TLS frowns on alts... I believe at least. Plus why make an alt for this???UGmatters wrote:Advice taken.acadec wrote: Oh, alright then. Just make sure log back in to the right alt account next time.
First time I have ever said this: Flame.
TLS frowns on alts... I believe at least. Plus why make an alt for this???UGmatters wrote:Advice taken.acadec wrote: Oh, alright then. Just make sure log back in to the right alt account next time.
NU_Jet55 wrote:This post says nothing that TLS CW doesn't already say.UGmatters wrote:I have for a long time been amazed at how the vast majority of people on this site have convinced themselves that your UG doesn't matter on your application. All of these people are delusional. Blah, blah, blah.
If you get a Criminal Justice degree fromSouthwestern Technical College of Idaho (no idea if that's a real school), but have auto-admit numbers, good LOR's, a well written Personal Statement, and an impressive, interesting resume, you're just about a lock everywhere outside of HYS (and if you still have a shot there too).
If you have sub-25% numbers and the rest of your app is sub-par but you went to Harvard, you're going to have a hard time getting in.
There is nothing new here.
As always, DF is motherfucking credited.Desert Fox wrote:I don't even care if a person could have gotten into a great school. Who cares if someone did shitty Sophomore year of high school (knocking them out of top colleges), if they rocked college and have a great LSAT?romothesavior wrote:Also, many of us on TLS could have gone to much better undergrads but did the smart thing and took a huge scholarship somewhere else. I had good grades from a highly respected high school in my state and a really good ACT, and I would have had an okay shot at a lot of the "top" undergrad schools. But I took a full ride at a relatively unknown school, got an awesome education (I wouldn't trade it for anything), and did well in my classes.
A lot of those touting their great non-HYSP undergrads aren't that special. In many cases, they're just less debt averse.
What college you went to is a function of how good at high school you were from 14-17 (and lets face it, High School is retardedly easy), a standardized test, and how much money your parents had.
Now if someone wants to say that an A at a top school is harder to earn, then you gotta put the GPA of a Georgia Tech Engineer over a the Harvard Poli Sci major, because GT engineering would be harder to get an A in. But nobody wants to do that. They like to pretends Ivy >> ALL. That is overly simplistic.
If I were an adcom I'd really only consider difficulty of undergrad for reverse splitters. Because a 4.0/160 from CalTech, succeeded when tests say she shouldn't.
Want to continue reading?
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
I'll agree to that.ConMan345 wrote:Can we all agree, though, that the indirect benefit of a top school = access to really awesome resume-building opportunities. My numbers are fine but it's my resume that put me over the top. My resume is only what it is because of the school I went to for undergrad.
While this may be true, it is also true that if you hustle you can get resume building opportunities anywhere. I went to an undergrad you've never heard of, and my resume is awesome(eg Every adcomm I've talked to this cycle has commented on it).ConMan345 wrote:Can we all agree, though, that the indirect benefit of a top school = access to really awesome resume-building opportunities. My numbers are fine but it's my resume that put me over the top. My resume is only what it is because of the school I went to for undergrad.
UGmatters wrote:I have for a long time been amazed at how the vast majority of people on this site have convinced themselves that your UG doesn't matter on your application. All of these people are delusional.
But saying because school A is ranked T25 it will considered better than school B, which is ranked 100-150, is not accurate.
My sister has worked for 6 years in admissions for a T14 law school that I'm not allowed to apply to, and she helped me construct this list to debunk the myths. Here is what DOES matter:
1) Difficulty of school -
Its funny that every single person who applies to law school receives numbers from LSAC that show how their numbers lineup to the average from their UG, but most fail to realize that adcomms care about this. Good luck at law school, guys.
If the average GPA at your school is a 3.3, and you get a 3.4, good for you. If the average GPA at your school is a 3.6, and you got a 3.5, not so much. This requires little more than common sense to understand.
2) Inflation
Adcomms are MORE than aware which schools inflate their grades. So, all of you people who say 'Unless you're coming from an Ivy you're out of luck', that is complete bollocks. For example, it is pretty much accepted as a fact that Columbia University's inflation is out of control. It is one of the most popular schools for Post-Bacs and 3-2 engineering transfer students maybe a little cause its got a good rep, maybe a little cause its in NY, and certainly a LOT because you're almost GUARANTEED to get a 3.6 or higher as long as you're admitted.
3) % of Students from your undergrad that complete PHDs, Masters.
TLSers (and anyone younger than 27, for that matter) hate this statistic. But Adcomms love it. Hrmm, I wonder why...
There is a reason this statistic exists, is tracked, and is so often cited: graduate schools care. If your UG has a record of an extremely low % of students COMPLETING (note completing vs. enrolling in) advanced degrees, your 3.5 is not going to look as good as someone who is coming with a 3.5 from a school which is known for this statistic.
And finally, the most overlooked one...
4) The relationship between your UG and the Law School
TLSers love to knock this down too, but it is true. Admissions officers know which students from which schools have the best track records at their institutions, and they care. If your UG school consistently sends stellar students who perform well in the school (and who give/bring lots of $$$ back), they're going to like you more than someone from a school that consistently sends students who underperform, regardless of numbers.
Now, this all isn't to say that some of the things people 'assume' aren't correct.
Where people are right:
1) coming from your Law school's UG
this rarely matters, and in fact can be a problem. Schools like to recruit from a variety of different schools and maintain geographic diversity. This is hard to do if you're favoring people in the dorm across the street.
2) Relativity between school type and major
Adcomms can't help concerning themselves with all of the things I mentioned above, but that doesn't mean they don't try and be fair sometimes. Although this may seem contrary to what has been stated above, in very specific cases adcomms will treat you on an equal plane despite the numbers advising otherwise. One of these specific cases would be if you are applying from a lower ranked specialty school with the same major and numbers as someone from a higher ranked one. What does this mean? 3 electrical engineering majors, one from MIT, one from Georgia Tech and one from Carnegie Mellon, all with 3.4s, willl likely all be considered on an equal plane. This is because there are only so many schools that offer such a specialty on such a high level, and while these schools may have reputations and numbers that rank the schools overall much differently, these specialties line up pretty well.
So, don't believe the hype. Anyone who says that anything besides HYP doesn't matter (or that HYP automatically matter) is a clown and has spent way too long on this site and way too much time trusting everyone else on it.
Blatant Berkeley trolling.SoftBoiledLife wrote:UG doesn't matter for admissions for a very simple reason: US news cares about median GPA, not whether that median GPA came from Stanford (even though Stanford is the second-best university in California, which is no mean feat).
There is a POSSIBILITY that it matters a bit more than people realize later on when you're interviewing with firms. Firms put your whole resume on their website, and Harvard BA/Harvard JD looks a bit saucier than CSU Chico BA/Harvard JD. But even then it doesn't matter all that much, because they'll take someone with good grades over someone who went to an Ivy undergrad 10 times out of 10.
FTFYMusicNutMeggie wrote:Blatant [strike]Berkeley trolling[/strike] delusional ramblings.SoftBoiledLife wrote:UG doesn't matter for admissions for a very simple reason: US news cares about median GPA, not whether that median GPA came from Stanford (even though Stanford is the second-best university in California, which is no mean feat).
There is a POSSIBILITY that it matters a bit more than people realize later on when you're interviewing with firms. Firms put your whole resume on their website, and Harvard BA/Harvard JD looks a bit saucier than CSU Chico BA/Harvard JD. But even then it doesn't matter all that much, because they'll take someone with good grades over someone who went to an Ivy undergrad 10 times out of 10.
Register now!
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
I don't think that's true of only top schools. I go to a large state school, with a much less motivated student body than, say, the student body at Harvard. This means there are far fewer qualified people competing for leadership positions, awards, etc., and as a result I've been able to stand out more on campus, with lots of leadership and research positions, and some great administrative connections. I'd argue it's harder to get more resume-building opportunities at a school like Harvard because you have a student body full of competitive go-getters. This is all anecdotal, of course, but I have friends at great UG schools and I've had access to a lot more "resume-building opportunities" than they have.ConMan345 wrote:Can we all agree, though, that the indirect benefit of a top school = access to really awesome resume-building opportunities. My numbers are fine but it's my resume that put me over the top. My resume is only what it is because of the school I went to for undergrad.
FTFbothofYpugalicious wrote:FTFYMusicNutMeggie wrote:Blatant [strike]Berkeley trolling[/strike] [strike]delusional ramblings[/strike] but accurate Caltech recognition.SoftBoiledLife wrote:UG doesn't matter for admissions for a very simple reason: US news cares about median GPA, not whether that median GPA came from Stanford (even though Stanford is the second-best university in California, which is no mean feat).
There is a POSSIBILITY that it matters a bit more than people realize later on when you're interviewing with firms. Firms put your whole resume on their website, and Harvard BA/Harvard JD looks a bit saucier than CSU Chico BA/Harvard JD. But even then it doesn't matter all that much, because they'll take someone with good grades over someone who went to an Ivy undergrad 10 times out of 10.
TITCRdelBarco wrote:FTFbothofYpugalicious wrote:FTFYMusicNutMeggie wrote:Blatant [strike]Berkeley trolling[/strike] [strike]delusional ramblings[/strike] but accurate Caltech recognition.SoftBoiledLife wrote:UG doesn't matter for admissions for a very simple reason: US news cares about median GPA, not whether that median GPA came from Stanford (even though Stanford is the second-best university in California, which is no mean feat).
There is a POSSIBILITY that it matters a bit more than people realize later on when you're interviewing with firms. Firms put your whole resume on their website, and Harvard BA/Harvard JD looks a bit saucier than CSU Chico BA/Harvard JD. But even then it doesn't matter all that much, because they'll take someone with good grades over someone who went to an Ivy undergrad 10 times out of 10.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
Fair enough.delBarco wrote:FTFbothofYpugalicious wrote:FTFYMusicNutMeggie wrote:Blatant [strike]Berkeley trolling[/strike] [strike]delusional ramblings[/strike] but accurate Caltech recognition.SoftBoiledLife wrote:UG doesn't matter for admissions for a very simple reason: US news cares about median GPA, not whether that median GPA came from Stanford (even though Stanford is the second-best university in California, which is no mean feat).
There is a POSSIBILITY that it matters a bit more than people realize later on when you're interviewing with firms. Firms put your whole resume on their website, and Harvard BA/Harvard JD looks a bit saucier than CSU Chico BA/Harvard JD. But even then it doesn't matter all that much, because they'll take someone with good grades over someone who went to an Ivy undergrad 10 times out of 10.
Heh heh.. good thing I don't think I'm hot shit. *phew*romothesavior wrote:As always, DF is motherfucking credited.Desert Fox wrote:I don't even care if a person could have gotten into a great school. Who cares if someone did shitty Sophomore year of high school (knocking them out of top colleges), if they rocked college and have a great LSAT?romothesavior wrote:Also, many of us on TLS could have gone to much better undergrads but did the smart thing and took a huge scholarship somewhere else. I had good grades from a highly respected high school in my state and a really good ACT, and I would have had an okay shot at a lot of the "top" undergrad schools. But I took a full ride at a relatively unknown school, got an awesome education (I wouldn't trade it for anything), and did well in my classes.
A lot of those touting their great non-HYSP undergrads aren't that special. In many cases, they're just less debt averse.
What college you went to is a function of how good at high school you were from 14-17 (and lets face it, High School is retardedly easy), a standardized test, and how much money your parents had.
Now if someone wants to say that an A at a top school is harder to earn, then you gotta put the GPA of a Georgia Tech Engineer over a the Harvard Poli Sci major, because GT engineering would be harder to get an A in. But nobody wants to do that. They like to pretends Ivy >> ALL. That is overly simplistic.
If I were an adcom I'd really only consider difficulty of undergrad for reverse splitters. Because a 4.0/160 from CalTech, succeeded when tests say she shouldn't.
I was an immature little shit when I was 14 and 15. I blew off high school, took nothing seriously, and my HS GPA was like a 3.6 or something. I didn't even think one second about the ACT before I took it and still scored in the upper 90-something percentiles (like 97 or 98). I can promise you if I was half as mature and half as driven then as I am now, I could have easily gotten into the top midwestern undergrads like Chicago, WUSTL, Northwestern, etc.
I am impressed by the HYSP kids, but all of you Brown, Cornell, Tufts, Amherst, Northwestern, etc. kids who think you are hot shit, come down from your perch. Congrats on either:
1) Having rich parents who were willing to help you pay 40k a year to go to a prestigious school
2) Being more driven than me at 14 years old
3) Being a retard for taking out massive undergrad loans when it really won't matter at all
4) The small minority who actually have a right to brag who got big schollies to go to great schools
/rant
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Already a member? Login
All real schools are regional accredited. Nationally accredited schools (University of Phoenix type) are ttteribad.NayBoer wrote:Your class rank doesn't matter, at least for super splitters. I was bottom eighth of my class and got in everywhere I should have.
Also, I know for a fact people have gone from regionally accredited schools (basically community college) to T14.
I'm assuming the GPA distributions are for the entire graduating class at a given university, no? If so, then they would be basically meaningless for medium to large universities. Throwing the engineering, physics, etc. majors into the same pool as the communications, political science, etc. majors, averaging them, and then comparing them individually to that average is not going to tell anything. There will be huge differences in the difficulty and grading practices of the different colleges and majors at any sizable university.UGmatters wrote:
1) Difficulty of school -
Its funny that every single person who applies to law school receives numbers from LSAC that show how their numbers lineup to the average from their UG, but most fail to realize that adcomms care about this. Good luck at law school, guys.
If the average GPA at your school is a 3.3, and you get a 3.4, good for you. If the average GPA at your school is a 3.6, and you got a 3.5, not so much. This requires little more than common sense to understand.
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login