UG MATTERS! Don't believe the hype Forum

[UVA2B]

The annoying On-T poster potential is strong in this one. Has already fought about the fairness of the LSAT and bumped a seven year old thread to contend their UG makes a difference in admissions (before ever going through admissions no less), and spouts meaningless anecdata drivel to support that.

Keep it up, you could be fun through this fall.

The Columbia Law FAQ cites "rigor, depth, and breadth of curriculum" (I suppose this could be read as rigor of the university as a whole) and "institutional grading trends" (inflation) as two factors that are carefully considered by the adcoms.

Any idea how a law school determines whether grade inflation exists? And if a UG inflates an average to say, a B, does that hurt the As or just the Bs and B+s?

Quite simply, they mostly don't. In my infantile understanding, there are some schools that might get an ill-defined bump in admissions (HYPS is proffered around here regularly), but it's all just a front so they don't have to fully explain why one student gets in while another doesn't. To some extent admissions is genuinely holistic, but that's only insofar as it serves the law school to be holistic.

[Platopus]

.

[stego]

Reviving this thread to share my experience with my pre-law advisor. I go to a T10 UG and met with him over the summer. I'm surprised how much my UG mattered in applying to T14 law schools, but it makes sense. Your UG matters to adcomms because previous students from your UG have left a record for the adcomms to keep track of. Obviously not every school will have sent the same number of students, but for a place like my UG, enough students have gone and done well that applying from here is an asset. As a result, I am compared to applicants from my UG as much as (or maybe even more so than) I am to the rest of the applicant pool. It makes sense with US News statistics as well; if you go to a UG that doesn't regularly send stellar applicants, they'll expect to see higher numbers from you if they're going to extend an offer of admission. For students from T1 UGs, adcomms might be more willing to forgive lower numbers because you're more likely to be successful. My advisor also showed me the average LSAT scores admitted students from my UG had for T5 law schools and they averaged 170. Interesting to find out and hopefully helpful to some in the echo chamber that is TLS.

The bolded doesn't make any sense. US News only gets the LSAT and GPA 25th/median/75th's. They don't know or care if the students from your undergrad have a good track record.

The underlined doesn't prove anything. 170 is pretty high so that doesn't show that the students from your undergrad got a boost.

[TheKingLives]

.

[rpupkin]

Reviving this thread to share my experience with my pre-law advisor. I go to a T10 UG and met with him over the summer. I'm surprised how much my UG mattered in applying to T14 law schools, but it makes sense. Your UG matters to adcomms because previous students from your UG have left a record for the adcomms to keep track of. Obviously not every school will have sent the same number of students, but for a place like my UG, enough students have gone and done well that applying from here is an asset. As a result, I am compared to applicants from my UG as much as (or maybe even more so than) I am to the rest of the applicant pool. It makes sense with US News statistics as well; if you go to a UG that doesn't regularly send stellar applicants, they'll expect to see higher numbers from you if they're going to extend an offer of admission. For students from T1 UGs, adcomms might be more willing to forgive lower numbers because you're more likely to be successful. My advisor also showed me the average LSAT scores admitted students from my UG had for T5 law schools and they averaged 170. Interesting to find out and hopefully helpful to some in the echo chamber that is TLS.

The bolded doesn't make any sense. US News only gets the LSAT and GPA 25th/median/75th's. They don't know or care if the students from your undergrad have a good track record.

The underlined doesn't prove anything. 170 is pretty high so that doesn't show that the students from your undergrad got a boost.

Not sure if I understand you correctly, but what I meant was that law schools concerned with maintaining high score ranges can't afford to accept applicants with too many lower or average scores in applicants because it would lower their overall ranges. If I had to guess which students are more likely to be admitted with a lower LSAT score, it would be a student from an elite school over a lower-tier one because the elite school has sent successful students in the past. This is just speculation of course, I'm not entirely sure, but when my advisor jotted down a 170 as the average LSAT score of students from my school admitted to Harvard Law, I was surprised, as this is Harvard's 25th percentile. Not saying 170 isn't high, just for Harvard's standards a 170 is on the lower end of the spectrum for their incoming class. Again, I am only just speculating, not trying to declare my views as gospel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJD2MrcTT4M

[TheKingLives]

.

[rpupkin]

Reviving this thread to share my experience with my pre-law advisor. I go to a T10 UG and met with him over the summer. I'm surprised how much my UG mattered in applying to T14 law schools, but it makes sense. Your UG matters to adcomms because previous students from your UG have left a record for the adcomms to keep track of. Obviously not every school will have sent the same number of students, but for a place like my UG, enough students have gone and done well that applying from here is an asset. As a result, I am compared to applicants from my UG as much as (or maybe even more so than) I am to the rest of the applicant pool. It makes sense with US News statistics as well; if you go to a UG that doesn't regularly send stellar applicants, they'll expect to see higher numbers from you if they're going to extend an offer of admission. For students from T1 UGs, adcomms might be more willing to forgive lower numbers because you're more likely to be successful. My advisor also showed me the average LSAT scores admitted students from my UG had for T5 law schools and they averaged 170. Interesting to find out and hopefully helpful to some in the echo chamber that is TLS.

The bolded doesn't make any sense. US News only gets the LSAT and GPA 25th/median/75th's. They don't know or care if the students from your undergrad have a good track record.

The underlined doesn't prove anything. 170 is pretty high so that doesn't show that the students from your undergrad got a boost.

Not sure if I understand you correctly, but what I meant was that law schools concerned with maintaining high score ranges can't afford to accept applicants with too many lower or average scores in applicants because it would lower their overall ranges. If I had to guess which students are more likely to be admitted with a lower LSAT score, it would be a student from an elite school over a lower-tier one because the elite school has sent successful students in the past. This is just speculation of course, I'm not entirely sure, but when my advisor jotted down a 170 as the average LSAT score of students from my school admitted to Harvard Law, I was surprised, as this is Harvard's 25th percentile. Not saying 170 isn't high, just for Harvard's standards a 170 is on the lower end of the spectrum for their incoming class. Again, I am only just speculating, not trying to declare my views as gospel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJD2MrcTT4M

Do you? I don't think anyone on TLS can say with certainty how every single law school looks at its applicants. Taken from the TLS Personal Statement article: "Ed Tom, Dean of Admissions at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law, stated that 'the personal statement is the first thing I look at when I open a folder, even before viewing the GPA or LSAT score. . . . The personal statement is the applicant’s opportunity to distinguish himself from hundreds of other applicants who have the same numbers, and the same major, and come from a similar school.'" So, there is perhaps at least one law school that evaluates schools differently based on some metric. Shocking, right?

Wait . . . I thought your point—or, rather, your highly persuasive pre-law advisor's point—was that an applicant's undergrad was a key factor in law-school admissions. Have we shifted now to the importance of the personal statement? Please advise.

[TheKingLives]

.

[TheKingLives]

.

[rpupkin]

Do you? I don't think anyone on TLS can say with certainty how every single law school looks at its applicants. Taken from the TLS Personal Statement article: "Ed Tom, Dean of Admissions at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law, stated that 'the personal statement is the first thing I look at when I open a folder, even before viewing the GPA or LSAT score. . . . The personal statement is the applicant’s opportunity to distinguish himself from hundreds of other applicants who have the same numbers, and the same major, and come from a similar school.'" So, there is perhaps at least one law school that evaluates schools differently based on some metric. Shocking, right?

Wait . . . I thought your point—or, rather, your highly persuasive pre-law advisor's point—was that applicant's undergrad was a key factor in law-school admissions. Have we shifted now to the importance of the personal statement? Please advise.

Ok now I'm convinced you're just trolling. In his discussion of personal statements he mentioned that some schools can be evaluated "similar[ly]" giving evidence that not all UGs are evaluated the same. Can you read bolded text?

(master of logical reasoning)

[rpupkin]

Also, does anyone really believe that adcomms just ignore schools with notorious grade inflation?

Largely yes.

[TheKingLives]

.

[rpupkin]

Also, does anyone really believe that adcomms just ignore schools with notorious grade inflation?

Largely yes.

What TTT did you go to?

[cavalier1138]

Do you? I don't think anyone on TLS can say with certainty how every single law school looks at its applicants. Taken from the TLS Personal Statement article: "Ed Tom, Dean of Admissions at UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law, stated that 'the personal statement is the first thing I look at when I open a folder, even before viewing the GPA or LSAT score. . . . The personal statement is the applicant’s opportunity to distinguish himself from hundreds of other applicants who have the same numbers, and the same major, and come from a similar school.'" So, there is perhaps at least one law school that evaluates schools differently based on some metric. Shocking, right?

And admissions officers regularly tell prospective students that they take a "holistic" approach to evaluating applications. Oddly enough, their holistic approach lines up almost perfectly with an approach that weights LSAT/GPA as about 90-95% of the equation. Weird, huh?

http://hls.harvard.edu/dept/jdadmission ... and-facts/
https://law.yale.edu/admissions/profile ... ss-profile

Harvard has 188 different undergrads in the class of 2019.
Yale has 100(?); too many to count

Believe the hype.

This is a common debate, but it's classic correlation vs. causation. Harvard/Yale students are more likely to end up in high LSAT score bands with high GPAs. The students at elite schools are already in the group of academic overachievers who test well, so it shouldn't be surprising that they're well represented in a field comprised primarily of academic overachievers who test well. It doesn't support the idea that schools favor students from elite undergrads because of the elite degree, because we're not seeing any evidence that lower numbers from elite undergrads get better results in admissions (and the consistently high numbers of HYS suggest that can't be true).

[A. Nony Mouse]

The thing is, the whole "UG matters!!!!" thing is sort of a red herring. No one who went to a "bad" undergrad should rule out schools based on that fact; no one with great numbers is getting rejected because their undergrad is too crummy (possible exception of exclusively online for profit institutions- those seem to have a possible negative effect). And no one who went to an "elite" undergrad should decide they're getting into HYS despite bad numbers. To the extent elite schools make any difference (there's a lot of argument about whether a very small group of top UGs may make some difference) it's on the extreme margins of what was likely anyway. So if you want to argue, "more people from my undergrad got in at the 25th percentile!!!" (which I don't think your numbers prove at all, but for the sake of argument) - obviously someone was always going to get in at the 25th percentile, that's why it's there. There's no reason someone from a podunk school wouldn't have got in with that LSAT, *depending on what else they bring to the table especially GPA.*

My tl;dr point is: UG won't keep you out where you're competitive and won't get you in where you're not. So what difference should it be making to your application? Someone with a 3.6 and a 167 still isn't getting into HYS even if they went to HYS.

[TheKingLives]

.

[TheKingLives]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Are you sure those candidates aren't URMs? I think you'll find that they are.

And yes, HYS can reject higher number people (because they can have their pick of any of them). For the people you pick, usually you're looking at someone with a compelling personal story/great softs.

The issue with GPA is that it matters as much as it does because schools have to report them to USNWR for the rankings. They don't get to annotate the scores with "but it's from a school with serious grade deflation!!" or the like; for the purpose of USNWR a 4.0 from Directional State in basket weaving is way more valuable than a 3.7 from Yale in math.

Now, when you're comparing two candidates who have the *same* GPA, sure, it may well make a difference that one applicant's GPA is from CalTech in aeronautical engineering and the other is from Middle Missouri state in communications. But at that point I think there's likely to be a whole package of softs/characteristics to consider. Maybe the CalT person is KJD whose done nothing but the degree and writes an ordinary PS; maybe the MO kid is a first-gen single mom who goes on to work in PR, gets 10 years of experience moving up through good jobs to run her own PR company and has a great compelling PS about her experiences. Those are obviously extremes and when two candidates are otherwise really similar but one went to a school understood to be more rigorous/have a lot of really smart kids in it, sure, the more elite school may well help. But I'd say that's not easily summed up as saying "UG matters!!!"

(and again, for what exactly? I have yet to see a situation in which undergrad mattered enough that someone should actually change the schools they apply to. Apply as you should apply based on your numbers. If UG helps at all, great.)

[A. Nony Mouse]

Which is all to say: my problem with "UG matters!!!" is that I think it discourages people from non-elite schools from applying to top schools (many people think you have to have gone to an elite UG to get into a top school), and it encourages people from elite schools but with more ordinary scores to aim for schools outside their reach. To the extent "UG matters!!!" means, adcomms look at UG as part of the application, sure. But I don't think there's much applicants can do with that information.

[UVA2B]

I love when new and fresh ideas come to TLS to upset the status quo.

[rpupkin]

I love when new and fresh ideas come to TLS to upset the status quo.

I don't. TheKingLives's sharp logical-reasoning skills are challenging too many of my preconceived notions. I'm lashing out with dismissive sarcasm, but I'm really just sad and afraid. Help.

[Big Dog]

what kind of student is being admitted with the 3.6 and 167?

The bolded is where you are showing that you are statistically-challenged. Why do you think that those pairs have to go together? Why do you not understand that perhaps HYS is accepting a 3.6 (engineering) with a 173, or a 3.9 and a 167?

According to LSN, last year one student got into HLS with those numbers who was not a URM. (And that post is suspect.)

[UVA2B]

I love when new and fresh ideas come to TLS to upset the status quo.

I don't. TheKingLives's sharp logical-reasoning skills are challenging too many of my preconceived notions. I'm lashing out with dismissive sarcasm, but I'm really just sad and afraid. Help.

It'll be okay. I hear the outcomes at your TTT are pretty solid for a regional school. You're sure to land on your feet eventually.

[Veil of Ignorance]

Also, does anyone really believe that adcomms just ignore schools with notorious grade inflation? If it really is so bad at Harvard that the median is an A-, I doubt adcomms are just going to ignore that and treat all GPAs the same.

I mean one of the top 5 feeder schools to Berkeley is Brown, which has the highest grade inflation in the country. This is likely because Berkeley prioritizes GPA more than most schools. It seems like Berkeley doesn't care that getting a high GPA at Brown isn't too hard

[TheKingLives]

.