<p>
</p>
<p>I strongly wish that top LS actually would do this. I remember looking at MIT’s placement and acceptance statistics into top Law schools with GPA and LSAT breakdown, and it wasn’t pretty. Kids who major in like EE or CS at MIT have it much worse than kids majoring in stuff like American Studies at Arizona State. IMO, I think these MIT students with poor GPA should’ve been compensated and given a huge sympathy at top Law Schools, which probably wasn’t the case.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, except correlation doesn’t imply causation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Top UG has much higher proportion of kids who are both intelligent and gunning for success. You will be amazed at the difference of caliber between an average Harvard undergrad and an average Arizona State undergrad. Many kids at lower State U’s aren’t exactly gunning to get into a top LS, let alone have the requisite intelligence. They probably worry more about partying it up and sipping more cans of beer.</p>
<p>From the Harvard Law enrollment chart that a poster uploaded, there are over 200 H undergrads at H law, 100~ Yale undergrads, and 50~ Princeton undergrads. A person who is knowledgeable about Law School admissions wouldn’t believe it to be the case that Harvard Law ‘hugely’ favors its undergrads, to the point that it admits its undergrads at 4 times of a higher rate than a kid from Princeton or Stanford. Because, even a State U grad with high numbers can get into H law most of the times, given the predictable nature of top law school admissions. You look at the raw data, yet need to distinguish between ‘correlation’ and ‘causation’ with caution.</p>