Getting into Law School

[Anonymous]

And attending an elite law school isn’t a form of privilege? Before you say, “I borrowed everything and had no money,” intelligence itself is a form of privilege that allows the applicant to get the required LSAT score. Being able to take 3 years off from the workforce to go to law school is another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And attending an elite law school isn’t a form of privilege? Before you say, “I borrowed everything and had no money,” intelligence itself is a form of privilege that allows the applicant to get the required LSAT score. Being able to take 3 years off from the workforce to go to law school is another.

You think they should let stupid people into YLS?

[Anonymous]

Undergraduate prestige is a factor in T14 law admissions. Yes, law firm recruiters don't necessarily care about where you went for college but law school admissions deans do - they tend to take from colleges where they know the students will for the most part succeed - they are doing the weeding out years ahead before you even look at their resume.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Undergraduate prestige is a factor in T14 law admissions. Yes, law firm recruiters don't necessarily care about where you went for college but law school admissions deans do - they tend to take from colleges where they know the students will for the most part succeed - they are doing the weeding out years ahead before you even look at their resume.

What is good undergraduate prestige then, strictly T25 or T30? Does your major matter, meaning will they care that you went to UChicago for English vs nyu for business?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a NP and also think you are far overselling the benefit of undergrad prestige.

Ok, that's fine, but you didn't refute anything I wrote. And I never argued that undergrad prestige is the only path to success. But it's a factor, especially at the very top schools and in the very top jobs. This isn't even arguable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a NP and also think you are far overselling the benefit of undergrad prestige.

Ok, that's fine, but you didn't refute anything I wrote. And I never argued that undergrad prestige is the only path to success. But it's a factor, especially at the very top schools and in the very top jobs. This isn't even arguable.

DP. The only evidence you have provided is your saying so. From people I personally know who practice at the highest levels, and people I attended law school with, far too many T14 grads attended schools outside the top 50 and succeed in prestigious legal jobs to believe that undergrad prestige plays a significant role. You can continue to believe whatever you like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1

That idiot did not understand what correlation v causation is, and was babbling on about it anyways.

Wrong, dimwit (you're like the people who get excited because they can correct someone for making a your/you're mistake. Correlation versus causation isn't a difficult distinction). The people arguing the correlation point were wrong. There is BOTH correlation and causation. An elite-undergrad is a causative factor in admissions to schools like Yale and Stanford, and nobody can plausibly claim otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The only evidence you have provided is your saying so.

That's also the only evidence you've provided, genius. But go ahead, look at the undergrads represented at Yale and Stanford. Look at the CVs of law professors at top 40 schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And attending an elite law school isn’t a form of privilege? Before you say, “I borrowed everything and had no money,” intelligence itself is a form of privilege that allows the applicant to get the required LSAT score. Being able to take 3 years off from the workforce to go to law school is another.

Of course it is, but it's still a factor (like with many other inequitable things in this world)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Undergraduate prestige is a factor in T14 law admissions. Yes, law firm recruiters don't necessarily care about where you went for college but law school admissions deans do - they tend to take from colleges where they know the students will for the most part succeed - they are doing the weeding out years ahead before you even look at their resume.

No one is penalized from any legal opportunities for attending their state flagship for undergrad. Really. Everyone knows that it's an affordable option as compared to elite privates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Who is arguing that law school admissions are "driven" by undergrad prestige? Obviously LSAT and GPA are "driven by the individual." You're attacking a paper tiger. The point is that undergrad institution is a factor, especially at the very top law schools. Look at Stanford's students (in addition to Yale). Not many non-elite colleges represented. Now there are undoubtedly various reasons why elite college applicants have an advantage. For example, they may have access to more prestigious jobs, research opportunities, awards, fellowships, etc., that make the difference in law school admissions. It's crazy to suggest that Yale/Stanford (land likely other schools) are indifferent between a 3.95/175 applicant from HUG and one from the University of the Pacific (for example). And, of course, "BigLaw" employs plenty of people from low ranked undergrads, but undergrad prestige definitely plays a role in hiring for uber-prestigious legal jobs.

I'm a NP and also think you are far overselling the benefit of undergrad prestige. Everyone knows that going to an elite undergrad has as much to do with privilege and parental support as intelligence. Really. There are very smart and driven students who can get into an elite school but don't attend or even apply because of finances (see Donut Hole applicants). There are also lots of very smart and driven students who have life circumstances that knock them out of contention for elite undergrad admissions, but who demonstrate their ability during undergrad (e.g., immigrants, foster kids, those whose parents were divorcing while the were in HS, late bloomers, etc).

Law schools love to recruit a class with a diversity of life experiences and have no interest in packing their class with only students from elite institutions. A silver spoon in your mouth doesn't make for a compelling life story.

-someone who got into a T10 for undergrad, attended a no-name Tier 4 because of finances, but who had their pick of top law schools, BigLaw jobs and prestigious clerkships

Similar situation here. I attended an urban open-admissions fine arts college, and had top 20 law schools offering me scholarships, unsolicited. My lsat score was very high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm a NP and also think you are far overselling the benefit of undergrad prestige.

Ok, that's fine, but you didn't refute anything I wrote. And I never argued that undergrad prestige is the only path to success. But it's a factor, especially at the very top schools and in the very top jobs. This isn't even arguable.

DP. The only evidence you have provided is your saying so. From people I personally know who practice at the highest levels, and people I attended law school with, far too many T14 grads attended schools outside the top 50 and succeed in prestigious legal jobs to believe that undergrad prestige plays a significant role. You can continue to believe whatever you like.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Undergraduate prestige is a factor in T14 law admissions. Yes, law firm recruiters don't necessarily care about where you went for college but law school admissions deans do - they tend to take from colleges where they know the students will for the most part succeed - they are doing the weeding out years ahead before you even look at their resume.

100% true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recent story:

174, Phi Beta Kappa can’t break higher than Georgetown unless you bring something else to the table like geographic diversity, race diversity, military or unique work experience, very unique life experience (like fleeing a war torn country), or LOR from someone powerful

But, they can get scholarships at #15-30.

Not true. I know a WM with 3.9 GPA (from top 5 SLAC)/great LSAT score, no interesting work experience or "diversity" who picked between Duke, Penn and NYU.

Don’t tell me my experience isn’t true. This is what I saw with kids applying right out of undergrad recently.

The “right out of undergrad” thing may be the problem. The top law schools have a strong preference for students who have meaningful work experience between undergrad and law school. It’s not an absolute requirement, but:

According to ABA data, the majority of 2024 matriculants did report a gap prior to starting law school (65 percent). Among four of the top five ranked law schools by U.S. News and World Report in 2024, the incoming classes showed that between 70 and 90 percent of incoming students took at least one year off before matriculation. At Yale, 89 percent of the Class of 2027 was at least one year out from undergraduate and 46 percent were at least three years out.

https://applypoint.net/blog/2025/1/28/prospective-law-school-students-when-to-consider-a-gap-year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And attending an elite law school isn’t a form of privilege? Before you say, “I borrowed everything and had no money,” intelligence itself is a form of privilege that allows the applicant to get the required LSAT score. Being able to take 3 years off from the workforce to go to law school is another.

Whatever you call them, intelligence and work ethic are things we should massively support, not downplay.