Top Law Schools

...with respect to law school admissions.

All other things being equal: False

legalnoeagle wrote:...with respect to law school admissions.

False. But 3.9 from HYPS > 4.0 from T15-20 UG. Maybe even 3.8.

I thought so. I can't say I agree with this.

depends on who you ask and which side of the argument benefits them.

I think this is definitely false, and what I have seen on LSN seems to indicate this is false. I don't even think a 3.5 at HYPS is better than a 3.8 or 3.7 from an unheard of school like mine. My no-name undergrad had zero effect on my cycle.

Why would it? Schools don't get points with U.S. News for taking more kids from Harvard than from some little liberal arts college in Montana.

If anything, an elite undergrad is an INCREDIBLY soft factor, probably only used to distinguish two very similar candidates.

15: Cornell
16: Brown
17: Emory
17: Rice
17: Vanderbilt
20: Notre Dame

Since the above schools are barely even accredited universities, true.

kittenmittons wrote:15: Cornell
16: Brown
17: Emory
17: Rice
17: Vanderbilt
20: Notre Dame

Since the above schools are barely even accredited universities, true.

Brown is accredited by the East Coast Association of Unaccredited Schools.

oneforship wrote:depends on who you ask and which side of the argument benefits them.

Well, assuming that the top 25-30% of every class gets A/A-, which is about right, even for HYPS, shouldn't AdComms control for the overall competitiveness of the student body? Hell, they could even use average LSAT scores as a proxy.

As in, if school X has an average LSAT of 165, whereas school Y averages around 160, then that 3.5/3.8 difference should be mitigated.

I know that in a world of US News rankings this would never happen, but I wonder if this is something they consider.


Edit: Hell, with that LSAT difference, the equalizer should be a 3.3 from School X.

kittenmittons wrote:15: Cornell
16: Brown
17: Emory
17: Rice
17: Vanderbilt
20: Notre Dame

Since the above schools are barely even accredited universities, true.

Shit. No wonder I'm locked out of the T14.

romothesavior wrote:I think this is definitely false, and what I have seen on LSN seems to indicate this is false. I don't even think a 3.5 at HYPS is better than a 3.8 or 3.7 from an unheard of school like mine. My no-name undergrad had zero effect on my cycle.

Why would it? Schools don't get points with U.S. News for taking more kids from Harvard than from some little liberal arts college in Montana.

If anything, an elite undergrad is an INCREDIBLY soft factor, probably only used to distinguish two very similar candidates.

No, this is wrong. At the top law schools (HYS and Chicago most notably, and also Penn apparently), UG prestige definitely means something. It's not a magic bullet, but it's definitely a solid soft and I do think there is a small boost.

No. Anything below median and they are all the same. above median from anywhere > below from HYP imo. BUT anything above median at HYP > anything above median anywhere else.

/ thread.

crackberry wrote:No, this is wrong. At the top law schools (HYS and Chicago most notably, and also Penn apparently), UG prestige definitely means something. It's not a magic bullet, but it's definitely a solid soft and I do think there is a small boost.

One of these does not belong

legalnoeagle wrote:

oneforship wrote:depends on who you ask and which side of the argument benefits them.

Well, assuming that the top 25-30% of every class gets A/A-, which is about right, even for HYPS, shouldn't AdComms control for the overall competitiveness of the student body? Hell, they could even use average LSAT scores as a proxy.

As in, if school X has an average LSAT of 165, whereas school Y averages around 160, then that 3.5/3.8 difference should be mitigated.

I know that in a world of US News rankings this would never happen, but I wonder if this is something they consider.


Edit: Hell, with that LSAT difference, the equalizer should be a 3.3 from School X.

You are an idiot..... I guess competition only occurs at HYPS….

You also shouldn't have gotten multiple tries on the LSAT..

Absolutely false. The difference between a 3.8 and a 3.5 is pretty large considering how many grade points you've accumulated by the time you apply to law school. However, all other things being equal, X GPA at HYPS > X GPA at any other school. But then again, when ARE all things equal?

Unitas wrote:

legalnoeagle wrote:

oneforship wrote:depends on who you ask and which side of the argument benefits them.

Well, assuming that the top 25-30% of every class gets A/A-, which is about right, even for HYPS, shouldn't AdComms control for the overall competitiveness of the student body? Hell, they could even use average LSAT scores as a proxy.

As in, if school X has an average LSAT of 165, whereas school Y averages around 160, then that 3.5/3.8 difference should be mitigated.

I know that in a world of US News rankings this would never happen, but I wonder if this is something they consider.


Edit: Hell, with that LSAT difference, the equalizer should be a 3.3 from School X.

You are an idiot..... I guess competition only occurs at HYPS….

You also shouldn't have gotten multiple tries on the LSAT..

No need to resort to insults, Unitas.
And what is exactly is your argument? That competition across two schools with two different applicant LSAT averages (as reported by the LSDAS) is the same?

I think this is like comparing apples and oranges.
An elite 3.9 is worth more than a T15-20 3.9 but apart from that you cannot say anything. You can only say something with two identical cases.

Rampant grade inflation at lower Ivies like Y and P.

Well my numbers are 169 3.85 and I went to a TTT. I got into Michigan on down (save NW) but nothing above it. Of the people on LSN who got into higher schools with the same numbers, it seemed like almost all of them went to an ivy. So it seems like a strong tie-breaker at the least (though of course there could be other factors as to why their luck was better).

Wow, this is the second time in the past 5 days I have seen this question. Guess what? NO. Softs do not mean ANYTHING. Get a high LSAT, GPA, and don't commit any outrageous crimes.

/THREAD

P.S. Use search.

legalnoeagle wrote: No need to resort to insults, Unitas.
And what is exactly is your argument? That competition across two schools with two different applicant LSAT averages (as reported by the LSDAS) is the same?
You also shouldn't have gotten multiple tries on the LSAT..

I didn't use multiple tries on the LSAT. Only one.

You are saying you should get a hard (GPA) boost because of going to a top UG, in addition to the boost you get from: getting the best internships, having advisement counselors, grade inflated medians, and the soft bonus for going to a top UG? I mean come on... Where does it end? Maybe all T14 Grad students should come from T14 UGs.

If anything, someone going to a lower ranked UG should get a big boost from doing so well - they have more raw potential.

fwiw, i went to a top 10 ug and i really think it's one of the main reasons i was waitlisted and not flat our rejected at some of the schools i applied to since my numbers were below medians. so while i dont think it allows me to have lower numbers, it definitely has helped keep me in the running at some places i think

I think for the T6, a top UG > a no-name UG plus WE

lshopeful3232 wrote:fwiw, i went to a top 10 ug and i really think it's one of the main reasons i was waitlisted and not flat our rejected at some of the schools i applied to since my numbers were below medians. so while i dont think it allows me to have lower numbers, it definitely has helped keep me in the running at some places i think

Maybe a reason, not a main reason. If it were between you and another with exactly the same numbers, and he went to TTTT state school, then yeah. All that really matters is that the school you go to is not online and is accredited lol. It is ALL numbers..... Duh.

Unitas wrote:

legalnoeagle wrote: No need to resort to insults, Unitas.
And what is exactly is your argument? That competition across two schools with two different applicant LSAT averages (as reported by the LSDAS) is the same?
You also shouldn't have gotten multiple tries on the LSAT..

I didn't use multiple tries on the LSAT. Only one.

You are saying you should get a hard (GPA) boost because of going to a top UG, in addition to the boost you get from: getting the best internships, having advisement counselors, grade inflated medians, and the soft bonus for going to a top UG? I mean come on... Where does it end? Maybe all T14 Grad schools should come grom T14 UGs.

If anything someone going to a lower ranked UG should get a big boost from doing so well on the LSAT and being so far above medians - they have more raw potential.[/quote]


The LSAT comment was a quoting mistake, and anyway, it's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

Everyone gets their panties in a knot whenever this issue is brought up (perhaps because it hits too close to home), but really, if all measures of performance (UG is graded on a curve, LSAT on a curve, LS performance on a curve) are relative, then why should a school whose candidate pool averages 160 on the LSAT NOT be put at disadvantage vs. a school whose candidate pool averages 165? Especially when it comes to figuring out how well that person performed (or will perform) vs. his classmates.

The 3.3/3.8 analogy was extreme, but I think my original hypo isn't too ridiculous.