Is there anything I can do to get into HYS? Forum

[scone]

I'm an international student who does not have a reportable GPA (so why am I writing this when I could play PS4?); I said won't get into Yale mostly because of my international status (I checked their grid and 5 people above 175 with no GPA applied, 0 accepted; they surprisingly admitted multiple high 160's, and I think the odds are too small). Why so eager to prove you are arrogant and "need humility"?

Your GPA still matters an awful lot as an international student, even though it isn't reported. Those five people you mentioned could have had a very poor GPA. Or, poorly written personal statements. Yale lets in internationals with about the same frequency as the rest of the T14.

I don't get your argument. You seem to be saying that there are cases when GPA is not predictive, therefore it is in general not predictive. Yet it's been shown to have a very high correlation with law school grades; the fact that it is not predictive in a few extreme circumstances does not contradict this. So it makes sense that admissions officers should focus on that and the LSAT.

[ihenry]

I figure there's no point in silencing myself so I'm back, just to be more chill.

Your GPA still matters an awful lot as an international student, even though it isn't reported. Those five people you mentioned could have had a very poor GPA. Or, poorly written personal statements. Yale lets in internationals with about the same frequency as the rest of the T14.

I don't get your argument. You seem to be saying that there are cases when GPA is not predictive, therefore it is in general not predictive. Yet it's been shown to have a very high correlation with law school grades; the fact that it is not predictive in a few extreme circumstances does not contradict this. So it makes sense that admissions officers should focus on that and the LSAT.

I personally find it hard to believe all high LSAT scorers have "very poor GPA" or "poorly written personal statements". But okay, Yale is largely a black box for all reasons stated, and even Americans with high numbers fail to get in. So fine, I have no problem with it (like I said, even lottery is justifiable, and surely they have better mechanism than pure lottery), just that MistakenGenius sounds too entitled sometimes. Outside Yale, I know a Chinese with pretty low GPA and decent LSAT got into pretty good places, but that's irrelevant here.

I don't want to say everything again. Your summary is basically what I mean, but to such a degree that it greatly diminishes GPA's validity, and can have negative impacts / guidance to candidates. See my previous posts for more nuances.

Those in top US universities are also ridiculously talented and hardworking. Just often in a different way. There are different types of exams and different types of exam-taking - it makes no sense, without further clarification, to say someone has a 'good ability to take exams'. For instance, a lot of UK maths students would have a terrible time taking Chinese maths undergrad exams, from the exams I've seen at least; yet some of my Chinese friends taking UK undergrad maths exams also find them really challenging in comparison. Also, it's pretty impossible to compare between STEM exam and humanities exam-taking abilities - some people are good at one, some the other, some both. And that ability can often be learnt, anyway.

By the way, it can often be easier for visiting students to get As, as universities have a financial incentive to encourage others to return from the same institution. Just before you write off an entire education system on the basis of anecdotal evidence.

You admit that the form and contents of assessments vary, but insist their results can be directly compared?

I chuckled at your British exam argument. Chinese, or Asian exams are objectively harder (to say the reverse without actually doing the research and claim those who tried but scored 80/100 are inferior with A students in an "easier" country is insulting). The reasons your Chinese friends struggled may be: 1. They don't understand scientific terms in English or 2. They are among the worst students back in China. Some British schools are really TTTs and accept those who hardly make it into Chinese universities, but just are in rich families. In the country I'm studying, universities such as LSE are easier to get into than local universities.

If you insist they are taking advantage as exchange students, I have nothing to say. All I know is, 1) they really earned their scores in quizzes and exams, like 96/100 which qualify for an A even for Americans I guess? 2) foreign exchange students here can fall miserably. I even know one student who had nearly one whole point drop (high 3 there to high 2 here). And those transfers to American universities did equally well too.

ETA: how many times do I have to repeat that that students can score better in exams on average has no bearing on the whole education system? You can even argue there's an inverse relationship -- prepping for exams stiffles creativity, less opportunities for research, etc etc. I just want to state the simple fact that Asian students can score better in U.S. exams than they do back home, and directly comparing results is unfair. That's it! It is not even too related to the U.S. method because grades are not reported!

[banjo]

This thread blew up while I was gone. Thanks for the reply everyone.

I don't think it's very realistic to go to a lower ranked school then expect to transfer to HYS.

As for working the next five years to build a business, NGO, etc., they sound like great ideas (not just for the purpose of LS, but for life in general), but I also am not sure how realistic it is to actually pull it off. I would appreciate ideas on how to get started.

I thought of another idea: to go back for another undergrad degree when I am more of an adult. I spent the majority of my college years without any motivation or goals, until shortly before I graduated, which was when I decided that I wanted to shoot for a good law school, but by then it was too late. Getting another undergrad degree and getting a high GPA there won't change the LSAC GPA, but it will still be something I can write on my application to show that I am able to handle law school courses and deserve admission. In addition, I may be able to work with a professor at the undergrad institution to work on an academic paper, which could be a nice soft.

As for the GPA debate, I acknowledge that it's a good indicator of hard work, and I have no problem with law schools judging applicants by it. What I don't like, however, is the fact that LSAC GPA is fixed after the first undergrad degree and it won't change ever. Texas has an "academic fresh start" (http://www.collegeforalltexans.com/inde ... A6C20D1C97) and it seems like a decent idea.

And one more thing. How bad is the age discrimination in biglaw, if it exists? If I pull off the above, I'll probably be about 33 years old when I graduate from law school. Is it something I can avoid by simply not putting down when I did my (first) undergrad degree? If I do somehow get into HYS, would age even matter?

Getting a second undergraduate degree purely for signaling purposes will cost you time and money and still won't get you into HYS. A few years of work experience is a better idea, but might not be enough to overcome that 3.2.

If you really want to go to law school, save up some money and apply across the T14. You don't need to go to HYS or T8 or whatever to get a big law job. And being in your early 30s won't hold you back.

[scone]

.

[ihenry]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

You admit that the form and contents of assessments vary, but insist their results can be directly compared?

Yes - in the US, that's kind of the point. You seem to be claiming that you can't compare GPAs reached through using different kinds of assessments - that is, if the course of study isn't evaluated the exact same way, you can't compare the GPAs. That's just not correct, though. Obviously it's easiest to compare a group of people's performance on one kind of assessment when they only have that kind of assessment, but that's not really evaluating their full performance as a student (at least based in general principles about pedagogy you usually see in the US). I feel like your concerns about GPAs may be colored by your own educational experience?

ETA: how many times do I have to repeat that that students can score better in exams on average has no bearing on the whole education system? You can even argue there's an inverse relationship -- prepping for exams stiffles creativity, less opportunities for research, etc etc. I just want to state the simple fact that Asian students can score better in U.S. exams than they do back home, and directly comparing results is unfair.

So you've been saying that using US GPAs is unfair because you've seen Chinese students score higher on exams in the US than they do in China, when 1) the system doesn't compare foreign GPAs and US GPAs, 2) you keep referencing "exams," when US GPAs include a lot of other kinds of evaluations than exams? It also sounds like you're really talking about STEM fields? For instance, your reference to GA Tech, or to Chinese students not understanding scientific terms in English for British exams. I wouldn't be surprised if Chinese students on a whole do have a higher level of technological ability than American ones. But I don't think that's a function of intelligence as much as what people get taught at what stages of education. I have had Chinese students struggle miserably with your average college History course.

[ihenry]

Obviously it's easiest to compare a group of people's performance on one kind of assessment when they only have that kind of assessment, but that's not really evaluating their full performance as a student (at least based in general principles about pedagogy you usually see in the US). I feel like your concerns about GPAs may be colored by your own educational experience?

It's not about convenience, but fairness. You have confused "evaluation" with "comparison" -- it is perfectly okay to evaluate students based on a number of parameters, but to say comparing final numbers among students is fair, that doesn't quite convince me. It is colored by my own experience, but so is everyone's I guess.

It also sounds like you're really talking about STEM fields?

Mostly. But even for arts/humanities fields, here our grades are still curved, meaning you may end up with B+ even if you think you master the contents and killed the exams. Many American undergrad, on the other hand, give you As when you reach certain level, so it still does not form an equal ground, needless to say comparing STEM GPA with humanities GPA.

Regarding the history courses, I wouldn't be surprised either. The thing is, they are probably unable to read and write extremely well in English which affected their performance. But in taking these courses, their reading and writing and understanding of the history improve. If they just want to keep that GPA high, they may avoid these courses as much as possible and thus waste opportunities to get better. That's my point too.

[abl]

1. There are definitely many schools and programs in which it is easy to get a 4.0 relative to what it takes to get something like a 3.5 at someplace like Caltech. I'm basing this on substantial personal experience (on both the teaching and student side) and on the bits of empirical evidence out there (like Boalt's old law school GPA adjuster).

2. There is a wide degree of variation in rigor at top U.S. universities. The effort and work quality required to get an A at your average Caltech class is remarkably different than in your average Stanford class, despite the two schools being of roughly equivalent selectivity and prestige.

3. There is a wide degree of variation in the effort and work quality required to do well from program-to-program within universities, such that a classics major might have to work relatively harder and be relatively smarter than an Econ major at some schools, and vice versa at others.

4. I can only speak for my personal experiences, but I did some roughly equivalent work for a significant (eg more than a semester term abroad) period at Oxbridge and found high grades much easier to come by than at my US undergrad. I think this just falls into the "all schools are differen" box: I'm sure some international schools are more rigorous than some US schools, and vice versa. It may well be the case that US schools are overall more generous with grading than international schools. But I think it remains pretty widely accepted that the quality of education provided at the top US schools is superior to that abroad--with very few possible exceptions.

5. My experience at a HYS law school strongly implies that all of these factors are being accounted for much more strongly than is generally accepted wisdom on these boards (which is that these factors are essentially entirely ignored, except in rare tiebreaker circumstances). That said, my personal opinion is that these factors remain under-incorporated into admissions: I think that HYS would likely admit stronger classes if they adjusted for these factors even more than they currently do.

6. I definitely do not mean to imply that folks from less elite schools or in less rigorous majors or anything else are less smart or incapable of similar success in an elite school and/or a rigorous program. Some 4.0 Stony Brook communications majors would get a 4.0 in linguistics at Swarthmore. But that possibility doesn't change the fact that getting high grades in a less rigorous program in a less rigorous school is a relatively weak signal for law schools.

[ihenry]

But that possibility doesn't change the fact that getting high grades in a less rigorous program in a less rigorous school is a relatively weak signal for law schools.

This. If I were the admissions, I would consider offering more seats to those who underwent rigorous curriculum and ended up with decent but less than stellar grades. At least they are up for challenges and have more hard-earned skills, and the fact that they are admitted to challenging programs at the first place probably says something about their aptitude (true in some places, although I am aware some top U.S. colleges have inflated grades. But still, undergrad institutions should probably be taken into account).

[A. Nony Mouse]

4. I can only speak for my personal experiences, but I did some roughly equivalent work for a significant (eg more than a semester term abroad) period at Oxbridge and found high grades much easier to come by than at my US undergrad. I think this just falls into the "all schools are differen" box: I'm sure some international schools are more rigorous than some US schools, and vice versa. It may well be the case that US schools are overall more generous with grading than international schools. But I think it remains pretty widely accepted that the quality of education provided at the top US schools is superior to that abroad--with very few possible exceptions.

Do the Oxbridge schools even give undergrad grades, though? That count for anything on their own? I thought the only thing that counted was the degree awarded after the final exam at the end of three years (first, two:one, two:two, etc.). The dons I encountered there didn't really have a clue how to grade American-style assignments because they never did so normally.

[ihenry]

Do the Oxbridge schools even give undergrad grades, though? That count for anything on their own? I thought the only thing that counted was the degree awarded after the final exam at the end of three years (first, two:one, two:two, etc.). The dons I encountered there didn't really have a clue how to grade American-style assignments because they never did so normally.

My friend's school created a weird stuff combining American letter grades and British honor classifications. If this is any indication, average A- or above is first class (our school gives like 5-10%, I heard Oxbridge are like 15-20%), B+ to A- is second upper (around next 25% in our school, and a whopping 60-70% at Oxbridge), etc. If they really do it this way, that in part explain why he feels British "grades" arr inflated. Just my speculation though.

[scone]

4. I can only speak for my personal experiences, but I did some roughly equivalent work for a significant (eg more than a semester term abroad) period at Oxbridge and found high grades much easier to come by than at my US undergrad. I think this just falls into the "all schools are differen" box: I'm sure some international schools are more rigorous than some US schools, and vice versa. It may well be the case that US schools are overall more generous with grading than international schools. But I think it remains pretty widely accepted that the quality of education provided at the top US schools is superior to that abroad--with very few possible exceptions.

Do the Oxbridge schools even give undergrad grades, though? That count for anything on their own? I thought the only thing that counted was the degree awarded after the final exam at the end of three years (first, two:one, two:two, etc.). The dons I encountered there didn't really have a clue how to grade American-style assignments because they never did so normally.

You're correct - only finals count for anything.

[abl]

4. I can only speak for my personal experiences, but I did some roughly equivalent work for a significant (eg more than a semester term abroad) period at Oxbridge and found high grades much easier to come by than at my US undergrad. I think this just falls into the "all schools are differen" box: I'm sure some international schools are more rigorous than some US schools, and vice versa. It may well be the case that US schools are overall more generous with grading than international schools. But I think it remains pretty widely accepted that the quality of education provided at the top US schools is superior to that abroad--with very few possible exceptions.

Do the Oxbridge schools even give undergrad grades, though? That count for anything on their own? I thought the only thing that counted was the degree awarded after the final exam at the end of three years (first, two:one, two:two, etc.). The dons I encountered there didn't really have a clue how to grade American-style assignments because they never did so normally.

Yes and no -- Oxbridge grades on a different scale. Although any conversion is obviously imperfect, my respective grades were such that I think few would disagree with my assessment about those grades.

[MistakenGenius]

Post removed.

[ihenry]

Well, I actually love to, because they can't even beat me with their experience -- except personal attacks, distorting facts and my words, and pretending not hearing what I say.

[BigZuck]

This thread is really going places

[ihenry]

And MistakenGenius, congratulations for being the first user on my foe list. You don't have to reply because I probably won't see. I tried to be polite and friendly but you only seem to have become more shameless and tasteless. Tell you what, I have won "best debater" titles and were involved in countless verbal wars, but never in a legit environment did I see a human acting like you. And I sincerely hope I don't have to deal with people like you when I am in law school; if so, I will grab the first flight ticket home, because I don't want to be poured shit on when my opponent can't win an argument with me.

[jbagelboy]

And MistakenGenius, congratulations for being the first user on my foe list. You don't have to reply because I probably won't see. I tried to be polite and friendly but you only seem to have become more shameless and tasteless. Tell you what, I have won "best debater" titles and were involved in countless verbal wars, but never in a legit environment did I see a human acting like you. And I sincerely hope I don't have to deal with people like you when I am in law school; if so, I will grab the first flight ticket home, because I don't want to be poured shit on when my opponent can't win an argument with me.

This is the Internet, not a collegiate eastern conference mock trial competition. He's an extreme example but a lot of people will be dicks. Best not to act too sensitive.

[ihenry]

And MistakenGenius, congratulations for being the first user on my foe list. You don't have to reply because I probably won't see. I tried to be polite and friendly but you only seem to have become more shameless and tasteless. Tell you what, I have won "best debater" titles and were involved in countless verbal wars, but never in a legit environment did I see a human acting like you. And I sincerely hope I don't have to deal with people like you when I am in law school; if so, I will grab the first flight ticket home, because I don't want to be poured shit on when my opponent can't win an argument with me.

This is the Internet, not a collegiate eastern conference mock trial competition. He's an extreme example but a lot of people will be dicks. Best not to act too sensitive.

Advice taken. This will be the last time I talk about this topic.

[PoopyPants]

Advice taken. This will be the last time I talk about this topic.

Or just, you know, get thicker skin.