Are the NESCACs worth the money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so surprised to hear this. I would have to believe that law school admissions officers would be influenced by the undergrad, but maybe not...

They don’t. It’s all about the GPA and the LSAT. Sorry to disappoint, but throwing $80k a year at a NESCAC doesn’t give you an edge over a kid from state U with a high GPA and the same LSAT score.

Correct.

A Harvard grad was among the worst students in my law school class.

[Anonymous]

I think the answer varies widely and on how much money you have. Williams/Amherst - yes, IMO even with loans. These schools still have the nescac vibe but are completing directly with ivies. Bowdoin/Midd/tufts- yes, even with loans, but MC kids will likely feel more out of place. Hamilton/Colby/bates - not with loans, serious rich kids vibes but still excellent academics. Trinity/conn college - definitely not with loans, would go to UMD or UVA or another SLAC that gives money over either school. I’d only go to trinity or conn if money really was no object and I knew my kid needed that type of environment.

[Anonymous]

I thought trinity was a good feeder to Wall Street. Is that not true?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so surprised to hear this. I would have to believe that law school admissions officers would be influenced by the undergrad, but maybe not...

They don’t. It’s all about the GPA and the LSAT. Sorry to disappoint, but throwing $80k a year at a NESCAC doesn’t give you an edge over a kid from state U with a high GPA and the same LSAT score.

After many years in BigLaw, I can say with confidence that as a general matter, and with the caveat that individual results may vary, the NESCAC grad will be a much stronger writer than the state U grad. It is also correct that law school admissions are driven by GPA and LSATs because US News rankings are apparently the be all end all. Sad to say, our profession is all the worse for it because we have to deal with the many bright, hard-working, high GPA 25 year olds who cannot string together 3 coherent paragraphs if their lives depended on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so surprised to hear this. I would have to believe that law school admissions officers would be influenced by the undergrad, but maybe not...

They don’t. It’s all about the GPA and the LSAT. Sorry to disappoint, but throwing $80k a year at a NESCAC doesn’t give you an edge over a kid from state U with a high GPA and the same LSAT score.

After many years in BigLaw, I can say with confidence that as a general matter, and with the caveat that individual results may vary, the NESCAC grad will be a much stronger writer than the state U grad. It is also correct that law school admissions are driven by GPA and LSATs because US News rankings are apparently the be all end all. Sad to say, our profession is all the worse for it because we have to deal with the many bright, hard-working, high GPA 25 year olds who cannot string together 3 coherent paragraphs if their lives depended on it.

After many years in Biglaw, I can say with equal confidence that I've seen no correlation whatsoever between undergraduate institution and writing ability. By the way, your own writing is verbose and not particularly impressive. "With the caveat that individual results may vary?" Why the need to include that mouthful of a phrase when you have already said "as a general matter?" Your writing needs serious editing.

-- Retired Biglaw partner

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought trinity was a good feeder to Wall Street. Is that not true?

It is and has a good alumni network but very lax bro culture and lots of prep school kids who didn’t get into their first choice.

[Anonymous]

“If, however, you are of the ilk who think Williams is superior to Emory, so much so that even comparing the two is silly (let alone ranking Williams lower), then the NESCAC’s, even the lower NESCAC’s, are indeed for you. This isn’t really a discussion issue: these are two different types of people. You know who you are, and that won’t change”

I ❤️ You

-SLAC grad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so surprised to hear this. I would have to believe that law school admissions officers would be influenced by the undergrad, but maybe not...

They don’t. It’s all about the GPA and the LSAT. Sorry to disappoint, but throwing $80k a year at a NESCAC doesn’t give you an edge over a kid from state U with a high GPA and the same LSAT score.

After many years in BigLaw, I can say with confidence that as a general matter, and with the caveat that individual results may vary, the NESCAC grad will be a much stronger writer than the state U grad. It is also correct that law school admissions are driven by GPA and LSATs because US News rankings are apparently the be all end all. Sad to say, our profession is all the worse for it because we have to deal with the many bright, hard-working, high GPA 25 year olds who cannot string together 3 coherent paragraphs if their lives depended on it.

After many years in Biglaw, I can say with equal confidence that I've seen no correlation whatsoever between undergraduate institution and writing ability. By the way, your own writing is verbose and not particularly impressive. "With the caveat that individual results may vary?" Why the need to include that mouthful of a phrase when you have already said "as a general matter?" Your writing needs serious editing.

-- Retired Biglaw partner

Great post--even though I appreciate both points of view.

Do you think that a well written brief or article is a reflection of intelligence and hard work rather than a reflection of undergraduate college writing instruction ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: “If, however, you are of the ilk who think Williams is superior to Emory, so much so that even comparing the two is silly (let alone ranking Williams lower), then the NESCAC’s, even the lower NESCAC’s, are indeed for you. This isn’t really a discussion issue: these are two different types of people. You know who you are, and that won’t change”

I ❤️ You

-SLAC grad

Although I prefer National Universities, I do understand the attraction to SLACs.

I do not want to be impolite, but the writing above is unfair and suggests that the writer probably does not have an experienced understanding of an elite National University undergraduate education.

To many, LACs and SLACs are an advanced continuation of high school / prep school. Nothing wrong with this. Rural, isolated LACs delay entry into the real world while providing a somewhat insulated learning experience. Understandable why many parents would want this for their children / students. However, the LAC experience is romanticized easily because it is simple to understand a small campus, daily contact with professors and--sometimes--administrators, easy, convenient administrative matters, familiar faces all around. Gets old after a year or so. Especially so regarding the social scene.

While Williams College is arguably the greatest LAC in the country--and deservedly so-- Emory University is a well respected elite National University. Two different arenas. Their is no comparison as to which educational institution contributes more to the world through research and scholarly publications.

There is no doubt that the students at each school are outstanding. Different stages, however. Different leagues.

[Anonymous]

I posted too quickly as "their" should be "there" in the next to last paragraph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: “If, however, you are of the ilk who think Williams is superior to Emory, so much so that even comparing the two is silly (let alone ranking Williams lower), then the NESCAC’s, even the lower NESCAC’s, are indeed for you. This isn’t really a discussion issue: these are two different types of people. You know who you are, and that won’t change”

I ❤️ You

-SLAC grad

Although I prefer National Universities, I do understand the attraction to SLACs.

I do not want to be impolite, but the writing above is unfair and suggests that the writer probably does not have an experienced understanding of an elite National University undergraduate education.

To many, LACs and SLACs are an advanced continuation of high school / prep school. Nothing wrong with this. Rural, isolated LACs delay entry into the real world while providing a somewhat insulated learning experience. Understandable why many parents would want this for their children / students. However, the LAC experience is romanticized easily because it is simple to understand a small campus, daily contact with professors and--sometimes--administrators, easy, convenient administrative matters, familiar faces all around. Gets old after a year or so. Especially so regarding the social scene.

While Williams College is arguably the greatest LAC in the country--and deservedly so-- Emory University is a well respected elite National University. Two different arenas. Their is no comparison as to which educational institution contributes more to the world through research and scholarly publications.

There is no doubt that the students at each school are outstanding. Different stages, however. Different leagues.

Emory is a much larger institution than Williams so not an apples to apples comparison and most of their publications come from the graduate division

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so surprised to hear this. I would have to believe that law school admissions officers would be influenced by the undergrad, but maybe not...

They don’t. It’s all about the GPA and the LSAT. Sorry to disappoint, but throwing $80k a year at a NESCAC doesn’t give you an edge over a kid from state U with a high GPA and the same LSAT score.

After many years in BigLaw, I can say with confidence that as a general matter, and with the caveat that individual results may vary, the NESCAC grad will be a much stronger writer than the state U grad. It is also correct that law school admissions are driven by GPA and LSATs because US News rankings are apparently the be all end all. Sad to say, our profession is all the worse for it because we have to deal with the many bright, hard-working, high GPA 25 year olds who cannot string together 3 coherent paragraphs if their lives depended on it.

After many years in Biglaw, I can say with equal confidence that I've seen no correlation whatsoever between undergraduate institution and writing ability. By the way, your own writing is verbose and not particularly impressive. "With the caveat that individual results may vary?" Why the need to include that mouthful of a phrase when you have already said "as a general matter?" Your writing needs serious editing.

-- Retired Biglaw partner

Great post--even though I appreciate both points of view.

Do you think that a well written brief or article is a reflection of intelligence and hard work rather than a reflection of undergraduate college writing instruction ?

I think a well written brief or article is a reflection of innate talent more than anything else. Hard work comes second, I suppose. I don't think intelligence has anything to do with it. Many of the smartest people I know can't write to save their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Adding an important point: US law schools do not care where one earned his or her undergraduate degree. Law schools care about one's undergraduate GPA, LSAT score, URM status, and--to a far lesser degree--an applicant's personal statement.

True, but the hardest part of the LSAT to game, reading comprehension, is the one that tends to be easiest for people from rigorous academic environments. You're absolutely right that a person with similar grades and similar scores is going to perform similarly (except perhaps at Yale where professors do a lot of the admitting directly). But getting that all-important high LSAT score might be easier for a student who had a more academic undergrad experience.

(This is to say nothing of success in law school itself. A lot of the top of the class at my law school went to either an Ivy or SLAC, but there could be confounding factors there, so I don't want to generalize too much from that observation.)

That’s hilarious — LSAT reading comprehension has nothing to do with your undergrad rigor. You are either good at it or you are not. Go to the $80K NESCAC school if you would like to, but it will have no bearing on the law school you get into or your performance there.

Signed, alum of top 5 law school where a good number of the top of the class were decidedly not from Ivys or SLACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so surprised to hear this. I would have to believe that law school admissions officers would be influenced by the undergrad, but maybe not...

They don’t. It’s all about the GPA and the LSAT. Sorry to disappoint, but throwing $80k a year at a NESCAC doesn’t give you an edge over a kid from state U with a high GPA and the same LSAT score.

After many years in BigLaw, I can say with confidence that as a general matter, and with the caveat that individual results may vary, the NESCAC grad will be a much stronger writer than the state U grad. It is also correct that law school admissions are driven by GPA and LSATs because US News rankings are apparently the be all end all. Sad to say, our profession is all the worse for it because we have to deal with the many bright, hard-working, high GPA 25 year olds who cannot string together 3 coherent paragraphs if their lives depended on it.

After many years in Biglaw, I can say with equal confidence that I've seen no correlation whatsoever between undergraduate institution and writing ability. By the way, your own writing is verbose and not particularly impressive. "With the caveat that individual results may vary?" Why the need to include that mouthful of a phrase when you have already said "as a general matter?" Your writing needs serious editing.

-- Retired Biglaw partner

Great post--even though I appreciate both points of view.

Do you think that a well written brief or article is a reflection of intelligence and hard work rather than a reflection of undergraduate college writing instruction ?

I think a well written brief or article is a reflection of innate talent more than anything else. Hard work comes second, I suppose. I don't think intelligence has anything to do with it. Many of the smartest people I know can't write to save their lives.

Thank you for your response.

My preference is for substance over style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm so surprised to hear this. I would have to believe that law school admissions officers would be influenced by the undergrad, but maybe not...

They don’t. It’s all about the GPA and the LSAT. Sorry to disappoint, but throwing $80k a year at a NESCAC doesn’t give you an edge over a kid from state U with a high GPA and the same LSAT score.

After many years in BigLaw, I can say with confidence that as a general matter, and with the caveat that individual results may vary, the NESCAC grad will be a much stronger writer than the state U grad. It is also correct that law school admissions are driven by GPA and LSATs because US News rankings are apparently the be all end all. Sad to say, our profession is all the worse for it because we have to deal with the many bright, hard-working, high GPA 25 year olds who cannot string together 3 coherent paragraphs if their lives depended on it.

After many years in Biglaw, I can say with equal confidence that I've seen no correlation whatsoever between undergraduate institution and writing ability. By the way, your own writing is verbose and not particularly impressive. "With the caveat that individual results may vary?" Why the need to include that mouthful of a phrase when you have already said "as a general matter?" Your writing needs serious editing.

-- Retired Biglaw partner

NP. Battle of two pretentious lawyers. How about focusing on the question rather than crafting insults?