatch]

I only ask after observing others nearby go on to reputable schools, only to transfer to lower tiered institutions. I remember in college asking several professors for advice, and the relationship concerning undergrad quality was implied.

Do you mean this happened in undergrad (people transfering to lower-tiered schools)? Because undergrad admissions and grading are so completely different from law school that you can't really compare. So no, you don't need to go to some elite undergrad to be able to succeed at a top law school.

No. Some people who graduated from my undergrad went on to very good law schools, but either quit after first semester or transferred to a lower tiered law school after the first year.

Thank you for your answers.

[brotherdarkness]

.

[bleakchimera2]

"Transferred to lower tiered schools?" Is this a thing? Why on earth would anyone do this?

ETA: besides like maybe geographical considerations, I guess?

[solitarymatch]

"Transferred to lower tiered schools?" Is this a thing? Why on earth would anyone do this?

ETA: besides like maybe geographical considerations, I guess?

Coursework apparently was too difficult? Or something happened?

One of my advisors had told me the best anyone from my undergrad got was a full ride to Georgetown, but the student in question "dropped out." Then she talked about being realistic, not being allured by names and money, etc. I was turned off at this point, but she wasn't the only person with this vibe. Then I heard outrageous stories. Like how someone at HLS murdered another because her grades were better. It all seemed like BS, but I was more curious regarding whether quality of undergrad matters. I see that it doesn't.

[PepperJack]

I'd argue there's some correlation. At least at my school the law review has a greater # of "elite" undergrads. I think the advantage is subtle, but two fold. Ivy-league educated people tend to be more confident in their intelligence, and confident people are less likely to get flustered under pressure. In addition, the education at top universities is better so assuming that all students had the exact same IQ, a student who went to an elite undergrad had great writing teaching.

A more interesting comparison would be to equivocate Big Law with the NBA and make a documentary called 160 Dream. to take high school students with the same #'s, have one go to Harvard and have the other go with a full ride somewhere. We'd track them both going to law school afterwards, follow them through 1L and see who wins.

If one of them gets big law, and one of them strikes out, and goes ambulance chasing. We have a potential Oscar Winner. Of course, all rights would belong to me under this post.

[Mullens]

Your adviser is an idiot. Lol at the boomerism about being realistic. Study your ass off for the LSAT and go to a great school. No one is going to try to murder you at Harvard. Are you sure your adviser didn't see the trailer for that awful new law school tv show and make up a story?

[PepperJack]

"Transferred to lower tiered schools?" Is this a thing? Why on earth would anyone do this?

ETA: besides like maybe geographical considerations, I guess?

Coursework apparently was too difficult? Or something happened?

One of my advisors had told me the best anyone from my undergrad got was a full ride to Georgetown, but the student in question "dropped out." Then she talked about being realistic, not being allured by names and money, etc. I was turned off at this point, but she wasn't the only person with this vibe. Then I heard outrageous stories. Like how someone at HLS murdered another because her grades were better. It all seemed like BS, but I was more curious regarding whether quality of undergrad matters. I see that it doesn't.

You probably went to a small school with a population underrepresented by family members in law. A better question might be to just get figures on how many people from your school take the LSAT, which these offices should have. How's this bro raking in 50k/year to just look at charts, and still not use the right charts. We could get him a charismatic TLS'er with a 180 to both teach LSAT Classes for college credit, and provide the useful advice these guys can't all for the same 50k.

Colleges suck at using their endowments.

[solitarymatch]

Your adviser is an idiot. Lol at the boomerism about being realistic. Study your ass off for the LSAT and go to a great school. No one is going to try to murder you at Harvard. Are you sure your adviser didn't see the trailer for that awful new law school tv show and make up a story?

You may read my past posts and see the environment wasn't supportive overall. I just wanted to know if there was any truth/reason to what was told to me, given that I had spoken with more than one prof. and received similar feedback.

And is there really a new tv show like that? I'm curious now. What was told to me about HLS came from someone who got their doctorate there.

[A. Nony Mouse]

No. Some people who graduated from my undergrad went on to very good law schools, but either quit after first semester or transferred to a lower tiered law school after the first year.

Attrition at the top schools is very low, and it's really really really really hard to flunk out, so I'd suspect it's something other than not being able to hack the academics.

I'd argue there's some correlation. At least at my school the law review has a greater # of "elite" undergrads. I think the advantage is subtle, but two fold. Ivy-league educated people tend to be more confident in their intelligence, and confident people are less likely to get flustered under pressure. In addition, the education at top universities is better so assuming that all students had the exact same IQ, a student who went to an elite undergrad had great writing teaching.

I mean, anecdotally, most of the Ivy kids at my law school weren't on law review - it was a lot of people who'd gone to the same UG as LS (state flagship). Also, I totally disagree with the bolded. All the elite schools value research over teaching (though the elite LACs will tend to require excellence in both), so there isn't a lot of incentive/reward for profs to be great teachers. The academic job market is also so glutted, anyone who gets a job anywhere is incredibly qualified. Top universities usually do provide a lot more opportunities, but not automatically better teaching/education.

But that said, OP, it's true your advisor doesn't know what they're talking about.

[spleenworship]

No real correlation. I went to a TTTT state school and beat out some of them Ivy peeps. Some of them Ivy peeps kicked my ass.

[First Offense]

Zero correlation.

[Crowing]

Have not seen any such relation at my school

[beepboopbeep]

No. Some people who graduated from my undergrad went on to very good law schools, but either quit after first semester or transferred to a lower tiered law school after the first year.

Attrition at the top schools is very low, and it's really really really really hard to flunk out, so I'd suspect it's something other than not being able to hack the academics.

I'd argue there's some correlation. At least at my school the law review has a greater # of "elite" undergrads. I think the advantage is subtle, but two fold. Ivy-league educated people tend to be more confident in their intelligence, and confident people are less likely to get flustered under pressure. In addition, the education at top universities is better so assuming that all students had the exact same IQ, a student who went to an elite undergrad had great writing teaching.

I mean, anecdotally, most of the Ivy kids at my law school weren't on law review - it was a lot of people who'd gone to the same UG as LS (state flagship). Also, I totally disagree with the bolded. All the elite schools value research over teaching (though the elite LACs will tend to require excellence in both), so there isn't a lot of incentive/reward for profs to be great teachers. The academic job market is also so glutted, anyone who gets a job anywhere is incredibly qualified. Top universities usually do provide a lot more opportunities, but not automatically better teaching/education.

But that said, OP, it's true your advisor doesn't know what they're talking about.

Agreed with Crowing that I haven't noticed it here, though who knows - we'll see when LR gets announced. But I'd be very surprised if there were any connection. Some of the people I know who did very well went to no-name undergrads.

The thing about elite undergrads is that it's very hard to do poorly in non-STEM degree programs - believe me, I tried my hardest to not do any work/not go to classes/be drunk all the time in undergrad, and graduated with a 3.65. There is an enormous safety net at these schools. Someone who did really well at a state flagship was actually the cream of the crop there, as opposed to someone who slacked off and may have had a similar GPA at a higher-ranked private university.

Most of my undergrad writing profs were grad-student TAs anyway. The school did focus on writing, but freshmen undergrads don't.