Anonymous wrote:William and Mary is probably more similar in size and feel to Washington University, Tufts, and Emory if that is what he wants. UVA is great if he wants a larger school, different experience. Perhaps schools like Duke, Columbia, Princeton, etc. would provide more opportunities, but I'm not convinced your private alternatives will. Perhaps focus on that level as reach.
This kind of vague advice is why students fall for the “prestige” factor that may or may not matter for them personally.
It made sense to me. They were just saying any difference in prestige wouldn't make much difference between the schools mentioned. It might for schools like Duke and Columbia.
I agree giving up in-state tuition at UVA means DC got into a top 10 school. UNless DC qualifies for significant financial aid. Also, Tufts isn't as good as UVA or the others, they just happen to be just as selective but academics wise the others are better.
What about 11? Seriously though, where does the arbitrary line exist?
Good question. All anyone can really tell you is their opinion. If I had to pay close to full vs. in-state for UVA or W&M and objective was perhaps law school, I'd say I'd find it hard not to send them to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, then probably Columbia, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, perhaps Williams, Amherst, and maybe Rice. If you are talking science, it would clearly open up MIT and Caltech. Most of these are extremely tough admits. So that is about 14 or so tops. Many would add Chicago. I'd draw the line before Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Tufts, Emory, Wash U, etc. This is all based on my situation and if I was fortunate enough to have a kid with those options.
It is clear that HYPS etc. do have significantly higher representation at elite law schools than UVA or W&M. I recall seeing that about 25% of Yale law students are from Harvard and Yale, and remaining Ivy League plus Stanford take it to 50% plus. But you have to consider that they probably had stellar SATs and would also get stellar LSATs.
Your numbers are wrong, especially at Harvard which is a very large law school. Ivy League representation is way less than 50 percent.
This was the article I remember seeing on Yale. I don't know about Harvard, but I would still think Ivy representation is very high compared to undergraduate population.
Yale is in a league of its own. Also, your article is a little dated.
At least I'm offering real data points. Here is a more recent view of Yale Law enrollment by undergraduate institutions from 2015. Of the schools mentioned, Tufts had 1, Washington University had 7, Emory had 4, UVA had 6, and W&M had 3.
In comparison, Yale had 69, Harvard had 65, Princeton had 37, Columbia had 30, Brown had 22, Dartmouth 19, Amherst 18, Penn 17, Stanford 16, Berkeley 16, and Williams and Duke 13.
Thanks for the link. As I said, Yale really is in a league of its own. It's long been the most prestigious and selective law school and its yield is over 80 percent. And it, like many of the top law schools, favors its own undergraduates in admissions. I would be stunned if the Ivy League undergrad percentage for Harvard was nearly as high, but I'm also certain that Harvard would be the #1 undergrdad school represented (just as UVA undergrad is at UVA Law).
Finally, the OP isn't deciding between UVA and Yale, but between UVA and a bunch of other schools that are NOT, for the most part, better represented at Yale than UVA is. So you've proven the point that for law school UVA is just as good as any of them.
I used Yale largely because it provides the data. Most schools don't. My view is similar -- there isn't that much difference between WashU/Tufts/Emory and UVA/W&M. The difference tends to be with the Ivy+. When I adjusted for size of undergraduate enrollment, it turned out that Ivy grads are about 12X as likely to end up at Yale Law as a UVA grad. There was a huge range there, with Cornell grads being significantly less likely to end up at Yale Law compared to Yale/Harvard/Princeton. When you compare WashU/Tufts/Emory to UVA, they are only about 1.6X as likely to end up at Yale Law, but that is skewed by WashU, which is the highest.
If this looks like I am taking a shot at UVA, I am not. Looking at the numbers, it appears UVA does better than all publics except Berkeley and W&M, and seems to do pretty well against privates once you get out of the Ivy+.
You're not taking a shot at UVA. I get that. But I also have a sense that you're not a lawyer either. If you were, you'd understand more that Yale really is different. You say you use them largely because they "provide the data when most schools don't." That's probably because their "data" is so extraordinary. No law school enrolls a class quite like Yale's. It's a much more selective school than even Harvard is. We can all agree that if you want to go to Yale Law, go to Harvard or Yale undergrad.
No, it was really down to availability of data. It I'd have had Chicago, etc., I would have shown it. The only other top law school that seem to consistently publish top undergraduate feeder institutions is UVA. It only publishes top 15 or so. It shows, probably not surprisingly, UVA and W&M as top feeders. UVA has much, much less representation from Ivy schools than Yale Law.
Sigh. You're just not getting it. NO law school has Yale's class make up. None. Including Chicago. That UVA is a top ten law school and has "much much less" Ivy representation only proves the point.
Don't sigh and I do get it. No law school has another's makeup. That is a given and Yale is as noted regarded as the most selective. What I was saying is if I had a broader set of data from elite law schools I would have used it. But it does not exist, so I can't. If you could aggregate data from say Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, Chicago, Penn, Michigan, UVA, Berkeley, NYU etc., it would be more meaningful. But the data isn't there.
Sigh again. No, you don't get it. Yale is way more selective than ANY of the other schools you just listed. Again, it has an 82 percent yield. 82 percent! That means more than four out of five admitted students choose it over ANY other law school, including Harvard It's not that no "law school has another's makeup" -- no law school has YALE'S make up.
Again, I will ask, are you a lawyer? Did you go to law school?
Anonymous wrote:William and Mary is probably more similar in size and feel to Washington University, Tufts, and Emory if that is what he wants. UVA is great if he wants a larger school, different experience. Perhaps schools like Duke, Columbia, Princeton, etc. would provide more opportunities, but I'm not convinced your private alternatives will. Perhaps focus on that level as reach.
This kind of vague advice is why students fall for the “prestige” factor that may or may not matter for them personally.
It made sense to me. They were just saying any difference in prestige wouldn't make much difference between the schools mentioned. It might for schools like Duke and Columbia.
I agree giving up in-state tuition at UVA means DC got into a top 10 school. UNless DC qualifies for significant financial aid. Also, Tufts isn't as good as UVA or the others, they just happen to be just as selective but academics wise the others are better.
What about 11? Seriously though, where does the arbitrary line exist?
Good question. All anyone can really tell you is their opinion. If I had to pay close to full vs. in-state for UVA or W&M and objective was perhaps law school, I'd say I'd find it hard not to send them to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, then probably Columbia, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, perhaps Williams, Amherst, and maybe Rice. If you are talking science, it would clearly open up MIT and Caltech. Most of these are extremely tough admits. So that is about 14 or so tops. Many would add Chicago. I'd draw the line before Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Tufts, Emory, Wash U, etc. This is all based on my situation and if I was fortunate enough to have a kid with those options.
It is clear that HYPS etc. do have significantly higher representation at elite law schools than UVA or W&M. I recall seeing that about 25% of Yale law students are from Harvard and Yale, and remaining Ivy League plus Stanford take it to 50% plus. But you have to consider that they probably had stellar SATs and would also get stellar LSATs.
Your numbers are wrong, especially at Harvard which is a very large law school. Ivy League representation is way less than 50 percent.
This was the article I remember seeing on Yale. I don't know about Harvard, but I would still think Ivy representation is very high compared to undergraduate population.
Yale is in a league of its own. Also, your article is a little dated.
At least I'm offering real data points. Here is a more recent view of Yale Law enrollment by undergraduate institutions from 2015. Of the schools mentioned, Tufts had 1, Washington University had 7, Emory had 4, UVA had 6, and W&M had 3.
In comparison, Yale had 69, Harvard had 65, Princeton had 37, Columbia had 30, Brown had 22, Dartmouth 19, Amherst 18, Penn 17, Stanford 16, Berkeley 16, and Williams and Duke 13.
Thanks for the link. As I said, Yale really is in a league of its own. It's long been the most prestigious and selective law school and its yield is over 80 percent. And it, like many of the top law schools, favors its own undergraduates in admissions. I would be stunned if the Ivy League undergrad percentage for Harvard was nearly as high, but I'm also certain that Harvard would be the #1 undergrdad school represented (just as UVA undergrad is at UVA Law).
Finally, the OP isn't deciding between UVA and Yale, but between UVA and a bunch of other schools that are NOT, for the most part, better represented at Yale than UVA is. So you've proven the point that for law school UVA is just as good as any of them.
I used Yale largely because it provides the data. Most schools don't. My view is similar -- there isn't that much difference between WashU/Tufts/Emory and UVA/W&M. The difference tends to be with the Ivy+. When I adjusted for size of undergraduate enrollment, it turned out that Ivy grads are about 12X as likely to end up at Yale Law as a UVA grad. There was a huge range there, with Cornell grads being significantly less likely to end up at Yale Law compared to Yale/Harvard/Princeton. When you compare WashU/Tufts/Emory to UVA, they are only about 1.6X as likely to end up at Yale Law, but that is skewed by WashU, which is the highest.
If this looks like I am taking a shot at UVA, I am not. Looking at the numbers, it appears UVA does better than all publics except Berkeley and W&M, and seems to do pretty well against privates once you get out of the Ivy+.
You're not taking a shot at UVA. I get that. But I also have a sense that you're not a lawyer either. If you were, you'd understand more that Yale really is different. You say you use them largely because they "provide the data when most schools don't." That's probably because their "data" is so extraordinary. No law school enrolls a class quite like Yale's. It's a much more selective school than even Harvard is. We can all agree that if you want to go to Yale Law, go to Harvard or Yale undergrad.
No, it was really down to availability of data. It I'd have had Chicago, etc., I would have shown it. The only other top law school that seem to consistently publish top undergraduate feeder institutions is UVA. It only publishes top 15 or so. It shows, probably not surprisingly, UVA and W&M as top feeders. UVA has much, much less representation from Ivy schools than Yale Law.
Sigh. You're just not getting it. NO law school has Yale's class make up. None. Including Chicago. That UVA is a top ten law school and has "much much less" Ivy representation only proves the point.
Don't sigh and I do get it. No law school has another's makeup. That is a given and Yale is as noted regarded as the most selective. What I was saying is if I had a broader set of data from elite law schools I would have used it. But it does not exist, so I can't. If you could aggregate data from say Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, Chicago, Penn, Michigan, UVA, Berkeley, NYU etc., it would be more meaningful. But the data isn't there.
Sigh again. No, you don't get it. Yale is way more selective than ANY of the other schools you just listed. Again, it has an 82 percent yield. 82 percent! That means more than four out of five admitted students choose it over ANY other law school, including Harvard It's not that no "law school has another's makeup" -- no law school has YALE'S make up.
Again, I will ask, are you a lawyer? Did you go to law school?
I take it from the argumentative nature of your response that you are a lawyer. One that never studied stats or logic. . .
Anonymous wrote:Emory is actually quite geographically diverse. 32% from the south; whereas Tufts is 56% from the northeast/mid atlantic.
Emory is a very diverse not just geographically. Emory and Tufts have the same test score profile yet Emory has many more URM and other hooked students who attend, while Tufts is fairly white, since URM's tend to have lower test scores, Emory is more impressive.
Anonymous wrote:William and Mary is probably more similar in size and feel to Washington University, Tufts, and Emory if that is what he wants. UVA is great if he wants a larger school, different experience. Perhaps schools like Duke, Columbia, Princeton, etc. would provide more opportunities, but I'm not convinced your private alternatives will. Perhaps focus on that level as reach.
This kind of vague advice is why students fall for the “prestige” factor that may or may not matter for them personally.
It made sense to me. They were just saying any difference in prestige wouldn't make much difference between the schools mentioned. It might for schools like Duke and Columbia.
I agree giving up in-state tuition at UVA means DC got into a top 10 school. UNless DC qualifies for significant financial aid. Also, Tufts isn't as good as UVA or the others, they just happen to be just as selective but academics wise the others are better.
What about 11? Seriously though, where does the arbitrary line exist?
Good question. All anyone can really tell you is their opinion. If I had to pay close to full vs. in-state for UVA or W&M and objective was perhaps law school, I'd say I'd find it hard not to send them to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, then probably Columbia, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, perhaps Williams, Amherst, and maybe Rice. If you are talking science, it would clearly open up MIT and Caltech. Most of these are extremely tough admits. So that is about 14 or so tops. Many would add Chicago. I'd draw the line before Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Tufts, Emory, Wash U, etc. This is all based on my situation and if I was fortunate enough to have a kid with those options.
It is clear that HYPS etc. do have significantly higher representation at elite law schools than UVA or W&M. I recall seeing that about 25% of Yale law students are from Harvard and Yale, and remaining Ivy League plus Stanford take it to 50% plus. But you have to consider that they probably had stellar SATs and would also get stellar LSATs.
Your numbers are wrong, especially at Harvard which is a very large law school. Ivy League representation is way less than 50 percent.
This was the article I remember seeing on Yale. I don't know about Harvard, but I would still think Ivy representation is very high compared to undergraduate population.
Yale is in a league of its own. Also, your article is a little dated.
At least I'm offering real data points. Here is a more recent view of Yale Law enrollment by undergraduate institutions from 2015. Of the schools mentioned, Tufts had 1, Washington University had 7, Emory had 4, UVA had 6, and W&M had 3.
In comparison, Yale had 69, Harvard had 65, Princeton had 37, Columbia had 30, Brown had 22, Dartmouth 19, Amherst 18, Penn 17, Stanford 16, Berkeley 16, and Williams and Duke 13.
Thanks for the link. As I said, Yale really is in a league of its own. It's long been the most prestigious and selective law school and its yield is over 80 percent. And it, like many of the top law schools, favors its own undergraduates in admissions. I would be stunned if the Ivy League undergrad percentage for Harvard was nearly as high, but I'm also certain that Harvard would be the #1 undergrdad school represented (just as UVA undergrad is at UVA Law).
Finally, the OP isn't deciding between UVA and Yale, but between UVA and a bunch of other schools that are NOT, for the most part, better represented at Yale than UVA is. So you've proven the point that for law school UVA is just as good as any of them.
I used Yale largely because it provides the data. Most schools don't. My view is similar -- there isn't that much difference between WashU/Tufts/Emory and UVA/W&M. The difference tends to be with the Ivy+. When I adjusted for size of undergraduate enrollment, it turned out that Ivy grads are about 12X as likely to end up at Yale Law as a UVA grad. There was a huge range there, with Cornell grads being significantly less likely to end up at Yale Law compared to Yale/Harvard/Princeton. When you compare WashU/Tufts/Emory to UVA, they are only about 1.6X as likely to end up at Yale Law, but that is skewed by WashU, which is the highest.
If this looks like I am taking a shot at UVA, I am not. Looking at the numbers, it appears UVA does better than all publics except Berkeley and W&M, and seems to do pretty well against privates once you get out of the Ivy+.
You're not taking a shot at UVA. I get that. But I also have a sense that you're not a lawyer either. If you were, you'd understand more that Yale really is different. You say you use them largely because they "provide the data when most schools don't." That's probably because their "data" is so extraordinary. No law school enrolls a class quite like Yale's. It's a much more selective school than even Harvard is. We can all agree that if you want to go to Yale Law, go to Harvard or Yale undergrad.
No, it was really down to availability of data. It I'd have had Chicago, etc., I would have shown it. The only other top law school that seem to consistently publish top undergraduate feeder institutions is UVA. It only publishes top 15 or so. It shows, probably not surprisingly, UVA and W&M as top feeders. UVA has much, much less representation from Ivy schools than Yale Law.
Sigh. You're just not getting it. NO law school has Yale's class make up. None. Including Chicago. That UVA is a top ten law school and has "much much less" Ivy representation only proves the point.
Don't sigh and I do get it. No law school has another's makeup. That is a given and Yale is as noted regarded as the most selective. What I was saying is if I had a broader set of data from elite law schools I would have used it. But it does not exist, so I can't. If you could aggregate data from say Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, Chicago, Penn, Michigan, UVA, Berkeley, NYU etc., it would be more meaningful. But the data isn't there.
Sigh again. No, you don't get it. Yale is way more selective than ANY of the other schools you just listed. Again, it has an 82 percent yield. 82 percent! That means more than four out of five admitted students choose it over ANY other law school, including Harvard It's not that no "law school has another's makeup" -- no law school has YALE'S make up.
Again, I will ask, are you a lawyer? Did you go to law school?
Harvard college has historically been the biggest feeder to HLS and tied with Yale and Columbia for YLS and CLS respectively. It’s sad that you think Yale is unique because it has a huge number of ivy undergrad grads. I guess you did not attend an ivy law school because the ivy undergrads always dominate the ivy grad for professional programs that pay $$$. You must be a UVA or Berkeley grads. Your argument is nonsensical.
Anonymous wrote:William and Mary is probably more similar in size and feel to Washington University, Tufts, and Emory if that is what he wants. UVA is great if he wants a larger school, different experience. Perhaps schools like Duke, Columbia, Princeton, etc. would provide more opportunities, but I'm not convinced your private alternatives will. Perhaps focus on that level as reach.
This kind of vague advice is why students fall for the “prestige” factor that may or may not matter for them personally.
It made sense to me. They were just saying any difference in prestige wouldn't make much difference between the schools mentioned. It might for schools like Duke and Columbia.
I agree giving up in-state tuition at UVA means DC got into a top 10 school. UNless DC qualifies for significant financial aid. Also, Tufts isn't as good as UVA or the others, they just happen to be just as selective but academics wise the others are better.
What about 11? Seriously though, where does the arbitrary line exist?
Good question. All anyone can really tell you is their opinion. If I had to pay close to full vs. in-state for UVA or W&M and objective was perhaps law school, I'd say I'd find it hard not to send them to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, then probably Columbia, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, perhaps Williams, Amherst, and maybe Rice. If you are talking science, it would clearly open up MIT and Caltech. Most of these are extremely tough admits. So that is about 14 or so tops. Many would add Chicago. I'd draw the line before Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Tufts, Emory, Wash U, etc. This is all based on my situation and if I was fortunate enough to have a kid with those options.
It is clear that HYPS etc. do have significantly higher representation at elite law schools than UVA or W&M. I recall seeing that about 25% of Yale law students are from Harvard and Yale, and remaining Ivy League plus Stanford take it to 50% plus. But you have to consider that they probably had stellar SATs and would also get stellar LSATs.
Your numbers are wrong, especially at Harvard which is a very large law school. Ivy League representation is way less than 50 percent.
This was the article I remember seeing on Yale. I don't know about Harvard, but I would still think Ivy representation is very high compared to undergraduate population.
Yale is in a league of its own. Also, your article is a little dated.
At least I'm offering real data points. Here is a more recent view of Yale Law enrollment by undergraduate institutions from 2015. Of the schools mentioned, Tufts had 1, Washington University had 7, Emory had 4, UVA had 6, and W&M had 3.
In comparison, Yale had 69, Harvard had 65, Princeton had 37, Columbia had 30, Brown had 22, Dartmouth 19, Amherst 18, Penn 17, Stanford 16, Berkeley 16, and Williams and Duke 13.
Thanks for the link. As I said, Yale really is in a league of its own. It's long been the most prestigious and selective law school and its yield is over 80 percent. And it, like many of the top law schools, favors its own undergraduates in admissions. I would be stunned if the Ivy League undergrad percentage for Harvard was nearly as high, but I'm also certain that Harvard would be the #1 undergrdad school represented (just as UVA undergrad is at UVA Law).
Finally, the OP isn't deciding between UVA and Yale, but between UVA and a bunch of other schools that are NOT, for the most part, better represented at Yale than UVA is. So you've proven the point that for law school UVA is just as good as any of them.
I used Yale largely because it provides the data. Most schools don't. My view is similar -- there isn't that much difference between WashU/Tufts/Emory and UVA/W&M. The difference tends to be with the Ivy+. When I adjusted for size of undergraduate enrollment, it turned out that Ivy grads are about 12X as likely to end up at Yale Law as a UVA grad. There was a huge range there, with Cornell grads being significantly less likely to end up at Yale Law compared to Yale/Harvard/Princeton. When you compare WashU/Tufts/Emory to UVA, they are only about 1.6X as likely to end up at Yale Law, but that is skewed by WashU, which is the highest.
If this looks like I am taking a shot at UVA, I am not. Looking at the numbers, it appears UVA does better than all publics except Berkeley and W&M, and seems to do pretty well against privates once you get out of the Ivy+.
You're not taking a shot at UVA. I get that. But I also have a sense that you're not a lawyer either. If you were, you'd understand more that Yale really is different. You say you use them largely because they "provide the data when most schools don't." That's probably because their "data" is so extraordinary. No law school enrolls a class quite like Yale's. It's a much more selective school than even Harvard is. We can all agree that if you want to go to Yale Law, go to Harvard or Yale undergrad.
No, it was really down to availability of data. It I'd have had Chicago, etc., I would have shown it. The only other top law school that seem to consistently publish top undergraduate feeder institutions is UVA. It only publishes top 15 or so. It shows, probably not surprisingly, UVA and W&M as top feeders. UVA has much, much less representation from Ivy schools than Yale Law.
Sigh. You're just not getting it. NO law school has Yale's class make up. None. Including Chicago. That UVA is a top ten law school and has "much much less" Ivy representation only proves the point.
Don't sigh and I do get it. No law school has another's makeup. That is a given and Yale is as noted regarded as the most selective. What I was saying is if I had a broader set of data from elite law schools I would have used it. But it does not exist, so I can't. If you could aggregate data from say Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, Chicago, Penn, Michigan, UVA, Berkeley, NYU etc., it would be more meaningful. But the data isn't there.
Sigh again. No, you don't get it. Yale is way more selective than ANY of the other schools you just listed. Again, it has an 82 percent yield. 82 percent! That means more than four out of five admitted students choose it over ANY other law school, including Harvard It's not that no "law school has another's makeup" -- no law school has YALE'S make up.
Again, I will ask, are you a lawyer? Did you go to law school?
Harvard college has historically been the biggest feeder to HLS and tied with Yale and Columbia for YLS and CLS respectively. It’s sad that you think Yale is unique because it has a huge number of ivy undergrad grads. I guess you did not attend an ivy law school because the ivy undergrads always dominate the ivy grad for professional programs that pay $$$. You must be a UVA or Berkeley grads. Your argument is nonsensical.
Anonymous wrote:William and Mary is probably more similar in size and feel to Washington University, Tufts, and Emory if that is what he wants. UVA is great if he wants a larger school, different experience. Perhaps schools like Duke, Columbia, Princeton, etc. would provide more opportunities, but I'm not convinced your private alternatives will. Perhaps focus on that level as reach.
This kind of vague advice is why students fall for the “prestige” factor that may or may not matter for them personally.
It made sense to me. They were just saying any difference in prestige wouldn't make much difference between the schools mentioned. It might for schools like Duke and Columbia.
I agree giving up in-state tuition at UVA means DC got into a top 10 school. UNless DC qualifies for significant financial aid. Also, Tufts isn't as good as UVA or the others, they just happen to be just as selective but academics wise the others are better.
What about 11? Seriously though, where does the arbitrary line exist?
Good question. All anyone can really tell you is their opinion. If I had to pay close to full vs. in-state for UVA or W&M and objective was perhaps law school, I'd say I'd find it hard not to send them to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, then probably Columbia, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, perhaps Williams, Amherst, and maybe Rice. If you are talking science, it would clearly open up MIT and Caltech. Most of these are extremely tough admits. So that is about 14 or so tops. Many would add Chicago. I'd draw the line before Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Tufts, Emory, Wash U, etc. This is all based on my situation and if I was fortunate enough to have a kid with those options.
It is clear that HYPS etc. do have significantly higher representation at elite law schools than UVA or W&M. I recall seeing that about 25% of Yale law students are from Harvard and Yale, and remaining Ivy League plus Stanford take it to 50% plus. But you have to consider that they probably had stellar SATs and would also get stellar LSATs.
Your numbers are wrong, especially at Harvard which is a very large law school. Ivy League representation is way less than 50 percent.
This was the article I remember seeing on Yale. I don't know about Harvard, but I would still think Ivy representation is very high compared to undergraduate population.
Yale is in a league of its own. Also, your article is a little dated.
At least I'm offering real data points. Here is a more recent view of Yale Law enrollment by undergraduate institutions from 2015. Of the schools mentioned, Tufts had 1, Washington University had 7, Emory had 4, UVA had 6, and W&M had 3.
In comparison, Yale had 69, Harvard had 65, Princeton had 37, Columbia had 30, Brown had 22, Dartmouth 19, Amherst 18, Penn 17, Stanford 16, Berkeley 16, and Williams and Duke 13.
Thanks for the link. As I said, Yale really is in a league of its own. It's long been the most prestigious and selective law school and its yield is over 80 percent. And it, like many of the top law schools, favors its own undergraduates in admissions. I would be stunned if the Ivy League undergrad percentage for Harvard was nearly as high, but I'm also certain that Harvard would be the #1 undergrdad school represented (just as UVA undergrad is at UVA Law).
Finally, the OP isn't deciding between UVA and Yale, but between UVA and a bunch of other schools that are NOT, for the most part, better represented at Yale than UVA is. So you've proven the point that for law school UVA is just as good as any of them.
I used Yale largely because it provides the data. Most schools don't. My view is similar -- there isn't that much difference between WashU/Tufts/Emory and UVA/W&M. The difference tends to be with the Ivy+. When I adjusted for size of undergraduate enrollment, it turned out that Ivy grads are about 12X as likely to end up at Yale Law as a UVA grad. There was a huge range there, with Cornell grads being significantly less likely to end up at Yale Law compared to Yale/Harvard/Princeton. When you compare WashU/Tufts/Emory to UVA, they are only about 1.6X as likely to end up at Yale Law, but that is skewed by WashU, which is the highest.
If this looks like I am taking a shot at UVA, I am not. Looking at the numbers, it appears UVA does better than all publics except Berkeley and W&M, and seems to do pretty well against privates once you get out of the Ivy+.
You're not taking a shot at UVA. I get that. But I also have a sense that you're not a lawyer either. If you were, you'd understand more that Yale really is different. You say you use them largely because they "provide the data when most schools don't." That's probably because their "data" is so extraordinary. No law school enrolls a class quite like Yale's. It's a much more selective school than even Harvard is. We can all agree that if you want to go to Yale Law, go to Harvard or Yale undergrad.
No, it was really down to availability of data. It I'd have had Chicago, etc., I would have shown it. The only other top law school that seem to consistently publish top undergraduate feeder institutions is UVA. It only publishes top 15 or so. It shows, probably not surprisingly, UVA and W&M as top feeders. UVA has much, much less representation from Ivy schools than Yale Law.
Sigh. You're just not getting it. NO law school has Yale's class make up. None. Including Chicago. That UVA is a top ten law school and has "much much less" Ivy representation only proves the point.
Don't sigh and I do get it. No law school has another's makeup. That is a given and Yale is as noted regarded as the most selective. What I was saying is if I had a broader set of data from elite law schools I would have used it. But it does not exist, so I can't. If you could aggregate data from say Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, Chicago, Penn, Michigan, UVA, Berkeley, NYU etc., it would be more meaningful. But the data isn't there.
Sigh again. No, you don't get it. Yale is way more selective than ANY of the other schools you just listed. Again, it has an 82 percent yield. 82 percent! That means more than four out of five admitted students choose it over ANY other law school, including Harvard It's not that no "law school has another's makeup" -- no law school has YALE'S make up.
Again, I will ask, are you a lawyer? Did you go to law school?
Are you saying Yale is an anomaly and other elite graduate schools don't have a significant percentage from the Ivy League?
Anonymous wrote:William and Mary is probably more similar in size and feel to Washington University, Tufts, and Emory if that is what he wants. UVA is great if he wants a larger school, different experience. Perhaps schools like Duke, Columbia, Princeton, etc. would provide more opportunities, but I'm not convinced your private alternatives will. Perhaps focus on that level as reach.
This kind of vague advice is why students fall for the “prestige” factor that may or may not matter for them personally.
It made sense to me. They were just saying any difference in prestige wouldn't make much difference between the schools mentioned. It might for schools like Duke and Columbia.
I agree giving up in-state tuition at UVA means DC got into a top 10 school. UNless DC qualifies for significant financial aid. Also, Tufts isn't as good as UVA or the others, they just happen to be just as selective but academics wise the others are better.
What about 11? Seriously though, where does the arbitrary line exist?
Good question. All anyone can really tell you is their opinion. If I had to pay close to full vs. in-state for UVA or W&M and objective was perhaps law school, I'd say I'd find it hard not to send them to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, then probably Columbia, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Penn, perhaps Williams, Amherst, and maybe Rice. If you are talking science, it would clearly open up MIT and Caltech. Most of these are extremely tough admits. So that is about 14 or so tops. Many would add Chicago. I'd draw the line before Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Tufts, Emory, Wash U, etc. This is all based on my situation and if I was fortunate enough to have a kid with those options.
It is clear that HYPS etc. do have significantly higher representation at elite law schools than UVA or W&M. I recall seeing that about 25% of Yale law students are from Harvard and Yale, and remaining Ivy League plus Stanford take it to 50% plus. But you have to consider that they probably had stellar SATs and would also get stellar LSATs.
Your numbers are wrong, especially at Harvard which is a very large law school. Ivy League representation is way less than 50 percent.
This was the article I remember seeing on Yale. I don't know about Harvard, but I would still think Ivy representation is very high compared to undergraduate population.
Yale is in a league of its own. Also, your article is a little dated.
At least I'm offering real data points. Here is a more recent view of Yale Law enrollment by undergraduate institutions from 2015. Of the schools mentioned, Tufts had 1, Washington University had 7, Emory had 4, UVA had 6, and W&M had 3.
In comparison, Yale had 69, Harvard had 65, Princeton had 37, Columbia had 30, Brown had 22, Dartmouth 19, Amherst 18, Penn 17, Stanford 16, Berkeley 16, and Williams and Duke 13.
So Yale Law is just one data point, but it is a benchmark for prestige in law and here is how this breaks down. Ivy League graduates comprise 41% of Yale Law enrollment. 4.5 Ivy graduates per 1,000 in undergraduate enrollment end up at Yale Law. If you compare this to UVA graduates, an Ivy graduate (adjusting for undergraduate enrollment) is over 12X as likely to end up at Yale Law. An Ivy graduate is 7.4X more likely than a WashU/Tufts/Emory graduate to end up at Yale Law. There is a lot of variation. A Yale grad is 34X more likely to end up at Yale Law than a UVA grad. A Cornell grad is only 1.6X as likely to end up at Yale Law. But the next lowest Ivy, Penn, is 5X as likely as a UVA grad. Of the three private schools mentioned by the OP, WashU is the clear leader. Its graduates are 2.5X as likely to end up at Yale Law as a UVA graduate. Emory does a bit better and Tufts is worse.
As someone mentioned, Yale Law is a special case, so take this with a grain of salt, but it is actual data and it probably does say something about elite law admissions.
Your calculation is wrong. You need the # of applicants to YLS per school to make that determination. You appeared to be using a wrong assumption based on the total undergraduate population.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}