Top Law Schools

Peter North wrote:
Btw... does Tomhobbes read/post here? Did he make up his mind as to YLS v HLS? He said he's waiting on the YLS ASW.

I'm 99% sure I'll go to Yale. It's just amazing to me how it can offer better opportunities (for my interests, at least) than any other school while at the same time being more relaxed.

r6_philly wrote:

crackberry wrote:
You could also argue (though some late applicants this cycle would argue differently) that virtually anyone with a 175+, 3.8+ gets into H and those people (esp. if they are straight from UG) often get turned down by both Y and S. They will almost undoubtedly choose to go to H (excepting a Hamilton or Darrow). That definitely helps H's yield rate.

I also think East Coast bias / the fact that more people on the East Coast go to law school / DC/NYC both being on the East Coast helps H and Y.

I would also be interested to see the yield rates among these three schools for students who get the HYS sweep. I'd imagine it's the same ranking (Y, H, S) but I bet H and S are much closer together, with Y overwhelmingly on top.

But if you argue along the same line, then people who makes an effort to apply to Stanford would probably not favor east over west. If Stanford became a little more selective in handing out acceptances, maybe they can accept more people who doesn't seem to favor the east coast and big law on the east coast. If the east bias is that apparent to law students then it should make more sense for them to do more to try to attract people out west. Give money, recruit heavily, take the Feb score (:)) etc.

People turn down H for Darrow? Is Michigan that good?

Barring amazingly good financial aid from Harvard, I was probably going to turn down H for a Darrow. Being admitted to Yale threw a big wrench in things, though. I think Michigan, for various reasons, has an underrated law school.

And I think Crack's point about Harvard accepting the kids with good numbers but little else and driving up their yield with that process is probably spot-on. Those kids are likely also the sort who just want to "win" and are basing their decisions predominantly on prestige.

notanumber wrote:

Barring amazingly good financial aid from Harvard, I was probably going to turn down H for a Darrow. Being admitted to Yale threw a big wrench in things, though. I think Michigan, for various reasons, has an underrated law school.

And I think Crack's point about Harvard accepting the kids with good numbers but little else and driving up their yield with that process is probably spot-on. Those kids are likely also the sort who just want to "win" and are basing their decisions predominantly on prestige.

Really? Is it because it is a public school in the midwest? My only acceptance so far is from Michigan and my wife is telling me to forgetaboutit since she's never heard of it. Knowing I don't want big law, do you think Michigan would be a good choice over C/N?

Harvard does seem to be more numbers based than anything, so the young elite may chose H over Y/S because it is the place where all the high numbers go. Interesting enough, to my overseas relatives, H and S has about the same prestige, perhaps because more Asians goes to Stanford. Yale is way down, and I am afraid I will impress no one with Michigan (of course that is not a factor).

notanumber wrote: And I think Crack's point about Harvard accepting the kids with good numbers but little else and driving up their yield with that process is probably spot-on. Those kids are likely also the sort who just want to "win" and are basing their decisions predominantly on prestige.

That seems to be kind of a strange comment. We could also say that Stanford accepts applicants who are unlikely to have the LSAT for HY (and in some cases, C), which drives up their yield. It's also not clear why people who have high numbers and little else would be more prestige-driven than other applicants.


Edit: On a side note, it also seems like the Hamilton has some degree of arbitrariness (soft factors? professed interest in public service?) as well, rather than being purely 3.8+ 175+.

r6_philly wrote: Really? Is it because it is a public school in the midwest? My only acceptance so far is from Michigan and my wife is telling me to forgetaboutit since she's never heard of it. Knowing I don't want big law, do you think Michigan would be a good choice over C/N?

Harvard does seem to be more numbers based than anything, so the young elite may chose H over Y/S because it is the place where all the high numbers go. Interesting enough, to my overseas relatives, H and S has about the same prestige, perhaps because more Asians goes to Stanford. Yale is way down, and I am afraid I will impress no one with Michigan (of course that is not a factor).

Knowing what I do of your situation, unless Michigan gave you a Darrow I'd just reapply to schools early next cycle. But Michigan has a top law school that has been a top law school for a long time. It has a huge alumni network that is not geographically concentrated (like NYU's and Columbia's are). It also places surprisingly well into clerkships and academia.

C(x2)/N both have better placement rates for most kind of jobs, but IMHO the objective differences between them and Michigan do not outweigh substantial differences in cost.

r6_philly wrote:My only acceptance so far is from Michigan and my wife is telling me to forgetaboutit since she's never heard of it.

Maybe you should fuggedabout her since she's never heard of it.

EijiMiyake wrote:

notanumber wrote: And I think Crack's point about Harvard accepting the kids with good numbers but little else and driving up their yield with that process is probably spot-on. Those kids are likely also the sort who just want to "win" and are basing their decisions predominantly on prestige.

That seems to be kind of a strange comment. We could also say that Stanford accepts applicants who are unlikely to have the LSAT for HY (and in some cases, C), which drives up their yield. It's also not clear why people who have high numbers and little else would be more prestige-driven than other applicants.

Both Yale and Stanford have the reputation of favoring applicants who have been out of school for awhile and who have built up longer and more interesting resumes. I suspect that the people who have been off the academic treadmill for a couple of years have a bit more perspective and are more likely to choose their schools based on things like location, curriculum, financial aid, and niche placement. If nothing else, they're more likely to have family constraints that limit their mobility and to not have family constraints (helicopter parents) that push them firmly towards "winning" the prestige game.

And I suspect that Stanford's choice to accept folk with a lower LSAT does drive up their yield to some degree.

Herb Watchfell wrote:

r6_philly wrote:My only acceptance so far is from Michigan and my wife is telling me to forgetaboutit since she's never heard of it.

Maybe you should fuggedabout her since she's never heard of it.

Nah someone has to be prestige-driven around here to push me upward we can't afford to be mocking HYS like you can

notanumber wrote: Knowing what I do of your situation, unless Michigan gave you a Darrow I'd just reapply to schools early next cycle. But Michigan has a top law school that has been a top law school for a long time. It has a huge alumni network that is not geographically concentrated (like NYU's and Columbia's are). It also places surprisingly well into clerkships and academia.

C(x2)/N both have better placement rates for most kind of jobs, but IMHO the objective differences between them and Michigan do not outweigh substantial differences in cost.

Thank you for the advice! M is the only school that I am at/over both 75% so I think my chance for somemoney is best there. I haven't looked at it closely but I think you are right about the cost benefit. I will keep that in mind.

Back to H, I don't even know if they will look at my app this year I am not that competitive anyway!

notanumber wrote:If nothing else, they're more likely to have family constraints that limit their mobility and to not have family constraints (helicopter parents) that push them firmly towards "winning" the prestige game.

r6_philly wrote: Nah some one has to be prestige-driven around here to push me upward we can't afford to be mocking HYS like you can

And R6_philly disproves my point with his helicopter-wife

notanumber wrote:

notanumber wrote:If nothing else, they're more likely to have family constraints that limit their mobility and to not have family constraints (helicopter parents) that push them firmly towards "winning" the prestige game.

r6_philly wrote: Nah some one has to be prestige-driven around here to push me upward we can't afford to be mocking HYS like you can

And R6_philly disproves my point with his helicopter-wife

Well we are the exception since we strive to climb out of being poor. There is no reason why my family would want to remain in this area, the schools are less than 30% in proficiency, the crime rate is high and qualify of life miserable. But not too many people in these areas can ever have the hope of getting into a ivy league school. I am here because life had a cruel plan for me but I am not as hopeless as everyone else around me.

The typical people who have access to prestigous schools most likely have already settled into a comfortable family life in a decent area will have their mobility limited for sure, we on the other hand can't wait to get out of here to continue our education and improve our future.

notanumber wrote:

EijiMiyake wrote:

notanumber wrote: And I think Crack's point about Harvard accepting the kids with good numbers but little else and driving up their yield with that process is probably spot-on. Those kids are likely also the sort who just want to "win" and are basing their decisions predominantly on prestige.

That seems to be kind of a strange comment. We could also say that Stanford accepts applicants who are unlikely to have the LSAT for HY (and in some cases, C), which drives up their yield. It's also not clear why people who have high numbers and little else would be more prestige-driven than other applicants.

Both Yale and Stanford have the reputation of favoring applicants who have been out of school for awhile and who have built up longer and more interesting resumes. I suspect that the people who have been off the academic treadmill for a couple of years have a bit more perspective and are more likely to choose their schools based on things like location, curriculum, financial aid, and niche placement. If nothing else, they're more likely to have family constraints that limit their mobility and to not have family constraints (helicopter parents) that push them firmly towards "winning" the prestige game.

And I suspect that Stanford's choice to accept folk with a lower LSAT does drive up their yield to some degree.

Ehh, I feel like most comparisons of H/S devolve into people claiming that S admits are much more accomplished/interesting or H admits are objectively more 'intelligent' (as demonstrated by getting an extra two or three questions right on the LSAT), neither of which are particularly true in my experience. What is true is that Y/S (for better or worse) seem to favor applicants with "elite" backgrounds moreso than H, and that Y probably takes the "best" applicants from both H/S.

EijiMiyake wrote:

notanumber wrote:

EijiMiyake wrote:

notanumber wrote: And I think Crack's point about Harvard accepting the kids with good numbers but little else and driving up their yield with that process is probably spot-on. Those kids are likely also the sort who just want to "win" and are basing their decisions predominantly on prestige.

That seems to be kind of a strange comment. We could also say that Stanford accepts applicants who are unlikely to have the LSAT for HY (and in some cases, C), which drives up their yield. It's also not clear why people who have high numbers and little else would be more prestige-driven than other applicants.

Both Yale and Stanford have the reputation of favoring applicants who have been out of school for awhile and who have built up longer and more interesting resumes. I suspect that the people who have been off the academic treadmill for a couple of years have a bit more perspective and are more likely to choose their schools based on things like location, curriculum, financial aid, and niche placement. If nothing else, they're more likely to have family constraints that limit their mobility and to not have family constraints (helicopter parents) that push them firmly towards "winning" the prestige game.

And I suspect that Stanford's choice to accept folk with a lower LSAT does drive up their yield to some degree.

Ehh, I feel like most comparisons of H/S devolve into people claiming that S admits are much more accomplished/interesting or H admits are objectively more 'intelligent' (as demonstrated by getting an extra two or three questions right on the LSAT), neither of which are particularly true in my experience. What is true is that Y/S (for better or worse) seem to favor applicants with "elite" backgrounds moreso than H, and that Y probably takes the "best" applicants from both H/S.

Fair enough. I'll certainly agree that distinctions between the students attending these schools, much like the distinctions between the "quality" of the schools, are so small as to be borderline-meaningless (though I'll stand by my argument that Harvard is most likely of the three to take the UGrad gunners who have little on their resumes other than good grades and a top LSAT score. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The upside of doing that is that Harvard gives a much better shot at admission to people who had to work through college or people who attended schools without the kinds of resources needed to build stellar "softs").

EijiMiyake wrote:
Ehh, I feel like most comparisons of H/S devolve into people claiming that S admits are much more accomplished/interesting or H admits are objectively more 'intelligent' (as demonstrated by getting an extra two or three questions right on the LSAT), neither of which are particularly true in my experience. What is true is that Y/S (for better or worse) seem to favor applicants with "elite" backgrounds moreso than H, and that Y probably takes the "best" applicants from both H/S.

I agree. More accomplished people will probably not care as much about the extra point or two as much as someone in Ug because they would feel there are other thing that represent their intelligence and potential. So it isn't a good argument that because Y/S admits people with lower LSAT scores that those people are in infact inferior applicants. Prestige is important, but is the extra prestige of H worth spending more time and resources to try to increase one's LSAT a few points. I know it isn't the case for me. And if H values those extra points to show potential rather than giving weight to one's accomplishments then I don't think people who are accomplished would view H's philosophy as favorably as Y/S. So applicants self select between HYS anyway due to this.

crackberry wrote: H isn't really in the picture for any of us.

If this is true then why the hell are you sending H an LOCI? You need to withdraw your app now before you take someone's position.

notanumber wrote: Fair enough. I'll certainly agree that distinctions between the students attending these schools, much like the distinctions between the "quality" of the schools, are so small as to be borderline-meaningless (though I'll stand by my argument that Harvard is most likely of the three to take the UGrad gunners who have little on their resumes other than good grades and a top LSAT score. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The upside of doing that is that Harvard gives a much better shot at admission to people who had to work through college or people who attended schools without the kinds of resources needed to build stellar "softs").

But those people are also at a disadvantage when it comes to the LSAT because people with more resoursces. Study time, tutors, prep courses all favor kids with more resources. UG prestige would also favor them as well.

Another issue, kids with limited resources are probably more likely to pursue more "practical" UG majors. It would be harder for them to gain high GPA or receive extensive liberal arts training, which would then put their application preparation skills at a disadvantage, I know plenty of smart, intelligent kids who can't write as well including myself.

MichelledeMontaigne wrote:

crackberry wrote: H isn't really in the picture for any of us.

If this is true then why the hell are you sending H an LOCI? You need to withdraw your app now before you take someone's position.

"Whatever you condemn, you have done yourself."

Turn the mirror on yourself, buddy.

r6_philly wrote:

EijiMiyake wrote:
Ehh, I feel like most comparisons of H/S devolve into people claiming that S admits are much more accomplished/interesting or H admits are objectively more 'intelligent' (as demonstrated by getting an extra two or three questions right on the LSAT), neither of which are particularly true in my experience. What is true is that Y/S (for better or worse) seem to favor applicants with "elite" backgrounds moreso than H, and that Y probably takes the "best" applicants from both H/S.

I agree. More accomplished people will probably not care as much about the extra point or two as much as someone in Ug because they would feel there are other thing that represent their intelligence and potential. So it isn't a good argument that because Y/S admits people with lower LSAT scores that those people are in infact inferior applicants. Prestige is important, but is the extra prestige of H worth spending more time and resources to try to increase one's LSAT a few points. I know it isn't the case for me. And if H values those extra points to show potential rather than giving weight to one's accomplishments then I don't think people who are accomplished would view H's philosophy as favorably as Y/S. So applicants self select between HYS anyway due to this.

Right. I would add though, that there's a sizeable contingent of applicants who get very high LSAT scores without devoting much of their life to the test. In addition, both Y/S seem to have an academic slant - that is, they view academic accomplishments (research, getting published, etc.) more favorably than other types of accomplishments, whereas I'm not sure that this is true of H.

crackberry wrote:

MichelledeMontaigne wrote:

crackberry wrote: H isn't really in the picture for any of us.

If this is true then why the hell are you sending H an LOCI? You need to withdraw your app now before you take someone's position.

"Whatever you condemn, you have done yourself."

Turn the mirror on yourself, buddy.

I applied to HYS with H being my #1 but with an open mind nonetheless. Visited H and Y and was blown away by H. Was accepted by the three but once I decided H was the best fit for me I withdrew from the other two.

crackberry wrote:

MichelledeMontaigne wrote:

crackberry wrote: H isn't really in the picture for any of us.

If this is true then why the hell are you sending H an LOCI? You need to withdraw your app now before you take someone's position.

"Whatever you condemn, you have done yourself."

Turn the mirror on yourself, buddy.

Umm yeah, everybody else still expressing interest in Harvard actually wants to go. Why are you still trying so hard if you're supposedly dead set on Stanford or Yale?

Na_Swatch wrote:

crackberry wrote:
Turn the mirror on yourself, buddy.

Umm yeah, everybody else still expressing interest in Harvard actually wants to go. Why are you still trying so hard if you're supposedly dead set on Stanford or Yale?

So he can raise Stanford's cross-admit yield, duh.

Nothing wrong with having options.

anyone know when Harvards admitted student weekend is in April?

also do school try to get most of their admits out before the ADW's so they can have them visit campus?

thx

The ASW is April 10 & 11.

PoorOrpheus wrote:The ASW is April 10 & 11.

thank you

Na_Swatch wrote:Umm yeah, everybody else still expressing interest in Harvard actually wants to go. Why are you still trying so hard if you're supposedly dead set on Stanford or Yale?

1) I'm not trying that hard. Also, I got a JR1, why would I not put in the minimal effort required to attempt to get a JR2?
2) Believe me, not everyone who sent H a LOCI would go if admitted. I can think of at least two others who sent LOCIs to H who wouldn't go anyway.