Anonymous
04/16/2025 16:59
Subject: Getting into Law School
Anonymous wrote:I am a state school to Ivy+ LS to big law partner who is also involved in firm recruiting. My experience with law school applications is stale at this point but from a law firm recruiting perspective undergrad school does not matter one iota. Other than that, I suppose, a double Harvard grad is very very impressive. But even that candidate doesn’t necessarily get the offer over another HLS grad from a different undergraduate school, all else equal.
+1
I handled HP recruiting for a DOJ litigating division fairly recently and I don't think I so much as glanced at what school any candidate attended for undergrad.
Anonymous
04/16/2025 16:59
Subject: Getting into Law School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Law school admissions is getting more unpredictable like college admissions.
There was a time it was mainly your GPA and LSAT. This year was extremely competitive. I advise students and having a score in the 170s and a high GPA does not guarantee T14 anymore.
The ones who did the best in the process have close to a 4.0, scores in the 170s, at least a year of work experience after college and preferably more, academic prizes or significant leadership or awards in college, recommendations that are outstanding. Strength of undergraduate institution matters more than you think. I have to counsel students that just because they have a high GPA does not mean as much if your degree was online or at a school most people have never heard of.
They are more likely to go deep in the class for an Ivy or top 20 than take from a lower tier university outside of top 50 unless you are at the top of your class. Going to a huge undergrad can disadvantage you by not getting to know your professors well and being so big that there are so many applying from your school.
can confirm, based on law school data from my kid's T10. Students with around 3.7-3.8, which is below average there, can go to the bottom of T14 otherwise go to next tier excellent law such as WashU. The 3.9+ kids get into multiple T14s and over a dozen every year go to T3. However the former usually has 165+ and the latter has 172+. It may not be the university itself as much as the fact that even a below average student at one of those schools is quite likely to be on par with the very top of a below-T50.
These threads always bring out the mommies.
Listen to the lawyers and law school admissions folks, not the mommies.
This is a parent board where parents ask other parents questions. It’s also an anonymous board where people can pretend to be whatever they want. Maybe talk to a therapist about overcoming your misogyny.
Anonymous
04/16/2025 16:57
Subject: Getting into Law School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My daughter currently at stern aspires to be a corporate lawyer when she graduates. Majoring in finance and economics, but wonder if she should instead focus on finance and math? Also, should she work high finance for a year before applying to law school vs directly upon graduation.
Attorneys only need basic math skills, but if your daughter prefers to major in math due to interest in the subject area, then she should do so. However, for a practicing lawyer, econ & finance would be a better background than finance & math.
I ended up in tax. You need real math skills for much of it.
Anonymous
04/16/2025 16:55
Subject: Getting into Law School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Law school admissions is getting more unpredictable like college admissions.
There was a time it was mainly your GPA and LSAT. This year was extremely competitive. I advise students and having a score in the 170s and a high GPA does not guarantee T14 anymore.
The ones who did the best in the process have close to a 4.0, scores in the 170s, at least a year of work experience after college and preferably more, academic prizes or significant leadership or awards in college, recommendations that are outstanding. Strength of undergraduate institution matters more than you think. I have to counsel students that just because they have a high GPA does not mean as much if your degree was online or at a school most people have never heard of.
They are more likely to go deep in the class for an Ivy or top 20 than take from a lower tier university outside of top 50 unless you are at the top of your class. Going to a huge undergrad can disadvantage you by not getting to know your professors well and being so big that there are so many applying from your school.
can confirm, based on law school data from my kid's T10. Students with around 3.7-3.8, which is below average there, can go to the bottom of T14 otherwise go to next tier excellent law such as WashU. The 3.9+ kids get into multiple T14s and over a dozen every year go to T3. However the former usually has 165+ and the latter has 172+. It may not be the university itself as much as the fact that even a below average student at one of those schools is quite likely to be on par with the very top of a below-T50.
If you went from a top 10 to a law school below the top 14 that would say volumes about your undergrad accomplishments - and not in a good way. Better to go to a state school and land a top 14 (or even better a top 8) which is very doable and looks so much better on a resume.
I'm not sure that is true. I think a prestigious undergrad still matters, although obviously much less than the law school. I've seen situations where, for example, Harvard undergrad helped quite a bit. And, of course, going from a state school to a top 14 is "very doable," but the vast majority of people are unable to do it. Most people from state undergrads go to non-elite law schools (which is perfectly fine, btw).
Correlation is not causation. Going from a state school to a T14 is doable when one has the GPA and LSAT.
What are you talking about? Who is making a correlation as causation mistake? Everyone knows that going from a state school to a T14 is doable. Most can't do it. The top law schools are disproportionately filled with students from top schools. Undergrad institution still carries some weight in the most highly competitive areas of law (look at the resumes of Supreme Court clerks, for example or law school professors).
Correlation - students at T14s tending to be from top undergrads - does not mean that the undergrad institution itself played any causative role in T14 admission. Students at top undergrads tend to get good grades and score well on standardized tests due to their personal, inherent qualities, the same qualities that got them admitted to top undergrads.
"Most" at state schools can do it if they have the GPA and LSAT. "Most" can't do it if they don't have those metrics.
--attended a T14 with many state school grads
+1
That idiot did not understand what correlation v causation is, and was babbling on about it anyways.
Anonymous
04/16/2025 16:52
Subject: Getting into Law School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Law school admissions is getting more unpredictable like college admissions.
There was a time it was mainly your GPA and LSAT. This year was extremely competitive. I advise students and having a score in the 170s and a high GPA does not guarantee T14 anymore.
The ones who did the best in the process have close to a 4.0, scores in the 170s, at least a year of work experience after college and preferably more, academic prizes or significant leadership or awards in college, recommendations that are outstanding. Strength of undergraduate institution matters more than you think. I have to counsel students that just because they have a high GPA does not mean as much if your degree was online or at a school most people have never heard of.
They are more likely to go deep in the class for an Ivy or top 20 than take from a lower tier university outside of top 50 unless you are at the top of your class. Going to a huge undergrad can disadvantage you by not getting to know your professors well and being so big that there are so many applying from your school.
can confirm, based on law school data from my kid's T10. Students with around 3.7-3.8, which is below average there, can go to the bottom of T14 otherwise go to next tier excellent law such as WashU. The 3.9+ kids get into multiple T14s and over a dozen every year go to T3. However the former usually has 165+ and the latter has 172+. It may not be the university itself as much as the fact that even a below average student at one of those schools is quite likely to be on par with the very top of a below-T50.
These threads always bring out the mommies.
Listen to the lawyers and law school admissions folks, not the mommies.
Anonymous
04/16/2025 15:35
Subject: Getting into Law School
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
Anonymous
04/16/2025 14:43
Subject: Getting into Law School
...
No, the point is that law school admission is driven not by undergrad prestige, but by LSAT and gpa. LSAT and gpa are driven by the individual. Individuals at highly selective private undergrads proportionately have higher LSAT and gpa than is typical of large state schools, which have a much wider range of academic stats overall among their students.
Yale is arguably the only law school that gives the appearance of caring about undergrad prestige and has a small law school class. The people I know who went to top law schools, including Harvard (which has a large law school class), attended schools ranked T60 to T80 privates and beyond, as well as to numerous state flagships. UIUC, U Kentucky, University of Kansas, and on and on. And yes, they do go on to clerk for S. Ct. and are employed in BigLaw.
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.
Anonymous
04/16/2025 14:29
Subject: Getting into Law School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Law school admissions is getting more unpredictable like college admissions.
There was a time it was mainly your GPA and LSAT. This year was extremely competitive. I advise students and having a score in the 170s and a high GPA does not guarantee T14 anymore.
The ones who did the best in the process have close to a 4.0, scores in the 170s, at least a year of work experience after college and preferably more, academic prizes or significant leadership or awards in college, recommendations that are outstanding. Strength of undergraduate institution matters more than you think. I have to counsel students that just because they have a high GPA does not mean as much if your degree was online or at a school most people have never heard of.
They are more likely to go deep in the class for an Ivy or top 20 than take from a lower tier university outside of top 50 unless you are at the top of your class. Going to a huge undergrad can disadvantage you by not getting to know your professors well and being so big that there are so many applying from your school.
can confirm, based on law school data from my kid's T10. Students with around 3.7-3.8, which is below average there, can go to the bottom of T14 otherwise go to next tier excellent law such as WashU. The 3.9+ kids get into multiple T14s and over a dozen every year go to T3. However the former usually has 165+ and the latter has 172+. It may not be the university itself as much as the fact that even a below average student at one of those schools is quite likely to be on par with the very top of a below-T50.
If you went from a top 10 to a law school below the top 14 that would say volumes about your undergrad accomplishments - and not in a good way. Better to go to a state school and land a top 14 (or even better a top 8) which is very doable and looks so much better on a resume.
I'm not sure that is true. I think a prestigious undergrad still matters, although obviously much less than the law school. I've seen situations where, for example, Harvard undergrad helped quite a bit. And, of course, going from a state school to a top 14 is "very doable," but the vast majority of people are unable to do it. Most people from state undergrads go to non-elite law schools (which is perfectly fine, btw).
Correlation is not causation. Going from a state school to a T14 is doable when one has the GPA and LSAT.
What are you talking about? Who is making a correlation as causation mistake? Everyone knows that going from a state school to a T14 is doable. Most can't do it. The top law schools are disproportionately filled with students from top schools. Undergrad institution still carries some weight in the most highly competitive areas of law (look at the resumes of Supreme Court clerks, for example or law school professors).
The LSAC used to publish information on the top 240 law school application feeder undergraduate schools. This included LSAT and GPA. It showed top undergraduate schools not surprising produced a higher number of applicants with top scores and GPAs. You can see how much higher the average applicant LSAT score was at Yale vs. say Berkeley below:
Yale–167.50
...
Again, students at top undergrads tend to have higher test scores than students at lower-ranked schools. That is mere correlation and is a surprise to no one. The undergraduate institution does not cause its students to have high LSAT scores.
It may be true that the undergrad institution does not cause its students to have high LSAT scores. The point though is that the prestige of the undergrad institution is a factor, especially at the very top law schools (and I'd also say it's a factor for various prestigious legal jobs). So it's more than just correlation.
No, the point is that law school admission is driven not by undergrad prestige, but by LSAT and gpa. LSAT and gpa are driven by the individual. Individuals at highly selective private undergrads proportionately have higher LSAT and gpa than is typical of large state schools, which have a much wider range of academic stats overall among their students.
Yale is arguably the only law school that gives the appearance of caring about undergrad prestige and has a small law school class. The people I know who went to top law schools, including Harvard (which has a large law school class), attended schools ranked T60 to T80 privates and beyond, as well as to numerous state flagships. UIUC, U Kentucky, University of Kansas, and on and on. And yes, they do go on to clerk for S. Ct. and are employed in BigLaw.
Anonymous
04/16/2025 14:23
Subject: Getting into Law School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Law school admissions is getting more unpredictable like college admissions.
There was a time it was mainly your GPA and LSAT. This year was extremely competitive. I advise students and having a score in the 170s and a high GPA does not guarantee T14 anymore.
The ones who did the best in the process have close to a 4.0, scores in the 170s, at least a year of work experience after college and preferably more, academic prizes or significant leadership or awards in college, recommendations that are outstanding. Strength of undergraduate institution matters more than you think. I have to counsel students that just because they have a high GPA does not mean as much if your degree was online or at a school most people have never heard of.
They are more likely to go deep in the class for an Ivy or top 20 than take from a lower tier university outside of top 50 unless you are at the top of your class. Going to a huge undergrad can disadvantage you by not getting to know your professors well and being so big that there are so many applying from your school.
can confirm, based on law school data from my kid's T10. Students with around 3.7-3.8, which is below average there, can go to the bottom of T14 otherwise go to next tier excellent law such as WashU. The 3.9+ kids get into multiple T14s and over a dozen every year go to T3. However the former usually has 165+ and the latter has 172+. It may not be the university itself as much as the fact that even a below average student at one of those schools is quite likely to be on par with the very top of a below-T50.
If you went from a top 10 to a law school below the top 14 that would say volumes about your undergrad accomplishments - and not in a good way. Better to go to a state school and land a top 14 (or even better a top 8) which is very doable and looks so much better on a resume.
I'm not sure that is true. I think a prestigious undergrad still matters, although obviously much less than the law school. I've seen situations where, for example, Harvard undergrad helped quite a bit. And, of course, going from a state school to a top 14 is "very doable," but the vast majority of people are unable to do it. Most people from state undergrads go to non-elite law schools (which is perfectly fine, btw).
Correlation is not causation. Going from a state school to a T14 is doable when one has the GPA and LSAT.
What are you talking about? Who is making a correlation as causation mistake? Everyone knows that going from a state school to a T14 is doable. Most can't do it. The top law schools are disproportionately filled with students from top schools. Undergrad institution still carries some weight in the most highly competitive areas of law (look at the resumes of Supreme Court clerks, for example or law school professors).
The LSAC used to publish information on the top 240 law school application feeder undergraduate schools. This included LSAT and GPA. It showed top undergraduate schools not surprising produced a higher number of applicants with top scores and GPAs. You can see how much higher the average applicant LSAT score was at Yale vs. say Berkeley below:
Yale–167.50
...
Again, students at top undergrads tend to have higher test scores than students at lower-ranked schools. That is mere correlation and is a surprise to no one. The undergraduate institution does not cause its students to have high LSAT scores.
It may be true that the undergrad institution does not cause its students to have high LSAT scores. The point though is that the prestige of the undergrad institution is a factor, especially at the very top law schools (and I'd also say it's a factor for various prestigious legal jobs). So it's more than just correlation.
Anonymous
04/16/2025 14:20
Subject: Getting into Law School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Law school admissions is getting more unpredictable like college admissions.
There was a time it was mainly your GPA and LSAT. This year was extremely competitive. I advise students and having a score in the 170s and a high GPA does not guarantee T14 anymore.
The ones who did the best in the process have close to a 4.0, scores in the 170s, at least a year of work experience after college and preferably more, academic prizes or significant leadership or awards in college, recommendations that are outstanding. Strength of undergraduate institution matters more than you think. I have to counsel students that just because they have a high GPA does not mean as much if your degree was online or at a school most people have never heard of.
They are more likely to go deep in the class for an Ivy or top 20 than take from a lower tier university outside of top 50 unless you are at the top of your class. Going to a huge undergrad can disadvantage you by not getting to know your professors well and being so big that there are so many applying from your school.
can confirm, based on law school data from my kid's T10. Students with around 3.7-3.8, which is below average there, can go to the bottom of T14 otherwise go to next tier excellent law such as WashU. The 3.9+ kids get into multiple T14s and over a dozen every year go to T3. However the former usually has 165+ and the latter has 172+. It may not be the university itself as much as the fact that even a below average student at one of those schools is quite likely to be on par with the very top of a below-T50.
If you went from a top 10 to a law school below the top 14 that would say volumes about your undergrad accomplishments - and not in a good way. Better to go to a state school and land a top 14 (or even better a top 8) which is very doable and looks so much better on a resume.
I'm not sure that is true. I think a prestigious undergrad still matters, although obviously much less than the law school. I've seen situations where, for example, Harvard undergrad helped quite a bit. And, of course, going from a state school to a top 14 is "very doable," but the vast majority of people are unable to do it. Most people from state undergrads go to non-elite law schools (which is perfectly fine, btw).
Correlation is not causation. Going from a state school to a T14 is doable when one has the GPA and LSAT.
What are you talking about? Who is making a correlation as causation mistake? Everyone knows that going from a state school to a T14 is doable. Most can't do it. The top law schools are disproportionately filled with students from top schools. Undergrad institution still carries some weight in the most highly competitive areas of law (look at the resumes of Supreme Court clerks, for example or law school professors).
...
Again, students at top undergrads tend to have higher test scores than students at lower-ranked schools. That is mere correlation and is a surprise to no one. The undergraduate institution does not cause its students to have high LSAT scores.
It may be true that the undergrad institution does not cause its students to have high LSAT scores. The point though is that the prestige of the undergrad institution is a factor, especially at the very top law schools (and I'd also say it's a factor for various prestigious legal jobs). So it's more than just correlation.
Anonymous
04/16/2025 14:12
Subject: Getting into Law School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Law school admissions is getting more unpredictable like college admissions.
There was a time it was mainly your GPA and LSAT. This year was extremely competitive. I advise students and having a score in the 170s and a high GPA does not guarantee T14 anymore.
The ones who did the best in the process have close to a 4.0, scores in the 170s, at least a year of work experience after college and preferably more, academic prizes or significant leadership or awards in college, recommendations that are outstanding. Strength of undergraduate institution matters more than you think. I have to counsel students that just because they have a high GPA does not mean as much if your degree was online or at a school most people have never heard of.
They are more likely to go deep in the class for an Ivy or top 20 than take from a lower tier university outside of top 50 unless you are at the top of your class. Going to a huge undergrad can disadvantage you by not getting to know your professors well and being so big that there are so many applying from your school.
can confirm, based on law school data from my kid's T10. Students with around 3.7-3.8, which is below average there, can go to the bottom of T14 otherwise go to next tier excellent law such as WashU. The 3.9+ kids get into multiple T14s and over a dozen every year go to T3. However the former usually has 165+ and the latter has 172+. It may not be the university itself as much as the fact that even a below average student at one of those schools is quite likely to be on par with the very top of a below-T50.
If you went from a top 10 to a law school below the top 14 that would say volumes about your undergrad accomplishments - and not in a good way. Better to go to a state school and land a top 14 (or even better a top 8) which is very doable and looks so much better on a resume.
I'm not sure that is true. I think a prestigious undergrad still matters, although obviously much less than the law school. I've seen situations where, for example, Harvard undergrad helped quite a bit. And, of course, going from a state school to a top 14 is "very doable," but the vast majority of people are unable to do it. Most people from state undergrads go to non-elite law schools (which is perfectly fine, btw).
Correlation is not causation. Going from a state school to a T14 is doable when one has the GPA and LSAT.
What are you talking about? Who is making a correlation as causation mistake? Everyone knows that going from a state school to a T14 is doable. Most can't do it. The top law schools are disproportionately filled with students from top schools. Undergrad institution still carries some weight in the most highly competitive areas of law (look at the resumes of Supreme Court clerks, for example or law school professors).
The LSAC used to publish information on the top 240 law school application feeder undergraduate schools. This included LSAT and GPA. It showed top undergraduate schools not surprising produced a higher number of applicants with top scores and GPAs. You can see how much higher the average applicant LSAT score was at Yale vs. say Berkeley below:
Yale–167.50
...
Again, students at top undergrads tend to have higher test scores than students at lower-ranked schools. That is mere correlation and is a surprise to no one. The undergraduate institution does not cause its students to have high LSAT scores.
Confirms Berkeley’s lackluster undergrad population compared to ivy/elite, and even below WM and UVa.
Anonymous
04/16/2025 13:50
Subject: Getting into Law School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Law school admissions is getting more unpredictable like college admissions.
There was a time it was mainly your GPA and LSAT. This year was extremely competitive. I advise students and having a score in the 170s and a high GPA does not guarantee T14 anymore.
The ones who did the best in the process have close to a 4.0, scores in the 170s, at least a year of work experience after college and preferably more, academic prizes or significant leadership or awards in college, recommendations that are outstanding. Strength of undergraduate institution matters more than you think. I have to counsel students that just because they have a high GPA does not mean as much if your degree was online or at a school most people have never heard of.
They are more likely to go deep in the class for an Ivy or top 20 than take from a lower tier university outside of top 50 unless you are at the top of your class. Going to a huge undergrad can disadvantage you by not getting to know your professors well and being so big that there are so many applying from your school.
can confirm, based on law school data from my kid's T10. Students with around 3.7-3.8, which is below average there, can go to the bottom of T14 otherwise go to next tier excellent law such as WashU. The 3.9+ kids get into multiple T14s and over a dozen every year go to T3. However the former usually has 165+ and the latter has 172+. It may not be the university itself as much as the fact that even a below average student at one of those schools is quite likely to be on par with the very top of a below-T50.
If you went from a top 10 to a law school below the top 14 that would say volumes about your undergrad accomplishments - and not in a good way. Better to go to a state school and land a top 14 (or even better a top 8) which is very doable and looks so much better on a resume.
I'm not sure that is true. I think a prestigious undergrad still matters, although obviously much less than the law school. I've seen situations where, for example, Harvard undergrad helped quite a bit. And, of course, going from a state school to a top 14 is "very doable," but the vast majority of people are unable to do it. Most people from state undergrads go to non-elite law schools (which is perfectly fine, btw).
Correlation is not causation. Going from a state school to a T14 is doable when one has the GPA and LSAT.
What are you talking about? Who is making a correlation as causation mistake? Everyone knows that going from a state school to a T14 is doable. Most can't do it. The top law schools are disproportionately filled with students from top schools. Undergrad institution still carries some weight in the most highly competitive areas of law (look at the resumes of Supreme Court clerks, for example or law school professors).
The LSAC used to publish information on the top 240 law school application feeder undergraduate schools. This included LSAT and GPA. It showed top undergraduate schools not surprising produced a higher number of applicants with top scores and GPAs. You can see how much higher the average applicant LSAT score was at Yale vs. say Berkeley below:
Yale–167.50
...
Again, students at top undergrads tend to have higher test scores than students at lower-ranked schools. That is mere correlation and is a surprise to no one. The undergraduate institution does not cause its students to have high LSAT scores.
I agree. That was my point as well. Yale, although much smaller than Berkeley, has a much higher percentage of students graduating with high LSAT and GPAs. T
Anonymous
04/16/2025 13:41
Subject: Getting into Law School
I am a state school to Ivy+ LS to big law partner who is also involved in firm recruiting. My experience with law school applications is stale at this point but from a law firm recruiting perspective undergrad school does not matter one iota. Other than that, I suppose, a double Harvard grad is very very impressive. But even that candidate doesn’t necessarily get the offer over another HLS grad from a different undergraduate school, all else equal.
Anonymous
04/16/2025 13:40
Subject: Getting into Law School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Law school admissions is getting more unpredictable like college admissions.
There was a time it was mainly your GPA and LSAT. This year was extremely competitive. I advise students and having a score in the 170s and a high GPA does not guarantee T14 anymore.
The ones who did the best in the process have close to a 4.0, scores in the 170s, at least a year of work experience after college and preferably more, academic prizes or significant leadership or awards in college, recommendations that are outstanding. Strength of undergraduate institution matters more than you think. I have to counsel students that just because they have a high GPA does not mean as much if your degree was online or at a school most people have never heard of.
They are more likely to go deep in the class for an Ivy or top 20 than take from a lower tier university outside of top 50 unless you are at the top of your class. Going to a huge undergrad can disadvantage you by not getting to know your professors well and being so big that there are so many applying from your school.
can confirm, based on law school data from my kid's T10. Students with around 3.7-3.8, which is below average there, can go to the bottom of T14 otherwise go to next tier excellent law such as WashU. The 3.9+ kids get into multiple T14s and over a dozen every year go to T3. However the former usually has 165+ and the latter has 172+. It may not be the university itself as much as the fact that even a below average student at one of those schools is quite likely to be on par with the very top of a below-T50.
If you went from a top 10 to a law school below the top 14 that would say volumes about your undergrad accomplishments - and not in a good way. Better to go to a state school and land a top 14 (or even better a top 8) which is very doable and looks so much better on a resume.
I'm not sure that is true. I think a prestigious undergrad still matters, although obviously much less than the law school. I've seen situations where, for example, Harvard undergrad helped quite a bit. And, of course, going from a state school to a top 14 is "very doable," but the vast majority of people are unable to do it. Most people from state undergrads go to non-elite law schools (which is perfectly fine, btw).
Correlation is not causation. Going from a state school to a T14 is doable when one has the GPA and LSAT.
What are you talking about? Who is making a correlation as causation mistake? Everyone knows that going from a state school to a T14 is doable. Most can't do it. The top law schools are disproportionately filled with students from top schools. Undergrad institution still carries some weight in the most highly competitive areas of law (look at the resumes of Supreme Court clerks, for example or law school professors).
The LSAC used to publish information on the top 240 law school application feeder undergraduate schools. This included LSAT and GPA. It showed top undergraduate schools not surprising produced a higher number of applicants with top scores and GPAs. You can see how much higher the average applicant LSAT score was at Yale vs. say Berkeley below:
Yale–167.50
...
Again, students at top undergrads tend to have higher test scores than students at lower-ranked schools. That is mere correlation and is a surprise to no one. The undergraduate institution does not cause its students to have high LSAT scores.
Anonymous
04/16/2025 13:28
Subject: Getting into Law School
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Law school admissions is getting more unpredictable like college admissions.
There was a time it was mainly your GPA and LSAT. This year was extremely competitive. I advise students and having a score in the 170s and a high GPA does not guarantee T14 anymore.
The ones who did the best in the process have close to a 4.0, scores in the 170s, at least a year of work experience after college and preferably more, academic prizes or significant leadership or awards in college, recommendations that are outstanding. Strength of undergraduate institution matters more than you think. I have to counsel students that just because they have a high GPA does not mean as much if your degree was online or at a school most people have never heard of.
They are more likely to go deep in the class for an Ivy or top 20 than take from a lower tier university outside of top 50 unless you are at the top of your class. Going to a huge undergrad can disadvantage you by not getting to know your professors well and being so big that there are so many applying from your school.
can confirm, based on law school data from my kid's T10. Students with around 3.7-3.8, which is below average there, can go to the bottom of T14 otherwise go to next tier excellent law such as WashU. The 3.9+ kids get into multiple T14s and over a dozen every year go to T3. However the former usually has 165+ and the latter has 172+. It may not be the university itself as much as the fact that even a below average student at one of those schools is quite likely to be on par with the very top of a below-T50.
If you went from a top 10 to a law school below the top 14 that would say volumes about your undergrad accomplishments - and not in a good way. Better to go to a state school and land a top 14 (or even better a top 8) which is very doable and looks so much better on a resume.
I'm not sure that is true. I think a prestigious undergrad still matters, although obviously much less than the law school. I've seen situations where, for example, Harvard undergrad helped quite a bit. And, of course, going from a state school to a top 14 is "very doable," but the vast majority of people are unable to do it. Most people from state undergrads go to non-elite law schools (which is perfectly fine, btw).
Correlation is not causation. Going from a state school to a T14 is doable when one has the GPA and LSAT.
What are you talking about? Who is making a correlation as causation mistake? Everyone knows that going from a state school to a T14 is doable. Most can't do it. The top law schools are disproportionately filled with students from top schools. Undergrad institution still carries some weight in the most highly competitive areas of law (look at the resumes of Supreme Court clerks, for example or law school professors).
The LSAC used to publish information on the top 240 law school application feeder undergraduate schools. This included LSAT and GPA. It showed top undergraduate schools not surprising produced a higher number of applicants with top scores and GPAs. You can see how much higher the average applicant LSAT score was at Yale vs. say Berkeley below:
Yale–167.50
Harvard–167.40
Princeton–166.10
UChicago–165.98
Stanford–165.72
Dartmouth College–165.67
Columbia–165.00
Duke–164.97
UPenn–164.58
Tufts University–164.48
Brown–164.31
Northwestern–164.30
WashUStL–164.05
Georgetown–163.48
Vanderbilt–163.45
Rice–163.44
Amherst College–162.79
Notre Dame–162.75
Cornell–162.65
McGill (Canada)–162.64
Wesleyan–162.61
Johns Hopkins–161.82
NYU–161.75
College of William & Mary–161.18
Univ. of Virginia–160.84
Univ. of British Columbia–160.76
Boston College–160.70
Emory–160.64
Michigan–160.48
Brandeis–160.30
Colgate–160.23
UCal-Berkeley–159.44