snob appeal of your undergraduate institution Forum

[ConMan345]

You'll figure out as much once you get into law school. Any unfair competition is purely imagined. You'll be in a class with folks who mostly when to T10 undergrads, plus the folks who graduated magna from the top state schools (and the occasional exceptional person from lower T50 schools). A bunch of them will own your Ivy-league ass on finals, and then maybe you'll reconsider the idea that median at HYP should beat out top of the class at UVA, etc.

Ah, the classic every-man conquers the elitist snob; chest-thumping aggression meets detached condescension.


*shovels popcorn into mouth*

your doing it wrong, use this:

Oh I KNEW I'd seen some gif....so much for my forum due diligence.

[prezidentv8]

popcorn chick is kinda cute.

[rayiner]

Ah, the classic every-man conquers the elitist snob; chest-thumping aggression meets detached condescension.

I mean, statistically speaking, he'll end up at median. Statistically speaking, a number of the people in the top half will be top state school graduates. Just probability, not chest-thumping aggression.

[ConMan345]

Ah, the classic every-man conquers the elitist snob; chest-thumping aggression meets detached condescension.

I mean, statistically speaking, he'll end up at median. Statistically speaking, a number of the people in the top half will be top state school graduates. Just probability, not chest-thumping aggression.

Well, sure, the underlying argument isn't inherently aggressive.

[Nom Sawyer]

popcorn chick is kinda cute.

It's Scarlett Johansson, you might have heard of her.. you know.. in passing.. i think she's kind of famous.. for looking... pretty cute... and stuff.

[georgina]

I have no doubt the ivy schools have a better student on average, but no way are the bottom of their class better than the top 20% of good public schools. I don't buy it.

so i'm kind of sad i missed out on the debate on these last few pages, but i think this statement is pretty unjustified.

by "better" i assumed you're measuring potential for success in law school. "bottom of their class" refers to gpa alone, and your statement sounds like you're disregarding the obvious other aspects to the law school applicant. i think the right combination of lsat and softs could certainly make a bottom HYPS student "better" than a top state school student. gpa is a good measure of diligence and responsibility, perhaps, but many schools see more potential in the smart, high-lsat HYPS kid with lots of interesting and involved softs.

i think the law school admissions process is almost as fair as can be. this from a high lsat splitter HYPS who is NOT acing the HYSCCN.

anyway, i realize i'm late to the party, but i had work

[ConMan345]

If it helps alleviate any tension, I have a funny story.

I was wearing a [HYPS] t-shirt in a dive bar the other day. I was minding my own business, talking with a friend, when I hear this crash. I turn around and there's a woman on the floor. Being a normal human being and the only male around at the time, I get up to help her up with some other patrons. She's very drunk, etc. Anyway, as I'm sort of holding her up (she was probably unconscious for a bit), this random woman I'd never seen before in my life who was helping me hold her eyes my t-shirt. She says: "Oh, did you go to [HYPS]?" Me, confused at a question like that at a time like that: "Uh, yes." Her, glaring, "Oh. I'm sorry." And she walks away.

I was actually in shock for a bit. The friends of the woman we were helping came back and left with her, so I returned to my friend to tell her about the crazy lady. As I'm telling the story, crazy lady walks up to us from the other side of the bar. Her: "I don't want you to think I'm weird, [HYPS] is a great school, I just decided not to go because it cost so much money." Me: "Ah, well they've really improved their financial aid, but there are still plenty of reasons to go somewhere else." Her, really slurring now, leaning in about 10 inches from my face: "You probably think I'm dumb, don't you?" ....."No, of course not!" (awkward chuckle). Her: "Well, ya know, I got into [HYPS] in the 8th grade!"

And she storms off....

Needless to say, I lol'ed.

[09042014]

I have no doubt the ivy schools have a better student on average, but no way are the bottom of their class better than the top 20% of good public schools. I don't buy it.

so i'm kind of sad i missed out on the debate on these last few pages, but i think this statement is pretty unjustified.

by "better" i assumed you're measuring potential for success in law school. "bottom of their class" refers to gpa alone, and your statement sounds like you're disregarding the obvious other aspects to the law school applicant. i think the right combination of lsat and softs could certainly make a bottom HYPS student "better" than a top state school student. gpa is a good measure of diligence and responsibility, perhaps, but many schools see more potential in the smart, high-lsat HYPS kid with lots of interesting and involved softs.

i think the law school admissions process is almost as fair as can be. this from a high lsat splitter HYPS who is NOT acing the HYSCCN.

anyway, i realize i'm late to the party, but i had work

We were arguing while assuming LSAT and softs were the same.

And I don't think schools see HYPS as anything other than an OK soft. Penn seems to be the exception.

Law school admissions aren't fair, and this is coming from an extreme high LSAT splitter, who greatly benefits from the unfairness. Law school admissions values the LSAT too high, and it views GPA as an objective factor, instead of the subjective factor it really is. Coursework rigor, and institutional rigor just aren't a significant factor in law school admissions. I think its a silly way for planning admissions, but I sure lucked out that is how it works.

Schools don't see potential in high LSAT splitters, they see a way to game their numbers for USNWR. Its why the schools who don't give a shit about USWR (YHS) don't take them.

[prezidentv8]

Penn seems to be the exception.

Those assholes.

[09042014]

Penn seems to be the exception.

Those assholes.

It seems like they only give the break to people with shitty GPA's anyway. Someone with a 3.2 probably shouldn't be getting into a T14 anyway.

[AngryAvocado]

I have no doubt the ivy schools have a better student on average, but no way are the bottom of their class better than the top 20% of good public schools. I don't buy it.

so i'm kind of sad i missed out on the debate on these last few pages, but i think this statement is pretty unjustified.

by "better" i assumed you're measuring potential for success in law school. "bottom of their class" refers to gpa alone, and your statement sounds like you're disregarding the obvious other aspects to the law school applicant. i think the right combination of lsat and softs could certainly make a bottom HYPS student "better" than a top state school student. gpa is a good measure of diligence and responsibility, perhaps, but many schools see more potential in the smart, high-lsat HYPS kid with lots of interesting and involved softs.

i think the law school admissions process is almost as fair as can be. this from a high lsat splitter HYPS who is NOT acing the HYSCCN.

anyway, i realize i'm late to the party, but i had work

We were arguing while assuming LSAT and softs were the same.

And I don't think schools see HYPS as anything other than an OK soft. Penn seems to be the exception.

Law school admissions aren't fair, and this is coming from an extreme high LSAT splitter, who greatly benefits from the unfairness. Law school admissions values the LSAT too high, and it views GPA as an objective factor, instead of the subjective factor it really is. Coursework rigor, and institutional rigor just aren't a significant factor in law school admissions. I think its a silly way for planning admissions, but I sure lucked out that is how it works.

Schools don't see potential in high LSAT splitters, they see a way to game their numbers for USNWR. Its why the schools who don't give a shit about USWR (YHS) don't take them.

Lolwut? It's been shown time and time again that the LSAT is the single best predictor of first year success. I agree with the statement that it's rather unfair for reverse splitters relative to high LSAT splitters, but the bolded is just ridiculous.

[forty-two]

...

[09042014]

I have no doubt the ivy schools have a better student on average, but no way are the bottom of their class better than the top 20% of good public schools. I don't buy it.

so i'm kind of sad i missed out on the debate on these last few pages, but i think this statement is pretty unjustified.

by "better" i assumed you're measuring potential for success in law school. "bottom of their class" refers to gpa alone, and your statement sounds like you're disregarding the obvious other aspects to the law school applicant. i think the right combination of lsat and softs could certainly make a bottom HYPS student "better" than a top state school student. gpa is a good measure of diligence and responsibility, perhaps, but many schools see more potential in the smart, high-lsat HYPS kid with lots of interesting and involved softs.

i think the law school admissions process is almost as fair as can be. this from a high lsat splitter HYPS who is NOT acing the HYSCCN.

anyway, i realize i'm late to the party, but i had work

We were arguing while assuming LSAT and softs were the same.

And I don't think schools see HYPS as anything other than an OK soft. Penn seems to be the exception.

Law school admissions aren't fair, and this is coming from an extreme high LSAT splitter, who greatly benefits from the unfairness. Law school admissions values the LSAT too high, and it views GPA as an objective factor, instead of the subjective factor it really is. Coursework rigor, and institutional rigor just aren't a significant factor in law school admissions. I think its a silly way for planning admissions, but I sure lucked out that is how it works.

Schools don't see potential in high LSAT splitters, they see a way to game their numbers for USNWR. Its why the schools who don't give a shit about USWR (YHS) don't take them.

Lolwut? It's been shown time and time again that the LSAT is the single best predictor of first year success. I agree with the statement that it's rather unfair for reverse splitters relative to high LSAT splitters, but the bolded is just ridiculous.

GPA combined with LSAT is an even better indicator than the LSAT.

High LSAT low GPA screams lazy. If I were an adcom I wouldn't have admitted me to Northwestern.

[jmkelly]

.

[AngryAvocado]

GPA combined with LSAT is an even better indicator than the LSAT.

High LSAT low GPA screams lazy. If I were an adcom I wouldn't have admitted me to Northwestern.

People can have a low GPA for a variety of reasons, including some pretty legitimate ones. And, if you compare high LSAT splitters to reverse splitters, the high-LSAT splitters outperform the latter group virtually every time.

Aside from that, the reason why HYS don't take high-LSAT splitters isn't because they don't care about rankings; it's because they don't have to. Why take a 175/3.0 when you can fill up a class with 170+/3.8s+?

[09042014]

GPA combined with LSAT is an even better indicator than the LSAT.

High LSAT low GPA screams lazy. If I were an adcom I wouldn't have admitted me to Northwestern.

Aside from that, the reason why HYS don't take high-LSAT splitters isn't because they don't care about rankings; it's because they don't have to. Why take a 175/3.0 when you can fill up a class with 170+/3.8s+?

That's my point. They clearly value the more well rounded applicant. If they wanted to take splitters they could.

I can't complain because I think I got screwed by my major having a significantly lower average GPA, but got a major bump from my LSAT.

[crackberry]

I've heard from multiple sources that while one's LSAT score is the best predictor of success in 1L, it is one's UGPA that is the best predictor of who will make partner.

I assume that has something to do with it requiring hard work over a sustained period of time to get a 3.9+ (whereas intense studying for a couple months can net a 170+ on the LSAT).

[RVP11]

I've heard from multiple sources that while one's LSAT score is the best predictor of success in 1L, it is one's UGPA that is the best predictor of who will make partner.

I seriously doubt anyone has carried out this kind of study.

And once you've actually gone to law school, LSGPA is going to be a better predictor of everything.

[Dignan]

I've heard from multiple sources that while one's LSAT score is the best predictor of success in 1L, it is one's UGPA that is the best predictor of who will make partner.

I seriously doubt anyone has carried out this kind of study.

Why do you doubt it? Social researches carry out studies on topics that are much more obscure than that.

I am sure that such a study would rely on self-reported data. The results could be significantly distorted by response bias and other problems. Still, it's easy to believe that such a study was performed and that the findings could be of some value.

[RVP11]

I've heard from multiple sources that while one's LSAT score is the best predictor of success in 1L, it is one's UGPA that is the best predictor of who will make partner.

I seriously doubt anyone has carried out this kind of study.

Why do you doubt it? Social researches carry out studies on topics that are much more obscure than that.

I am sure that such a study would rely on self-reported data. The results could be significantly distorted by response bias and other problems. Still, it's easy to believe that such a study was performed and that the findings could be of some value.

I'm doubtful because I wonder why anyone would suspect a correlation to begin with.

[crackberry]

I'm doubtful because I wonder why anyone would suspect a correlation to begin with.

You don't think there could be a correlation between getting a high GPA, which requires years of consistent hard work, and making partner at a law firm, which requires years of consistent hard work?

[prezidentv8]

Penn seems to be the exception.

Those assholes.

It seems like they only give the break to people with shitty GPA's anyway. Someone with a 3.2 probably shouldn't be getting into a T14 anyway.

I'm only mad cuz they waitlisted-->rejected me.

[englawyer]

I'm doubtful because I wonder why anyone would suspect a correlation to begin with.

You don't think there could be a correlation between getting a high GPA, which requires years of consistent hard work, and making partner at a law firm, which requires years of consistent hard work?

my impression was that partnership is more about "making it rain" and bringing in clients, which I would think has an inverse correlation to GPA (ie the kids that are "too cool for school" will be better at this). or does it actually work out that the high GPA leads to better grunt-level work, which leads to better client-facing opportunities?

[ughOSU]

GPA combined with LSAT is an even better indicator than the LSAT.

High LSAT low GPA screams lazy. If I were an adcom I wouldn't have admitted me to Northwestern.

You're not giving yourself enough credit. REALLY high LSAT + 2 years WE (w/ decent LOR) + low UG GPA means you're smart and you got your shit together a couple years later in life than pple with the high UG GPA. NU is great because they realized that people like you are undervalued in law school admissions even though they have great potential for success. They realized they can make bank off people like you, and devised a policy to take advantage of that segment of law school applicants. I've read over the 10 year plan they devised in 1999 and it's interesting. They made a conscious effort to go after people who had put a couple years between a low GPA and law school, and killed the LSAT. It really makes sense, and I think it's great that at least one T10 law school is so progressive with its admissions criteria.

e: oh yea, and snob appeal... got me in to Penn.

[reasonabledoubt]

I'll say this because there is no Princeton Law School. I have several friends that went to Princeton for undergrad. I did not. Here's what they told me about their undergraduate experience: Sure, there were a select few truly brilliant, bright kids. Most were not of this kind. Most came from somewhat privileged to extremely privileged backgrounds and once away from home did a MOUNTAIN of drugs throughout their 4, sometimes 5 years. They got through it because, from what I was told, it wasn't that intensive from an academic point of view and there were several more fluffy majors to choose from. It's not all vigorous scholarship, class and decorum in those IVY leagues, you know.

Here's what I think about a poor kid who went to a state or no-name college and pulled a 3.7-4.0.... they're hungry. Add a high LSAT to that and you tell me if the "snob appeal" of your undergraduate institution would still matter.

It is hard for me to understand why people so clearly unable to reason well want to go to law school.

You think an Ivy League education is fluff because your princeton friends told you so? I would imagine they were telling you that so that you would not feel inferior. So what you should have learned from this is that you have nice friends not that ivy leauge schools are easy, which is clearly untrue.

A GPA from an ivy league school is going to have a greater weight than a similar gpa from an easier school. Every T-14 admission officer will tell you that when they see a 3.5 from Ohio State and a 3.5 from Harvard, they believe in the very least (ignoring any assumptions of intelligence) that the Harvard student worked harder.

No need to call me out on being an ivy leauge student. I admit that, but that does not prevent my point from being unbiased.

Reading comprehension/deduction FAIL.

You said: "You think an Ivy League education is fluff."

I originally said: "there were several more fluffy majors to choose from."

The two are not the same.