List of Undergrad Colleges for this year's 1L at Harvard Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is causation and correlation. I think there is a high correlation between high SAT and high LSAT, and LSAT is one of the major stats along with GPA. Median LSAT at Yale is 175 and 75th percentile is 177. 75th is often cited as the "unhooked" target percentile. If you look at data from LSAC on LSAT by colleges, you will see that some schools don't have a max score that reaches the Yale 75th percentile. For instance, Max for Penn State from the 2017 data was 171, Arizona State 175, University of South Florida 175. None of those have any students at Yale in the class of 2026. (I recognize time periods differ, but it the most recent data and it still supports the point.) I think Harvard and Yale are largely taking students that can present the stats regardless of where they went, it just happens that those are disproportionately from the most selective colleges.

https://law.yale.edu/admissions/profiles-statistics

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/May2018CouncilOpenSession/18_may_2015_2017_top_240_feeder_schools_for_aba_applicants.authcheckdam.pdf

yeah, shocking isn't it. The kids who were really smart in HS and got into T50 and T20 SLAC are more likely to end up at a Top law school. Who would have thought it possible?

Also finances play a part---kids at those schools were more likely Full pay so more likely to think "mommy and daddy are helping fund law school so I can afford to apply to expensive law schools"

Yes. I looked the data up when I read an earlier post saying from someone saying they would only look at UVA and W&M for pre-law and not Virginia Tech or JMU because they are not on the list at Harvard (or Yale). I think this is just a stats thing and doesn't have anything to do with "pre-law".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll see a wide variety here so don't despair if your future lawyer doesn't go to an Ivy:

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Take a deeper look: 45 of the 147 schools are Top40ish Universities or Top15 LACs, and 20 of them are ivy-plus (Stan, Duke etc). There are 556 L1s . It is unlikely anything below the more competitive 45 schools has more than one admit. Those 45 may have two or more. The ivy-plus 20 may have even more each and in fact could make up half the class . Given that the ivy plus schools are small in size compared to others, there is significantly higher chance to get in from one of them than from a school outside the 45, nevermind all the schools not on the list.

You're misattributing their successful admission to the college they attended instead of to the individual. The reason more people are admitted from highly selective undergrad programs is that more highly capable students are in those programs.

This 1000%

And the more highly capable students who ended up at "elite" colleges tend to also have more financial means, meaning they know they can afford an elite law school. The highly capable kids who opted for state u or other private school and joined the honors program most likely are still thinking, how can I get a law degree from a good school and not be in debt until I'm 50+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll see a wide variety here so don't despair if your future lawyer doesn't go to an Ivy:

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Take a deeper look: 45 of the 147 schools are Top40ish Universities or Top15 LACs, and 20 of them are ivy-plus (Stan, Duke etc). There are 556 L1s . It is unlikely anything below the more competitive 45 schools has more than one admit. Those 45 may have two or more. The ivy-plus 20 may have even more each and in fact could make up half the class . Given that the ivy plus schools are small in size compared to others, there is significantly higher chance to get in from one of them than from a school outside the 45, nevermind all the schools not on the list.

You're misattributing their successful admission to the college they attended instead of to the individual. The reason more people are admitted from highly selective undergrad programs is that more highly capable students are in those programs.

This 1000%

And the more highly capable students who ended up at "elite" colleges tend to also have more financial means, meaning they know they can afford an elite law school. The highly capable kids who opted for state u or other private school and joined the honors program most likely are still thinking, how can I get a law degree from a good school and not be in debt until I'm 50+.

Of course this is but another thing posted on DCUM that nobody can prove or disprove...but something just doesn't make sense.

If there are supposedly many highly capable kids going to the Honors school at these state schools and are aiming for top law schools...why do many of these schools only have 1 graduate at Harvard vs. I don't know 15 from say Dartmouth (honestly, I am using the information that Yale provided like 3 years ago in terms of the numbers and extending it to Harvard)? That doesn't make any sense to me if what you say is correct.

I would imagine there are hundreds if not thousands of graduates from these State school honors programs...in theory, they had very high SAT/ACT scores in order to get accepted into those programs...yet they are not represented at Top 10 law schools anywhere close to some of these other schools.

Are you saying that the "good" law schools are say University of Minnesota (I only picked that because it was rated top 15 in the latest US News survey) vs. shooting for Harvard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why go to law school if you already went to a good college? not worth it.

...because you want to be a lawyer? Just a guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This may be true but at the end of the day, AI cannot analyze and synthesize information the way a lawyer can. It is just looking at things depending on what you feed into it.

Give it a couple of years. It will start with lower-level (but certainly billable) tasks and grow from there.

Lawyers will be happy that AI can do the grunt work, so they can start earlier on the more interesting stuff. It won't mean we need fewer lawyers, but more paralegals probably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll see a wide variety here so don't despair if your future lawyer doesn't go to an Ivy:

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Take a deeper look: 45 of the 147 schools are Top40ish Universities or Top15 LACs, and 20 of them are ivy-plus (Stan, Duke etc). There are 556 L1s . It is unlikely anything below the more competitive 45 schools has more than one admit. Those 45 may have two or more. The ivy-plus 20 may have even more each and in fact could make up half the class . Given that the ivy plus schools are small in size compared to others, there is significantly higher chance to get in from one of them than from a school outside the 45, nevermind all the schools not on the list.

Do you have any data for this?

DP: The point is and was from the beginning, there is always a path forward if this is your destiny. Bloom where you are planted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This may be true but at the end of the day, AI cannot analyze and synthesize information the way a lawyer can. It is just looking at things depending on what you feed into it.

Give it a couple of years. It will start with lower-level (but certainly billable) tasks and grow from there.

Lawyers will be happy that AI can do the grunt work, so they can start earlier on the more interesting stuff. It won't mean we need fewer lawyers, but more paralegals probably.

Not sure you are coming to the correct conclusions...law firms will need fewer paralegals AND fewer associates. More in-house counsel will also be expected to do more of the work vs. using 3rd party counsel.

Look, many white-collar jobs are at risk. The NY Times just ran an article about how investment banks expect to dramatically reduce their analyst hiring within 5 years through Generative AI.

Boston Consulting Group says their consultants are 50% - 100% more productive and there is a huge internal debate happening...with some partners arguing they should hire 50% fewer junior consultants and others trying to argue that they should look to take on more business. The problem for junior people is that the former (hiring fewer) is way easier to get your arms around vs. the latter (finding new business).

Nearly every professional services industry with highly paid people at the top...care very much how to make those people even more highly paid.

The first rung of many high-paying professions is very much at risk. It is an exciting (and kind of scary) time to be in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You'll see a wide variety here so don't despair if your future lawyer doesn't go to an Ivy:

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Patrick Henry College? Wow.

[Anonymous]

How many 1Ls are applying straight from undergrad? How many have been in the workforce for a couple of years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This may be true but at the end of the day, AI cannot analyze and synthesize information the way a lawyer can. It is just looking at things depending on what you feed into it.

Give it a couple of years. It will start with lower-level (but certainly billable) tasks and grow from there.

Lawyers will be happy that AI can do the grunt work, so they can start earlier on the more interesting stuff. It won't mean we need fewer lawyers, but more paralegals probably.

Not sure you are coming to the correct conclusions...law firms will need fewer paralegals AND fewer associates. More in-house counsel will also be expected to do more of the work vs. using 3rd party counsel.

Look, many white-collar jobs are at risk. The NY Times just ran an article about how investment banks expect to dramatically reduce their analyst hiring within 5 years through Generative AI.

Boston Consulting Group says their consultants are 50% - 100% more productive and there is a huge internal debate happening...with some partners arguing they should hire 50% fewer junior consultants and others trying to argue that they should look to take on more business. The problem for junior people is that the former (hiring fewer) is way easier to get your arms around vs. the latter (finding new business).

Nearly every professional services industry with highly paid people at the top...care very much how to make those people even more highly paid.

The first rung of many high-paying professions is very much at risk. It is an exciting (and kind of scary) time to be in college.

Accounting is the same way.

The one class of people who should be safe is anyone in a creative field -- writers, etc. Because for as much as GenAI can mimic, it actually sucks at doing creative things. Maybe that'll change, but I doubt it. Everytime I try to get it to do anything remotely creative, the output is superficial, formulaic and sometimes it hallucinates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This may be true but at the end of the day, AI cannot analyze and synthesize information the way a lawyer can. It is just looking at things depending on what you feed into it.

Give it a couple of years. It will start with lower-level (but certainly billable) tasks and grow from there.

Lawyers will be happy that AI can do the grunt work, so they can start earlier on the more interesting stuff. It won't mean we need fewer lawyers, but more paralegals probably.

Not sure you are coming to the correct conclusions...law firms will need fewer paralegals AND fewer associates. More in-house counsel will also be expected to do more of the work vs. using 3rd party counsel.

Look, many white-collar jobs are at risk. The NY Times just ran an article about how investment banks expect to dramatically reduce their analyst hiring within 5 years through Generative AI.

Boston Consulting Group says their consultants are 50% - 100% more productive and there is a huge internal debate happening...with some partners arguing they should hire 50% fewer junior consultants and others trying to argue that they should look to take on more business. The problem for junior people is that the former (hiring fewer) is way easier to get your arms around vs. the latter (finding new business).

Nearly every professional services industry with highly paid people at the top...care very much how to make those people even more highly paid.

The first rung of many high-paying professions is very much at risk. It is an exciting (and kind of scary) time to be in college.

Accounting is the same way.

The one class of people who should be safe is anyone in a creative field -- writers, etc. Because for as much as GenAI can mimic, it actually sucks at doing creative things. Maybe that'll change, but I doubt it. Everytime I try to get it to do anything remotely creative, the output is superficial, formulaic and sometimes it hallucinates.

I don't think creative is safe at all. Did you see that Tyler Perry just halted a planned $800MM planned expansion of his entertainment empire once he saw what Generative AI could do?

Hollywood heavyweight Tyler Perry has announced that he's putting his Atlanta studio's $800 million expansion on hold indefinitely because of "mind-blowing" developments in artificial technologies, including OpenAI’s text-to-video model Sora.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll see a wide variety here so don't despair if your future lawyer doesn't go to an Ivy:

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Take a deeper look: 45 of the 147 schools are Top40ish Universities or Top15 LACs, and 20 of them are ivy-plus (Stan, Duke etc). There are 556 L1s . It is unlikely anything below the more competitive 45 schools has more than one admit. Those 45 may have two or more. The ivy-plus 20 may have even more each and in fact could make up half the class . Given that the ivy plus schools are small in size compared to others, there is significantly higher chance to get in from one of them than from a school outside the 45, nevermind all the schools not on the list.

You're misattributing their successful admission to the college they attended instead of to the individual. The reason more people are admitted from highly selective undergrad programs is that more highly capable students are in those programs.

This 1000%

And the more highly capable students who ended up at "elite" colleges tend to also have more financial means, meaning they know they can afford an elite law school. The highly capable kids who opted for state u or other private school and joined the honors program most likely are still thinking, how can I get a law degree from a good school and not be in debt until I'm 50+.

Of course this is but another thing posted on DCUM that nobody can prove or disprove...but something just doesn't make sense.

If there are supposedly many highly capable kids going to the Honors school at these state schools and are aiming for top law schools...why do many of these schools only have 1 graduate at Harvard vs. I don't know 15 from say Dartmouth (honestly, I am using the information that Yale provided like 3 years ago in terms of the numbers and extending it to Harvard)? That doesn't make any sense to me if what you say is correct.

I would imagine there are hundreds if not thousands of graduates from these State school honors programs...in theory, they had very high SAT/ACT scores in order to get accepted into those programs...yet they are not represented at Top 10 law schools anywhere close to some of these other schools.

Are you saying that the "good" law schools are say University of Minnesota (I only picked that because it was rated top 15 in the latest US News survey) vs. shooting for Harvard?

There are many reasons the numbers may be lower from the state honors colleges:

1) maybe the culture at elite undergrads encourages a career in law more than that at state schools.
2) your assumption that state honors college students are all equally as capable as elite college students is probably incorrect. Many who are interested in law school may know there's no way they'll get in.
3) Harvard may be geographically undesirable for many state school grads compared to those from Dartmouth or MIT or Yale or any of the other Ivies, all of which are geographically reasonably close. It's a big country, and not everyone wants to study or practice in the Northeast.
4) Harvard (or Yale or other T14 law schools) may be financially undesirable for many state school grads.
5) Harvard may be philosophically undesirable for some reason.
Etc...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is causation and correlation. I think there is a high correlation between high SAT and high LSAT, and LSAT is one of the major stats along with GPA. Median LSAT at Yale is 175 and 75th percentile is 177. 75th is often cited as the "unhooked" target percentile. If you look at data from LSAC on LSAT by colleges, you will see that some schools don't have a max score that reaches the Yale 75th percentile. For instance, Max for Penn State from the 2017 data was 171, Arizona State 175, University of South Florida 175. None of those have any students at Yale in the class of 2026. (I recognize time periods differ, but it the most recent data and it still supports the point.) I think Harvard and Yale are largely taking students that can present the stats regardless of where they went, it just happens that those are disproportionately from the most selective colleges.

https://law.yale.edu/admissions/profiles-statistics

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/council_reports_and_resolutions/May2018CouncilOpenSession/18_may_2015_2017_top_240_feeder_schools_for_aba_applicants.authcheckdam.pdf

yeah, shocking isn't it. The kids who were really smart in HS and got into T50 and T20 SLAC are more likely to end up at a Top law school. Who would have thought it possible?

Also finances play a part---kids at those schools were more likely Full pay so more likely to think "mommy and daddy are helping fund law school so I can afford to apply to expensive law schools"

Yes. I looked the data up when I read an earlier post saying from someone saying they would only look at UVA and W&M for pre-law and not Virginia Tech or JMU because they are not on the list at Harvard (or Yale). I think this is just a stats thing and doesn't have anything to do with "pre-law".

My neighbors (married couple) both went to JMU and then to Georgetown Law. Some of the assumptions on this thread are truly clueless.
DP

[Anonymous]

Considering the behavior of recent law students at Yale, Stanford, etc. I am beyond relieved that my kids aren't interested in law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll see a wide variety here so don't despair if your future lawyer doesn't go to an Ivy:

https://hls.harvard.edu/jdadmissions/apply-to-harvard-law-school/jdapplicants/hls-profile-and-facts/undergraduate-institutions/

Take a deeper look: 45 of the 147 schools are Top40ish Universities or Top15 LACs, and 20 of them are ivy-plus (Stan, Duke etc). There are 556 L1s . It is unlikely anything below the more competitive 45 schools has more than one admit. Those 45 may have two or more. The ivy-plus 20 may have even more each and in fact could make up half the class . Given that the ivy plus schools are small in size compared to others, there is significantly higher chance to get in from one of them than from a school outside the 45, nevermind all the schools not on the list.

You're misattributing their successful admission to the college they attended instead of to the individual. The reason more people are admitted from highly selective undergrad programs is that more highly capable students are in those programs.

Also, how many people from lower-ranked colleges from around the country even bother applying to HLS? Yes, probably just one kid from Kansas State got accepted, but probably very very few applied.

That’s a good motto. Kansas State: We Crush Your Ambitions