<p>There is a lot of info out there about undergraduate feeder schools to the top law schools. I am a freshman at ASU and I noticed only 2 graduates went to Harvard while as many as 40 came from schools like UCLA, Berkely, and Ivy leagues. I have read on this board that most don’t think the undergraduate school is that important but I am concerned it is since my school sent only 2 to Harvard and has 30,000+ students. I only use Harvard as an example, other schools send more students than ASU all-around.</p>
<p>So… how much better off am I transfering to a “more respected” school? Can anyone explain why some schools send so many students to top ranked schools and others don’t, if the undergraduate school doesn’t matter?</p>
<p>I wouldn’t let that stop you from staying at ASU. You have to perform well, that’s all. My school has -56,000- students and we sent 31 kids to Harvard Law for 2005.</p>
<p>I’d say your decision to transfer should be based on your happiness with your current school, and not on the basis of how you think a law school will look at it. If you get the scores and ugpa to get into harvard, it doesnt matter so much where you’re coming from.</p>
<p>Are you sure that is what the chart means? I thought it was a calculation of the total number of students attending Harvard Law who originated from UT - Austin.</p>
<p>Even if that is not the case, the number is still misleading. At any given year, alumni from UT could have applied to HLS, and perhaps all admits were only students from Plan II. The chart to which you are referring makes no reference to the class of the student applying to Harvard, just either the amount of students currently matriculated, or those who matriculated in Fall 2005.</p>
<p>“Even if that is not the case, the number is still misleading. At any given year, alumni from UT could have applied to HLS, and perhaps all admits were only students from Plan II. The chart to which you are referring makes no reference to the class of the student applying to Harvard, just either the amount of students currently matriculated, or those who matriculated in Fall 2005.”</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>Furthermore, dcfca is failing to consider the fact that many of those students at HLS may have had very successful careers before applying to law school, as well as master’s degrees, national fellowships/ scholarships, etc.</p>
<p>Only 1 person from the graduating 2005 Plan II class is attending law school at Harvard. It’s possible that there could be many Plan II alumni applying too, but I’d say that’s unlikely. A larger proportion of Plan II kids seem to set their sights on med school and it’s pretty unlikely for those kids to earn both an MD and JD. </p>
<p>The OP stated that his school has only sent 2 kids to Harvard out of 30,000 undergraduates. I was trying to say that my school has more undergraduates and has been able to put out a larger number.</p>
<p>From that website they say that only 13% of the class holds advance degress – so I’d say that shoots down Wildflower’s master’s degree point. As for holding careers, who knows how many were actually employed prior to HLS. Half of the class has been out of college for only 1-4 years. So it’s true that yes, these individuals could have been working. </p>
<p>The fact is, from what i’ve seen around here people say that Harvard is very numbers driven plus you need a little something special. I’d say that the ‘something special’ is something that isn’t exclusive to only certain schools and is more up to the individual and their willingness to work and achieve their goals.</p>
<p>“A larger proportion of Plan II kids seem to set their sights on med school and it’s pretty unlikely for those kids to earn both an MD and JD” </p>
<p>Assuming you know all “Plan II kids” from the past 5 years, that still is a gross generalization.</p>
<p>“The OP stated that his school has only sent 2 kids to Harvard out of 30,000 undergraduates. I was trying to say that my school has more undergraduates and has been able to put out a larger number.”</p>
<p>And…Go Texas???</p>
<p>“From that website they say that only 13% of the class holds advance degress – so I’d say that shoots down Wildflower’s master’s degree point.”</p>
<p>It does not “shoot down” any point. The point, if you will, was that those students are not graduates from a single class, and that their other major accomplishments are unknown to us --from the data that’s provided. Thus, assertions provided based on that data are likely to be faulty. </p>
<p>“As for holding careers, who knows how many were actually employed prior to HLS”</p>
<p>You can cavil; that 30+ students are accepted from Georgetown, which comprises around 6,500 students, and that 31 students were accepted from UT, which comprises 56,000 students, means something. </p>
<p>Just comparing the two schools, no, UT does not perform well at placing students at places like Harvard.</p>
<p>Where did I say that UT was better than Harvard or Georgetown? Nowhere at all. All I was trying to say was that you can come from a large state school and still get into elite law schools. The OP mentioned that his school has 30,000 undergrads, I was JUST trying to say that my school has a comparable population and is able to put kids into HLS.</p>
<p>Instead of arguing with me Wildflower and Nspeds, why don’t you focus on giving the OP valuable information? If you want to debate you really should do it elsewhere. The OP asked a question and neither of you have attempted to answer it.</p>
<p>edit:</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is this: Law school admissions are mainly a numbers driven process. If you go to Harvard and get a 139 on the LSAT will you get into Harvard Law? I’d say that it’s very unlikely. If you have the extremely strong numbers and you’re able to bring something special to the table then that will probably outweigh the ‘name’ of the school you go to. Numbers will be the most important factor of the application. </p>
<p>What I should have done from the beginning was not mention UT’s placement abilities in comparison to ASU’s but rather try to determine why these schools and other large schools tend to differ in terms of the numbers getting into HLS. As for that, I’m not sure. Maybe ASU and UT differ in terms of grade inflation? Because GPA would play a major part in getting into the elite schools. LSAT is another factor but it’s my belief that one can self study for standardized tests so that shouldn’t be contingent on the school the individual attends.</p>
<p>What my post demonstrates is that the type of school does factor rather significantly in law school admissions, justifiying a transfer from ASU to a school with better placement.</p>
<p>That ASU has a comparable population with UT does not imply that, next year, 30+ students will be admitted from the former.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the poster acknowledged this when he said:</p>
<p>I think the key idea here is stident selection, meaning…
Fact: Georgetown puts more kids into HLS per 1000.
Yet, my guess is that on average, more kids from Georgetown apply, and as a Texas boy, I know that on average the UT student is not as motivated or intelligent as a Georgetown student. Key words: “on average.”
The same goes for ASU. The quality of students on average is lower. The average Gtown applicant may have a 165 lsat while avg ASU applicant may have a 155.
Again, on average, the states of ASU, or UT applicants are not going to be as strong as an ivy league applicant. After large state schools are comprised of many students who go there because its cheap and easy.
The point is if you have the great scores, the undergrad institution will not keep you out. Remember that great schools just have more great applicants, however, the top applicants at each school are pretty similar.</p>
<p>Still, don’t transfer. There’s correlation, and then there’s causation.</p>
<p>Economist (and Princeton professor) Alan Blinder did a study of students who got into Princeton but went to Penn State instead. They ended up just as well off financially.</p>
<p>In other words, I think that if you’re good enough to transfer to Harvard, you don’t need to.</p>
<p>These posts have definately made me feel better about staying at ASU. I have always wanted to live in CA and think I will apply as a junior tranfer ( I am still a freshman) and see what happens. I have always wanted to live in CA so it would be for the experience too. Of course, if I am just as well off at ASU as I would be at USC, UCLA, or Berkely… then what’s the point? Your posts have helped me sort some things out and see I can go to a top ten even if I stay.</p>
<p>But it is a guess, that is all. I am willing to bet the other way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not sure about that. I have read posts that claim the opposite: state schools, while cheaper, do not suffer from the grade inflation pervading Ivy League and top tier institutions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was not making that argument; my argument was that since there are more admits from Georgetown et al., it is probable that the reputation of the school factors in, say, HLS admissions. I would only be committing the fallacy if I argued that it is necesarily the case.</p>
<p>To be sure, the repeated truth of my claim year after year allows us to inductively establish that there is causation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think there is no harm in trying. Get accepted, and see what happens from there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is a good idea. Though it will not hurt as much to stay, there are many advantages in attending a top tier institution, not from a law school admissions perspective, but educationally.</p>
<p>Most people who go to top law schools are terrific testers. There is a strong correlation between sat scores and lsat scores. If you are a strong test taker, ie, close to 1500 on sats, you will do well enough to be in competition for a top law school. If you are at ASU and have top grades but performanc is less than stellar on standardized tests you will not likely get into a top law school.
If you transfer to a more prestigious school it will not make much of a difference if you are not strong on these types of tests. Now this does not mean you will not have a successful career in law. If you attend a less prestigious law school but are very bright and write extremely well you may make law review and gain access to the job of your choice through that mechanism. I also do not know if you are a urm or have other personal traits that might make you an exception to the rule so to speak. Good luck.</p>
<p>On the contrary, students applying from the top tier can afford to score couple points lower than your typical state-school applicant, and still have a better chance at a top law school.</p>
<p>I don’t know about that, the data seems to indicate that this isn’t true. </p>
<p>For example, take a look at the GPA’s and LSAT scores of admitted Yale and Berkeley prelaws to the top law schools. You will notice that, by and large, those admitted prelaws had the same stats as the average admitted prelaws (from all undergrad programs). </p>
<p>Interesting! I have obviously never seen this. I always thought a Harvard student was given a little more freedom in GPA when applying to HLS, but perhaps I am incorrect. Thank you for the site.</p>
<p>Edit: But still, the Georgetown program still serves as one example. Additionally, schools like Rice University have agreements with Columbia Law School such that students can enroll in their junior year; however, as a transfer student, I doubt one will be successful in enrolling in such programs as an undergrad.</p>