snehpets wrote: PigBodine wrote:
Bronck wrote:I honestly doubt that CLS cares about where you went to UG.
I'd be surprised too. The LSAT correlates strongly with the SAT, and your SAT score correlates with the strength of the undergraduate school you went to. The median LSAT at Columbia is 172, and those kind of people are disproportionately likely to have had 1550+ SATs. There's a thread that lists various undergrads' average LSAT scores, and it tracks really closely to the way they're ranked (Harvard has the highest average, Yale is in second, etc.)
lol at my SAT being anywhere near 1550.
you're probably right, of course.
People really like to complain about the rankings screwing everything up with regard to reducing the importance of softs, being a 'well-rounded' applicant, etc., but there's definitely something to be said for being able to make up for a weak undergrad GPA with a good showing a 'strong' test like the LSAT, compared to something like the GRE, which is just sort of like a really low hurdle that's used to weed out the first big round of cuts. There aren't really any splitter-friendly undergrads that I know of. I mean, I had a perfect SAT, and I don't think I was competitive for any really elite schools on account of a couple of courses that I couldn't stand. I probably would have gone to UTexas anyways, but it's still pretty ridiculous, IMO.
catwomangirl wrote:Don't you think they're used to gauge different things?
Like LSAT= thinking on your feet, and GPA = work ethic over a period of time?
So would the same GPA from Stanford and University of Vermont be viewed equally?
By and large, I think pretty much every school is trying to get the class with the highest medians they can manage without throwing anyone in water they think is too deep (i.e., it might slightly more optimal to hide a contingent of huge splitters in the 25% freebie zone, but they're afraid that 3.97/146 types aren't going to be able to hang with the 3.5/172 people, and won't admit them -- either because they feel it would be exploitative, or because they don't understand how medians works).