this may be a stupid question but... Forum

[dpk711]

seriously though... I know going to a top ranked school is important, but so is graduating in the top of you class. My question is that is choosing a more prestigious school that important if you know you will only graduate around the top 50% of the class when you could go to a semi-prestigious school and graduate in the top 10%?

Example:
You get accepted to Columbia but since everyone is smarter (I'm assuming because of higher LSATs and GPAs) you end up graduating only top 50% of the class. On the other hand, if you chose to go to say Cornell (still a good school) you could've graduated top 5%.

Which of the following would be better for job prospects? I am inclined to say top 5% at Cornell and this is not to mention that Cornell would have probably given you a nice scholly as well...

[joemoviebuff]

Bad assumption is bad.

[Kabuo]

Ok, so on the basis of lower LSAT scores, you think that a median student at CLS could have been top 5% at Cornell? I think you're greatly overestimating the difference in student quality. Also, if you really believe this is true, then there's no choice here: go to Cornell.

[dpk711]

Ok, so on the basis of lower LSAT scores, you think that a median student at CLS could have been top 5% at Cornell? I think you're greatly overestimating the difference in student quality. Also, if you really believe this is true, then there's no choice here: go to Cornell.

I realize my hypotheticals may have been exaggerated for the purpose of the discussion... but the general logic still stands -- do you go to a lower ranked school just because you have a higher chance of graduating at the top of your class?

[im_blue]

Ok, so on the basis of lower LSAT scores, you think that a median student at CLS could have been top 5% at Cornell? I think you're greatly overestimating the difference in student quality. Also, if you really believe this is true, then there's no choice here: go to Cornell.

I realize my hypotheticals may have been exaggerated for the purpose of the discussion... but the general logic still stands -- do you go to a lower ranked school just because you have a higher chance of graduating at the top of your class?

no

[ahduth]

Ok, so on the basis of lower LSAT scores, you think that a median student at CLS could have been top 5% at Cornell? I think you're greatly overestimating the difference in student quality. Also, if you really believe this is true, then there's no choice here: go to Cornell.

I realize my hypotheticals may have been exaggerated for the purpose of the discussion... but the general logic still stands -- do you go to a lower ranked school just because you have a higher chance of graduating at the top of your class?

No. You go to a lower ranked school if they give you cash.

[Kilpatrick]

Not that stupid a question but it is one that comes up every other month. I think in order for this to work you would have to go so far down the rankings that being top 10% wouldn't matter. Top 5% at Cornell would have been Top 5% at Columbia. You really think a two or three point difference on the LSAT means someone is 10 times less intelligent or good at law school exams? Also, believe it or not smart people go to lower ranked schools all the time for lots of different reasons.

[JazzOne]

Ok, so on the basis of lower LSAT scores, you think that a median student at CLS could have been top 5% at Cornell? I think you're greatly overestimating the difference in student quality. Also, if you really believe this is true, then there's no choice here: go to Cornell.

I realize my hypotheticals may have been exaggerated for the purpose of the discussion... but the general logic still stands -- do you go to a lower ranked school just because you have a higher chance of graduating at the top of your class?

You have no idea what your chances are of finishing at the top of the class. Even if you're smart and you're a hard worker, shit happens. This is exactly why people advise others to go to the highest ranked school. That way, if they underperform, they still have the benefit of the school's reputation.

[bergg007]

Ok, so on the basis of lower LSAT scores, you think that a median student at CLS could have been top 5% at Cornell? I think you're greatly overestimating the difference in student quality. Also, if you really believe this is true, then there's no choice here: go to Cornell.

I realize my hypotheticals may have been exaggerated for the purpose of the discussion... but the general logic still stands -- do you go to a lower ranked school just because you have a higher chance of graduating at the top of your class?

You have no idea what your chances are of finishing at the top of the class. Even if you're smart and you're a hard worker, shit happens. This is exactly why people advise others to go to the highest ranked school. That way, if they underperform, they still have the benefit of the school's reputation.

TITCR

[Ragged]

I don't think its worth it, unless alot of money is involved.

[whymeohgodno]

You do realize EVERY school even TTT ones have kids that are well above medians and going there just because they got a full ride.

So you won't easily get top 10% anywhere. Also if you can get top 10% at any of the t20 or so schools you're probably smart enough to get near the top of your class anywhere.

[CanadianWolf]

A great deal of emphasis is placed on first year grades for SA positions & , of course, law review. Thus, the better question may be one based on class standing at the end of the first year of law school.

[094320]

..