snob appeal of your undergraduate institution Forum

[ShibaDan]

GPA combined with LSAT is an even better indicator than the LSAT.

High LSAT low GPA screams lazy. If I were an adcom I wouldn't have admitted me to Northwestern.

You're not giving yourself enough credit. REALLY high LSAT + 2 years WE (w/ decent LOR) + low UG GPA means you're smart and you got your shit together a couple years later in life than pple with the high UG GPA. NU is great because they realized that people like you are undervalued in law school admissions even though they have great potential for success. They realized they can make bank off people like you, and devised a policy to take advantage of that segment of law school applicants. I've read over the 10 year plan they devised in 1999 and it's interesting. They made a conscious effort to go after people who had put a couple years between a low GPA and law school, and killed the LSAT. It really makes sense, and I think it's great that at least one T10 law school is so progressive with its admissions criteria.

e: oh yea, and snob appeal... got me in to Penn.

I don't think anyone doubts that the farther away from UG you are the less GPA matters. Of course the more WE you have the less a 3.0 will hurt you.

[andi20]

It doesn't matter in the least, except if it is between two identical applicants who are both below median scores. I am a senior at a top ivy league school right now, and it makes no difference--even our prelaw advisor says the most important factors are GPA and LSAT.

[jh60405]

I'm pretty sure that an utter lack of snob appeal got my waitlisted at Penn. I'm in at Michigan and my numbers really ought to have me in at Penn. There were a few people on the Penn thread with 171-172 and and 3.6+ who got waitlisted at Penn and all thought that it was due to a total lack of undergrad prestige.

Now I'm still in at Michigan, Duke, and plenty of other great schools so I'm not saying that a lack of prestige will kill you. But I think it does hurt a little more than people think. Isn't OperaSoprano the ultimate example of this.

[tarheel87]

lllinois is 3.19, Wisconsin is 3.2, Georgia Tech is 3.07.

Those examples aren't very good because those are all top flight public universities. If people are thinking there is some huge difference between Cornell and Wisconsin they are fooling themselves. The bottom of the class at Cornell might be stronger than the bottom of the class at Wisonsin, but the top of the class at Wisconsin is as strong as just about anywhere else.

I stopped reading after the third page because quite honestly 9 pages of this is pretty daunting for my short attention span, but I would definitely put the top third of my UG up against any university in the country. Any top state school (UNC, UMichigan, UVA, Georgia Tech, etc.) is going to have an extremely strong top half that I would say is easily comparable to anyone outside the top 5-10% or so at an Ivy.

[Emma1]

I think snob appeal matters to a certain extent but think it isn't limited to HYP. I think they want a representation of many of the top LAC's and universities. Some of their websites even list which schools students come from in the last few years. They also want diversity in geographical locations (unless maybe a state school) etc. I think it is a factor but one of many and we really don't know what happens in the admissions office.

[bighead715]

I'll say this because there is no Princeton Law School. I have several friends that went to Princeton for undergrad. I did not. Here's what they told me about their undergraduate experience: Sure, there were a select few truly brilliant, bright kids. Most were not of this kind. Most came from somewhat privileged to extremely privileged backgrounds and once away from home did a MOUNTAIN of drugs throughout their 4, sometimes 5 years. They got through it because, from what I was told, it wasn't that intensive from an academic point of view and there were several more fluffy majors to choose from. It's not all vigorous scholarship, class and decorum in those IVY leagues, you know.

Here's what I think about a poor kid who went to a state or no-name college and pulled a 3.7-4.0.... they're hungry. Add a high LSAT to that and you tell me if the "snob appeal" of your undergraduate institution would still matter.

The average princeton kid far outworks the average state school (quite possibly the average harvard) kid in ug. This is truth.

thats a stupid assumption - no doubt there are plenty of talented and brilliant kids at the elite ivies, but the notion that state schools r only filled with people not nearly as talented as the kids at ivies is a poor notion at best...

plenty of brilliant and talented people choose to attend their state schools instead of the elite ivies for various reasons...

therefore, you are a douche and god hates you.

[Tofu]

I'll say this because there is no Princeton Law School. I have several friends that went to Princeton for undergrad. I did not. Here's what they told me about their undergraduate experience: Sure, there were a select few truly brilliant, bright kids. Most were not of this kind. Most came from somewhat privileged to extremely privileged backgrounds and once away from home did a MOUNTAIN of drugs throughout their 4, sometimes 5 years. They got through it because, from what I was told, it wasn't that intensive from an academic point of view and there were several more fluffy majors to choose from. It's not all vigorous scholarship, class and decorum in those IVY leagues, you know.

Here's what I think about a poor kid who went to a state or no-name college and pulled a 3.7-4.0.... they're hungry. Add a high LSAT to that and you tell me if the "snob appeal" of your undergraduate institution would still matter.

The average princeton kid far outworks the average state school (quite possibly the average harvard) kid in ug. This is truth.

thats a stupid assumption - no doubt there are plenty of talented and brilliant kids at the elite ivies, but the notion that state schools r only filled with people not nearly as talented as the kids at ivies is a poor notion at best...

plenty of brilliant and talented people choose to attend their state schools instead of the elite ivies for various reasons...

therefore, you are a douche and god hates you.

average =/= everyone

[Borhas]

if a guy has the same LSAT from a no-name school as a second guy from Harvard

I'm giving the edge to the no-name school guy... since after all if a Harvard education is to fancy then it ought to reflect in higher LSAT scores (and it does seem to)... thus the same score at less renowned school tells me the guy probably has more raw potential.

As for GPA, the mean GPA at Harvard is like 3.6-3.7 at UVa it's like 3.3 I think the disparity between the "average" quality of the students can be explained in the apparent grade inflation [thus a 3.7 at Harvard=3.7 at UVa (or any other school)]

[BenJ]

I think snob appeal matters to a certain extent but think it isn't limited to HYP. I think they want a representation of many of the top LAC's and universities. Some of their websites even list which schools students come from in the last few years. They also want diversity in geographical locations (unless maybe a state school) etc. I think it is a factor but one of many and we really don't know what happens in the admissions office.

If anything, a desire for geographic diversity would help lower-tier undergrads, not higher-tier ones. How many people are you going to get who went to undergrad in Wyoming without dipping into lower-tier schools? None. Compare to Massachusetts, where Harvard and MIT sit at the top with Tufts, BU, BC, Amherst, Williams, Wellesley, etc. also fierce competitors. Surely a desire for geographic diversity would help students at the University of Wyoming over much stronger undergrads like Amherst that can get in lost in the shuffle of strong undergrads in a college-heavy state.

[Borhas]

But regardless of quality, I would be INCREDIBLY surprised if going to one of the renowned private schools doesn't help... let's face it, people help their own, and the people that are hiring us and admitting us went to Harvard and Yale, not UNC, or NC State, or Maryland, or Rutgers... They help people that have had the same life experiences...

As for diversity... hah what a sham

[flyingpanda]

I think snob appeal matters to a certain extent but think it isn't limited to HYP. I think they want a representation of many of the top LAC's and universities. Some of their websites even list which schools students come from in the last few years. They also want diversity in geographical locations (unless maybe a state school) etc. I think it is a factor but one of many and we really don't know what happens in the admissions office.

The numbers don't back this up, I won't say that undergrad means nothing, but it means very little, enough to make it a non-factor for 99% of law school applicants.

[Emma1]

What numbers to do have? Why do some of the law schools go to the better schools and recruit?

[englawyer]

What numbers to do have? Why do some of the law schools go to the better schools and recruit?

better schools usually have better LSAT scores. they aren't recruiting "school x grads" but rather potential high LSAT students that are probably found at that school. for example, I believe Harvard u-grad has a mean of 166. Many schools would probably like harvard u-grad because they have high LSATs and high GPAs.

[09042014]

Something that hasn't been considered is that for many college subjects intelligence isn't a huge factor. In lower level liberal arts classes the grade earned is almost entirely based on effort. The subjects just aren't that demanding.

But a 3.5 physics at MIT getting bested by a 3.7 at Southern Illinois University is pretty bullshit.

[dresden doll]

I'll say this because there is no Princeton Law School. I have several friends that went to Princeton for undergrad. I did not. Here's what they told me about their undergraduate experience: Sure, there were a select few truly brilliant, bright kids. Most were not of this kind. Most came from somewhat privileged to extremely privileged backgrounds and once away from home did a MOUNTAIN of drugs throughout their 4, sometimes 5 years. They got through it because, from what I was told, it wasn't that intensive from an academic point of view and there were several more fluffy majors to choose from. It's not all vigorous scholarship, class and decorum in those IVY leagues, you know.

Here's what I think about a poor kid who went to a state or no-name college and pulled a 3.7-4.0.... they're hungry. Add a high LSAT to that and you tell me if the "snob appeal" of your undergraduate institution would still matter.

Yes. (Btw, I graduated from a TTT UG, and my stats are in my profile).

UG does matter, and OP's instinct that, all things equal, a prestigiouos UG grad wins out over someone that attended a crappy school is absolutely credited.

[Borhas]

^ reminded me of this quote:

Take dead aim on the rich boys. Get them in the crosshairs and take them down. Just remember, they can buy anything but they can't buy backbone. Don't let them forget it. Thank you.

[Unemployed]

ITT: People overestimate themselves

[MTC87]

As for GPA, the mean GPA at Harvard is like 3.6-3.7 at UVa it's like 3.3 I think the disparity between the "average" quality of the students can be explained in the apparent grade inflation [thus a 3.7 at Harvard=3.7 at UVa (or any other school)]

why bother posting numbers if you're going to pull them out of your ass?

[Borhas]

www.top-law-schools.com.org