Suspended from Top LAC Forum

[MKC]

I think the debate over school placement and Fordham v. T14 etc. is getting a little off topic from the OP.

Don't get in over your head there AM. Shouldn't you get back to flipping burgers? If you keep it up, I'm going to break this bottle and beat your ass with it, right before I throw you through a door by accident. Bitch.

Is that on topic enough? Did I cover all the elements of the OP? And will I need to write a C & F addendum for this post?

[PepperJack]

Schools will either reject you over it, or not.

It might play a big role in your scholarship offers, because there is an assumption you'll have fewer options because of it.

Think about it like a professional athlete who had off the field issues, only you are paying the teams money. Some teams will reject you solely based off of it. Some will be more forgiving, and pay more attention to your numbers and talent. It isn't necessarily tied to rankings at all except that certain schools may be in a better position to reject you no matter what.

[PepperJack]

I think the debate over school placement and Fordham v. T14 etc. is getting a little off topic from the OP.

Don't get in over your head there AM. Shouldn't you get back to flipping burgers? If you keep it up, I'm going to break this bottle and beat your ass with it, right before I throw you through a door by accident. Bitch.

Is that on topic enough? Did I cover all the elements of the OP? And will I need to write a C & F addendum for this post?

Prozac, bro.

[MKC]

I think the debate over school placement and Fordham v. T14 etc. is getting a little off topic from the OP.

Don't get in over your head there AM. Shouldn't you get back to flipping burgers? If you keep it up, I'm going to break this bottle and beat your ass with it, right before I throw you through a door by accident. Bitch.

Is that on topic enough? Did I cover all the elements of the OP? And will I need to write a C & F addendum for this post?

Prozac, bro.

Parody, of the OP, bro. although perhaps poorly done.

[PepperJack]

I think the debate over school placement and Fordham v. T14 etc. is getting a little off topic from the OP.

Don't get in over your head there AM. Shouldn't you get back to flipping burgers? If you keep it up, I'm going to break this bottle and beat your ass with it, right before I throw you through a door by accident. Bitch.

Is that on topic enough? Did I cover all the elements of the OP? And will I need to write a C & F addendum for this post?

Prozac, bro.

Parody, of the OP, bro. although perhaps poorly done.

Nah, prob was just my reading komp skillz. I'm all for parodies.

[cotiger]

Or he was just trying to let us know that he goes to Williams/Amherst.

I agree with you that there isn't a meaningful distinction between Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore and Bowdoin/Middlebury/Pomona, but you're simply wrong if you think Williams/Amherst students don't have better access to i-banking/MBB consulting positions and national fellowships/less numbers focused grad schools than Grinnell/Colgate students.

Edit: Either way it is irrelevant for law school admissions, though.

Yeah, I know he was just trying to say he went to Williams/Amherst. Which is great.. he should just say where he goes. Or if he actually wanted to obscure it but still provide a relevant background, just say top LAC. But T3 just sort of rankled as trying to create this super-elite distinction (a la YHS law schools) that he was a part of, especially in context of the rest of the post where he went into depth about his AMAZING softs, etc.

[PepperJack]

Or he was just trying to let us know that he goes to Williams/Amherst.

I agree with you that there isn't a meaningful distinction between Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore and Bowdoin/Middlebury/Pomona, but you're simply wrong if you think Williams/Amherst students don't have better access to i-banking/MBB consulting positions and national fellowships/less numbers focused grad schools than Grinnell/Colgate students.

Edit: Either way it is irrelevant for law school admissions, though.

Yeah, I know he was just trying to say he went to Williams/Amherst. Which is great.. he should just say where he goes. Or if he actually wanted to obscure it but still provide a relevant background, just say top LAC. But T3 just sort of rankled as trying to create this super-elite distinction (a la YHS law schools) that he was a part of, especially in context of the rest of the post where he went into depth about his AMAZING softs, etc.

Let him ride his high horse. Who gives a fuck?

[cotiger]

Let him ride his high horse. Who gives a fuck?

I know, I know. I just hate this kind of nonsense, and I think it bothers me bc I'm paranoid about being surrounded by obnoxious status whores in law school. (Not that TLS isn't great! Just paranoia..)

[El Pollito]

I know, I know. I just hate this kind of nonsense, and I think it bothers me bc I'm paranoid about being surrounded by obnoxious status whores in law school. (Not that TLS isn't great! Just paranoia..)

Don't go to law school.

[guano]

most students scoring 165-175 on the LSAT likely have IQ's between 115 and 130)

Not according to MENSA

[jbagelboy]

I didn't assume that offering background was tantamount to "fellating" myself, but if so I guess it feels pretty damn good then.

The part that I was referring to was the "T3" business. You could've just said "a top LAC". T3 implies you think there's a meaningful distinction between (... checking current USNews rankings...) Williams, Amherst, or Swarthmore and a place like Carleton or Wesleyan (*gasp* #17, so pitifully common!), and you want people to know that your school is, like, super elite.

T14 is a meaningful distinction for law school employment. So is YHS. The same goes for the Ivy League and HYPS in terms of lay prestige. The distinction between the #3 LAC and #15 LAC, on the other hand, is only meaningful for USN-conscious high school seniors.

Or he was just trying to let us know that he goes to Williams/Amherst.

I agree with you that there isn't a meaningful distinction between Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore and Bowdoin/Middlebury/Pomona, but you're simply wrong if you think Williams/Amherst students don't have better access to i-banking/MBB consulting positions and national fellowships/less numbers focused grad schools than Grinnell/Colgate students.

Edit: Either way it is irrelevant for law school admissions, though.

Lol what? this is total bogus. It doesn't seem any of you have researched or attended these schools. The only notable difference between these LAC's is admissions. Pomona, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Claremont McKenna have the most competitive admissions, starting with Pomona as the most competitive at 13%. Williams is slightly less so but in the same vein, along with Middlebury, ect. Then there's a drop off, and schools like Carleton admit a larger % of their applicants (above 20%), but its still the same overall quality of school; maybe slightly lower SAT scores in the student body but most people in the midwest don't even take the SAT anyway.

The reality is, nearly everyone who gains admission to one of the four could have gotten into any of the four. In terms of educational quality, student quality, employment, fellowships, and grad school opportunities they are all nearly identical. Amherst may be a little preppier (more Andover kids), and Swarthmore a little more literary, ect., but its a wash, and it comes down to personal preference not academic superiority (FYI I chose between these schools, and everyone in my freshmen hall had made a similar choice from the same set of options along with Dartmouth, Haverford, Carleton, ect.). I think Amherst and Pomona are the most similar, and they are natural competitors - both are the leaders of 5 college consortiums, both admit very similar profiles of students, a lot of exchange of professors, ect.

Drawing a distinction is stupid. I may very well have been a classmate of OP's...dude, grow up. Take some time off. You need it

[DrStudMuffin]

I didn't assume that offering background was tantamount to "fellating" myself, but if so I guess it feels pretty damn good then.

The part that I was referring to was the "T3" business. You could've just said "a top LAC". T3 implies you think there's a meaningful distinction between (... checking current USNews rankings...) Williams, Amherst, or Swarthmore and a place like Carleton or Wesleyan (*gasp* #17, so pitifully common!), and you want people to know that your school is, like, super elite.

T14 is a meaningful distinction for law school employment. So is YHS. The same goes for the Ivy League and HYPS in terms of lay prestige. The distinction between the #3 LAC and #15 LAC, on the other hand, is only meaningful for USN-conscious high school seniors.

Or he was just trying to let us know that he goes to Williams/Amherst.

I agree with you that there isn't a meaningful distinction between Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore and Bowdoin/Middlebury/Pomona, but you're simply wrong if you think Williams/Amherst students don't have better access to i-banking/MBB consulting positions and national fellowships/less numbers focused grad schools than Grinnell/Colgate students.

Edit: Either way it is irrelevant for law school admissions, though.

Lol what? this is total bogus. It doesn't seem any of you have researched or attended these schools. The only notable difference between these LAC's is admissions. Pomona, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Claremont McKenna have the most competitive admissions, starting with Pomona as the most competitive at 13%. Williams is slightly less so but in the same vein, along with Middlebury, ect. Then there's a drop off, and schools like Carleton admit a larger % of their applicants (above 20%), but its still the same overall quality of school; maybe slightly lower SAT scores in the student body but most people in the midwest don't even take the SAT anyway.

The reality is, nearly everyone who gains admission to one of the four could have gotten into any of the four. In terms of educational quality, student quality, employment, fellowships, and grad school opportunities they are all nearly identical. Amherst may be a little preppier (more Andover kids), and Swarthmore a little more literary, ect., but its a wash, and it comes down to personal preference not academic superiority (FYI I chose between these schools, and everyone in my freshmen hall had made a similar choice from the same set of options along with Dartmouth, Haverford, Carleton, ect.). I think Amherst and Pomona are the most similar, and they are natural competitors - both are the leaders of 5 college consortiums, both admit very similar profiles of students, a lot of exchange of professors, ect.

Drawing a distinction is stupid. I may very well have been a classmate of OP's...dude, grow up. Take some time off. You need it

.

[jbagelboy]

The part that I was referring to was the "T3" business. You could've just said "a top LAC". T3 implies you think there's a meaningful distinction between (... checking current USNews rankings...) Williams, Amherst, or Swarthmore and a place like Carleton or Wesleyan (*gasp* #17, so pitifully common!), and you want people to know that your school is, like, super elite.

T14 is a meaningful distinction for law school employment. So is YHS. The same goes for the Ivy League and HYPS in terms of lay prestige. The distinction between the #3 LAC and #15 LAC, on the other hand, is only meaningful for USN-conscious high school seniors.

Or he was just trying to let us know that he goes to Williams/Amherst.

I agree with you that there isn't a meaningful distinction between Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore and Bowdoin/Middlebury/Pomona, but you're simply wrong if you think Williams/Amherst students don't have better access to i-banking/MBB consulting positions and national fellowships/less numbers focused grad schools than Grinnell/Colgate students.

Edit: Either way it is irrelevant for law school admissions, though.

Lol what? this is total bogus. It doesn't seem any of you have researched or attended these schools. The only notable difference between these LAC's is admissions. Pomona, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Claremont McKenna have the most competitive admissions, starting with Pomona as the most competitive at 13%. Williams is slightly less so but in the same vein, along with Middlebury, ect. Then there's a drop off, and schools like Carleton admit a larger % of their applicants (above 20%), but its still the same overall quality of school; maybe slightly lower SAT scores in the student body but most people in the midwest don't even take the SAT anyway.

The reality is, nearly everyone who gains admission to one of the four could have gotten into any of the four. In terms of educational quality, student quality, employment, fellowships, and grad school opportunities they are all nearly identical. Amherst may be a little preppier (more Andover kids), and Swarthmore a little more literary, ect., but its a wash, and it comes down to personal preference not academic superiority (FYI I chose between these schools, and everyone in my freshmen hall had made a similar choice from the same set of options along with Dartmouth, Haverford, Carleton, ect.). I think Amherst and Pomona are the most similar, and they are natural competitors - both are the leaders of 5 college consortiums, both admit very similar profiles of students, a lot of exchange of professors, ect.

Drawing a distinction is stupid. I may very well have been a classmate of OP's...dude, grow up. Take some time off. You need it

I'm not sure if you were using my post just to make your point, or didn't read it closely enough, but I was saying that there *isn't* a meaningful difference between those schools. I think we agree on this.

Now, if you're disagreeing with my point that those schools provide better access to certain "prestigious" jobs/fellowships than colleges like Grinnell/Colgate/Smith, then I have to disagree with you there.

I attended one of the schools you mentioned, but I had a solid contingent of friends at schools in the "15-25" range, and certain banking/consulting/etc. firms either didn't recruit there, or the number of students that went to those firms was significantly lower. If you have data/anecdotes that suggest otherwise do share. I hardly have enough information to say anything definitively and am open to being proven wrong.

All of the schools in this range are pretty similar though, and as I said, this is all irrelevant for law school admissions.

The idea that you can rank liberal arts colleges in a similar manner as law schools or group them into "T3", "T6", ect. categories, is what is total bogus. Most of what you said I would agree with, although I don't think any two schools (amherst or williams seem to be what you're indicating?) have any preferential treatment wrt prestigious graduate opportunities, at least relative to Swarthmore, Pomona, ect. The only distinctions I can see are in admissions policies, and that's only relevant for high school seniors: http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/a/s ... lleges.htm (as one example among many)
Pomona and Amherst have the highest standards, followed by everyone else. This is probably the closest relation to your statement that prestige-driven employers look to these schools first, and that's because the colleges with the most competitive admissions policies serve as the best filters for the best candidates.

As for "lay prestige", the Williams kids will say USNWR, the Pomona kids will say Forbes Forbes, Swarthmore kids will say Jonathan Franzen. w.e.

When you say "15-25", are you referring to the USNWR liberal arts rankings? Seems silly to me. It depends on what you want to study, the campus culture, ect. I already addressed the acceptance % issue and how that could relate to selective employers. Besides, at the end of the day, if you want to go into one of those corporate-minded professions like IB or consulting, LAC is clearly not the best way to get there. The only school I would recommend would be CMC since they have their own finance school. Northwestern, Cornell, even Haas at Cal, are all both easier to get into and have a much stronger alumni presence and on campus recruiting in the corporate structures you are referring to than the LAC's do. People don't go to Williams to get a banking job - the same kid could probably go to Columbia and have a much easier time at it. Also, he/she wouldn't be stigmatized for selling out. That's part of the reason why I'm skeptical that students talking about their chances at banking gigs coming from liberal arts schools actually attend those schools, since its a far less common (although far from impossible) pursuit than at the comparably rigorous large universities

[DrStudMuffin]

.

[cotiger]

.

[DrStudMuffin]

The idea that you can rank liberal arts colleges in a similar manner as law schools or group them into "T3", "T6", ect. categories, is what is total bogus. Most of what you said I would agree with, although I don't think any two schools (amherst or williams seem to be what you're indicating?) have any preferential treatment wrt prestigious graduate opportunities, at least relative to Swarthmore, Pomona, ect. The only distinctions I can see are in admissions policies, and that's only relevant for high school seniors: http://collegeapps.about.com/od/sat/a/s ... lleges.htm (as one example among many)
Pomona and Amherst have the highest standards, followed by everyone else. This is probably the closest relation to your statement that prestige-driven employers look to these schools first, and that's because the colleges with the most competitive admissions policies serve as the best filters for the best candidates.

As for "lay prestige", the Williams kids will say USNWR, the Pomona kids will say Forbes Forbes, Swarthmore kids will say Jonathan Franzen. w.e.

When you say "15-25", are you referring to the USNWR liberal arts rankings? Seems silly to me. It depends on what you want to study, the campus culture, ect. I already addressed the acceptance % issue and how that could relate to selective employers. Besides, at the end of the day, if you want to go into one of those corporate-minded professions like IB or consulting, LAC is clearly not the best way to get there. The only school I would recommend would be CMC since they have their own finance school. Northwestern, Cornell, even Haas at Cal, are all both easier to get into and have a much stronger alumni presence and on campus recruiting in the corporate structures you are referring to than the LAC's do. People don't go to Williams to get a banking job - the same kid could probably go to Columbia and have a much easier time at it. Also, he/she wouldn't be stigmatized for selling out. That's part of the reason why I'm skeptical that students talking about their chances at banking gigs coming from liberal arts schools actually attend those schools, since its a far less common (although far from impossible) pursuit than at the comparably rigorous large universities

This is so true. LACs don't break down along "tiers" lines, but along cultural ones. All the kids at my school and those who I talked to during ASWs back in the day were choosing between the same handful of schools, and it wasn't between #s 5-10 in USNWR but rather "vertically" between schools with similar vibes. And there's also not the same sense of "well duh you'd pick #5 over #20" like I feel there was for people choosing between Stanford and USC.

Anecdotally, I have friends strewn about the top 30 or so LACs on USNWR, and everyone seems to be doing about the same several years out of school. As for fellowships, looking at one of the biggies (the Watson), it looks super evenly distributed among again those top 30 or so. I have no idea about banking/consulting, but drstudmuffin, if you're even scare-quoting those jobs as prestigious, it makes me skeptical that you actually went to an LAC lol.

Also, jbagelboy, I can't exactly tell if you think otherwise, but drstudmuffin isn't the OP.

.

[cotiger]

Be as skeptical as you want, but I don't have much incentive to fabricate my UG in an online forum. I "scare-quoted" banking/consulting because people on TLS get their panties in a bunch when you call something prestigious without qualifying it.

Also, I didn't say my friends weren't doing well or similarly to me, but rather that their campus recruiting looked noticeably different than mine.

And I would still question someone choosing Colgate over Williams, but I guess I'm in the minority on that one.

Not actually skeptical. Just joshin' with ya.

[AllTheLawz]

I had C&F issues that led to a suspension in undergrad. Did not affect my cycle at all. I got into every T-14 I applied to, including full scholarships at a number of them.

As long as its not the type of issue likely to affect your bar application (i.e. dishonesty related or resulting in "incapacitation" due to drugs/alcohol/mental illness) it will probably only affect you at the margins.

[DrStudMuffin]

I had C&F issues that led to a suspension in undergrad. Did not affect my cycle at all. I got into every T-14 I applied to, including full scholarships at a number of them.

As long as its not the type of issue likely to affect your bar application (i.e. dishonesty related or resulting in "incapacitation" due to drugs/alcohol/mental illness) it will probably only affect you at the margins.

.

[mephistopheles]

I think the debate over school placement and Fordham v. T14 etc. is getting a little off topic from the OP.

what'd op say originally?

[A. Nony Mouse]

I think the debate over school placement and Fordham v. T14 etc. is getting a little off topic from the OP.

what'd op say originally?

The original question was about whether C&F issues would affect his shot at admissions. The above debate arose out of the side argument about how OP characterized his undergrad and whether it was a meaningful category - nothing to do with what he wanted to know.