Top Law Schools

Lawyer2012 wrote:

dresden doll wrote: I think the case is the same with my UG... Only 2 percent in the 95th-99th percentile band and I know I'm one of them. Terrible. I have contempt for my UG for a reason.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm one of one percent and my UG also effed up my LSDAS GPA by not properly removing classes that I never attended! GRR

One of the kids I knew went and took LSAT cold. Got a 147, go figure....

Another one I know attends Valparaiso...

comparing ND undergrad to vandy and emory is a stretch. if you check out the top 25, it probably shouldnt be on that list.

Seton Hall -- 149

rayiner wrote:
booyakasha45 wrote:
List is from 2008, add or update and I'll change it accordingly. The mean LSAT for your UG institution can be found on your LSDAS report.

Valdosta State University 145
Kennesaw State 149
University of Georgia 155
Georgia Tech 158
Emory 159



Emory is overrated too.

Also, definitive proof that Tech students are smarter than UGA students.


I'd agree. Emory has no business being tied at 18th with Vandy and ND.

Also, WUSTL has no business being ahead of places like Brown.


I don't think you can necessarily draw the conclusions you are drawing based on a schools median LSAT. Let me preface this by saying that I don't attend any of these schools. WUSTL is known for its sciences and pre-med program for undergrad. While they may have a good number of students that take the LSAT, they may not be an accurate representation of the schools undergraduate population. I would venture to guess that WUSTL's median MCAT score is quite high and would justify its undergraduate ranking. The same could be said with Emory or Vandy or whatever. A school may dominate LSAT scores, but fall behind on the MCAT or GMAT. I'd actually love to see the data if someone could provide that.

markymark wrote:

rayiner wrote:

booyakasha45 wrote: List is from 2008, add or update and I'll change it accordingly. The mean LSAT for your UG institution can be found on your LSDAS report.

Valdosta State University 145
Kennesaw State 149
University of Georgia 155
Georgia Tech 158
Emory 159

Emory is overrated too.

Also, definitive proof that Tech students are smarter than UGA students.

I'd agree. Emory has no business being tied at 18th with Vandy and ND.

why? Vandy's lsat's the same

booyakasha45 wrote:List is from 2008, add or update and I'll change it accordingly. The mean LSAT for your UG institution can be found on your LSDAS report.

Valdosta State University 145
Southern Illinois University 146
Hawaii Pacific University 147
California State Fullerton 148
Richard Stockton College of New Jersey 148
Towson University 148
Baruch 149
The Citadel 149
City University of New York 149
Kennesaw State 149
Houston 149
Marist College 149
Seton Hall 149
University of Nebraska - Omaha 149
University of New Mexico 149
University of North Carolina Wilmington 149
University of Hawaii 150
University of Mississippi 150
University of Saskatchewan 150Wright State 150
Franklin & Marshall 151
Marquette 151
Northern Arizona 151

lol @U of Sask, wtf is that doing on the list?

Redwyng4 wrote: I don't think you can necessarily draw the conclusions you are drawing based on a schools median LSAT. Let me preface this by saying that I don't attend any of these schools. WUSTL is known for its sciences and pre-med program for undergrad. While they may have a good number of students that take the LSAT, they may not be an accurate representation of the schools undergraduate population. I would venture to guess that WUSTL's median MCAT score is quite high and would justify its undergraduate ranking. The same could be said with Emory or Vandy or whatever. A school may dominate LSAT scores, but fall behind on the MCAT or GMAT. I'd actually love to see the data if someone could provide that.

Credited.

Redwyng4 wrote:rayiner wrote:
booyakasha45 wrote:
List is from 2008, add or update and I'll change it accordingly. The mean LSAT for your UG institution can be found on your LSDAS report.

Valdosta State University 145
Kennesaw State 149
University of Georgia 155
Georgia Tech 158
Emory 159



Emory is overrated too.

Also, definitive proof that Tech students are smarter than UGA students.


I'd agree. Emory has no business being tied at 18th with Vandy and ND.

Also, WUSTL has no business being ahead of places like Brown.


I don't think you can necessarily draw the conclusions you are drawing based on a schools median LSAT. Let me preface this by saying that I don't attend any of these schools. WUSTL is known for its sciences and pre-med program for undergrad. While they may have a good number of students that take the LSAT, they may not be an accurate representation of the schools undergraduate population. I would venture to guess that WUSTL's median MCAT score is quite high and would justify its undergraduate ranking. The same could be said with Emory or Vandy or whatever. A school may dominate LSAT scores, but fall behind on the MCAT or GMAT. I'd actually love to see the data if someone could provide that.

this is true... all these idiots on this thread make it seem as though schools exist to prepare you for the lsat.

rayiner wrote: Emory is overrated too.

Also, definitive proof that Tech students are smarter than UGA students.

Or not.

Redwyng4 wrote:I don't think you can necessarily draw the conclusions you are drawing based on a schools median LSAT. Let me preface this by saying that I don't attend any of these schools. WUSTL is known for its sciences and pre-med program for undergrad. While they may have a good number of students that take the LSAT, they may not be an accurate representation of the schools undergraduate population.

And Georgia Tech is an engineering school that doesn't even grant BAs...

If anything I think that these data reflect the fact that US News isn't the best proxy for judging the intelligence of the undergrad population. A lot of extra nonsense gets factored into those rankings (alumni giving, retention after freshman year etc.) that doesn't have anything to do with how selective the school is. Many schools with lower acceptance rates and equivalent or higher SAT ranges are beneath schools that admit up to 50% of applicants because they lose out in these other categories.

crazycanuck wrote:

booyakasha45 wrote:List is from 2008, add or update and I'll change it accordingly. The mean LSAT for your UG institution can be found on your LSDAS report.

Valdosta State University 145
Southern Illinois University 146
Hawaii Pacific University 147
California State Fullerton 148
Richard Stockton College of New Jersey 148
Towson University 148
Baruch 149
The Citadel 149
City University of New York 149
Kennesaw State 149
Houston 149
Marist College 149
Seton Hall 149
University of Nebraska - Omaha 149
University of New Mexico 149
University of North Carolina Wilmington 149
University of Hawaii 150
University of Mississippi 150
University of Saskatchewan 150Wright State 150
Franklin & Marshall 151
Marquette 151
Northern Arizona 151

lol @U of Sask, wtf is that doing on the list?

Haha, no idea. I didn't make the list. I think I'll leave it for lolz.

rayiner wrote:

Redwyng4 wrote:I don't think you can necessarily draw the conclusions you are drawing based on a schools median LSAT. Let me preface this by saying that I don't attend any of these schools. WUSTL is known for its sciences and pre-med program for undergrad. While they may have a good number of students that take the LSAT, they may not be an accurate representation of the schools undergraduate population.

And Georgia Tech is an engineering school...

Come on, ray, that doesn't discredit his point.

WUSTL UG is ridiculously hard to get into, and its average SAT scores are fantastic. I don't know why they don't quite correlate with LSAT, but I definitely wouldn't say the institution is overrated because of that fact alone.

BeastCoastHype wrote:If anything I think that these data reflect the fact that US News isn't the best proxy for judging the intelligence of the undergrad population. A lot of extra nonsense gets factored into those rankings (alumni giving, retention after freshman year etc.) that doesn't have anything to do with how selective the school is. Many schools with lower acceptance rates and equivalent or higher SAT ranges are beneath schools that admit up to 50% of applicants because they lose out in these other categories.

I think USNews should go back to its pre-1999 practice of publishing a separate list of 'faculty expenditures.' It would go a long way towards showing which schools bank on bullshit portion of the formula to prop themselves up.

dresden doll wrote:

rayiner wrote:

Redwyng4 wrote:I don't think you can necessarily draw the conclusions you are drawing based on a schools median LSAT. Let me preface this by saying that I don't attend any of these schools. WUSTL is known for its sciences and pre-med program for undergrad. While they may have a good number of students that take the LSAT, they may not be an accurate representation of the schools undergraduate population.

And Georgia Tech is an engineering school...

Come on, ray, that doesn't discredit his point.

WUSTL UG is ridiculously hard to get into, and its average SAT scores are fantastic. I don't know why they don't quite correlate with LSAT, but I definitely wouldn't say the institution is overrated because of that fact alone.

He's arguing that the people at WUSTL taking the LSAT are not representative of the school's overall population, because WUSTL has a focus on sciences/medicine. I gave an example of a school that has if anything a far more narrow focus, and yet its LSAT score is still commensurate with its overall rank.

WUSTL's average LSAT is clearly anomalous. You can see the top state schools (Michigan, UVA, Tech, etc) all clustered around 157-158. You can see Duke/Georgetown/Rice clustered around 161-163. WUSTL is ranked above the latter but has scores in the former band.

ace0260 wrote:comparing ND undergrad to vandy and emory is a stretch. if you check out the top 25, it probably shouldnt be on that list.

this is wrong.

rayiner wrote:

Redwyng4 wrote:I don't think you can necessarily draw the conclusions you are drawing based on a schools median LSAT. Let me preface this by saying that I don't attend any of these schools. WUSTL is known for its sciences and pre-med program for undergrad. While they may have a good number of students that take the LSAT, they may not be an accurate representation of the schools undergraduate population.

And Georgia Tech is an engineering school that doesn't even grant BAs...

Oh come on.

You can't judge the quality of any educational institution based on one number. Especially when that number is a factor used to determine admission into just one type of post-graduate work.

I mean...the GREs are required for almost every graduate program, LSAT is required for law school. Thats it.

Then we have to take demographics, relative wealth of the student population, ect.

Blah blah blah, I don't buy it.

Lawyer2012 wrote:

dresden doll wrote:

booyakasha45 wrote:

Esc wrote:My UG had a mean LSAT of 144. I was one of only two people on record to break 95th percentile LSAT

Edit: to correct my UG LSAT mean

which UG?

and damn, that's depressing.

I think the case is the same with my UG... Only 2 percent in the 95th-99th percentile band and I know I'm one of them. Terrible. I have contempt for my UG for a reason.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm one of one percent and my UG also effed up my LSDAS GPA by not properly removing classes that I never attended! GRR

I won't out myself completely on here, but it was a small public university in Texas. I went there for scholarship, low tuition, and relaxed atmosphere, not for its academic quality. To be fair, though, the science program I was in was pretty good (but none of the other people in it were going to law school). I can't say the same for all the Poli Sci and English majors there who figured that they were going to get into UTexas with a 2.8 GPA....

Only 1 percent scored higher than 95th percentile, but since only 117 were on record as taking the LSAT, that extrapolates to 1 However, you did beat me. Only 42% of the people at my UG scored in the 0-19th percentile

I, too, have contempt for my UG. A lot of the professors and a good many of my classmates were really cool, but the administration....not so much.

Oh, and almost everyone at my UG failed the MCAT as well.

dresden doll wrote:

Redwyng4 wrote: I don't think you can necessarily draw the conclusions you are drawing based on a schools median LSAT. Let me preface this by saying that I don't attend any of these schools. WUSTL is known for its sciences and pre-med program for undergrad. While they may have a good number of students that take the LSAT, they may not be an accurate representation of the schools undergraduate population. I would venture to guess that WUSTL's median MCAT score is quite high and would justify its undergraduate ranking. The same could be said with Emory or Vandy or whatever. A school may dominate LSAT scores, but fall behind on the MCAT or GMAT. I'd actually love to see the data if someone could provide that.

Credited.

I forget that WUSTL has awesome science/premed programs.

This is a good post.

Pearalegal wrote: Then we have to take demographics, relative wealth of the student population, ect.

All of which favor WUSTL over the top state schools.

rayiner wrote:

dresden doll wrote: Come on, ray, that doesn't discredit his point.

WUSTL UG is ridiculously hard to get into, and its average SAT scores are fantastic. I don't know why they don't quite correlate with LSAT, but I definitely wouldn't say the institution is overrated because of that fact alone.

He's arguing that the people at WUSTL taking the LSAT are not representative of the school's overall population, because WUSTL has a focus on sciences/medicine. I gave an example of a school that has if anything a far more narrow focus, and yet its LSAT score is still commensurate with its overall rank.

Well, all I took from it was that a school's quality shouldn't be discounted on the basis of LSAT mean alone. I tend to agree.

On another note, can anyone tell me how to calculate my school's LSAT mean? And why doesn't percentile distribution add up to 100? I am really confused.

dresden doll wrote:

rayiner wrote:

dresden doll wrote: Come on, ray, that doesn't discredit his point.

WUSTL UG is ridiculously hard to get into, and its average SAT scores are fantastic. I don't know why they don't quite correlate with LSAT, but I definitely wouldn't say the institution is overrated because of that fact alone.

He's arguing that the people at WUSTL taking the LSAT are not representative of the school's overall population, because WUSTL has a focus on sciences/medicine. I gave an example of a school that has if anything a far more narrow focus, and yet its LSAT score is still commensurate with its overall rank.

Well, all I took from it was that a school's quality shouldn't be discounted on the basis of LSAT mean alone. I tend to agree.

On another note, can anyone tell me how to calculate my school's LSAT mean? And why doesn't percentile distribution add up to 100? I am really confused.

It says right on your LSAC report.

Esc wrote: I won't out myself completely on here, but it was a small public university in Texas. I went there for scholarship, low tuition, and relaxed atmosphere, not for its academic quality. To be fair, though, the science program I was in was pretty good (but none of the other people in it were going to law school). I can't say the same for all the Poli Sci and English majors there who figured that they were going to get into UTexas with a 2.8 GPA....

Only 1 percent scored higher than 95th percentile, but since only 117 were on record as taking the LSAT, that extrapolates to 1 However, you did beat me. Only 42% of the people at my UG scored in the 0-19th percentile

I, too, have contempt for my UG. A lot of the professors and a good many of my classmates were really cool, but the administration....not so much.

Oh, and almost everyone at my UG failed the MCAT as well.

Sounds suspiciously close to my experience. My professors were pretty great, IMO, and some of my classmates were fun to hang out with but I definitely wouldn't consider them too bright. And administration was truly awful - I think that tends to be the common thread for toilet institutions in general. I despised our Dean of Students.

rayiner wrote: It says right on your LSAC report.

Not on mine. The sample's too small. It says the data's insufficient (same goes for GPA mean).

...