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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This line of thinking - that the undergrad led to the production of those averages rather than the students - is misguided. Correlation is not causation.

I don't remember where I saw these types of numbers before so I can't point to the source, but I was below for GPA and far above for LSAT compared to the averages reported for my undergrad institution. My undergrad had absolutely nothing to do with how I scored on the LSAT (lo those many years ago). Heck, per the above quoted numbers, my LSAT was higher than the average reported for Yale (lol). It's a test of logic ability and reading comp, not a college-level achievement test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?!

You should note that I wrote the line that started with "No, but what they could be doing. . .", but someone else wrote the "Your misguided focus on quantitative metrics" response. It could also be that they were referring to me with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It is LSAC data, but this is on ABA website. It is stats for applicants by baccalaureate institution.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This line of thinking - that the undergrad led to the production of those averages rather than the students - is misguided. Correlation is not causation.

I don't remember where I saw these types of numbers before so I can't point to the source, but I was below for GPA and far above for LSAT compared to the averages reported for my undergrad institution. My undergrad had absolutely nothing to do with how I scored on the LSAT (lo those many years ago). Heck, per the above quoted numbers, my LSAT was higher than the average reported for Yale (lol). It's a test of logic ability and reading comp, not a college-level achievement test.

You didn't read the post carefully. My point was that people are assuming the undergraduate institution makes a big difference. I'm not saying it doesn't make a difference, but a successful applicant to a top law school will still have to present the stats, and they'll likely get similar stats regardless of where they choose to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This line of thinking - that the undergrad led to the production of those averages rather than the students - is misguided. Correlation is not causation.

I don't remember where I saw these types of numbers before so I can't point to the source, but I was below for GPA and far above for LSAT compared to the averages reported for my undergrad institution. My undergrad had absolutely nothing to do with how I scored on the LSAT (lo those many years ago). Heck, per the above quoted numbers, my LSAT was higher than the average reported for Yale (lol). It's a test of logic ability and reading comp, not a college-level achievement test.

You didn't read the post carefully. My point was that people are assuming the undergraduate institution makes a big difference. I'm not saying it doesn't make a difference, but a successful applicant to a top law school will still have to present the stats, and they'll likely get similar stats regardless of where they choose to go.

Right but it does show that smarter kids go to higher ranked institutions so they do better GPA and LSAT wise because they were smart enough to get in there. Here Correlation is important even if it is not causation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This line of thinking - that the undergrad led to the production of those averages rather than the students - is misguided. Correlation is not causation.

I don't remember where I saw these types of numbers before so I can't point to the source, but I was below for GPA and far above for LSAT compared to the averages reported for my undergrad institution. My undergrad had absolutely nothing to do with how I scored on the LSAT (lo those many years ago). Heck, per the above quoted numbers, my LSAT was higher than the average reported for Yale (lol). It's a test of logic ability and reading comp, not a college-level achievement test.

You didn't read the post carefully. My point was that people are assuming the undergraduate institution makes a big difference. I'm not saying it doesn't make a difference, but a successful applicant to a top law school will still have to present the stats, and they'll likely get similar stats regardless of where they choose to go.

Right but it does show that smarter kids go to higher ranked institutions so they do better GPA and LSAT wise because they were smart enough to get in there. Here Correlation is important even if it is not causation.

Yes, that was part of the original point.

[Anonymous]

If I can get a 175 and go to UVA or get a 175 and go to Tufts/Emory/WashU, what difference does the undergrad institution make? I apply to law school from Highly Selective Private and am therefore "smarter" than the applicant with the same LSAT from Decent State Flagship?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I can get a 175 and go to UVA or get a 175 and go to Tufts/Emory/WashU, what difference does the undergrad institution make? I apply to law school from Highly Selective Private and am therefore "smarter" than the applicant with the same LSAT from Decent State Flagship?

I think with same LSAT and GPA coming out of those schools it will make very little difference. If you substituted in Yale, I think it would make some difference as a tie breaker for the very most selective schools (e.g. Yale and Harvard) and diminishing as you go down.

Once you get to less selective law schools, they would want to take a Yale grad even if they didn't have good stats just to show them on their list of institutions.

[Anonymous]

UVA law is known to accept a lot of there undergrads so it's a good choice to go there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA law is known to accept a lot of there undergrads so it's a good choice to go there.

It's relative. It takes more W&M students than UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA law is known to accept a lot of there undergrads so it's a good choice to go there.

It's relative. It takes more W&M students than UVA.

In the last three years, UVA Law enrolled 61 from UVA and 29 from W&M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA law is known to accept a lot of there undergrads so it's a good choice to go there.

It's relative. It takes more W&M students than UVA.

In the last three years, UVA Law enrolled 61 from UVA and 29 from W&M.

OK, but then you should consider that UVA has 16,500 undergraduates and W&M has only 6,300.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA law is known to accept a lot of there undergrads so it's a good choice to go there.

It's relative. It takes more W&M students than UVA.

In the last three years, UVA Law enrolled 61 from UVA and 29 from W&M.

OK, but then you should consider that UVA has 16,500 undergraduates and W&M has only 6,300.

So you are saying the number of undergads coming from UVA is higher but the percentage coming from W&M is somewhat higher?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA law is known to accept a lot of there undergrads so it's a good choice to go there.

It's relative. It takes more W&M students than UVA.

In the last three years, UVA Law enrolled 61 from UVA and 29 from W&M.

OK, but then you should consider that UVA has 16,500 undergraduates and W&M has only 6,300.

So you are saying the number of undergads coming from UVA is higher but the percentage coming from W&M is somewhat higher?

Well, that's the way it has been for the past three years. We don't know how many actually applied. Only enrolled.