snob appeal of your undergraduate institution Forum

[Emma1]

How much does the snob appeal of your undergraduate institution mean for acceptances in law school. I think it can give you a leg up with many of the law schools. Other thoughts?

[reasonabledoubt]

How much does the snob appeal of your undergraduate institution mean for acceptances in law school. I think it can give you a leg up with many of the law schools. Other thoughts?

Approximately 0%

[Emma1]

I don't believe that for a minute. If two people have the same scores and one is from a no name college and one is from a top LAC or university I think hands down the person with the better name school wins. Question really is how much benefit do they get if things are unequal?

[traehekat]

I don't believe that for a minute. If two people have the same scores and one is from a no name college and one is from a top LAC or university I think hands down the person with the better name school wins.

Approximately .8%

The LSAT and GPA make up 95%, then everything else is 5%. Since that includes personal statement, letters of recommendation, resume, grade trends, diversity, etc., it seems pretty clear that undergraduate institution matters very little.

So do you go to H, Y, or P?

[prezidentv8]

How much does the snob appeal of your undergraduate institution mean for acceptances in law school. I think it can give you a leg up with many of the law schools. Other thoughts?

Let me answer your question with another question. Wanna play the repeater?

But, FWIW, my institution had zero snob appeal outside of the wine business major.

[Pearalegal]

I don't believe that for a minute.

Ok, if you so strongly believe in one answer, why did you ask the question in the first place?

[crackberry]

It definitely means something. Don't listen to TLS absolutes.

My opinion is that a few schools matter (HYPS, MIT definitely) and that there are some that matter a little less (Chicago, Columbia, etc.) and below that it doesn't really matter.

For some law schools, like Yale, Chicago and Stanford, you can see the proof in the pudding: UG institution matters.

[nematoad]

I don't believe that for a minute.

Ok, if you so strongly believe in one answer, why did you ask the question in the first place?

actually it only means that she doesn't believe in one answer

[Pearalegal]

I don't believe that for a minute.

Ok, if you so strongly believe in one answer, why did you ask the question in the first place?

actually it only means that she doesn't believe in one answer

Haha, fair enough.

[reasonabledoubt]

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.

[reasonabledoubt]

For some law schools, like Yale, Chicago and Stanford, you can see the proof in the pudding: UG institution matters.

The most elite universities tend to have the smartest, hardest working and/or institutionally adept students with impressive extracurriculars. This has far more to do with why they'd end up at those schools than simply having an elite university's name on their degree.

lol. Yale. G-Dubya.

[The Pen Is Mightier]

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.

[Pearalegal]

For some law schools, like Yale, Chicago and Stanford, you can see the proof in the pudding: UG institution matters.

The most elite universities tend to have the smartest, hardest working and/or institutionally adept students with impressive extracurriculars. This has far more to do with why they'd end up at those schools than simply having an elite university's name on their degree.

Uh, maybe. While top undergrads are obviously well represented in law schools, I believe that it would be a mistake to say that it is because of the quality of the students. Most of those students were raised in homes where graduate education and the lifestyle of professional careers such as the law are supported and widely expected. Many people at top undergrads are fantastic students. Many are fuck ups. I think thats the same in every college, regardless of rank. Too many factors. I think that can be argued to death with no real agreement, so I'll leave it at that.

However, I love that people talk about situations where there are two identical candidates and a certain X factor might win out in whatever case. However, there are never two identical candidates. PS, LORs and resumes are more than softs they are a required part of an application, though you can argue about their impact. However, because of those things, no two candidates will ever be identical.

[ConMan345]

http://harvard.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats

If you look at the people who were admitted on the border between admit/deny, it's pretty clear the majority are from top schools.

[insert obligatory causation vs correlation caveat]

...jus' sayin'

[reasonabledoubt]

For some law schools, like Yale, Chicago and Stanford, you can see the proof in the pudding: UG institution matters.

The most elite universities tend to have the smartest, hardest working and/or institutionally adept students with impressive extracurriculars. This has far more to do with why they'd end up at those schools than simply having an elite university's name on their degree.

Uh, maybe. While top undergrads are obviously well represented in law schools, I believe that it would be a mistake to say that it is because of the quality of the students. Most of those students were raised in home where graduate education and the lifestyle of professional careers such as the law are support and widely expected. Many people at top undergrads are fantastic students. Many are fuck ups. I think thats the same in every college, regardless of rank. Too many factors. I think that can be argued to death with no real agreement, so I'll leave it at that.

However, I love that people talk about situations where there are two identical candidates and a certain X factor might win out in whatever case. However, there are never two identical candidates. PS, LORs and resumes are more than softs they are a required part of an application, though you can argue about their impact. However, because of those things, no two candidates will ever be identical.

Very true - any talk of the mythical "two equal candidates" is purely hypothetical and probably not worth debating.

[prezidentv8]

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 [strike]outworks[/strike] outworked the average state school (quite possibly the average harvard) kid in [strike]ug[/strike] high school. This is truth.

FTFY

[englawyer]

YS clearly emphasize soft factors. LSN shows that there is no green "auto admit" section.

every other school has 3 regions: auto-admit, borderline, auto-reject. the only cases where ugrad prestige matters is in that borderline region. if your numbers are auto-reject or auto-admit then it doesn't matter.

in H's case, this is why you can see people with great softs get admits in the 170-172, 3.9+ range but not others. once you get 175+ LSAT/3.9+, it doesn't really matter what school you came from.

[crackberry]

For some law schools, like Yale, Chicago and Stanford, you can see the proof in the pudding: UG institution matters.

The most elite universities tend to have the smartest, hardest working and/or institutionally adept students with impressive extracurriculars. This has far more to do with why they'd end up at those schools than simply having an elite university's name on their degree.

It's not all a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have gotten into SLS or a phone interview at HLS with my stats if I hadn't gone to HYPS for UG. The truth is, none of us know the answer to this question, but I maintain that certain law schools give slight advantages to kids coming from the most prestigious UG institutions.

Sure, a 165, 3.7 from Harvard UG isn't going to outdo a 172, 3.9 from Bumblefuck State, but that's not my point. My point is that a 169, 3.9 from HYPS (like myself) could have a slight advantage over a 171, 3.8 from Bumblefuck at law schools like Stanford, Yale and Chicago.

[Emma1]

I am not HYP lol. I do believe that if LSAT and GPA are the same that person with the better known, respected school has the edge. Do people not agree with this? Question for me is if it gives any edge if GPA LSAT are similar but not the same. How much of an edge would they get if any? I know that several law schools specifically recruit from some of the higher rated colleges and that is why I am asking.

[reasonabledoubt]

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 [strike]outworks[/strike] outworked the average state school (quite possibly the average harvard) kid in [strike]ug[/strike] high school. This is truth.

FTFY

Now this is truth.

[ConMan345]

For some law schools, like Yale, Chicago and Stanford, you can see the proof in the pudding: UG institution matters.

The most elite universities tend to have the smartest, hardest working and/or institutionally adept students with impressive extracurriculars. This has far more to do with why they'd end up at those schools than simply having an elite university's name on their degree.

It's not all a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have gotten into SLS or a phone interview at HLS with my stats if I hadn't gone to HYPS for UG. The truth is, none of us know the answer to this question, but I maintain that certain law schools give slight advantages to kids coming from the most prestigious UG institutions.

Sure, a 165, 3.7 from Harvard UG isn't going to outdo a 172, 3.9 from Bumblefuck State, but that's not my point. My point is that a 169, 3.9 from HYPS (like myself) could have a slight advantage over a 171, 3.8 from Bumblefuck at law schools like Stanford, Yale and Chicago.

TITCR

[englawyer]

I am not HYP lol. I do believe that if LSAT and GPA are the same that person with the better known, respected school has the edge. Do people not agree with this? Question for me is if it gives any edge if GPA LSAT are similar but not the same. How much of an edge would they get if any. I know that several law schools specifically recruit from some of the higher rated colleges and that is why I am asking.

i am sorry to break it to you, but those are over-hyped stats by the u-grad admissions office. no school outside the T5-T10 is "great for prelaw" or is a "feeder" to the top law schools. any "feeding" effect is probably due to a higher average LSAT than other institutions and self-selection/desire for law on behalf of the undergraduates.

[Pearalegal]

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 [strike]outworks[/strike] outworked the average state school (quite possibly the average harvard) kid in [strike]ug[/strike] high school. This is truth.

FTFY

+100. In addition, I think the prestige of high schools for college admissions matters a lot more than the prestige of colleges for law schools, oddly enough.

I went to a boarding school for high school, but kept in touch with many of my friends from public school that continued onto the rather rough school I would have attended. The 3.8 GPAs and whatever the hell a high SAT is now from my boarding school got into top schools with overwhelming more frequency than their public school counterparts.

These kids were no smarter than those over the in the public school, and the kids in public school often had to work harder to learn the material, due to the lack of support. I guarantee you the grading curve was no tougher at my school. Instead, we had admission counselors who personally lobbied top schools on our behalves. Can't beat that.

[scionb4]

Once upon a time, Valparaiso University was called the "Poor Man's Harvard." I don't think it has quite held on to that distinction.

[The Pen Is Mightier]

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 [strike]outworks[/strike] outworked the average state school (quite possibly the average harvard) kid in [strike]ug[/strike] high school. This is truth.

FTFY

Now this is truth.

I've seen it firsthand, and going strictly by the median performers, I stand by what I said. I would also grant that the top 10% at just about any 4 year school might outwork the average princeton kids. Quit a bit more than just top 10% in many instances.