Harvard/Princeton (etc) UG winding up at T2 Law schools Forum

[PDaddy]

I would take a 3.8 FSU/ 170 over a 3.3 Harvard grad no matter what his lsat was.

...u serious? As rebellious as I am towards elitist notions in academia, I think this is a real stretch. I would have to look at the courses each took. And if that Harvard grad had a much better LSAT, I would admit the Harvard grad...just sayin'.

[Boba Fett]

FSU is a joke. I would take a 3.3 from Oral Roberts before taking a 3.8 from FSU.

[xyzzzzzzzz]

.

[Boba Fett]

My UG isn't really ranked, but it was absolutely the right place for me. In the end, I don't think UG "branding" matters that much when you are going to grad school anyways. I chose the school for the scholarship money and a close-knit community and I don't regret at all. (even though my ACT could've gotten me in to some top schools)

A little while ago, my Dad mentioned what I told him my strategy was for school when I started college - "Undergrad doesn't matter, I'll find a nice place now, then go to a good grad school."

WIN!

Are you planning on hanging that Sonoma State diploma next to your Duke Law one in your office?

[prezidentv8]

.

[rando]

But when you have an LSAT to show roughly how smart the person it that doesn't really matter.

The problem I have with this is that unlike the GRE, the LSAT is not used just to show roughly how smart candidates are. By trying to establish certain 25/50/75th numbers for a class, admissions offices actually use the LSAT to make fine distinctions between candidates.

This is bad for people from top schools who don’t dominate the LSAT, because they are less able to compensate for it with a dominant GPA (I’m thinking like 3.9+). While it may not be more difficult to get an average GPA at a top school because of grade inflation, the better the credentials of your classmates, the less likely it is that you will finish at the top of your class.

Basically, it ends up being the case that someone with a 168/3.8 from a top school has less of a shot at the top law schools than someone with a 171/3.85 from BigStateU, even though they tested within the same LSAT score band and the former student obtained a similar GPA against superior competition. Is there a better way to do admissions? Maybe not, but its not enough to just say the LSAT as it is used now makes everything fair or reasonable.

Generally agree with everything stated. And well said, I might add. Though one could argue that the point of grade inflation is to make up for the "superior competition."

However, the GRE is in no way, shape, or form, a measure of intelligence on the level the LSAT is. Seriously, extensive vocabulary and 10th grade algebra/geometry testing has nowhere near the intelligence assessing abilities of logic and reasoning.

[09042014]

this thread kinda smacks of elitism.

top ug ≠ intelligence and hard earned grades.
tier 3 ug ≠ stupid kids with inflated gpas who had a billion years to study for the lsat.

I guess for some it is hard to believe that state schools are filled with smart kids.

Because most state schools aren't totally filled with smart kids. Not all state schools are made the same. UIUC >> Northeastern Illinois University. And even UIUC will have some people who aren't all that smart.

But when you have an LSAT to show roughly how smart the person it that doesn't really matter.

That 3.8 from a TTT shows they can work hard enough to succeed. That 3.3 from the top UG didn't.

The LSAT is not an IQ test. IQ measures inate ability, the only argument you could make in that respect is MAYBE for those who take it cold having never done a practice test before. It has been argued that the LSAT measures test IQ, but how smart you are is both too ambiguous and dependent on how narrow minded your view of 'smart'. LSAC has said it does have correlation to how people do their first year in law school, but is that even 'smart'?

And top undergrads use the SAT, which much like the LSAT isn't a perfect IQ test. So if you don't buy that the LSAT is a representative, why would you assume top undergrad students are smarter than lower ranked schools. When the difference is mostly SAT, plus how well they did in school from ages 14-17.

[rando]

My UG isn't really ranked, but it was absolutely the right place for me. In the end, I don't think UG "branding" matters that much when you are going to grad school anyways. I chose the school for the scholarship money and a close-knit community and I don't regret at all. (even though my ACT could've gotten me in to some top schools)

exactly. maybe eventually people will realize in the big scheme of things drawing conclusions about where someone went to UG is rather meaningless.

No.

On an individualized level, it may not matter. for instance presidentv8. But on the whole, "in the big scheme of things," that statement is dead wrong.

[09042014]

I would take a 3.8 FSU/ 170 over a 3.3 Harvard grad no matter what his lsat was.

...u serious? As rebellious as I am towards elitist notions in academia, I think this is a real stretch. I would have to look at the courses each took. And if that Harvard grad had a much better LSAT, I would admit the Harvard grad...just sayin'.

3.3 at Harvard is below average. It means they were a slacker. 3.8/170 is a smart person, who did well in college. Maybe they'd break under better competition, but we already know the Harvard person did.

[09042014]

FSU is a joke. I would take a 3.3 from Oral Roberts before taking a 3.8 from FSU.

I didn't realize it was that big of a joke. I assumed it was just a regular state school. Maybe not then.

[rando]

I would take a 3.8 FSU/ 170 over a 3.3 Harvard grad no matter what his lsat was.

...u serious? As rebellious as I am towards elitist notions in academia, I think this is a real stretch. I would have to look at the courses each took. And if that Harvard grad had a much better LSAT, I would admit the Harvard grad...just sayin'.

3.3 at Harvard is below average. It means they were a slacker. 3.8/170 is a smart person, who did well in college. Maybe they'd break under better competition, but we already know the Harvard person did.

Would you trust a test that pitted 100 of the most intelligent people in one room against each other and 100 of the least intelligent people in another room against each other?

Exaggerated, yes. But that is what we are doing here. Yes, the person below median at Harvard is not the "smartest." But saying he/she is lesser than the top ranked student that couldn't get into Harvard, is not an equal comparison.

[09042014]

I would take a 3.8 FSU/ 170 over a 3.3 Harvard grad no matter what his lsat was.

...u serious? As rebellious as I am towards elitist notions in academia, I think this is a real stretch. I would have to look at the courses each took. And if that Harvard grad had a much better LSAT, I would admit the Harvard grad...just sayin'.

3.3 at Harvard is below average. It means they were a slacker. 3.8/170 is a smart person, who did well in college. Maybe they'd break under better competition, but we already know the Harvard person did.

Would you trust a test that pitted 100 of the most intelligent people in one room against each other and 100 of the least intelligent people in another room against each other?

Exaggerated, yes. But that is what we are doing here. Yes, the person below median at Harvard is not the "smartest." But saying he/she is lesser than the top ranked student that couldn't get into Harvard, is not an equal comparison.

Scoring the best against the least intelligent people tells you nothing about that person.

But this person also has a 170. That proves they are fairly smart. The 3.8 says they know how to meet the goals laid out in front of them.

I'm not saying 3.8 FSU = 3.3 Harvard.

But 3.8FSU/170 > 3.3/170 Harvard.

Undergrad is mostly effort.

[Boba Fett]

My UG isn't really ranked, but it was absolutely the right place for me. In the end, I don't think UG "branding" matters that much when you are going to grad school anyways. I chose the school for the scholarship money and a close-knit community and I don't regret at all. (even though my ACT could've gotten me in to some top schools)

A little while ago, my Dad mentioned what I told him my strategy was for school when I started college - "Undergrad doesn't matter, I'll find a nice place now, then go to a good grad school."

WIN!

Are you planning on hanging that Sonoma State diploma next to your Duke Law one in your office?

Yup. Right next to the JC diploma.

Cool beans. I respect that. I'll be doing the same. I hate when people disown their UG in favor of grad school.

[toolfan]

Believe it or not, there are Ivy worthy kids at all types of institutions across the country, FSU included. If anything, the lsat levels the playing field for well qualified students who opted to stay in state. No, it is not as prestigious to go to FSU Honors over Harvard, but it is not the end all, be all. Many times family and financial situations limit how far a student can go geographically. Or, hell, you simply choose to follow the green and get paid for UG - merit scholly + state discount (system like Florida's Bright Futures).

[rando]

I'm not saying 3.8 FSU = 3.3 Harvard.

But 3.8FSU/170 > 3.3/170 Harvard.

That's actually a really interesting point. Probably worthy of its own thread.
That being said, I don't think it does. Take the 3.3/170 Harvard kid and send him to FSU. He will get a 3.8 hands down. You can argue with this and I see the other side, I just don't buy it. My fiancee's father teaches at UGA and he goes on and on about how there are so many absolutely subpar students there. While some are intelligent, by and large he is extremely disappointed by the quality of student. I bet you won't get statements like that at Harvard.

Undergrad is mostly effort.

Yes and No. It really depends on where you go and what you study. I took several curved classes. Not as harsh as LS but nonetheless curved, which takes mere "effort" out of the equation. I wasn't alone, I know the undergrads that are in Emory's b-school are on a fairly strict curve as well.

[rando]

Believe it or not, there are Ivy worthy kids at all types of institutions across the country, FSU included. If anything, the lsat levels the playing field for well qualified students who opted to stay in state. No, it is not as prestigious to go to FSU Honors over Harvard, but it is not the end all, be all. Many times family and financial situations limit how far a student can go geographically. Or, hell, you simply choose to follow the green and get paid for UG - merit scholly + state discount (system like Florida's Bright Futures).

Absolutely credited. Just not on the whole.

[09042014]

That's actually a really interesting point. Probably worthy of its own thread.
That being said, I don't think it does. Take the 3.3/170 Harvard kid and send him to FSU. He will get a 3.8 hands down. You can argue with this and I see the other side, I just don't buy it. My fiancee's father teaches at UGA and he goes on and on about how there are so many absolutely subpar students there. While some are intelligent, by and large he is extremely disappointed by the quality of student. I bet you won't get statements like that at Harvard.

I do not think the Harvard kid would get a 3.8 at FSU. 3.5 maybe.

Undergrad is mostly effort.

Yes and No. It really depends on where you go and what you study. I took several curved classes. Not as harsh as LS but nonetheless curved, which takes mere "effort" out of the equation. I wasn't alone, I know the undergrads that are in Emory's b-school are on a fairly strict curve as well.

Curved classes do not take effort out of the equation. In fact many times it makes it worse. I had Harvard level numbers in high school, my LSAT is significantly higher than Harvard averages and yet at my state school I got blown out of the water because I was lazy. And I was taking a very technical major, one of the kind where intelligence is actually a big benefit.

I'd take the 3.3 MIT EE, over the FSU 3.8, but in topics like history or poli sci, the grade is mostly effort once you get over the minimum intellectual requirements to understand the material.

However I am a lot less impressed as the GPA at these schools gets lower. I'd be more impressed by Harvard 3.0 than I would a FSU 3.3.

But there are many good students at the top of every state school for a variety of reasons.

[blsingindisguise]

I voted LSAT.

But the real reason is that going to an "elite undergrad" institution is just not as much of an indicator of intelligence/analytical ability as people who attend them would like to think.

[MrKappus]

I'm smarter than most Harvard undergrads.

[09042014]

I'm smarter than most Harvard undergrads.

176 to their 165. Suck it bitches.

[MrKappus]

I scored better on a standardized test than the average Harvard student.

fixed.

[09042014]

I scored better on a standardized test than the average Harvard student.

fixed.

And the reason you all think Harvard undergrads are smart is because they score better on a different standardized test.

[MrKappus]

I scored better on a standardized test than the average Harvard student.

fixed.

And the reason you all think Harvard undergrads are smart is because they score better on a different standardized test.

I'm sorry, but if you attend an elite school, you know that (legacies aside) the classes are made up of some of the sharpest and most accomplished people in the world. Most of 'em knocked the SAT out of the park too, but that's not why people consider them smart.

On a side note, the LSAT's easier to game than the SAT. I've nothing against the LSAT, but there's a reason that everyone and their mother suggests 'retakes' on this board. It's b/c people can raise 159's to a 170+'s w/ a few months of intensive prep. Doesn't mean they're suddenly "smarter."

[09042014]

I scored better on a standardized test than the average Harvard student.

fixed.

And the reason you all think Harvard undergrads are smart is because they score better on a different standardized test.

I'm sorry, but if you attend an elite school, you know that (legacies aside) the classes are made up of some of the sharpest and most accomplished people in the world. Most of 'em knocked the SAT out of the park too, but that's not why people consider them smart.

Accomplished at 17? Bullshit. They are considered smart because Harvard admissions picks the best. SAT is a huge factor in that.

On a side note, the LSAT's easier to game than the SAT. I've nothing against the LSAT, but there's a reason that everyone and their mother suggests 'retakes' on this board. It's b/c people can raise 159's to a 170+'s w/ a few months of intensive prep. Doesn't mean they're suddenly "smarter."

There is a reason Harvard law doesn't take non-URMs with 165 and takes plenty of 176's.

[09042014]

Let me clarify, they are supremely better students than I am.