Colleges & Universities That Are The Top Feeder Schools to the Top 14 Law Schools

[Anonymous]

To the former law review editor at a top 10 law school whose editor-in-chief was a graduate of Penn State University: Was the editor-in-chief a member of the Schreyer Honors College at Penn State ?

The list in the initial post in this thread does not differentiate between honors college students and non-honors college students at large public universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I was a college student who wanted to go to law school, I'd probably spend 4 years prepping for the LSAT and taking the easiest STEM degree possible while trying to minimize undergrad cost as much as possible. Don't study Poli Sci or Econ or Psych.

In fact, if you went to somewhere like U-MT Missoula, it would probably be a boon to T14 application. Geographic diversity is a thing, but you need to graduate near the top and have a ridiculous LSAT (173+). If you've been drilling the LSAT for 4 years, you should have a high score.

This is excellent advice. I graduated from a top 3 law school and went to a very run of the mill state school for undergrad. If you have a decent GPA, a 98-99% LSAT score will give you many options. A top GPA and top LSAT score will get you in anywhere. Just make sure you can keep up with the workload once you get there if you took the easiest STEM degree at a mediocre college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t really matter where you to go to college for the top law schools, grades and lsat scores are all they care about. The top law schools accept students for a wide range of schools.

It also isn't surprising that undergraduate institutions that select for high standardized test scores would have more students who do well on standardized tests.

It will be interesting to see if that changes over time now that the top undergraduate schools have a significant % of the student body that were admitted test optional.

Bowdoin has been test optional for a long time and its median SAT scores are lower than comparable SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t really matter where you to go to college for the top law schools, grades and lsat scores are all they care about. The top law schools accept students for a wide range of schools.

It also isn't surprising that undergraduate institutions that select for high standardized test scores would have more students who do well on standardized tests.

It will be interesting to see if that changes over time now that the top undergraduate schools have a significant % of the student body that were admitted test optional.

Bowdoin has been test optional for a long time and its median SAT scores are lower than comparable SLACs.

Bowdoin selects academically superior students on the basis of more than just a standardized test score. And the standardized test scores reported by Bowdoin College are still quite high compared to national averages and national medians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t really matter where you to go to college for the top law schools, grades and lsat scores are all they care about. The top law schools accept students for a wide range of schools.

Correct

If that is the case why are the number of students in the T14 from Ivy League and similar undergraduate schools (inclusive of certain SLACs). Riddle me this? I went to a top 60 undergrad and top 50 law school and made it to big firms but eventually left.

As a PP explained, there's a confounding extrinsic variable: students who get into the top undergraduate schools tend to have high GPAs and standardized test scores. These same students are likely to have high undergraduate GPAs and standardized test scores. In other words, the students who are most likely to get into the top law schools are the same students who are most likely to get into the top undergraduate programs.

This poster is exactly right. Put simply, kids who go to top undergraduate schools tend to be very smart and those of them who apply to law schools tend to be very smart. But not all of them get in to T-14 schools. The undergraduate school with the highest average LSAT scores last year was Yale with 167.5. Many top tier undergraduate schools had averages of 165 or below. While a 168 is in the 96th percentile of an already very selective cohort, it is probably not going to get you into a T-14 law school unless you are URM. In the end, where an applicant went to undergraduate school is far less important than grades and LSAT scores. Finally, as others have said, graduating from a T-14 school is not necessary for success in the field of law by any means, nor does it guarantee success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t really matter where you to go to college for the top law schools, grades and lsat scores are all they care about. The top law schools accept students for a wide range of schools.

Correct

If that is the case why are the number of students in the T14 from Ivy League and similar undergraduate schools (inclusive of certain SLACs). Riddle me this? I went to a top 60 undergrad and top 50 law school and made it to big firms but eventually left.

As a PP explained, there's a confounding extrinsic variable: students who get into the top undergraduate schools tend to have high GPAs and standardized test scores. These same students are likely to have high undergraduate GPAs and standardized test scores. In other words, the students who are most likely to get into the top law schools are the same students who are most likely to get into the top undergraduate programs.

This poster is exactly right. Put simply, kids who go to top undergraduate schools tend to be very smart and those of them who apply to law schools tend to be very smart. But not all of them get in to T-14 schools. The undergraduate school with the highest average LSAT scores last year was Yale with 167.5. Many top tier undergraduate schools had averages of 165 or below. While a 168 is in the 96th percentile of an already very selective cohort, it is probably not going to get you into a T-14 law school unless you are URM. In the end, where an applicant went to undergraduate school is far less important than grades and LSAT scores. Finally, as others have said, graduating from a T-14 school is not necessary for success in the field of law by any means, nor does it guarantee success.

An LSAT score of 168 combined with a high undergraduate GPA should yield an offer or tow (Georgetown & Cornell) from top 14 law schools even for a non-URM.

An URM with an LSAT score of 164 and a high undergraduate GPA, should yield offers of admission to about 7 of the top 14 law schools as median is not the standard, the 25% is the standard.

A degree from a top 14 law school greatly enhances one's chances for high earnings early in one's legal career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I was a college student who wanted to go to law school, I'd probably spend 4 years prepping for the LSAT and taking the easiest STEM degree possible while trying to minimize undergrad cost as much as possible. Don't study Poli Sci or Econ or Psych.

In fact, if you went to somewhere like U-MT Missoula, it would probably be a boon to T14 application. Geographic diversity is a thing, but you need to graduate near the top and have a ridiculous LSAT (173+). If you've been drilling the LSAT for 4 years, you should have a high score.

This is excellent advice. I graduated from a top 3 law school and went to a very run of the mill state school for undergrad. If you have a decent GPA, a 98-99% LSAT score will give you many options. A top GPA and top LSAT score will get you in anywhere. Just make sure you can keep up with the workload once you get there if you took the easiest STEM degree at a mediocre college.

+1.

The problem with the ridiculous "feeder" idea propagated by the original poster in this thread is that it can mislead students and families into choosing an undergrad for the wrong reasons. OP's misleading "feeder" list is annoying, bordering on repugnant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t really matter where you to go to college for the top law schools, grades and lsat scores are all they care about. The top law schools accept students for a wide range of schools.

Correct

If that is the case why are the number of students in the T14 from Ivy League and similar undergraduate schools (inclusive of certain SLACs). Riddle me this? I went to a top 60 undergrad and top 50 law school and made it to big firms but eventually left.

As a PP explained, there's a confounding extrinsic variable: students who get into the top undergraduate schools tend to have high GPAs and standardized test scores. These same students are likely to have high undergraduate GPAs and standardized test scores. In other words, the students who are most likely to get into the top law schools are the same students who are most likely to get into the top undergraduate programs.

This poster is exactly right. Put simply, kids who go to top undergraduate schools tend to be very smart and those of them who apply to law schools tend to be very smart. But not all of them get in to T-14 schools. The undergraduate school with the highest average LSAT scores last year was Yale with 167.5. Many top tier undergraduate schools had averages of 165 or below. While a 168 is in the 96th percentile of an already very selective cohort, it is probably not going to get you into a T-14 law school unless you are URM. In the end, where an applicant went to undergraduate school is far less important than grades and LSAT scores. Finally, as others have said, graduating from a T-14 school is not necessary for success in the field of law by any means, nor does it guarantee success.

An undergrad's average LSAT is irrelevant, not predictive or in any way connected with how a particular student will score on the LSAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I was a college student who wanted to go to law school, I'd probably spend 4 years prepping for the LSAT and taking the easiest STEM degree possible while trying to minimize undergrad cost as much as possible. Don't study Poli Sci or Econ or Psych.

In fact, if you went to somewhere like U-MT Missoula, it would probably be a boon to T14 application. Geographic diversity is a thing, but you need to graduate near the top and have a ridiculous LSAT (173+). If you've been drilling the LSAT for 4 years, you should have a high score.

This is excellent advice. I graduated from a top 3 law school and went to a very run of the mill state school for undergrad. If you have a decent GPA, a 98-99% LSAT score will give you many options. A top GPA and top LSAT score will get you in anywhere. Just make sure you can keep up with the workload once you get there if you took the easiest STEM degree at a mediocre college.

I agree this might optimize chances. The problem with this is that you might come to realize that you don't want law school and you're left with a major you're not interested from a run of the mill college. Or your reading/writing/analytic skills won't be as developed as your peers at law schools who had a lot more reading material in more traditional subjects in competitive classes--skills on just the LSAT are not the same as skills for being a lawyer.
Similar advice has long-been given to med school applicants--don't major in biology, major in a less common major at a less common school that you can get straight As in and spend all your energy on the pre-med reqs, hospital service and studying for the MCAT. It can work.

[Anonymous]

If you attend a non-elite small school, do well, and have a great LSAT score, that might give you your best chance. Top law schools are recruiting at more colleges now and like to discuss how many schools their 1L classes attended. You can be the only one!

It is easier said than done to do great over close to 4 years and nail the LSAT or GRE (since most now take it too). If you don't, your options are constrained so I wouldn't choose a tiny and non-prestigious school just because it provides a great shot at T14 admission in a best case scenario. Having a 2nd great school on your resume also helps with networking and early career job placement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t really matter where you to go to college for the top law schools, grades and lsat scores are all they care about. The top law schools accept students for a wide range of schools.

Correct

If that is the case why are the number of students in the T14 from Ivy League and similar undergraduate schools (inclusive of certain SLACs). Riddle me this? I went to a top 60 undergrad and top 50 law school and made it to big firms but eventually left.

As a PP explained, there's a confounding extrinsic variable: students who get into the top undergraduate schools tend to have high GPAs and standardized test scores. These same students are likely to have high undergraduate GPAs and standardized test scores. In other words, the students who are most likely to get into the top law schools are the same students who are most likely to get into the top undergraduate programs.

This poster is exactly right. Put simply, kids who go to top undergraduate schools tend to be very smart and those of them who apply to law schools tend to be very smart. But not all of them get in to T-14 schools. The undergraduate school with the highest average LSAT scores last year was Yale with 167.5. Many top tier undergraduate schools had averages of 165 or below. While a 168 is in the 96th percentile of an already very selective cohort, it is probably not going to get you into a T-14 law school unless you are URM. In the end, where an applicant went to undergraduate school is far less important than grades and LSAT scores. Finally, as others have said, graduating from a T-14 school is not necessary for success in the field of law by any means, nor does it guarantee success.

An undergrad's average LSAT is irrelevant, not predictive or in any way connected with how a particular student will score on the LSAT.

It is not intended to be predictive of an individual score. It reflects what happened in the past. It merely reflects that many past applicants from even the most prestigious undergraduate schools probably did not have high enough LSATs to get into a T-14, if they applied. Those that scored higher of course had a better chance of doing so, although I know a fairly recent applicant from a prestigious school with a 173 and excellent grades who was turned down by Harvard, Yale and Stanford LS.

[Anonymous]

Interesting thread.

I think there's a distinction between a student who knows they want to go to law school to a high degree of certainty and one who thinks it might be an option but wants to perhaps look around a bit.

If the former, sure, go to a big school and save the money where you can and start studying right away for the LSAT. Even better if it's in a geography where you'll get a lift.

If the latter, it's useful to know that there are a number of SLACs where a student can go and predictably be appealing to a good law school IF that's the path they choose.

[Anonymous]

There is no such thing as a “feeder” undergrad for T14 law schools. The list is backwards in implied causation. The listed colleges send a lot to the top law schools because a lot of undergrads who want to go to top law school go to those colleges. Not a lot of pre-law folks are going to Rose Hulman or RPI. But if an RPI student wanted to go to T14 and achieved the GPA and LSAT to do it, they would be at absolutely no disadvantage compared to a T20 undergrad with similar credentials. If anything, it might actually help. I’m a lawyer and one of my mentors from when I was a youngster is dean of admissions at a law school, and this is what I’ve been told. We stay in touch because they want me to hire their grads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no such thing as a “feeder” undergrad for T14 law schools. The list is backwards in implied causation. The listed colleges send a lot to the top law schools because a lot of undergrads who want to go to top law school go to those colleges. Not a lot of pre-law folks are going to Rose Hulman or RPI. But if an RPI student wanted to go to T14 and achieved the GPA and LSAT to do it, they would be at absolutely no disadvantage compared to a T20 undergrad with similar credentials. If anything, it might actually help. I’m a lawyer and one of my mentors from when I was a youngster is dean of admissions at a law school, and this is what I’ve been told. We stay in touch because they want me to hire their grads.

The LSAC (law school admissions council) created and published "LSAC Top 240 feeder Schools for ABA Applicants". LSAC administers the LSAT (law school admissions test).

Whether or not feeder schools exist for Top 14 law schools dpends upon one's definition of "feeder school". Clearly, the LSAC thinks that there are, but the list is extensive (240 schools).

[Anonymous]

Then why aren't more mediocre college graduates making it to these law schools?