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

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.


Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent


Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.



Does one need to survey the entire sample population to get an accurate result? No


No, but what they could be doing is accepting top 10% with lower other stats to get that number up, then focusing on high ACT/SAT kids for the remaining 80%. I think this is what Vanderbilt did when it started its rise in selectivity. When you only have 20% of kids counting against top 10% and don't report GPA etc. (which would be meaningless anyway due to differences in calculations) it allows schools to focus on high standardized scores and lowering admit rate.


There's no proof that Vandy did this and the others didn't. I was just trying to dispel this notion that WashU and especially Tufts is better than Emory and UVA. Tufts has never been ranked as high as Emory. Tufts students don't win awards as Emory students do. Tufts only has 4 Rhodes Scholars in over 100 years, While Emory has 20, and UVA has over 50 ( WashU has 27). Tufts is boosted by New England bias and is not as good as the others. That bias allows it to get good students but it's reputation doesn't match its ranking.


Your misguided focus on quantitative metrics and the overall idiocy of your attempt to parse rankings of top schools suggests you know absolutely nothing about the college selection process. I hope your children aren't as simple and myopic.
Anonymous
Another lawyer. I don't see any difference between the undergrads listed in the OP for the purpose of law school admission. I would choose based on other factors. If there were some reason grades would be substantially higher at one institution than another, that might be a consideration. Otherwise, I'd think about alternative scenarios -- in the event that the student does not end up applying to law school, which one(s) would be the first choice, best value, major/program, etc.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Another lawyer. I don't see any difference between the undergrads listed in the OP for the purpose of law school admission. I would choose based on other factors. If there were some reason grades would be substantially higher at one institution than another, that might be a consideration. Otherwise, I'd think about alternative scenarios -- in the event that the student does not end up applying to law school, which one(s) would be the first choice, best value, major/program, etc.


I agree. By and large law schools are numbers based. Sure, some of the top ones may have preference for a few top schools if the stats are the same, but by and large an applicant needs to try to get a high LSAT and high GPA to be admitted to a good law school. And they should target a good law school as career opportunities in law have contracted significantly. The law school will be reporting those LSATs and GPA to USNWR. They don't really care that much if the 173 LSAT came from Arkansas State or Penn. In all likelihood, you will score the same on LSAT regardless of where you go. It is innate ability and preparation outside of college that matters for the LSAT. As for GPA, the better schools do tend to graduate students with higher GPAs. It can be argued that they have higher GPAs because they attract better students, but there are some schools like Brown that are relatively easy graders. Grade inflation is widespread.

I also agree that all students should enter college with the consideration that they will end up changing major and even career direction. I've seen reports that over half of students do change.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Another lawyer. I don't see any difference between the undergrads listed in the OP for the purpose of law school admission. I would choose based on other factors. If there were some reason grades would be substantially higher at one institution than another, that might be a consideration. Otherwise, I'd think about alternative scenarios -- in the event that the student does not end up applying to law school, which one(s) would be the first choice, best value, major/program, etc.


I agree. By and large law schools are numbers based. Sure, some of the top ones may have preference for a few top schools if the stats are the same, but by and large an applicant needs to try to get a high LSAT and high GPA to be admitted to a good law school. And they should target a good law school as career opportunities in law have contracted significantly. The law school will be reporting those LSATs and GPA to USNWR. They don't really care that much if the 173 LSAT came from Arkansas State or Penn. In all likelihood, you will score the same on LSAT regardless of where you go. It is innate ability and preparation outside of college that matters for the LSAT. As for GPA, the better schools do tend to graduate students with higher GPAs. It can be argued that they have higher GPAs because they attract better students, but there are some schools like Brown that are relatively easy graders. Grade inflation is widespread.

I also agree that all students should enter college with the consideration that they will end up changing major and even career direction. I've seen reports that over half of students do change.



+1. Xlnt summary.
Anonymous
But I think the law schools that my kids would be interested in, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and UVA, would prefer (aside from UVA having UVA and W&M as top feeders) top undergrads. So would Tufts make a difference to Harvard vs. UVA if GPAs the same and LSAT the same? Of note the third and fourth biggest feeders to UVA (and we are in state) are Dartmouth and Penn. Coincidence? They want that brand name.

But true if my other kid goes to Ivy and the second one goes to UVA, W&M, Emory, Tufts, or Wash U, it is probably incremental. It's a closer call.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:But I think the law schools that my kids would be interested in, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and UVA, would prefer (aside from UVA having UVA and W&M as top feeders) top undergrads. So would Tufts make a difference to Harvard vs. UVA if GPAs the same and LSAT the same? Of note the third and fourth biggest feeders to UVA (and we are in state) are Dartmouth and Penn. Coincidence? They want that brand name.

But true if my other kid goes to Ivy and the second one goes to UVA, W&M, Emory, Tufts, or Wash U, it is probably incremental. It's a closer call.




Well, of course. That's what everyone wants to do if they go to law school. You've been told the answer above. Due to the rankings services, law school entry is entirely a numbers game. The top law schools (T-14) get the best GPAs and the best LSATs. Obviously you can't predict those for your child. But you can inform them that anything other than a T-14 is money thrown away now since there aren't that many jobs upon graduation. Also you child may incur $300K in debt. The sadest cases are the kids who wake up second year of law school and say "hmm this is not for me" and they already have $200K in debt. Google GPA T-14 law schools and LSAT T-14 law schools.

The advice the lawyers are giving you is sound. You can't predict this. The only difference you can make at this point is to choose a school that grades easily. That's really all you can do.
Anonymous
^^ For example, here are scores for UVA (about a T-6) which my DD would like to attend. Median LSAT is 168. Median GPA is 3.86. I do know someone who has a 170 and was told their score was a problem (white, in-state). It helps if you can offer something unique, as with undergrad, like an obscure state or nation, but generally it is GPA and LSAT, which you can't predict now.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Sorry. https://www.law.virginia.edu/admissions/class-2019-profile


There are newer profiles for 2020 and 2021:

https://www.law.virginia.edu/admissions/class-2020-profile
https://www.law.virginia.edu/admissions/class-2021-profile



Thanks. I see GPA went up. My DD will not be happy about that.
Anonymous
I'm not going to say there isn't an advantage to graduating from a top ranked undergrad school for applying to law school, but the graduates still have to produce the high stats. The thing is, the graduates of those schools are more likely to produce those stats. This isn't because of anything the school did, but because the kid was smart enough to get accepted there in the first place. Here are average 2017 LSAT scores and GPAs for applicants for selected undergrad schools mentioned here plus Yale. You decide which ones are the most likely to produce the 169 LSAT and 3.89 GPA for UVA Law or the 173 LSAT and 3.92 GPA for Yale Law:

Yale: 167.5 LSAT, 3.72 GPA

WashU: 164.1 LSAT, 3.65 GPA
Tufts: 164.5 LSAT, 3.62 GPA
Emory: 160.6, 3.51 GPA

UVA: 160.8 LSAT, 3.43 GPA
W&M 161.2 LSAT, 3.44 GPA

The kid that could have gone to Yale would likely get close to 167.5 and 3.72 wherever they chose for undergraduate, and where they chose wouldn't make a huge difference as long as it is reputable.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.


Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent


Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.



Does one need to survey the entire sample population to get an accurate result? No


No, but what they could be doing is accepting top 10% with lower other stats to get that number up, then focusing on high ACT/SAT kids for the remaining 80%. I think this is what Vanderbilt did when it started its rise in selectivity. When you only have 20% of kids counting against top 10% and don't report GPA etc. (which would be meaningless anyway due to differences in calculations) it allows schools to focus on high standardized scores and lowering admit rate.


There's no proof that Vandy did this and the others didn't. I was just trying to dispel this notion that WashU and especially Tufts is better than Emory and UVA. Tufts has never been ranked as high as Emory. Tufts students don't win awards as Emory students do. Tufts only has 4 Rhodes Scholars in over 100 years, While Emory has 20, and UVA has over 50 ( WashU has 27). Tufts is boosted by New England bias and is not as good as the others. That bias allows it to get good students but it's reputation doesn't match its ranking.


Your misguided focus on quantitative metrics and the overall idiocy of your attempt to parse rankings of top schools suggests you know absolutely nothing about the college selection process. I hope your children aren't as simple and myopic.


Somehow I'm simple and Myopic, but Tufts is a better school without ANY MEASURABLE advantages over Emory. Help me make sense of it, all-knowing one?!
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It should be between UVA and Emory. The other two don't have strong national brands.


Tufts and WashU are more selective than UVA and Emory. So some people with high stats must be mistaken.

Maybe UVA but not Emory, Tufts and Emory are quite equal, WashU a bit more selective.

Emory 1350-1520/31-34/ 84% top ten percent

Tufts 1380-1530/31-34/ 78% top ten percent


Only 25% of Tufts entering students had class rank provided and 29% at Emory. It was 20% at WashU. So not sure what to make of class rank anymore. The better and more affluent high schools don't provide it now.

I agree Tufts and Emory are pretty close on standardized scores. WashU is higher, actually near Harvard levels.



Does one need to survey the entire sample population to get an accurate result? No


No, but what they could be doing is accepting top 10% with lower other stats to get that number up, then focusing on high ACT/SAT kids for the remaining 80%. I think this is what Vanderbilt did when it started its rise in selectivity. When you only have 20% of kids counting against top 10% and don't report GPA etc. (which would be meaningless anyway due to differences in calculations) it allows schools to focus on high standardized scores and lowering admit rate.


There's no proof that Vandy did this and the others didn't. I was just trying to dispel this notion that WashU and especially Tufts is better than Emory and UVA. Tufts has never been ranked as high as Emory. Tufts students don't win awards as Emory students do. Tufts only has 4 Rhodes Scholars in over 100 years, While Emory has 20, and UVA has over 50 ( WashU has 27). Tufts is boosted by New England bias and is not as good as the others. That bias allows it to get good students but it's reputation doesn't match its ranking.


Your misguided focus on quantitative metrics and the overall idiocy of your attempt to parse rankings of top schools suggests you know absolutely nothing about the college selection process. I hope your children aren't as simple and myopic.


Same poster as above... I'm not done with you...

When has concrete evidence become invalid in an argument of is X of a higher quality than Y? SAT scores were readily used to disparage both Emory and UVA, but when another and more universally respected measure of excellence is utilized to change a narrative, then all of a sudden someone is being myopic, how transparent and disingenuous. Like I said Tufts benefits from its New-England location and network, even with that it still struggles to keep up. Rhodes is the oldest and most prestigious of academic awards, it has been awarded to 32 students per year for over 100 years. Tufts was only able to win it 4 times in 117 years, that says a lot to me, much more than SAT scores. I never said Tufts wasn't a good school, just that the others were a bit better.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I'm not going to say there isn't an advantage to graduating from a top ranked undergrad school for applying to law school, but the graduates still have to produce the high stats. The thing is, the graduates of those schools are more likely to produce those stats. This isn't because of anything the school did, but because the kid was smart enough to get accepted there in the first place. Here are average 2017 LSAT scores and GPAs for applicants for selected undergrad schools mentioned here plus Yale. You decide which ones are the most likely to produce the 169 LSAT and 3.89 GPA for UVA Law or the 173 LSAT and 3.92 GPA for Yale Law:

Yale: 167.5 LSAT, 3.72 GPA

WashU: 164.1 LSAT, 3.65 GPA
Tufts: 164.5 LSAT, 3.62 GPA
Emory: 160.6, 3.51 GPA

UVA: 160.8 LSAT, 3.43 GPA
W&M 161.2 LSAT, 3.44 GPA

The kid that could have gone to Yale would likely get close to 167.5 and 3.72 wherever they chose for undergraduate, and where they chose wouldn't make a huge difference as long as it is reputable.


This is excellent. Where is this from? I would like to look at other undergrads. Is the average for an applicant applying from that undergrad?
post reply Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: