Why is it that UG institution is irrelevant? Forum

[Unitas]

Well. I guess now that I'm stuck in the situation I'm in, I must work that much harder to keep my GPA up here thanks for the comments all. I can see why the law schools do this, it just doenst seem fair. But, " lifes not fair."

Why isn't it fair? Should an undergraduate institution's worth in the law school admissions process be tied to its cost? That would just be rewarding poor decision-making.

I'm not arguing that they should judge an applicant based off the cost of their UG. I'm saying it is unfair (IMO) that the UG prestige, and therefore in my opinion the workload and difficulty in many cases, is not considered to be that important. Like I said in my OP, if I had known of this prior to picking this UG, I might have chosen differently.

But, this is my own ignorance so it isn't the law schools admission process to blame, but instead myself.

Prestige does not equal more difficult or larger workload. HTH.

[sch6les]

.

[HeavenWood]

Well. I guess now that I'm stuck in the situation I'm in, I must work that much harder to keep my GPA up here thanks for the comments all. I can see why the law schools do this, it just doenst seem fair. But, " lifes not fair."

Why isn't it fair? Should an undergraduate institution's worth in the law school admissions process be tied to its cost? That would just be rewarding poor decision-making.

I'm not arguing that they should judge an applicant based off the cost of their UG. I'm saying it is unfair (IMO) that the UG prestige, and therefore in my opinion the workload and difficulty in many cases, is not considered to be that important. Like I said in my OP, if I had known of this prior to picking this UG, I might have chosen differently.

But, this is my own ignorance so it isn't the law schools admission process to blame, but instead myself.

Prestige does not equal more difficult or larger workload. HTH.

In many cases, prestige and grade inflation go hand in hand, making it tough to gauge the relative difficulty between schools. That's why most schools place more emphasis on the LSAT.

[taxguy]

haha, I can't help but laugh and some of the egotistic elitism found here,which certainly biases answers. Thus, let me present a different point of view.
Although most admission officers will tell you that they value standardized test scores ,whether they be SATs , LSATs etc, they know that there is a LOT wrong with these tests.

I used to teach the SAT and GRE. I can attest to the fact that I have seen hundreds of kids who didn't do well on these test and yet I knew would do very well in school. Likewise, I met kids who did very well on standardized tests and I knew wouldn't do well in college. Moreover, the higher level tests, such as GMATs had an even worse corelation in my estimation.

Moreover, due to economic conditions, many smart kids have gone to state schools. In fact, I have found that getting top grades from a state school is actually harder than that of a priviate school. State schools don't care if they flunk kids out. Private schools do care if they flunk kids out because they want the money.

Some have argued here that top private schools give access to many more successful alumni. This is UNTRUE in my estimation. Attending a large undergraduate institution like Michigen or Penn State etc., usually provides more alumi and thus, more connections. Paying the extra 30K per year might....just might... give you access to kids from wealthier backgrounds. However, I would bet that paying an extra 30K per year wouldn't be worth it for the vast majority of kids.

Now if a major scholarship were offered by a private school, that would be a different "kettle of fish."

[Patriot1208]

^^^ that is completely wrong. I just saw a study in my Business analysis class that determined an almost perfect correlation between undergrad USNWR ranking and average salary. Of course this hurts bigger schools and I would imagine Michigan has close to as many wealthy alumni as many of the better schools but as far as prestige goes there is a clear indicator that the better school you go to the better jobs that are available to you. The top consulting, ibanking, corporations, etc recruit only at the top schools. Of course, there are a lot (relatively) of state school grads making 200k in some small business in a suburb of columbus or detroit. But the prestige jobs that lead to the most money (potential for millions) recruit almost exclusively out of the best schools. Also, in my experience as a transfer from a good public to a top private, there is a vast difference in level of competition, the toughness in how things are graded, and the amount of work.

Also, Michigan isn't really a good example because of how highly regarded it is. It will be a lot different if we are comparing the vast majority of state schools like Indiana or Kentucky.

[RVP11]

^^^ that is completely wrong. I just saw a study in my Business analysis class that determined an almost perfect correlation between undergrad USNWR ranking and average salary. Of course this hurts bigger schools and I would imagine Michigan has close to as many wealthy alumni as many of the better schools but as far as prestige goes there is a clear indicator that the better school you go to the better jobs that are available to you. The top consulting, ibanking, corporations, etc recruit only at the top schools. Of course, there are a lot (relatively) of state school grads making 200k in some small business in a suburb of columbus or detroit. But the prestige jobs that lead to the most money (potential for millions) recruit almost exclusively out of the best schools. Also, in my experience as a transfer from a good public to a top private, there is a vast difference in level of competition, the toughness in how things are graded, and the amount of work.

Also, Michigan isn't really a good example because of how highly regarded it is. It will be a lot different if we are comparing the vast majority of state schools like Indiana or Kentucky.

This is all well and good. But law schools still don't care.

[Patriot1208]

^^^ that is completely wrong. I just saw a study in my Business analysis class that determined an almost perfect correlation between undergrad USNWR ranking and average salary. Of course this hurts bigger schools and I would imagine Michigan has close to as many wealthy alumni as many of the better schools but as far as prestige goes there is a clear indicator that the better school you go to the better jobs that are available to you. The top consulting, ibanking, corporations, etc recruit only at the top schools. Of course, there are a lot (relatively) of state school grads making 200k in some small business in a suburb of columbus or detroit. But the prestige jobs that lead to the most money (potential for millions) recruit almost exclusively out of the best schools. Also, in my experience as a transfer from a good public to a top private, there is a vast difference in level of competition, the toughness in how things are graded, and the amount of work.

Also, Michigan isn't really a good example because of how highly regarded it is. It will be a lot different if we are comparing the vast majority of state schools like Indiana or Kentucky.

This is all well and good. But law schools still don't care.

O, I know that, I was simply referring to the above posts.

[Unitas]

^^^ that is completely wrong. I just saw a study in my Business analysis class that determined an almost perfect correlation between undergrad USNWR ranking and average salary. Of course this hurts bigger schools and I would imagine Michigan has close to as many wealthy alumni as many of the better schools but as far as prestige goes there is a clear indicator that the better school you go to the better jobs that are available to you. The top consulting, ibanking, corporations, etc recruit only at the top schools. Of course, there are a lot (relatively) of state school grads making 200k in some small business in a suburb of columbus or detroit. But the prestige jobs that lead to the most money (potential for millions) recruit almost exclusively out of the best schools. Also, in my experience as a transfer from a good public to a top private, there is a vast difference in level of competition, the toughness in how things are graded, and the amount of work.

Also, Michigan isn't really a good example because of how highly regarded it is. It will be a lot different if we are comparing the vast majority of state schools like Indiana or Kentucky.

Wait, so you saw a study in a class at a top school that says top schools get students better jobs? I am shocked to say the least.

To address this, in 1998, Alan B. Krueger looked not just at the earnings of elite-college graduates, but also at the earnings of those accepted at elite colleges who chose to attend a less-selective institution. The researchers found that both groups of students earned about the same. That suggests that the students themselves--not the school--account for the difference. To Krueger, if you're smart enough to get into Princeton, you're smart enough to make a lot of money wherever you go to school.

This is TCR, not anything else. And those smart enought to go to cheaper schools can invest the savings and make more than their counterparts.

[Patriot1208]

^^^ that is completely wrong. I just saw a study in my Business analysis class that determined an almost perfect correlation between undergrad USNWR ranking and average salary. Of course this hurts bigger schools and I would imagine Michigan has close to as many wealthy alumni as many of the better schools but as far as prestige goes there is a clear indicator that the better school you go to the better jobs that are available to you. The top consulting, ibanking, corporations, etc recruit only at the top schools. Of course, there are a lot (relatively) of state school grads making 200k in some small business in a suburb of columbus or detroit. But the prestige jobs that lead to the most money (potential for millions) recruit almost exclusively out of the best schools. Also, in my experience as a transfer from a good public to a top private, there is a vast difference in level of competition, the toughness in how things are graded, and the amount of work.

Also, Michigan isn't really a good example because of how highly regarded it is. It will be a lot different if we are comparing the vast majority of state schools like Indiana or Kentucky.

Wait, so you saw a study in a class at a top school that says top schools get students better jobs? I am shocked to say the least.

To address this, in 1998, Alan B. Krueger looked not just at the earnings of elite-college graduates, but also at the earnings of those accepted at elite colleges who chose to attend a less-selective institution. The researchers found that both groups of students earned about the same. That suggests that the students themselves--not the school--account for the difference. To Krueger, if you're smart enough to get into Princeton, you're smart enough to make a lot of money wherever you go to school.

This is TCR, not anything else. And those smart enought to go to cheaper schools can invest the savings and make more than their counterparts.

Sure, and I wasn't debating that. I was simply debating the poster above who said that there isn't a difference. But tbf, if you don't know what you want to do going into undergrad, then you decide you want to work for Goldman and become a millionaire, you are fucked if you attended Kentucky at full ride instead of Penn.

[prezidentv8]

I can't help but laugh and some of the egotistic elitism found here,which certainly biases answers. Thus, let me present a different point of view.

--ImageRemoved--

[20160810]

1.) Because of the already-mentioned USNews ranking issues
2.) Because some of the highest ranked schools are the worst offenders w/r/t grade inflation (exceptions: Berkeley, UChicago).
3.) Because it honestly doesn't matter terribly much

But take heart, bitter Harvard students: Where you do your UG does seem to matter a very small amount in OCI, so you'll still have a chance to try and impress people with your bachelor's degree.

[Patriot1208]

1.) Because of the already-mentioned USNews ranking issues
2.) Because some of the highest ranked schools are the worst offenders w/r/t grade inflation (exceptions: Berkeley, UChicago).
3.) Because it honestly doesn't matter terribly much

But take heart, bitter Harvard students: Where you do your UG does seem to matter a very small amount in OCI, so you'll still have a chance to try and impress people with your bachelor's degree.

I don't want to get into a grade inflation debate, but the assertion that it is easier for an individual to get a higher gpa at harvard over UCSB because Harvard has a higher average gpa is completely erroneous. And quite frankly, it shocks me so many people fail to see the quite obvious fallaciousness of an assertion like that.

[vanwinkle]

But take heart, bitter Harvard students: Where you do your UG does seem to matter a very small amount in OCI, so you'll still have a chance to try and impress people with your bachelor's degree.

Ivy undergrads with good numbers should definitely still take heart. While it doesn't matter much for admissions at Ivies, it can matter more than a little during OCI. I've heard stories about OCI interviewers being openly biased toward "double Ivy" lawyers. I've also heard such comments from lawyers outside the OCI hiring requirement.

If you're going for the "double Ivy" your Ivy undergrad may not help you get in, but it sure could help a lot after.

[dresden doll]

LOL at 'UG matters ONLY as a tiebreaker' conventional wisdom which conveniently ignores that 1) the vast majority of applicants out there applying to same schools have practically identical numbers (a situation that clearly requires just such a 'tiebreaker'); and 2) most people linger around medians at their schools of choice (a situation that also requires 'tiebreakers').

Absent URM status, UG quality is the third most important factor. Check out Delloggio's website for comments from adcomms on the issue of 'what matters the most beyond LSAT and GPA. Only a handful identify PS, LORs and the like. And it makes sense if you think about it, since UG quality puts the second most important factor, GPA, into perspective.

If it's just the tiebreaker that keeps you out of your school of choice, then it's kinda relevant, don't you think?

[IAFG]

LOL at 'UG matters ONLY as a tiebreaker' conventional wisdom which conveniently ignores that 1) the vast majority of applicants out there applying to same schools have practically identical numbers (a situation that clearly requires just such a 'tiebreaker'); and 2) most people linger around medians at their schools of choice (a situation that also requires 'tiebreakers').

Absent URM status, UG quality is the third most important factor. Check out Delloggio's website for comments from adcomms on the issue of 'what matters the most beyond LSAT and GPA. Only a handful identify PS, LORs and the like. And it makes sense if you think about it, since UG quality puts the second most important factor, GPA, into perspective.

If it's just the tiebreaker that keeps you out of your school of choice, then it's kinda relevant, don't you think?

this is a very good point and not one i have seen posted before. insightful, DD.

[dresden doll]

Also want to add that I see no problems with it mattering since I'm pretty sure that getting an A at U of C UG was about ten million times harder than getting an A at my UG TTT.

[vanwinkle]

LOL at 'UG matters ONLY as a tiebreaker' conventional wisdom which conveniently ignores that 1) the vast majority of applicants out there applying to same schools have practically identical numbers (a situation that clearly requires just such a 'tiebreaker'); and 2) most people linger around medians at their schools of choice (a situation that also requires 'tiebreakers').

Absent URM status, UG quality is the third most important factor. Check out Delloggio's website for comments from adcomms on the issue of 'what matters the most beyond LSAT and GPA. Only a handful identify PS, LORs and the like. And it makes sense if you think about it, since UG quality puts the second most important factor, GPA, into perspective.

If it's just the tiebreaker that keeps you out of your school of choice, then it's kinda relevant, don't you think?

This is true, but it also means you can make it irrelevant just by getting a higher GPA and LSAT score so they don't need to use that tiebreaker on you. If you could get a 3.9 at Bumfuck U and a 170+ LSAT, you're still ahead of the Harvard and Princeton kids with 3.6s and the same LSAT. Likewise, you're also still ahead of the Harvard and Princeton kids that can't crack 170.

That means the Bumfuck U kid with good numbers has a much better shot with this being the third tiebreaker than if it were first or second. It makes Ivy UG matter significantly less than it used to.

[masterthearts]

The "undergrad doesn't matter" mantra is an utter myth, both in admissions and employment. It doesn't matter enough to justify paying $50,000/yr, but if you think the Berkeley guy with a 172/3.7 isn't going to beat the U. Kentucky guy with a 173/3.8 more times than not, you are mistaken. And if you think the Princeton/UVA Law guy isn't going to do better than the Rutgers/UVA Law guy in hiring, all else being relatively equal, you are very mistaken.

I think undergrad DOES MATTER. A 3.9 at an Ivy is NOT the same as a 3.9 at your state school or college no one ever heard of.
At an Ivy, the law schools know you got that 3.9 competing against some of the brightest kids in the country. A 3.9 at your state univ. means squat.
Some law schools specifically state on their website that one of the things they take into consideration is where you obtained your undergrad degree.
It is common knowledge that the entire legal profession is an uppity bunch of people and names and reputations all count a lot.

[dresden doll]

This is true, but it also means you can make it irrelevant just by getting a higher GPA and LSAT score so they don't need to use that tiebreaker on you. If you could get a 3.9 at Bumfuck U and a 170+ LSAT, you're still ahead of the Harvard and Princeton kids with 3.6s and the same LSAT.

Of course, but assembling a 3.9/170+ package isn't something you 'just' do, considering how many applicants simply don't have those numbers to offer.

I have no doubt my current LS didn't give two shits about my UG once they realized both of my numbers were at their 75th percentiles. I also have no doubt that my UG would have mattered had my numbers hovered around their medians (as is the case with most UChi hopefuls). Since most people don't tend to be at the 75th percentile for their dream schools (and UChi wasn't my dream school, to note), I'd say that, all things considered, UG isn't irrelevant at all.

[bostlaw]

LOL at inflated/fabricated egos and empty wallets using TLS to make themselves feel better about ivy

[Patriot1208]

LOL at inflated/fabricated egos and empty wallets using TLS to make themselves feel better about ivy

--ImageRemoved--

[dresden doll]

LOL at inflated/fabricated egos and empty wallets using TLS to make themselves feel better about ivy

Luckily for them, the legal profession will probably appreciate their prestige whoring ways.

[whymeohgodno]

It's not irrelevant. It's irrelevant when you compare it with how much LSAT/GPA matters but almost everything is other than URM status...

[dresden doll]

It's not irrelevant. It's irrelevant when you compare it with how much LSAT/GPA matters but almost everything is other than URM status...

Right. But it is the least irrelevant of factors, absent LSAT, GPA and URM status. And my point is, a billion of 168/3.9 kids out there will shoot for T10. If your Ivy is what gets you in while they wind up at Vanderbilt or whatever, then it's not irrelevant at all.

I'm personally pretty certain my crappy UG did hold me back a little and would have held me back more had I been more ambitious with my apps (i.e. applied to CLS, SLS or HLS).

[markymark]

Only credited private schools are HYPS+M/C. Maybe Columbia/Penn. I think those schools give you substantively different opportunities (top consulting, top finance, top engineering) jobs that you can't get from the top state schools (Michigan, Virginia, California, etc).

As someone with a lot of IBD experience, this is patently ridiculous (at least for top consulting and finance - I have no knowledge of engineering).