Would you take Tufts, Emory, Wash U over UVA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2011/04/18/up-close-tracing-the-elite-law-cycle/

I have never seen Harvard put numbers on it. Just a list of institutions represented: https://hls.harvard.edu/dept/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/undergraduate-colleges/

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.

Forgot to add the link: http://bulletin.printer.yale.edu/pdffiles/law.pdf

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.

No. A graduate of WashU is 2.5X as likely to end up at WashU as a UVA graduate based on the data available in the Yale Law bulletin. 7 Yale Law students from an undergraduate population of 7,540 for Wash U vs 6 Yale Law students from an undergraduate population of 16,331 for UVA.

You are getting at percentage of applicants admitted by school, which is a valid, but different point. There is no public data on the number of applicants by school, so that is unknowable.

I actually don't see the difference between Wash U and UVA as that significant. When you get Princeton, for instance, a Princeton graduate is 19X as likely to end up at Yale Law, and I definitely think that is significant given the desirability of Yale Law.

As I said earlier, the average WashU graduate taking the LSAT scored several points higher than the average UVA graduate. That likely has nothing to do with the quality of education and everything to do with the standardized test taking ability of the average LSAT taker from those schools. So a kid choosing between UVA an WashU would probably score the same on the LSAT regardless of where they decided to go. My opinion is that their choice between WashU and UVA would not make a significant difference in their admission odds at Yale Law. Going to Princeton (if they could get admitted) would make a difference.

You can't use the total undergraduate population to calculate admission rate. You must use the # of admitted divided by the # of applicants from that school.

Say, Washington U has 1000 students. 500 applied for YLS and 10 got in. That would be 2% admission rate. UVA has 2500 students. 100 applied for YLS and 10 got in. That would be a 10% admission rate. By your calculation, Washington U graduates would be 2.5 x likely to get in.

+1 PP makes a great case for basic statistics being a required class for everyone. Holy shit, I can't with the stupidity.

It has nothing to do with statistics. It was a matter of switching what is being measured. One was talking about admission rate and the other was simply talking about the percentage of graduates that "end up" at Yale. If someone has actual admission rates it would be great, but I don't think they are available.

The percentage of graduates that "end up" at Yale Law School doesn't tell you one school's graduate is 2.5 x likely to get in Yale. Again you have to know the percentage of graduates that apply to Yale Law School to make that determination.

It tells you a Washington U graduate is 2.5X as likely to end up at Yale Law school, as stated. If someone told you there were 50X more graduates from one school than another school at Goldman Sachs, would you not think that data point is significant given Goldman Sachs is one of the most desirable destinations in finance? Yale Law is one of the most desirable destinations for law school, is it not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2011/04/18/up-close-tracing-the-elite-law-cycle/

I have never seen Harvard put numbers on it. Just a list of institutions represented: https://hls.harvard.edu/dept/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/undergraduate-colleges/

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.

Forgot to add the link: http://bulletin.printer.yale.edu/pdffiles/law.pdf

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.

No. A graduate of WashU is 2.5X as likely to end up at WashU as a UVA graduate based on the data available in the Yale Law bulletin. 7 Yale Law students from an undergraduate population of 7,540 for Wash U vs 6 Yale Law students from an undergraduate population of 16,331 for UVA.

You are getting at percentage of applicants admitted by school, which is a valid, but different point. There is no public data on the number of applicants by school, so that is unknowable.

I actually don't see the difference between Wash U and UVA as that significant. When you get Princeton, for instance, a Princeton graduate is 19X as likely to end up at Yale Law, and I definitely think that is significant given the desirability of Yale Law.

As I said earlier, the average WashU graduate taking the LSAT scored several points higher than the average UVA graduate. That likely has nothing to do with the quality of education and everything to do with the standardized test taking ability of the average LSAT taker from those schools. So a kid choosing between UVA an WashU would probably score the same on the LSAT regardless of where they decided to go. My opinion is that their choice between WashU and UVA would not make a significant difference in their admission odds at Yale Law. Going to Princeton (if they could get admitted) would make a difference.

You can't use the total undergraduate population to calculate admission rate. You must use the # of admitted divided by the # of applicants from that school.

Say, Washington U has 1000 students. 500 applied for YLS and 10 got in. That would be 2% admission rate. UVA has 2500 students. 100 applied for YLS and 10 got in. That would be a 10% admission rate. By your calculation, Washington U graduates would be 2.5 x likely to get in.

+1 PP makes a great case for basic statistics being a required class for everyone. Holy shit, I can't with the stupidity.

It has nothing to do with statistics. It was a matter of switching what is being measured. One was talking about admission rate and the other was simply talking about the percentage of graduates that "end up" at Yale. If someone has actual admission rates it would be great, but I don't think they are available.

The percentage of graduates that "end up" at Yale Law School doesn't tell you one school's graduate is 2.5 x likely to get in Yale. Again you have to know the percentage of graduates that apply to Yale Law School to make that determination.

It tells you a Washington U graduate is 2.5X as likely to end up at Yale Law school, as stated. If someone told you there were 50X more graduates from one school than another school at Goldman Sachs, would you not think that data point is significant given Goldman Sachs is one of the most desirable destinations in finance? Yale Law is one of the most desirable destinations for law school, is it not?

Ideally, we'd like to know the acceptance rate by school when the applicants have exactly the same LSAT and GPA. That way we could better control variables and isolate the impact of school reputation, if any. My guess is only Yale Law has that data in this case and they aren't sharing it. So we are left with other data points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2011/04/18/up-close-tracing-the-elite-law-cycle/

I have never seen Harvard put numbers on it. Just a list of institutions represented: https://hls.harvard.edu/dept/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/undergraduate-colleges/

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.

Forgot to add the link: http://bulletin.printer.yale.edu/pdffiles/law.pdf

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.

No. A graduate of WashU is 2.5X as likely to end up at WashU as a UVA graduate based on the data available in the Yale Law bulletin. 7 Yale Law students from an undergraduate population of 7,540 for Wash U vs 6 Yale Law students from an undergraduate population of 16,331 for UVA.

You are getting at percentage of applicants admitted by school, which is a valid, but different point. There is no public data on the number of applicants by school, so that is unknowable.

I actually don't see the difference between Wash U and UVA as that significant. When you get Princeton, for instance, a Princeton graduate is 19X as likely to end up at Yale Law, and I definitely think that is significant given the desirability of Yale Law.

As I said earlier, the average WashU graduate taking the LSAT scored several points higher than the average UVA graduate. That likely has nothing to do with the quality of education and everything to do with the standardized test taking ability of the average LSAT taker from those schools. So a kid choosing between UVA an WashU would probably score the same on the LSAT regardless of where they decided to go. My opinion is that their choice between WashU and UVA would not make a significant difference in their admission odds at Yale Law. Going to Princeton (if they could get admitted) would make a difference.

You can't use the total undergraduate population to calculate admission rate. You must use the # of admitted divided by the # of applicants from that school.

Say, Washington U has 1000 students. 500 applied for YLS and 10 got in. That would be 2% admission rate. UVA has 2500 students. 100 applied for YLS and 10 got in. That would be a 10% admission rate. By your calculation, Washington U graduates would be 2.5 x likely to get in.

+1 PP makes a great case for basic statistics being a required class for everyone. Holy shit, I can't with the stupidity.

It has nothing to do with statistics. It was a matter of switching what is being measured. One was talking about admission rate and the other was simply talking about the percentage of graduates that "end up" at Yale. If someone has actual admission rates it would be great, but I don't think they are available.

The percentage of graduates that "end up" at Yale Law School doesn't tell you one school's graduate is 2.5 x likely to get in Yale. Again you have to know the percentage of graduates that apply to Yale Law School to make that determination.

It tells you a Washington U graduate is 2.5X as likely to end up at Yale Law school, as stated. If someone told you there were 50X more graduates from one school than another school at Goldman Sachs, would you not think that data point is significant given Goldman Sachs is one of the most desirable destinations in finance? Yale Law is one of the most desirable destinations for law school, is it not?

No, it doesn't. Washington U graduates who don't apply to YLS have the identical likelihood (probability) of ending up at Yale as the UVA graduates who don't apply to Yale -- zero.

Washington U sent 7 and UVA sent 6. So, there were 1.16X more graduates from one school. I am not objecting this data point. I am objecting to your "2.5X likely to get in or end up" assertion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2011/04/18/up-close-tracing-the-elite-law-cycle/

I have never seen Harvard put numbers on it. Just a list of institutions represented: https://hls.harvard.edu/dept/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/undergraduate-colleges/

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.

Forgot to add the link: http://bulletin.printer.yale.edu/pdffiles/law.pdf

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.

No. A graduate of WashU is 2.5X as likely to end up at WashU as a UVA graduate based on the data available in the Yale Law bulletin. 7 Yale Law students from an undergraduate population of 7,540 for Wash U vs 6 Yale Law students from an undergraduate population of 16,331 for UVA.

You are getting at percentage of applicants admitted by school, which is a valid, but different point. There is no public data on the number of applicants by school, so that is unknowable.

I actually don't see the difference between Wash U and UVA as that significant. When you get Princeton, for instance, a Princeton graduate is 19X as likely to end up at Yale Law, and I definitely think that is significant given the desirability of Yale Law.

As I said earlier, the average WashU graduate taking the LSAT scored several points higher than the average UVA graduate. That likely has nothing to do with the quality of education and everything to do with the standardized test taking ability of the average LSAT taker from those schools. So a kid choosing between UVA an WashU would probably score the same on the LSAT regardless of where they decided to go. My opinion is that their choice between WashU and UVA would not make a significant difference in their admission odds at Yale Law. Going to Princeton (if they could get admitted) would make a difference.

You can't use the total undergraduate population to calculate admission rate. You must use the # of admitted divided by the # of applicants from that school.

Say, Washington U has 1000 students. 500 applied for YLS and 10 got in. That would be 2% admission rate. UVA has 2500 students. 100 applied for YLS and 10 got in. That would be a 10% admission rate. By your calculation, Washington U graduates would be 2.5 x likely to get in.

+1 PP makes a great case for basic statistics being a required class for everyone. Holy shit, I can't with the stupidity.

It has nothing to do with statistics. It was a matter of switching what is being measured. One was talking about admission rate and the other was simply talking about the percentage of graduates that "end up" at Yale. If someone has actual admission rates it would be great, but I don't think they are available.

The percentage of graduates that "end up" at Yale Law School doesn't tell you one school's graduate is 2.5 x likely to get in Yale. Again you have to know the percentage of graduates that apply to Yale Law School to make that determination.

It tells you a Washington U graduate is 2.5X as likely to end up at Yale Law school, as stated. If someone told you there were 50X more graduates from one school than another school at Goldman Sachs, would you not think that data point is significant given Goldman Sachs is one of the most desirable destinations in finance? Yale Law is one of the most desirable destinations for law school, is it not?

No, it doesn't. Washington U graduates who don't apply to YLS have the identical likelihood (probability) of ending up at Yale as the UVA graduates who don't apply to Yale -- zero.

Washington U sent 7 and UVA sent 6. So, there were 1.16X more graduates from one school. I am not objecting this data point. I am objecting to your "2.5X likely to get in or end up" assertion.

I wrote the original statement. I think you are reading something into it different into it than I intended or than I think the wording implies. Let me rephrase and see if it is better: once you adjust for the size of the institution (# of undergraduate students) a graduate of Washington University is 2.5X as likely to be enrolled at Yale Law School as a UVA graduate. I originally said "likely to end up".

I specifically did not mention acceptance rate because I have no information (and no one on this board seems to have any information) on how many applied or were admitted.

If I said something like "a graduate of UVA is 4X as likely to end up in the Washington, DC metro area than a Washington U (Saint Louis) graduate", you probably wouldn't blink an eye. The math is the same.

If you look at what I wrote, I went on to say that I did not think any difference between WashU/Emory/Tufts and UVA/W&M is significant. Given that Yale Law is a desirable school, I do think it is probably significant when we see that there are 12X as many Ivy graduates at Yale Law compared to UVA once you adjust for undergraduate population.

[Anonymous]

^^^ I don't think you will ever get it. Yes, it is basic probability and statistics. Your data points, the number of graduates enrolled in YLS, and the total number of undergraduates from each undergraduate school, are valid and important. They mean as such as what the metrics are -- the number of graduates enrolled in YLS, and the size of graduates from those colleges.

What you failed to understand is that you divided those two numbers to invent a third metrics and used it to compare "the likelihood of end up at YLS" from each school. That's wrong. Washington U's graduates are NOT 2.5 X as likely to end up at Yale Law as a UVA graduate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I don't think you will ever get it. Yes, it is basic probability and statistics. Your data points, the number of graduates enrolled in YLS, and the total number of undergraduates from each undergraduate school, are valid and important. They mean as such as what the metrics are -- the number of graduates enrolled in YLS, and the size of graduates from those colleges.

What you failed to understand is that you divided those two numbers to invent a third metrics and used it to compare "the likelihood of end up at YLS" from each school. That's wrong. Washington U's graduates are NOT 2.5 X as likely to end up at Yale Law as a UVA graduate.

Sorry. Based on the data from that publication, a Yale graduate is 34X as likely to end up at YLS as a UVA graduate. A Harvard graduate is 26X as likely to end up at YLS as a UVA graduate. A Princeton graduate is 19X as likely to end up at YLS as a UVA graduate . . .

If 50% of UVA graduates go on to graduate school and 25% of GMU graduates go on to graduate school, a UVA graduate is 2X as likely to end up at graduate school . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I don't think you will ever get it. Yes, it is basic probability and statistics. Your data points, the number of graduates enrolled in YLS, and the total number of undergraduates from each undergraduate school, are valid and important. They mean as such as what the metrics are -- the number of graduates enrolled in YLS, and the size of graduates from those colleges.

What you failed to understand is that you divided those two numbers to invent a third metrics and used it to compare "the likelihood of end up at YLS" from each school. That's wrong. Washington U's graduates are NOT 2.5 X as likely to end up at Yale Law as a UVA graduate.

Most sports metrics are derived the same way. Points per game, batting average, 3 point shooting percentage, passing completion percentage. They are then used to compare. Batting average is likelihood of getting a hit per at bat, etc.

[Anonymous]

UVA boosters can never acknowledge that it is not = to all elite schools in any metric....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I don't think you will ever get it. Yes, it is basic probability and statistics. Your data points, the number of graduates enrolled in YLS, and the total number of undergraduates from each undergraduate school, are valid and important. They mean as such as what the metrics are -- the number of graduates enrolled in YLS, and the size of graduates from those colleges.

What you failed to understand is that you divided those two numbers to invent a third metrics and used it to compare "the likelihood of end up at YLS" from each school. That's wrong. Washington U's graduates are NOT 2.5 X as likely to end up at Yale Law as a UVA graduate.

Most sports metrics are derived the same way. Points per game, batting average, 3 point shooting percentage, passing completion percentage. They are then used to compare. Batting average is likelihood of getting a hit per at bat, etc.

No, they are not. 3 point shooting percentage is calculated by # of 3 point shots made divided by 3 point shots attempted.

Likelihood of attending Yale should be calculated by # enrolled/ # applied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA boosters can never acknowledge that it is not = to all elite schools in any metric....

I am a serious UVA booster and I am not for the life of me going to pretend that UVA is Yale. But once you get below the top 10 or 15, unless you're independently wealthy you’re insane to even consider paying private school or out of state tuition your kid gets into UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA boosters can never acknowledge that it is not = to all elite schools in any metric....

I am a serious UVA booster and I am not for the life of me going to pretend that UVA is Yale. But once you get below the top 10 or 15, unless you're independently wealthy you’re insane to even consider paying private school or out of state tuition your kid gets into UVA.

+1 and I'd add W&M to that. If you want the smaller environment you get at some privates, that's probably a better option than UVA. Of course, neither one is Yale, but they don't require sacrificing my retirement so for us UVA/W&M > Yale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ I don't think you will ever get it. Yes, it is basic probability and statistics. Your data points, the number of graduates enrolled in YLS, and the total number of undergraduates from each undergraduate school, are valid and important. They mean as such as what the metrics are -- the number of graduates enrolled in YLS, and the size of graduates from those colleges.

What you failed to understand is that you divided those two numbers to invent a third metrics and used it to compare "the likelihood of end up at YLS" from each school. That's wrong. Washington U's graduates are NOT 2.5 X as likely to end up at Yale Law as a UVA graduate.

Most sports metrics are derived the same way. Points per game, batting average, 3 point shooting percentage, passing completion percentage. They are then used to compare. Batting average is likelihood of getting a hit per at bat, etc.

No, they are not. 3 point shooting percentage is calculated by # of 3 point shots made divided by 3 point shots attempted.

Likelihood of attending Yale should be calculated by # enrolled/ # applied.

The point was a third metric is created and it is created all the time. I don't think anyone would disagree that it would be great to know admission rate by school, but that isn't available. Beyond that, what would really be ideal to know is, if you could control for all other factors, what the admission rate is by school. By that I mean if the applicants from all schools in the study had identical stats and applications, what would their admission rate be. That would give a better indication of the impact of the school on admissions. It is likely that only Yale Law admissions knows this.

Reports do exactly what the PP did all the time. If you look at Poets and Quants, a site about business schools, they'll talk about "feeder schools" to top Wall Street firms by counting the number of graduates there. Now it could be that graduates of a certain school don't want to work for Goldman Sachs or other firms and don't apply, but we don't really have any information on that. Given that Goldman is prestigious and pays a lot, it isn't a stretch to think a lot of business oriented graduates would like to work there. So the metric has merit in the view of many people and they use it all the time.

Lastly, there are many likelihoods. There is the likelihood a UVA graduate enrolls at Yale Law. There is the likelihood of an applicant from UVA (or another school) being accepted by Yale Law. There is the likelihood of a graduate of a given school being accepted by Yale Law with a specific set of stats (that would allow more precise comparisons). We just need to have progressively more information to know those likelihoods, and it often isn't available.

[Anonymous]

At a school like Yale, a lot of the applicants will have extraordinary stats (173 LSAT and 3.9 GPA are about average). The school becomes the tie breaker. In this sense it is an extreme case, because admission is so difficult, but also an informative one, because it shows which schools are more likely to pass that bar. That seems to weigh heavily to Ivy+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At a school like Yale, a lot of the applicants will have extraordinary stats (173 LSAT and 3.9 GPA are about average). The school becomes the tie breaker. In this sense it is an extreme case, because admission is so difficult, but also an informative one, because it shows which schools are more likely to pass that bar. That seems to weigh heavily to Ivy+.

Sigh. AT YALE. Not at a school “like” Yale. As I have been screaming to deaf ears, Yale is in a league of its own completely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At a school like Yale, a lot of the applicants will have extraordinary stats (173 LSAT and 3.9 GPA are about average). The school becomes the tie breaker. In this sense it is an extreme case, because admission is so difficult, but also an informative one, because it shows which schools are more likely to pass that bar. That seems to weigh heavily to Ivy+.

Sigh. AT YALE. Not at a school “like” Yale. As I have been screaming to deaf ears, Yale is in a league of its own completely.

You write an offensive and irrelevant post because of your interpretation of one word? And when they said clearly "extreme case"?