3.0 from Dartmouth versus 3.0 from state school Forum

[abl]

Definitely a boost, but how big depends on a number of factors (in roughly the order of importance):

1. How elite is the law school? HYS will give far bigger boosts than regional schools. Why? They have to worry far less about their GPA ranges and are much more just looking for the best students.

2. How elite is your undergrad? You'll get a boost from HYP and Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore just about anywhere, and are likely to get *some* boost from the other ivies/top 10-20 liberal arts colleges + Unis ...but once you start dipping below that level your school quality may not make much of a difference. E.g. Cal State Fullerton may not be as prestigious as UC Davis, but don't expect to see much of a boost if you're attending the latter over the former. Factored into this is how known for grade inflation is your undergrad. Williams and Swarthmore--known for having deflated grades--will probably help you out on the margins a bit more than Stanford or Princeton--known for having inflated grades.

3. How high is your LSAT? Schools are more willing to forgive a low GPA from an elite institution if you have a high LSAT. If your LSAT is unimpressive, don't expect to see your GPA doing you many favors.

4. What was your major? What classes did you take? A low GPA in polisci isn't going to help nearly as much as a low GPA in engineering.

5. Do you have any GPA trends? If your freshman GPA was 1 point lower than your senior GPA, schools are more likely to forgive a low overall GPA and assume that your senior GPA is more indicative of your abilities.

[AspiringAcademic]

Even for TLS, this is a ridiculous amount of butthurt.

BUT I WENT TO AN ELITE UNDERGRAD! I AM SPECIAL SNO FLAAAAAAKE!

Except, if gossipgirl, MrKappus, and curious1 are correct, the OP's school may very well be treated differently than a less prestigious institution. This is fundamentally an empirical question.

Edit after abl:
Great post, though I'd be skeptical of 4 and 5 unless I saw some data to that effect. There aren't enough Swat alums in LSN to get an indication of their relative performance, but if major and GPA trend mattered I think it would stand out more.

[Curious1]

Definitely a boost, but how big depends on a number of factors (in roughly the order of importance):

1. How elite is the law school? HYS will give far bigger boosts than regional schools. Why? They have to worry far less about their GPA ranges and are much more just looking for the best students.

2. How elite is your undergrad? You'll get a boost from HYP and Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore just about anywhere, and are likely to get *some* boost from the other ivies/top 10-20 liberal arts colleges + Unis ...but once you start dipping below that level your school quality may not make much of a difference. E.g. Cal State Fullerton may not be as prestigious as UC Davis, but don't expect to see much of a boost if you're attending the latter over the former. Factored into this is how known for grade inflation is your undergrad. Williams and Swarthmore--known for having deflated grades--will probably help you out on the margins a bit more than Stanford or Princeton--known for having inflated grades.

3. How high is your LSAT? Schools are more willing to forgive a low GPA from an elite institution if you have a high LSAT. If your LSAT is unimpressive, don't expect to see your GPA doing you many favors.

4. What was your major? What classes did you take? A low GPA in polisci isn't going to help nearly as much as a low GPA in engineering.

5. Do you have any GPA trends? If your freshman GPA was 1 point lower than your senior GPA, schools are more likely to forgive a low overall GPA and assume that your senior GPA is more indicative of your abilities.

1 2 and 3 are excellent points. But I do have to point out that Pton is known for DEFLATION, not inflation (I didn't go there, I've heard horror stories though)

[soj]

1 2 and 3 are excellent points. But I do have to point out that Pton is known for DEFLATION, not inflation (I didn't go there, I've heard horror stories though)

Horror stories told by students who like to complain and self-handicap. In the grand scheme of things, I think you mean less egregious inflation rather than deflation.

[Curious1]

1 2 and 3 are excellent points. But I do have to point out that Pton is known for DEFLATION, not inflation (I didn't go there, I've heard horror stories though)

Horror stories told by students who like to complain and self-handicap. In the grand scheme of things, I think you mean less egregious inflation rather than deflation.

Princeton classes are restricted to a low % A's and A-'s in each department, so lecture classes have very hard curves. That's why they staple a piece of paper explaining their deflation policy on every transcript they send out. It works out to about a .2 lower mean GPA I think (3.39 versus 3.58 from Y), and that's still pretty high, but don't forget the caliber of students we're dealing with here.

[soj]

but don't forget the caliber of students we're dealing with here.

I haven't forgotten. I'm not convinced that students who did well in high school and on the SAT are that much smarter than students who didn't, so I don't have much sympathy for Princeton students who feel entitled to vastly higher grades. A 3.39 mean GPA is still quite generous. It's stingy when compared to 3.58 at Y, but not when compared to mean GPAs around the country (taking student caliber into consideration).

Hence, lol at the butthurt ITT.

[Bildungsroman]

People are always really quick to say that it's all about the raw GPA numbers.

For the most part, I will agree, it's centered on the raw number. However, I go to a T10-20 undergrad--not HYP, not Chicago, not even a T10--and when you go to the Career Services Office and look at the GPAs/LSATs of admitted students over the past several years, there are several T14 schools that have favored our GPA consistently over three to four years. At the same time, there is one T6 school that seems happy to reject even our strongest applicants!

So, I wouldn't bank on an advantage, but it's not entirely unreasonable to assume a slight edge, especially if there's evidence to support the notion.

What the fuck is a "T20" undergrad? Your undergrad is extremely unprestigious and unimpressive hth.

First off, why do you sound so angry?

For whatever it's worth, my undergrad afforded me the following opportunities:
A) Great professors who teach fairly small classes, and who make themselves accessible to undergrads
B) A large number of intelligent, serious peers who are dedicated to performing at a high level
C) Excellent placement into several T14s

Hope this helps.

A. Did
B. Not
C. Read

[HeavenWood]

People are always really quick to say that it's all about the raw GPA numbers.

For the most part, I will agree, it's centered on the raw number. However, I go to a T10-20 undergrad--not HYP, not Chicago, not even a T10--and when you go to the Career Services Office and look at the GPAs/LSATs of admitted students over the past several years, there are several T14 schools that have favored our GPA consistently over three to four years. At the same time, there is one T6 school that seems happy to reject even our strongest applicants!

So, I wouldn't bank on an advantage, but it's not entirely unreasonable to assume a slight edge, especially if there's evidence to support the notion.

What the fuck is a "T20" undergrad? Your undergrad is extremely unprestigious and unimpressive hth.

First off, why do you sound so angry?

For whatever it's worth, my undergrad afforded me the following opportunities:
A) Great professors who teach fairly small classes, and who make themselves accessible to undergrads
B) A large number of intelligent, serious peers who are dedicated to performing at a high level
C) Excellent placement into several T14s

Hope this helps.

After Penn UG, the second-most represented UGs at Penn Law are Yale and Penn State. Hope this helps.

[Curious1]

People are always really quick to say that it's all about the raw GPA numbers.

For the most part, I will agree, it's centered on the raw number. However, I go to a T10-20 undergrad--not HYP, not Chicago, not even a T10--and when you go to the Career Services Office and look at the GPAs/LSATs of admitted students over the past several years, there are several T14 schools that have favored our GPA consistently over three to four years. At the same time, there is one T6 school that seems happy to reject even our strongest applicants!

So, I wouldn't bank on an advantage, but it's not entirely unreasonable to assume a slight edge, especially if there's evidence to support the notion.

What the fuck is a "T20" undergrad? Your undergrad is extremely unprestigious and unimpressive hth.

First off, why do you sound so angry?

For whatever it's worth, my undergrad afforded me the following opportunities:
A) Great professors who teach fairly small classes, and who make themselves accessible to undergrads
B) A large number of intelligent, serious peers who are dedicated to performing at a high level
C) Excellent placement into several T14s

Hope this helps.

After Penn UG, the second-most represented UGs at Penn Law are Yale and Penn State. Hope this helps.

Penn State is 8 times bigger than either Yale or UPenn...

[HeavenWood]

What the fuck is a "T20" undergrad? Your undergrad is extremely unprestigious and unimpressive hth.

First off, why do you sound so angry?

For whatever it's worth, my undergrad afforded me the following opportunities:
A) Great professors who teach fairly small classes, and who make themselves accessible to undergrads
B) A large number of intelligent, serious peers who are dedicated to performing at a high level
C) Excellent placement into several T14s

Hope this helps.

After Penn UG, the second-most represented UGs at Penn Law are Yale and Penn State. Hope this helps.

Penn State is 8 times bigger than either Yale or UPenn...

7 times bigger than Yale, 4 times bigger than Penn.

But the point, my dear elitist, is that if you work hard and make the most of your school's resources, it doesn't really matter where you went to UG. There are smart and talented people just about everywhere.

[BiglawOrBust]

OP, please give my regards to these folks tonight:

[Curious1]

7 times bigger than Yale, 4 times bigger than Penn.

But the point, my dear elitist, is that if you work hard and make the most of your school's resources, it doesn't really matter where you went to UG. There are smart and talented people just about everywhere.

It's interesting how people will say this but laugh at people who go to anything outside of T14. Gotta pick one or the others. A good UG ups your chances at a good job and a good law school, just like how a good law school ups your chances at a good job.

Going to a bad UG doesn't mean you won't get anywhere, and neither does going to a bad law school--we're only talking about percentages and chances. There's no need to be extreme on either side. Yes, they will take a 3.9 from Phoenix Online over a 3.0 from Harvard, but they'll probably look closer if its a 3.9 versus a 3.8.

[Tiago Splitter]

It's interesting how people will say this but laugh at people who go to anything outside of T14. Gotta pick one or the others..

Hold on now. No one is saying that the rules regarding where to attend UG apply to law school.

[HeavenWood]

It's interesting how people will say this but laugh at people who go to anything outside of T14. Gotta pick one or the others..

Hold on now. No one is saying that the rules regarding where to attend UG apply to law school.

Bingo. Mind yo RC fail, curious.

[Curious1]

It's interesting how people will say this but laugh at people who go to anything outside of T14. Gotta pick one or the others..

Hold on now. No one is saying that the rules regarding where to attend UG apply to law school.

Bingo. Mind yo RC fail, curious.

Actually they do. You go to an elite UG for a better chance at getting a job, you go to an elite LS for the same reason.

It only doesn't apply when very smart people who could've gone to elite UG's know they're going to apply to law school and deliberately go to a lesser ranked/"easier" UG to make it easier to get better grades. I don't think a lot of people do this.

This discussion is getting really pointless. We all agree it's a tiny boost at the edges for the best law schools, and only if you're coming from the best UGs.

[HeavenWood]

It's interesting how people will say this but laugh at people who go to anything outside of T14. Gotta pick one or the others..

Hold on now. No one is saying that the rules regarding where to attend UG apply to law school.

Bingo. Mind yo RC fail, curious.

Actually they do. You go to an elite UG for a better chance at getting a job, you go to an elite LS for the same reason.

It only doesn't apply when very smart people who could've gone to elite UG's know they're going to apply to law school and deliberately go to a lesser ranked/"easier" UG to make it easier to get better grades. I don't think a lot of people do this.

This discussion is getting really pointless. We all agree it's a tiny boost at the edges for the best law schools, and only if you're coming from the best UGs.

There's a much smaller gap in employment prospects between undergraduate institutions than law schools. There are also far more than a handful of UGs that place you in a position to land a good job. Most of my friends who majored in business and engineering (respectable programs at my school, but on the low side of the top 50) got decent jobs upon graduation. You couldn't say the same for a law school of equivalent stature.

[thelawyler]

It's funny becuase I know several students who transferred to my Ivy from their local state school with 4.0 GPAs and immediately dropped into the 3.5 range when they got here. And what do you know! That's the median GPA for the hyper grade inflation ridden Ivy League!

There are smart people at every reputable and respectable University, but there is no doubt that there are many more at the top colleges. Thus it only makes sense that given their track record of hard work in high school, they will continue to work hard and master the material at a higher proportion than ones at the local state school, which leads to "grade inflation."

It's not being elitist but being realistic. A 3.97 from a public in the rank 40s is definitely a really smart dude. I'm not doubting that nor is anybody else. What I'm trying to say is that the median dude at Yale with a 3.5 is probably just as smart. The state school guy would probably be able to get that 3.5 at Yale, too. But whether he will get a 3.3 or a 3.9 at Yale are just unknown, while I feel the Yale guy getting into the 3.9 range (same majors) is more probable if they switched spots. Top schools just allows for greater distinction between people who mastered the material.

I know my high school best friends who decided to go for a full ride to the local public and got 3.95~ GPAs in hard sciences / engineering were always a very small step behind me academically yet I managed a 3.4~ GPA at an Ivy. I have no doubt that I would have had a similar GPA as my good friends had I went to their school. And sure, my GPA was a bit low but my last four terms were a 3.7 average after deciding to step it up a lot more which makes the gap sound about right. To claim there is no difference in the schools is either just ignorance or just trolling.

Regarding employment... I'd say the very top schools have firms that never even touch the lower schools. But if you do well at any reputable undergrad, you'll have good prospects for sure. Just don't expect to get call backs for McKinsey if you're only top 10%.

All that said, it won't help you much in law school admissions. Go get a killer LSAT and that's all you can really pray for. It's a bit unfair but that's how this game works.

[HeavenWood]

Regarding employment... I'd say the very top schools have firms that never even touch the lower schools. But if you do well at any reputable undergrad, you'll have good prospects for sure. Just don't expect to get call backs for McKinsey if you're only top 10%.

You're absolutely right, man. Those ivy league grads at the T30s are in a much better position than state school grads in the T14.

[Glock]

It's funny becuase I know several students who transferred to my Ivy from their local state school with 4.0 GPAs and immediately dropped into the 3.5 range when they got here. And what do you know! That's the median GPA for the hyper grade inflation ridden Ivy League!

There are smart people at every reputable and respectable University, but there is no doubt that there are many more at the top colleges. Thus it only makes sense that given their track record of hard work in high school, they will continue to work hard and master the material at a higher proportion than ones at the local state school, which leads to "grade inflation."

It's not being elitist but being realistic. A 3.97 from a public in the rank 40s is definitely a really smart dude. I'm not doubting that nor is anybody else. What I'm trying to say is that the median dude at Yale with a 3.5 is probably just as smart. The state school guy would probably be able to get that 3.5 at Yale, too. But whether he will get a 3.3 or a 3.9 at Yale are just unknown, while I feel the Yale guy getting into the 3.9 range (same majors) is more probable if they switched spots. Top schools just allows for greater distinction between people who mastered the material.

I know my high school best friends who decided to go for a full ride to the local public and got 3.95~ GPAs in hard sciences / engineering were always a very small step behind me academically yet I managed a 3.4~ GPA at an Ivy. I have no doubt that I would have had a similar GPA as my good friends had I went to their school. And sure, my GPA was a bit low but my last four terms were a 3.7 average after deciding to step it up a lot more which makes the gap sound about right. To claim there is no difference in the schools is either just ignorance or just trolling.

Regarding employment... I'd say the very top schools have firms that never even touch the lower schools. But if you do well at any reputable undergrad, you'll have good prospects for sure. Just don't expect to get call backs for McKinsey if you're only top 10%.

All that said, it won't help you much in law school admissions. Go get a killer LSAT and that's all you can really pray for. It's a bit unfair but that's how this game works.

There's some good points in this, but not all top undergrad schools are as grad deflated as may be assumed. Not all state schools are as grade inflated as may be assumed. It is pretty school specific.

Also, none of this matters because undergrad quality is not even a minor consideration for law schools considering your GPA.

[Blessedassurance]

A good UG ups your chances at a good job and a good law school, just like how a good law school ups your chances at a good job.

Nope. A higher gpa and LSAT ups your chances

Going to a bad UG doesn't mean you won't get anywhere, and neither does going to a bad law school--we're only talking about percentages and chances. There's no need to be extreme on either side. Yes, they will take a 3.9 from Phoenix Online over a 3.0 from Harvard, but they'll probably look closer if its a 3.9 versus a 3.8.

1. You have a pretty good chance of being unemployed and 200k in the hole if you go to a bad law school.
2. Compare HYP etc with U-Dub, Berkeley, California system, Florida or any state school for that matter. The discussion isn't about elite UG's versus online diploma mills.

[Bildungsroman]

It's funny becuase I know several students who transferred to my Ivy from their local state school with 4.0 GPAs and immediately dropped into the 3.5 range when they got here. And what do you know! That's the median GPA for the hyper grade inflation ridden Ivy League!

There are smart people at every reputable and respectable University, but there is no doubt that there are many more at the top colleges. Thus it only makes sense that given their track record of hard work in high school, they will continue to work hard and master the material at a higher proportion than ones at the local state school, which leads to "grade inflation."

It's not being elitist but being realistic. A 3.97 from a public in the rank 40s is definitely a really smart dude. I'm not doubting that nor is anybody else. What I'm trying to say is that the median dude at Yale with a 3.5 is probably just as smart. The state school guy would probably be able to get that 3.5 at Yale, too. But whether he will get a 3.3 or a 3.9 at Yale are just unknown, while I feel the Yale guy getting into the 3.9 range (same majors) is more probable if they switched spots. Top schools just allows for greater distinction between people who mastered the material.

I know my high school best friends who decided to go for a full ride to the local public and got 3.95~ GPAs in hard sciences / engineering were always a very small step behind me academically yet I managed a 3.4~ GPA at an Ivy. I have no doubt that I would have had a similar GPA as my good friends had I went to their school. And sure, my GPA was a bit low but my last four terms were a 3.7 average after deciding to step it up a lot more which makes the gap sound about right. To claim there is no difference in the schools is either just ignorance or just trolling.

tl;dr

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[cinephile]

Why is this even a discussion? If you already have your degree, it's not like you can change your undergrad or GPA. So there's really no point in worrying about it, unless you'd avoid law school all together if there's no boost. Do as well as you can on the LSAT and apply broadly and hopefully it'll all work out.

ETA: I meant what I said initially about applying to the Midwestern schools, they seem more splitter friendly

[m3taphysician]

People love to go on the offensive on people who went to stellar undergrad schools, and who are (understandably, reasonably) hopeful that it will help them in admissions considerations. That much is clear. People like bildungsroman, soj, etc. are obviously reveling in announcing the unimportance of the quality of the undergrad institution. You guys sound bitter, immature, and, frankly, like a bunch of fucking losers.

The most pathetic thing is - they're wrong. It is a consideration; it's just not a major consideration. For instance, it certaintly won't pardon a mediocre performance, but the committees understands that Yale down to Hopkins has higher caliber students (i.e. competition) than Frostburg State.

Here's a direct quote from UChicago Law's admissions website (bolded for emphasis):

The Committee primarily uses your cumulative GPA as calculated by the Credential Assembly Service (CAS). We will also look at the GPA at your undergraduate degree institution, the GPA within your major, the percentile ranking in comparison to other law school candidates from the same institution (as reported by CAS), academic honors, the difficulty of the academic program, the quality of the degree-conferring institution, and any trends in your academic performance. Because we consider many factors, our admitted students show considerable GPA variation and we accept students from a wide range of undergraduate institutions.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/prospective ... ranscripts

My school, like I've said, gets a boost. It might not be the major determinant, but it's clearly a consideration.

[Bildungsroman]

People love to go on the offensive on people who went to stellar undergrad schools, and who are (understandably, reasonably) hopeful that it will help them in admissions considerations. That much is clear. People like bildungsroman, soj, etc. are obviously reveling in announcing the unimportance of the quality of the undergrad institution. You guys sound bitter, immature, and, frankly, like a bunch of fucking losers.

you mad

[westinghouse60]

Your posts seems to be failing to grasp the only relevant point, so I will try to tell you.

1. Schools want a high rank in USNWR.
Higher rank= more prestige = better students = more money = higher rank = more prestige...

2. Better GPA = Higher Rank.

3. Therefore, schools do not care (other than as a *very* soft factor) Whether you went to shit state U or elite private $chool. Likewise, they do not care if you majored in drama or molecular nano-technology.

All that matters is the GPA #. The fact that you majored in a humanities will put at little to no disadvantage, just as the fact that you went to dartmouth will put you at little to no advantage. Major and Undergrad school does not effect rankings, and rankings are everything (see #1). All that matters is your GPA. ( and of course your lsat, something else that helps determine rank. In fact, Lsat matters more than GPA, but here you seemed to be wondering about gpa/undegrad/major).

TITRC

This also explains why engineering majors with 3.7s are treated worse by adcoms than sociology majors with 3.8s.

But...but...it said on their website that they take into account the difficulty of my undergrad major!