Importance of undergrade prestige for T14? Forum

[Lomax]

In regards to borderline candidates from lesser-respected schools and/or with lesser-respected majors potentially losing out to ones from better-respected schools and/or with better-respected majors - key here is that had the former candidate gone to a better-respected school and/or chosen a better-respected major, he or she probably would have been an auto-reject instead of a borderline candidate, given the hit his or her GPA would almost certainly have taken.

Good point, which make me wonder why the hell we all work so hard to get into great (and $$) undergrads when going to a decent school would actually end up putting you ahead of the game in terms of both grad school admission and debt.
Obviously a good number of high school seniors haven't figured out their post-UG plans, but it's safe to say that many of the bright/overachieving kids that end up at top UG's are planning on some kind of post-graduate study that would benefit from having big fish in a small pond type credentials. Not to mention substantially less stress.

Exactly. What exists is a scam, fed both by people's shortsightedness and stupidity, and also by their greediness for prestige. Look at how many Ivy League undergraduates are entering middle-of-the-road law schools alongside lazy state-schoolers who simply did well enough on the LSAT, with heaps of debt and poor job prospects - just because they had to show everyone just how good they were (no offense to anyone here, and please do not take all this absolutely literally).

Of course, for those going straight into business - perhaps hoping to soon enter a prestigious MBA program - having an Ivy League name on the resume would be a great thing.

[prezidentv8]

If you kill your GPA by majoring in math/econ, you won't even be in contention for the very top schools. Nobody here would rather put a significantly lower GPA with a more respectable major in front of an admissions committee rather than a very strong GPA with a ho-hum major. Majors seem to act as tiebreakers - nothing more. Though I suppose it is possible that certain rare gatekeepers might think differently.

In regards to borderline candidates from lesser-respected schools and/or with lesser-respected majors potentially losing out to ones from better-respected schools and/or with better-respected majors - key here is that had the former candidate gone to a better-respected school and/or chosen a better-respected major, he or she probably would have been an auto-reject instead of a borderline candidate, given the hit his or her GPA would almost certainly have taken.

I'll say this: it depends, and is probably a case by case sort of thing. But I'd still give the boost to the hard school/major as a tiebreaker, at the very least.

[im_blue]

In regards to borderline candidates from lesser-respected schools and/or with lesser-respected majors potentially losing out to ones from better-respected schools and/or with better-respected majors - key here is that had the former candidate gone to a better-respected school and/or chosen a better-respected major, he or she probably would have been an auto-reject instead of a borderline candidate, given the hit his or her GPA would almost certainly have taken.

Good point, which make me wonder why the hell we all work so hard to get into great (and $$) undergrads when going to a decent school would actually end up putting you ahead of the game in terms of both grad school admission and debt.
Obviously a good number of high school seniors haven't figured out their post-UG plans, but it's safe to say that many of the bright/overachieving kids that end up at top UG's are planning on some kind of post-graduate study that would benefit from having big fish in a small pond type credentials. Not to mention substantially less stress.

Exactly. What exists is a scam, fed both by people's shortsightedness and stupidity, and also by their greediness for prestige. Look at how many Ivy League undergraduates are entering middle-of-the-road law schools alongside lazy state-schoolers who simply did well enough on the LSAT, with heaps of debt and poor job prospects - just because they had to show everyone just how good they were (no offense to anyone here, and please do not take all this absolutely literally).

Of course, for those going straight into business - perhaps hoping to soon enter a prestigious MBA program - having an Ivy League name on the resume would be a great thing.

You also want to attend a prestigious undergrad if you're shooting for the top MD or PhD programs. Undergrad prestige means little for law school admissions because of US News ranking methodology, which creates an arms race for the highest GPAs.

[prezidentv8]

lazy state-schoolers

Hey, I kinda resent that.

[Birchwood]

Exactly. What exists is a scam, fed both by people's shortsightedness and stupidity, and also by their greediness for prestige. Look at how many Ivy League undergraduates are entering middle-of-the-road law schools alongside lazy state-schoolers who simply did well enough on the LSAT, with heaps of debt and poor job prospects - just because they had to show everyone just how good they were (no offense to anyone here, and please do not take all this absolutely literally).

Of course, for those going straight into business - perhaps hoping to soon enter a prestigious MBA program - having an Ivy League name on the resume would be a great thing.

For sure, prestige matters for breaking into Wall St./top finance jobs, but for the most part it just seems so unbelievably silly that higher education has become so consumerist. I'll admit that I bought into the belief that a "top US News" school would equate to a better education and better opportunities, but quite plainly, I didn't experience that.
But I suppose an obsession with self-importance is one of the few remaining things that America does well...

[Lomax]

If you kill your GPA by majoring in math/econ, you won't even be in contention for the very top schools. Nobody here would rather put a significantly lower GPA with a more respectable major in front of an admissions committee rather than a very strong GPA with a ho-hum major. Majors seem to act as tiebreakers - nothing more. Though I suppose it is possible that certain rare gatekeepers might think differently.

In regards to borderline candidates from lesser-respected schools and/or with lesser-respected majors potentially losing out to ones from better-respected schools and/or with better-respected majors - key here is that had the former candidate gone to a better-respected school and/or chosen a better-respected major, he or she probably would have been an auto-reject instead of a borderline candidate, given the hit his or her GPA would almost certainly have taken.

I'll say this: it depends, and is probably a case by case sort of thing. But I'd still give the boost to the hard school/major as a tiebreaker, at the very least.

There are very few cases in which someone would do better GPA-wise at a better-respected school and/or with a better-respected major. Given your mentality, I suppose that you would consider whether or not someone attempting to surf a 50-foot wave is a good idea on a case-by-case basis. Nearly everyone is going to get crushed, including those whose cases you misjudge. The ones who make it will get a killer rush and might be able to impress some babes, but will not get much else out of challenging death.

You also want to attend a prestigious undergrad if you're shooting for the top MD or PhD programs.

Perhaps true. However, I am probably not in a position to comment on what it takes to position oneself for entry into those programs.

Hey, I kinda resent that.

If you qualify as one and are going to law school with Ivy Leaguers next year, pat yourself on the back - you've done well.

[Birchwood]

You also want to attend a prestigious undergrad if you're shooting for the top MD or PhD programs. Undergrad prestige means little for law school admissions because of US News ranking methodology, which creates an arms race for the highest GPAs.

That's certainly not the case for many top MD programs; like law schools, most select primarily based on GPA, testing, and a few soft factors.
Edit:not an expert in med school admissions. Just word of mouth from the ridiculous number of pre-meds I seem to know...

[postitnotes]

I look at it this way: of the things schools report about their admitted applicants, the numbers (GPA LSAT) are much more visible and reported then the undergrad that the admits attended (although if you look through a school's website you will probably, eventually come across a list). They want those numbers first and foremost to both boost their admit stats and to see if you would be in their league if you went to their school.

As for your situation, I would imagine that any UC school (besides Riverside, Santa Cruz or Merced, sorry, not yet people) with a good GPA would be a contender anywhere. Although Berkeley, LA and SD all have a reputation for being very hard at the undergrad level so if you manage to get in, that might be worth a slightly lower GPA. If you're at a UC right now with a good GPA (3.5+) transferring to LA or SD is quite possible (unless you want to study in an impacted major, ie biochem/most engineering).

Also might want to consider USC too. They take transfers with good transcripts and give out scholarship money like candy.

If you major in the liberal arts no school is "very hard at the undergrad level."

[bloodonthetracks]

just to chime in: during my on-campus interview at N'western, the admissions officer told me that undergraduate institutions certainly do matter. if you did well at a top undegrad, it gives them further reason to believe you can succeed at a top law school.

[knola002]

As for your situation, I would imagine that any UC school (besides Riverside, Santa Cruz or Merced, sorry, not yet people) with a good GPA would be a contender anywhere. Although Berkeley, LA and SD all have a reputation for being very hard at the undergrad level so if you manage to get in, that might be worth a slightly lower GPA. If you're at a UC right now with a good GPA (3.5+) transferring to LA or SD is quite possible (unless you want to study in an impacted major, ie biochem/most engineering).

Also might want to consider USC too. They take transfers with good transcripts and give out scholarship money like candy.

I currently attend UC Riverside. In addition to being on track to graduate with zero UG debt and a damn good GPA, I was admitted to HLS. So generally, I think you're wrong.

[Woozy]

My father, who is an academic, always told me that it doesn't matter where you go to undergrad, but it really matters where you do your graduate work. So, I was never interested in getting into a particularly prestigious undergrad.

It would've worked out splendidly if I had bothered to get a decent GPA.

[rayiner]

Exactly. What exists is a scam, fed both by people's shortsightedness and stupidity, and also by their greediness for prestige. Look at how many Ivy League undergraduates are entering middle-of-the-road law schools alongside lazy state-schoolers who simply did well enough on the LSAT

Meh. If those Ivy-leaguers were better than those "lazy state-schoolers", they wouldn't have done a shitty job on the LSAT. I mean that's how they got into those Ivy's in the first place --- the most visible and dramatic difference in student quality between Ivy schools and the top state schools is 98th percentile average SAT's at the former and 95th percentile SAT's at the latter.

[devilishangelrjp]

So, wait, I'm wondering, is it a good thing that my actual numbers are above the mean numbers for my school...or does it just reflect badly on my school? Do they even look at the mean numbers for school (I know it's on the report they receive) or take those into consideration?

[bloodonthetracks]

Exactly. What exists is a scam, fed both by people's shortsightedness and stupidity, and also by their greediness for prestige. Look at how many Ivy League undergraduates are entering middle-of-the-road law schools alongside lazy state-schoolers who simply did well enough on the LSAT

Meh. If those Ivy-leaguers were better than those "lazy state-schoolers", they wouldn't have done a shitty job on the LSAT. I mean that's how they got into those Ivy's in the first place --- the most visible and dramatic difference in student quality between Ivy schools and the top state schools is 98th percentile average SAT's at the former and 95th percentile SAT's at the latter.

i think you are underestimating how important "softs" are for getting into undergrad.

[rayiner]

i think you are underestimating how important "softs" are for getting into undergrad.

Softs will keep you out of both Ivy and top state schools, but your SAT is what'll get you in. Columbia might like softs, but they're still not going to take a lot of 1300s.

[Lomax]

Meh. If those Ivy-leaguers were better than those "lazy state-schoolers", they wouldn't have done a shitty job on the LSAT.

Consider the Ivy-Leaguer who scores 168 (not a "shitty job") and 3.4 versus the lazy state-schooler who scores 172 (or even an equal 168) and 3.75 (or even a slightly better 3.55).

just to chime in: during my on-campus interview at N'western, the admissions officer told me that undergraduate institutions certainly do matter. if you did well at a top undegrad, it gives them further reason to believe you can succeed at a top law school.

Do you actually think that he or she would have told you, "no, actually, we don't give a damn - tell everyone you heard it from me"? Talk about politically incorrect...

[somewhatwayward]

Exactly. What exists is a scam, fed both by people's shortsightedness and stupidity, and also by their greediness for prestige. Look at how many Ivy League undergraduates are entering middle-of-the-road law schools alongside lazy state-schoolers who simply did well enough on the LSAT, with heaps of debt and poor job prospects - just because they had to show everyone just how good they were (no offense to anyone here, and please do not take all this absolutely literally).

....but then there's the option of going to HYP and besting most of your peers, which really puts you in a position to do whatever you want although maybe you reap the least benefit going the law school route

oh, and the debt's not bad at all bc they have really great financial aid

[Lomax]

....but then there's the option of going to HYP and besting most of your peers, which really puts you in a position to do whatever you want although maybe you reap the least benefit going the law school route

True, at least attending HYP for undergrad gives one the potential for great reward. Really, I was taking more of a jab at the higher-ranked non-Ivy League undergrads, using Ivy Leaguers who do not end up besting most of their peers (this category would necessarily include the majority of them) as an extreme example.

[bfarring]

As for your situation, I would imagine that any UC school (besides Riverside, Santa Cruz or Merced, sorry, not yet people) with a good GPA would be a contender anywhere. Although Berkeley, LA and SD all have a reputation for being very hard at the undergrad level so if you manage to get in, that might be worth a slightly lower GPA. If you're at a UC right now with a good GPA (3.5+) transferring to LA or SD is quite possible (unless you want to study in an impacted major, ie biochem/most engineering).

Also might want to consider USC too. They take transfers with good transcripts and give out scholarship money like candy.

I currently attend UC Riverside. In addition to being on track to graduate with zero UG debt and a damn good GPA, I was admitted to HLS. So generally, I think you're wrong.

There's an exception to every norm. I also went to a non-elite (not UCLA/Berkeley) UC. Riverside/Merced/Santa Cruz don't have the reputation others do, their admissions are barely competitive. But hey, if you had a good GPA and LSAT score, it just proves the point I was making about numbers being more important than school. So, generally, I'm correct, and in your (very unusual) case I'm wrong. Congrats on the HLS.

[bfarring]

I look at it this way: of the things schools report about their admitted applicants, the numbers (GPA LSAT) are much more visible and reported then the undergrad that the admits attended (although if you look through a school's website you will probably, eventually come across a list). They want those numbers first and foremost to both boost their admit stats and to see if you would be in their league if you went to their school.

As for your situation, I would imagine that any UC school (besides Riverside, Santa Cruz or Merced, sorry, not yet people) with a good GPA would be a contender anywhere. Although Berkeley, LA and SD all have a reputation for being very hard at the undergrad level so if you manage to get in, that might be worth a slightly lower GPA. If you're at a UC right now with a good GPA (3.5+) transferring to LA or SD is quite possible (unless you want to study in an impacted major, ie biochem/most engineering).

Also might want to consider USC too. They take transfers with good transcripts and give out scholarship money like candy.

If you major in the liberal arts no school is "very hard at the undergrad level."

I seriously think there are people who troll these forums just to dis "liberal arts" whenever they can. Engineers with a complex? Because I went into undergrad with enough APs to clear out GE requirements, I got both a BS (Economics) and a BA (History). History (which some people consider a "liberal art") was definitely harder.

[rayiner]

Consider the Ivy-Leaguer who scores 168 (not a "shitty job") and 3.4 versus the lazy state-schooler who scores 172 (or even an equal 168) and 3.75 (or even a slightly better 3.55).

So what's the argument here? Ivies have a lot of grade inflation, except at P (and HYPS do get a boost), 3.4 is below median. At a state school, a 3.75 is near the top of the class.

Now, why should he below-median Ivy leaguer get in over the "lazy state schooler"? You're stuck making the argument that the competition at the Ivy league school is much higher. So how do you prove that? Do softs make for stiffer competition? Maybe more interesting students, but not smarter ones. Are GPAs different? A little, but is top 5% GPA much smarter than top 10%? The big difference is of course SAT score. 1950 at top state schools versus say 2150 at the Columbia, etc. Is mean SAT a good measure of how competitive a class is? Maybe, but if so, why do you doubt that the state schooler's 172 makes him a better candidate for law school than the Ivy leaguer's 168? If not, then what else can you point to as distinguishing the rigor of an Ivy education over that of a state school?

In any case his discussion is somewhat moot. In practice T10 undergrad students wih decent GPAs aren't losing many spots to state school students, because he former score much better on the LSAT. When they do, it's usually to a top state school student who is really exeptional in his class (statistically speaking) and it's hard to argue that mediocre students at Ivies should win against an exceptional student at a state school.

And of course, once they're in, the Ivy leaguers don't seem particularly exceptional within the class, though I have only anecdotal evidence. Eg: our law review doesn't contain a disproportionate number of Ivy leaguers.

[Lomax]

Consider the Ivy-Leaguer who scores 168 (not a "shitty job") and 3.4 versus the lazy state-schooler who scores 172 (or even an equal 168) and 3.75 (or even a slightly better 3.55).

So what's the argument here? Ivies have a lot of grade inflation, except at P (and HYPS do get a boost), 3.4 is below median. At a state school, a 3.75 is near the top of the class.

Once you weed out the hordes of students at state schools who came in with low SAT scores and no intention of doing well enough to go on to grad school, you will almost certainly find that those at state schools do better GPA-wise than those at Ivy League schools. Even the mean/median GPAs of the graduating classes of state schools are very often higher than those of the graduating classes of prestigious private schools. Honestly, I am not even sure that I believe your assertion to begin with.

Now, why should he below-median Ivy leaguer get in over the "lazy state schooler"?

The Ivy Leaguer would argue that he or she should gain points for the relative difficulty of coursework and, possibly, the difference in mean/median class GPAs. However, as we have been saying, the truth is that little or no bonuses are actually given.[/quote]

In any case his discussion is somewhat moot. In practice T10 undergrad students wih decent GPAs aren't losing many spots to state school students, because he former score much better on the LSAT. When they do, it's usually to a top state school student who is really exeptional in his class (statistically speaking) and it's hard to argue that mediocre students at Ivies should win against an exceptional student at a state school.

And of course, once they're in, the Ivy leaguers don't seem particularly exceptional within the class, though I have only anecdotal evidence. Eg: our law review doesn't contain a disproportionate number of Ivy leaguers.

Generally true. The point we have been trying to make is that it is usually comparatively advantageous for law school admissions purposes to attend a state school rather than a more prestigious and/or expensive one, and this still holds true. While Ivy League undergraduates usually outperform state school graduates in law school admissions because of their typically high LSAT scores and achievements in other areas, their being Ivy Leaguers and having gone to an Ivy League school almost always does nothing for them; they would have had the same high LSAT scores and probably better-looking softs as well better GPAs had they attended state schools.

[somewhatwayward]

i looked at some charts from stanford that show the average LSATs and GPAs of stanford undergrads who applied, who were admitted, and/or who matriculated at various law schools during/after the 2006-2007 cycles. since the numbers we get from us news are from matriculated students, i'm going to post those....

average GPA/LSATs of stanford undergrads who matriculated at:

columbia 166/3.62
harvard 171/3.76
nyu 169/3.76
stanford 170/3.83
yale 173/3.84

i would've put C on there, but the chart didn't calculate it, maybe bc not many people decided to go to C?

i couldn't find the GPA/LSAT means of the matriculating classes those years, but a quick glance over that suggests that stanford undergrads are getting a boost albeit bigger or smaller depending on the school (not sure what's going on with columbia....maybe they took a lot of URMs from stanford?) this is also consistent with my personal, albeit anecdotal, experience of various people from HYPS getting into schools where their numbers are not up-to-par.

oh, and i am not a stanford undergrad or alum

edit: since it is still pretty difficult to get a 3.7 or so at stanford, this doesn'tmean that you should go to stanford to try to gain an edge in LS admissions.

[09042014]

In regards to borderline candidates from lesser-respected schools and/or with lesser-respected majors potentially losing out to ones from better-respected schools and/or with better-respected majors - key here is that had the former candidate gone to a better-respected school and/or chosen a better-respected major, he or she probably would have been an auto-reject instead of a borderline candidate, given the hit his or her GPA would almost certainly have taken.

Good point, which make me wonder why the hell we all work so hard to get into great (and $$) undergrads when going to a decent school would actually end up putting you ahead of the game in terms of both grad school admission and debt.
Obviously a good number of high school seniors haven't figured out their post-UG plans, but it's safe to say that many of the bright/overachieving kids that end up at top UG's are planning on some kind of post-graduate study that would benefit from having big fish in a small pond type credentials. Not to mention substantially less stress.

Law is probably the only graduate program that doesn't seriously consider the quality of the undergraduate education.

[09042014]

just to chime in: during my on-campus interview at N'western, the admissions officer told me that undergraduate institutions certainly do matter. if you did well at a top undegrad, it gives them further reason to believe you can succeed at a top law school.

Adcoms blow tons of hot air about being holistic, but one look at Northwestern's law school numbers page proves they are full of shit.

I think good undergrad/majors really only help at the extremes and the border lines. Penn seems to take splitters from prestigious undergrads, Michigan seems to give splitters a break if they had a hard major.

And at the boderlines, I think having a good PS will help you a lot more than your UG institution.

It kind of sucks, but I don't see much indication it matters that much.