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

[Borhas]

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.

no they consider them smart because they got into the "elite" UG's (because they scored high and the SAT and got high GPAs)

Also you really don't think some dip shit undergrad students are some of the "most accomplished people in the world" do you. Wow they did great in high school and won the class presidency popularity contests. Big Fucking Deal

I'm not impressed with these "elites" at least not until I see their works, and not just the the brand name diploma.

[waxloaf]

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."

Not correct. Most kids who do well in english and math classes in high school can score well on the SAT. The reason a prep course is so useful for the LSAT is because it doesn't test skills usually taught first in the classroom. On the other hand, I think they can be both 'gamed' to certain extent, it may take a few months to learn the nuances of a test.

I was able to raise my SAT 140 points with prep and my lsat 13 points, the SAT was some 'gaming' knowledge and mainly vocab knowledge. LSAT was learning how to think differently to suit the test. Either way I think prep gave me more knowledge and significantly helped each test.

[sumus romani]

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.

Does Mensa disagree? (or is it Mensa America). They take a certain percentage of the LSAT (95th percentile and higher) and they *used* to take a certain percentage of the GRE but not anymore because of the essay (1875 across the three sections, which is 625 avg.). Does this mean that they at least used to treat the GRE as harder? Or does it have to do with the high quality of people taking it, etc?

[lshopeful3232]

And how does someone score in the top 5-10% nationally on the SAT/ACT (as many of those grads do) and then bomb the LSAT? If standardized test scores don't even predict standardized test scores in a lot of cases, how can they be predictive of 1L law performance?

sighhh this is a sore subject for me. i did pretty freaking well on the SATs and ehh on the LSAT. i think a lot of this is because the SATs are kind of just raw knowledge you can study - the math, the vocabulary. while the LSAT is training yourself to just be good at certain kinds of problems while handling the stress of the timing and all. it's easy to get thrown off on the LSAT esp in the LG while the SATs, if you know it, you know it and a little bit of timing stress wont affect you nearly as much as it might on the LSAT

[84Sunbird2000]

I'd rather take solace in the fact that I got the same LSAT as the median Harvard kid, than be disappointed at missing out on T14 (though I have Cornell not deciding yet). I scored 99th percentile on the ACT and GRE, but only 94th on the LSAT. Oh, noes, I must have cut off the oxygen to my brain between taking the first two and the latter. Or, I didn't take TLS seriously and study hard for the LSAT, which really only means I took the test on a level playing field with the majority of testers (who also likely didn't do much beyond a few PTs). Or I'm just plain bad at LGs (working through two LG Bible worksheets once on a Saturday morning wasn't enough ). Or diarrhea.

Either way, I transferred to and paid full price at a directional state school that had a great faculty in English, and I loved the experience and the learning. So my resume will suck compared to Harvard kid - which is fine.

If median Harvard kid lands at William & Mary or Emory or Minnesota, that's hardly a fall from grace. That's a smart kid going to a very good school because of (legitimately) superior numeric qualifications. If the ego blow is too much, then that's sad.

However, all one needs to do is look a bit below Harvard and see that the median LSAT at MIT is 163, and Johns Hopkins is 159. Thus, the average MIT (with a 3.25 median GPA) grad will probably end up paying sticker at Case Western or Missouri, and the average Johns Hopkins kid might sneak into Hofstra or New Mexico.

UG is easier to gain admission to by far, even at the top. For law school, you are competing against the pool of college graduates who also have further ambitions. Thus, it is much harder to get into a T14 law school than to get into Harvard or Stanford UG.

[tumbleweed664]

http://gradeinflation.com/Reed.html

EDIT: interesting website, though.

[OneSixtySix]

Isnt the median at the very top schools around 162-164? Plenty of HYSP (or whatever acronym you wish to use) are scoring 150s.

If you think about it, a 4.0 in high school isnt much of a feat. Prepping for the SAT isnt as easy, but definitely easier to manipulate into a high score than the LSAT.

In short. Not everybody who goes to an elite undergrad is smart and not everybody who goes to an average undergrad is a mediocre student.

Shocking, eh?

[84Sunbird2000]

Isnt the median at the very top schools around 162-164? Plenty of HYSP (or whatever acronym you wish to use) are scoring 150s.

If you think about it, a 4.0 in high school isnt much of a feat. Prepping for the SAT isnt as easy, but definitely easier to manipulate into a high score than the LSAT.

In short. Not everybody who goes to an elite undergrad is smart and not everybody who goes to an average undergrad is a mediocre student.

Shocking, eh?

I touched on this in my earlier post, but here are some big-name, top-ranked UGs and their LSATs (from http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =2&t=19882):

Harvard 166
Yale 165
Stanford 164
MIT 163
U of Chi 162
Northwestern 161
W&M 160
Emory/Vandy/JHU 159
WUSTL 158
GW/Wake 157
BU 156
UNC/RPI 155
Iowa 154
Va. Tech/TCU 153
Penn St./Purdue 152

So, it's simply that the competition is better for law school apps. In fact, you don't have to go that far down the list before the median LSAT/GPA is at a T4 level.

[Boba Fett]

Isnt the median at the very top schools around 162-164? Plenty of HYSP (or whatever acronym you wish to use) are scoring 150s.

If you think about it, a 4.0 in high school isnt much of a feat. Prepping for the SAT isnt as easy, but definitely easier to manipulate into a high score than the LSAT.

In short. Not everybody who goes to an elite undergrad is smart and not everybody who goes to an average undergrad is a mediocre student.

Shocking, eh?

I touched on this in my earlier post, but here are some big-name, top-ranked UGs and their LSATs (from http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... =2&t=19882):

Harvard 166
Yale 165
Stanford 164
MIT 163
U of Chi 162
Northwestern 161
W&M 160
Emory/Vandy/JHU 159
WUSTL 158
GW/Wake 157
BU 156
UNC/RPI 155
Iowa 154
Va. Tech/TCU 153
Penn St./Purdue 152

So, it's simply that the competition is better for law school apps. In fact, you don't have to go that far down the list before the median LSAT/GPA is at a T4 level.

Don't forget these:

Columbia 163
Dartmouth 163
Duke 163
UPenn 163

[rando]

so the median LSAT's at the highest ranked UG are higher than lower ranked UG. My mind is not blown.

[84Sunbird2000]

Don't forget these:

Columbia 163
Dartmouth 163
Duke 163
UPenn 163

Didn't forget - just wanted to show the "level" of school that was landing at a certain LSAT. You're right, though, it just goes to show that T10 UG = bottom of T1 law school on average.

[prezidentv8]

.

[whitman]

I'd rather take solace in the fact that I got the same LSAT as the median Harvard kid, than be disappointed at missing out on T14 (though I have Cornell not deciding yet). I scored 99th percentile on the ACT and GRE, but only 94th on the LSAT. Oh, noes, I must have cut off the oxygen to my brain between taking the first two and the latter. Or, I didn't take TLS seriously and study hard for the LSAT, which really only means I took the test on a level playing field with the majority of testers (who also likely didn't do much beyond a few PTs). Or I'm just plain bad at LGs (working through two LG Bible worksheets once on a Saturday morning wasn't enough ). Or diarrhea.

Either way, I transferred to and paid full price at a directional state school that had a great faculty in English, and I loved the experience and the learning. So my resume will suck compared to Harvard kid - which is fine.

If median Harvard kid lands at William & Mary or Emory or Minnesota, that's hardly a fall from grace. That's a smart kid going to a very good school because of (legitimately) superior numeric qualifications. If the ego blow is too much, then that's sad.

However, all one needs to do is look a bit below Harvard and see that the median LSAT at MIT is 163, and Johns Hopkins is 159. Thus, the average MIT (with a 3.25 median GPA) grad will probably end up paying sticker at Case Western or Missouri, and the average Johns Hopkins kid might sneak into Hofstra or New Mexico.

UG is easier to gain admission to by far, even at the top. For law school, you are competing against the pool of college graduates who also have further ambitions. Thus, it is much harder to get into a T14 law school than to get into Harvard or Stanford UG.

This is ridiculous. I don't want to turn this into passive aggressive bragging, but I'll just say that a 4.0/99% SAT out of high school does not = even a top 20 undergrad. There is crazy competition out there. However, a 4.0/172 out of undergrad = T6. Granted, a 4.0 in high school is much, much easier. So let's say a 4.0/1500 vs. 3.5/172. The former might get into some top 20 schools, might not. The latter will almost certainly get into a T14.

[Tofu]

can someone link me to that yale page that showed all the law schools students went to and lsat scores that students had?

i felt like the median lsat of all students who took the lsat was 165, but the median lsat of students who ended up matriculating at a law school was like 169-172

[MrKappus]

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.

no they consider them smart because they got into the "elite" UG's (because they scored high and the SAT and got high GPAs)

Also you really don't think some dip shit undergrad students are some of the "most accomplished people in the world" do you. Wow they did great in high school and won the class presidency popularity contests. Big Fucking Deal

I'm not impressed with these "elites" at least not until I see their works, and not just the the brand name diploma.

This board's hilarious. Elite law schools mean everything, but elite UG's mean nothing. If you don't have 5 minutes to be honest and consistent w/ yourselves, I'm certainly not going to make you see the light. Take a look at the guys in the corner offices. They went to elite UG's...I wonder, wonder why?

[prezidentv8]

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.

no they consider them smart because they got into the "elite" UG's (because they scored high and the SAT and got high GPAs)

Also you really don't think some dip shit undergrad students are some of the "most accomplished people in the world" do you. Wow they did great in high school and won the class presidency popularity contests. Big Fucking Deal

I'm not impressed with these "elites" at least not until I see their works, and not just the the brand name diploma.

This board's hilarious. Elite law schools mean everything, but elite UG's mean nothing. If you don't have 5 minutes to be honest and consistent w/ yourselves, I'm certainly not going to make you see the light. Take a look at the guys in the corner offices. They went to elite UG's...I wonder, wonder why?

I'd argue that neither of them mean much other than (a) indicating how your previous years of schooling went, (b) indicating where you spent time while in school, (c) quality of employment prospects, and (d) who you met along the way.

Why did those corner office guys go to elite undergrads? Probably because they worked as hard in school as they did on their career, and they met a few people like themselves who had some connections along the way.

[84Sunbird2000]

UG is easier to gain admission to by far, even at the top. For law school, you are competing against the pool of college graduates who also have further ambitions. Thus, it is much harder to get into a T14 law school than to get into Harvard or Stanford UG.

This is ridiculous. I don't want to turn this into passive aggressive bragging, but I'll just say that a 4.0/99% SAT out of high school does not = even a top 20 undergrad. There is crazy competition out there. However, a 4.0/172 out of undergrad = T6. Granted, a 4.0 in high school is much, much easier. So let's say a 4.0/1500 vs. 3.5/172. The former might get into some top 20 schools, might not. The latter will almost certainly get into a T14.

I don't see where you can justify this. NO school has anything approaching a 3.5/172 median student. Have the admitted students regressed that far towards the mean? I don't think so, though there are also no schools that had a 1500 (old score) median SAT for admits.

Is there competition for UG? Of course. However, UGs are slightly less driven by numbers than Law school. UG admissions are still very numbers-based, but they have more room to make exceptions based on extra-curriculars, etc... That doesn't mean they are more competitive than law school. The acceptance rates for various schools are not a fair measure, since applications out of HS comprise a much wider range of drastically unqualified students applying at schools above their level. Plus, because law school apps are more numbers driven, students can self-select more than with UG apps.

If the average Harvard (#1 UG) grad has NO shot at getting into a T10 Law, and the average T20 grad (say, WUSTL) has no real shot at T50 Law, I don't see how/where you can say that UG is more competitive in terms of the caliber of students. This is largely because there just far fewer spots for each law school than there are out of UG, to the degree that those (from top-ranked UGs) pursuing grad school vastly outnumber the respective-ranked schools' capacity to receive them.

By the way, I'm not arguing the IMPORTANCE of elite UG, just the selectivity.

[tomhobbes]

This is ridiculous. I don't want to turn this into passive aggressive bragging, but I'll just say that a 4.0/99% SAT out of high school does not = even a top 20 undergrad. There is crazy competition out there. However, a 4.0/172 out of undergrad = T6. Granted, a 4.0 in high school is much, much easier. So let's say a 4.0/1500 vs. 3.5/172. The former might get into some top 20 schools, might not. The latter will almost certainly get into a T14.

Are you assuming that a 99th percentile SAT score is just as hard to get as a 99th percentile LSAT score?

[rando]

If the average Harvard (#1 UG) grad has NO shot at getting into a T10 Law, and the average T20 grad (say, WUSTL) has no real shot at T50 Law, I don't see how/where you can say that UG is more competitive in terms of the caliber of students. This is largely because there just far fewer spots for each law school than there are out of UG, to the degree that those (from top-ranked UGs) pursuing grad school vastly outnumber the respective-ranked schools' capacity to receive them.

By the way, I'm not arguing the IMPORTANCE of elite UG, just the selectivity.

The average HS student at ... has NO shot at getting into any of the above UG's either.

I will say though, that the caliber of students at elite law schools will be, on the average, much better than at the elite UG. It is simply another round of highly competitive selection.

And another poster mentioned that 99% on the LSAT is not the same as 99% on the SAT. I don't know how anyone can refute that.

[Panther7]

http://gradeinflation.com/Reed.html

EDIT: interesting website, though.

http://gradeinflation.com/Michigantech.html

makes me feel better about my GPA, lol

[ArtVandelay]

I am not making any judgments about this, but I am always curious when I see students from elite undergrads going to T2 and even TTT schools. How does this happen? Is it failure on the LSAT? Average of bad grades? Self-selected regional concerns or school programs that, in the mind of the student(s), outweigh concerns regarding career prospects? I know at least a few Ivy or otherwise elite grads who chose to go to Howard Law (and other "non-elite" law schools) b/c they wanted a more welcoming environment(s). They also cited a belief that having the Ivy/elite degree from undergrad opened enough doors already.

FTR, I applaud such graduates for being open-minded enough to go schools considered to be "non-elite" or "lower rung", as I don't think rankings always reflect the quality of education. But rankings do affect job prospects. If you are a graduate of an elite undergraduate school who is attending or plans to attend a school not necessarily considered a power, weigh in on this topic. What factored into it?

For the rest of you not in this situation, would you still be "T14 or bust" had you attended an elite undergrad? And, do you think grads of elite schools who wound up at non-elite law schools are bottom-feeders who couldn't cut it? I only ask that question b/c I believe someone will say it anyways.

What do you think? Is it insanity to just want to go to a non-elite school after having gone to Columbia, MIT or Tufts for UG?

Because they never went on TLS and thus didn't realize that they were failures if they didn't go to YLS.

[FlanAl]

Unlike law school acceptance undergrad acceptance seems to be greatly determined by a students parents. I know this isn't always the case but everyone I know who went to a t10 undergrad had either super rich parents or super crazy parents that forced them to do extra curriculars or a combo of both. It just seems weird to give some one tons of credit for what they did from age 14-17 when their parents had a large amount of control over their lives.

[charlesjd]

.

[charlesjd]

.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I mean.. it's not hard to believe.
I currently attend an elite UG.
There are a lot of people here who just can't hack standardized tests. I have friends with super high GPAs who only scored around the lower 160's on the LSAT.
Many of the people who do well on standardized testing aren't always the hardest-working students.. that's assuming effort is all that it takes to do well on a standardized test.. for instance, in high school I wasn't surprised to see that some of my fellow National Merit Scholars weren't the top students in my school.
The LSAT is what matters the most in law school admissions. No matter how bad your grades are.. if you can ace the LSAT.. your chances of getting a T1 are pretty good.
A 2.8/171 can get into Illinois or Minnesota. A 4.0/160 wouldn't be able to do the same thing...
If you get an awesome GPA but do really shitty on the LSAT.. your chances of getting a T1 are pretty lousy.
If I was a law school adcom, I'd gladly take a 3.0/177 from Penn State over a 3.6/165 from Penn.