Do law schools give any thought to what undergrad school you went to? Forum

[LawSchoolApp123321]

Does that impact your app at all. My undergrad isn't bad by any means but it is not ivy nor very close to it.

[QuentonCassidy]

Does that impact your app at all. My undergrad isn't bad by any means but it is not ivy nor very close to it.

The TLS consensus seems to be that if you went to HYP there could be a slight boost, but other than that there is really no distinction made between undergrads.

This topic has been discussed in much more depth throughout these fora, and if you use the search function I'm sure you can find a much more nuanced explanation

[Abraham Lincoln Uni.]

Generally, the school a student graduated from for undergraduate studies does not necessarily negatively or positively affect the application. Of course, going to a more reputable and well known school may be something the admission committee considers, but overall, each applicant is reviewed equally and considered based on GPA, LSAT score, letters of recommendation, extra-curricular involvements, supplemental application, and general application.

[SomeElleWoodsJoke]

.

[Big Red]

What I think is majorly overlooked is weighting in-school softs based on institution. Being high up in student org or any other major involvement position at a flagship/ivy/ect. is a huge time commitment and more competitive than other softs that may sound impressive from an outside perspective.

For example I saw on some thread jeers about student government involvement. Now this isn't even relevant to me, but from friends high up in parties/gov, that involvement is more demanding than their entire class schedule. It may be just a resume line at some small commuter school, I don't know.

then they should put it in a PS

[SomeElleWoodsJoke]

.

[jbagelboy]

Does that impact your app at all. My undergrad isn't bad by any means but it is not ivy nor very close to it.

The TLS consensus seems to be that if you went to HYP there could be a slight boost, but other than that there is really no distinction made between undergrads.

This topic has been discussed in much more depth throughout these fora, and if you use the search function I'm sure you can find a much more nuanced explanation

I mean, it's not quite that simple, but essentially outside the coterie of highly selective/elite colleges (more than three, but not by much), it stops making any impact on admissions.

[lymenheimer]

What I think is majorly overlooked is weighting in-school softs based on institution. Being high up in student org or any other major involvement position at a flagship/ivy/ect. is a huge time commitment and more competitive than other softs that may sound impressive from an outside perspective.

For example I saw on some thread jeers about student government involvement. Now this isn't even relevant to me, but from friends high up in parties/gov, that involvement is more demanding than their entire class schedule. It may be just a resume line at some small commuter school, I don't know.

So are you saying that law school ad comms know how rigorous the student government is at every school in America and abroad and are taking that into consideration? That they should be doing that? Or that people in this forum should take more care when insulting individuals who participate in student government?

[James.K.Polk]

This is purely anecdotal, but each of my admissions interviews thus far (which, IMO, have gone well) have discussed my undergrad (t15) fairly extensively - certainly more than TLS led me to believe they would. I think understanding that a candidate thrived in a competitive undergraduate can only help, but I don't think it will make/break you. Feel free to PM me with specific Qs.

[GreatBraffsby]

Logically, it would make sense for law schools to consider where candidates received their bachelor degrees. I'm from Ohio and can tell you that someone in the top 20% or so at Youngstown State or Kent State is probably going to be a worse law student that someone at median Oberlin or Case Western (broad generalization, I know). I've done some intern hiring as well and the difference in quality between schools is night and day. Again, it's not a hard and fast pattern and I've had good and bad interns from both types of school, but undergrad institution has been the best indicator of identifying a competent and bright student.

In the current age of USWNR rankings, who knows what lengths law schools will go to in order to raise their median GPA. I'm sure there's tension between building the best class on paper and the best class in reality. I'm nowhere near qualified to speak on how this plays out behind closed doors, but it makes sense to me that schools are aware that some student bodies are more talented than others. Also, schools have been doing this long enough to know how students from lib arts colleges like Hamilton, Grinnell, and Davidson typically perform and they probably have longstanding opinions based on past results.

I think the general vibe on this forum is that undergrad institution can play the role of a tiebreaker between two statically even students. For me, that would only be the case if law schools primarily determine their behaviors by ranking impact. I'm not that cynical about education and would guess law schools are at least somewhat committed to admitting the best and the brightest. Obviously if you have a 3.3 gpa, you aren't going to beat out a similar candidate with a 4.0. But if you attend a college with a good reputation and history of producing capable graduate students, I would wager that gives a bigger boost than this site would lead you to believe.

Tl;dr: I doubt schools play dumb and ignore undergrad, but ranking jockeying might make that a secondary concern.

[A. Nony Mouse]

This is purely anecdotal, but each of my admissions interviews thus far (which, IMO, have gone well) have discussed my undergrad (t15) fairly extensively - certainly more than TLS led me to believe they would. I think understanding that a candidate thrived in a competitive undergraduate can only help, but I don't think it will make/break you. Feel free to PM me with specific Qs.

Are you K-JD?

. . . this forum is that undergrad institution can play the role of a tiebreaker between two statically even students. For me, that would only be the case if law schools primarily determine their behaviors by ranking impact. I'm not that cynical about education and would guess law schools are at least somewhat committed to admitting the best and the brightest. Obviously if you have a 3.3 gpa, you aren't going to beat out a similar candidate with a 4.0. But if you attend a college with a good reputation and history of producing capable graduate students, I would wager that gives a bigger boost than this site would lead you to believe.

Do you have any evidence to support the idea that this is what law schools do?

[James.K.Polk]

This is purely anecdotal, but each of my admissions interviews thus far (which, IMO, have gone well) have discussed my undergrad (t15) fairly extensively - certainly more than TLS led me to believe they would. I think understanding that a candidate thrived in a competitive undergraduate can only help, but I don't think it will make/break you. Feel free to PM me with specific Qs.

Are you K-JD?

Negative, will have been out for 2 years when I matriculate.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Thanks, just wondering.

[SullivanLSAC]

Those interested in this topic should check out the January 11 post in the Free Help and Advice forum entitled “The Prestige of Your College and Law School Admissions.”

Dan Sullivan

[SomeElleWoodsJoke]

.

[Mullens]

This is purely anecdotal, but each of my admissions interviews thus far (which, IMO, have gone well) have discussed my undergrad (t15) fairly extensively - certainly more than TLS led me to believe they would. I think understanding that a candidate thrived in a competitive undergraduate can only help, but I don't think it will make/break you. Feel free to PM me with specific Qs.

I would not equate them discussing your undergrad to them really caring about the quality. Talking about an applicant's undergrad institution is something that is easy to discuss with every applicant, regardless of where they attended. The same is true for when you apply to jobs. It's just an easy conversation topic and allows the interviewer to see how the interviewee discusses their experience and get some insight on their personality. I also went to an undergrad institution in the same ranking area and my sense is that people are not really putting weight on how good it is, but just want to see how you talk about it.