Best PreLaw Schools.

Applying to College
34

<p>In response to Sakky—</p>

<p>I’m not sure where to start disagreeing with you. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Thanks for the reading, but that’s not responsive to many of my points. You don’t respond to the idea that you will be a top student at a public university if you’re so smart as opposed to a “lower” student at these upper crust privates.</p>

<p>You think you’ve proven something by getting a bunch of data that shows the comparison in numbers, but that’s a HUGE mistake for your argument.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The relative difference in the GPA kills your argument- Yeah, the public kids getting in APPEAR to need to do better. Point is, the difference between a top student @ UCB and how they will do at Yale is very questionable as to wether it’d be .1 to .2 points on the GPA. Your OWN point of showing the links above were to highlight the massive difference in average GPAs. Well, if you’re in the middle of Yale, I doubt that is a 3.8. You’ve compared the VERY TOP of Yale to the VERY TOP of a TOP public.</p></li>
<li><p>You totally concede to me the idea of the $$$$ saved makes it a better deal. Not even a response.</p></li>
<li><p>You have no response also to the kid who goes to say, the University of Arizona and get a 3.9. These kids will be just as competitive as a Yale student with their average grade inflated 3.5 or whatever, and I’d contest that scoring 2 points higher on the LSAT with a 3.9 from Arizona WITH the money saved > if you had to fork over 45K a year to get a 3.6 and score worse on the LSAT.</p></li>
<li><p>Your data collection is ALSO highly flawed in that you pick maybe THE TOP PRIVATE. I might be so inclined to agree, id go to yale over mostly everywhere, pay the money , because that advantage is key. But for Northwesterns or JHUs or Boston Colleges, that advantage is not there. Go research their average numbers.</p></li>
<li><p>You don’t take into account the way law school rankings work. A 177 3.8 from LSU looks better to US News than 175 3.6 from Vanderbilt. Your little research project fails to understand the dynamics of law school admissions.</p></li>
<li><p>You use words like “punished” to explain sometimes .01 of a GPA, etc. While yes some of the schools od have apparently easier numbers for Yale than UCB (which again is flawed because it’s Yale and not a non ivy private) but take into account the type of student that might be applying from UCB with lower numbers. I’d argue that even a low Yale kid will have attempted more “soft factors” (ie: internships) as opposed to the lower-middle UCB kids. If you were a top dog at a CHEAP STATE UNIVERSITY the profs would be fighting over you to write you that sweet letter of rec/hook you up with that cool internship. So I think that data can be explained away by the simple economics of public school law applicants.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>As for the rest of your arguments, it’s still goes downhill.</p>

<p>You’ve witnessed classes @ privates with the lowest grade as A-? Great. Non responsive to the fact that if you’re a Yale quality student going to Arizona, you’ll negate that advantage by being the top dog all the time.</p>

<p>The final argument is actually the worst one you typed out.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Bad move dude- the “no name, doing poorly student” doesn’t apply to my thesis. I contend that if you’re smart, and would go to a private but have to pay a ton of money, it makes more sense to go to a lesser public (or less U in the first place) that gets you a high GPA. </p></li>
<li><p>It also doesn’t respond to my point—most people at Ball state, even #1/#2 who had 4.0s and what not aren’t going to feel the need to apply to top colleges like those from Harvard/ yale/ Princeton. Look to high schools. Many lower ranked HSs from uh… rural Oklahoma will send kids to their state U. While yes, some do go to the elite privates, there is an undeniable link between those kids at Andover and other top schools who are DRIVEN to apply to those type of places and those who don’t have the desire to have prestigious schools on their app. Your argument makes sense. Most of them would LOVE to go to top schools. But it is a failed argument since you assume that their love translates into them applying. They just don’t. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>Simply put:</p>

<p>If you’re a top student. You will be a top student at a crappy school. BUT, you will be the top dog. You will save A TON OF MONEY. And if you’re LSAT is competitive, you will get in.</p>

<p>One other point I forgot to bring in is that you assume that all these private schools are basically competiting against no names for spots. IE: Univ of Conneticut student applicant #35 is put up against Northwestern #35 for the right to attend Yale Law. Your analysis does NOT respond to the point that applying to law school and having the top numbers still gets you in. It assumes there is a competition when there is none.</p>

<p>I highly recommend checking out <a href=“http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com%5B/url%5D”>www.lawschoolnumbers.com</a> and <a href=“http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org%5B/url%5D”>www.lawschooldiscussion.org</a> for some insight on applicants and exactly how numbers driven the process is (ie: inflating rankings by accepting only some high LSAT scores even with a 2.2 GPA)</p>