Is Prestige Still about Ivies and Rankings?

Applying to College
544

But that isn’t necessarily about reputational halo effects. That instead could be a rational assessment of internal competitiveness.

Indeed, there is no doubt that many sorts of next-step gatekeepers are willing to go “deeper into the class” at Princeton as opposed to Arizona. We can see that in many different placement studies. These effects are diminished but can survive controls just for next-step placement tests, like the LSAT or MCAT. But if we also controlled for reasonable internal competition adjustments, would there be anything left to explain?

It is very hard to really do that sort of control, but plausibly not. Even more plausibly, if there is anything left to explain, it could be a variable effect, and sometimes nonexistent in specific cases, and in most other cases relatively small.

The reason this is important is the reputational halo theory suggests you can get this effect just by matriculating, and then chilling for the next four years while waiting to collect that benefit. If it is rational adjustments for internal competition, you instead can’t just stop with matriculation, you need to actually compete for the next four years. And in fact, if it is a rational internal competition factor, it will be quite hard to get to that required level at Princeton, as hard as it would be to get to the higher required level at Arizona, such that many Princeton students will try but fail.

Which of course is the reality Princeton students discover after matriculation. The need to keep competing if you want the most selective next step positions is not over. And your competition is now other people who also matriculated at Princeton. And that is a very hard competition.

ETA: Some quick numbers. According to College Transitions’s law school feeder study, right around 60% of the Princeton grads going to a law school went to a T14 law school. That’s a very high percentage, in fact. At Arizona, it was 7%. That’s probably not an entirely fair comparison as about 19% went to Arizona for law school, which could be a great deal and more than sufficient for many purposes. But even holding out those people, the others went to T14s at under a 9% rate.

But then here is the question. Is it easier to be among the top 9% of Arizona law-bound students, or top 60% of Princeton law-bound students?

Again, I don’t think there is an obvious answer to this question. LSATs alone will explain a lot of that, and then whatever is left could at least mostly be internal competition adjustments.

Like this is very crude, but per 2024-25 CDS data, the 75th percentile SAT at Princeton is a 1500. Only 16% at Arizona had over a 1400. 72.9% had 4.0 HS GPAs at Princeton, 14% at Arizona.

Again acknowledging this is very crude, that is consistent with the idea that a top 60th percentile law bound student from Princeton could be seen as roughly equivalent on average to a top 9th percentile law bound student from Arizona, just based on LSATs and then internal competition adjustments.

1 Like
545

Regarding law school, the perceived admission advantages are smaller than many assume. Law school admission stats suggest that “T14” law school admission is largely a function of LSAT score, undergrad GPA, and demographics (mostly URM status). Undergrad school name is not especially important.

For example, in another thread, I looked up self-reported scattergrams for Chicago at University of Chicago Law School - Admissions Graph | Law School Numbers . When you exclude URMs, international, and non-traditional, there is a clear correlation with stats and decisions. At the time of the thread, acceptances were generally 3.8+ GPA and 170+ LSAT or 3.9+ GPA and 167+ LSAT. Rejections were generally <= 170 LSAT, particularly with lower GPA. Waitlists are typically borderline. These generalizations hold true regardless of name of undergrad college. Other “T14” law schools I checked at the time formed a similar pattern. The outlier exceptions occurred at both highly selective undergrad colleges and less selective undergrad colleges. There didn’t appear to be a clear correlation with undergrad college name, after controlling for stats.

However, it’s true that students who attended Princeton for undergrad are tremendously more likely to attend a “T14” law school than those who attended Arizona for undergrad. This is not a contradiction. Example stats of law school applicants for Princeton and Arizona State (U of A not available) in a previous year are below. During this year 25th percentile LSAT at least selective “T14” law school was 165. Which undergrad college is more likely to have applicants with the typically necessary 165+ LSAT score – the one with mean of 167 or the one with mean of 151?

Princeton Undergrads: Mean LSAT = 167.1
Arizona Undergrads: Mean LSAT = 151.3

Another important factor is self selection/sorting effects. Highly qualified kids who are big on prestige are probably more likely to choose Princeton over Arizona, so you get more of this group at Princeton than Arizona. This impacts both which law schools the students choose to apply to, and whether a high LSAT kid is willing to choose a not “T14” over “T14”, if they offer a big scholarship (full ride is common).

3 Likes
546

Very good information on T14 Law School admissions from “top colleges”.

““Another important factor is self selection/sorting effects. Highly qualified kids who are big on prestige are probably more likely to choose Princeton over Arizona, so you get more of this group at Princeton than Arizona. This impacts both which law schools the students choose to apply to, and whether a high LSAT kid is willing to choose a not “T14” over “T14”, if they offer a big scholarship (full ride is common).”

I would add that chasing a T14 Law School is not just about prestige. There is a huge correlation between attending a T14 Law School and career outcomes.

1 Like
547

Yep.

I will add the following claim but not try to prove it. I do think there is sometimes what I would call a margin of error effect. By that I mean most people who would be able to get into a T14 law school if they had the opportunity to choose Princeton for undergrad would also be able to get in to a T14 law school if they instead chose Arizona. However, I think in some cases, this hypothetical person might have an early oopsy. Like they start off in engineering, or as a premed, or so on, and it doesn’t go as well as hoped. They pivot to Poli Sci and law school, and it goes great.

I think in some such cases, the Princeton kid might have a better chance of slipping into a T14 than the Arizona kid. Or if the oopsy is bad enough, not a T14 but SOME selective law school.

One of the reasons I will not try to prove this is we just don’t have the data to really investigate. I do think if you look at enough scattergrams, you can sort of see it, likely at equivalent high LSATs there might be a few more Princeton kids than Arizona kids getting in with grades just outside the densest range.

But anyway, even if this was true–and it is a controversial assertion–this wouldn’t be a reputational halo sort of effect.

548

Chasing a T14 Law School is VERY much about “prestige”, because the career outcome is also about “prestige”. The perceived prestige of a Law School is directly correlated to the perceived prestige of the career outcome of the graduates of the Law School.

1 Like
549

By your definition, “prestige” covers all sorts of achievement, recognition, attainment of wealth, etc. And you seem to disapprove of “prestige”. Which is fine, but not everyone wants to be a monk.

550

No. The perceived prestige of a Law School is directly correlated to the “optionality” afforded to its graduates, even if a student didn’t make law review, graduate with honors, etc.

The top firms (and I think 14 is too narrow, but the number is certainly less than the total number of law schools in America) boast high bar passage rates, the ability of their graduates to get jobs that actually require that one passes the bar (so working for your law school’s alumni relations department doesn’t count), and the ability of their graduates to get “high impact legal jobs” which are NOT always prestigious. But impact is impact.

There are thousands of lawyers in government– and not in “prestigious and well known agencies” who wield enormous power over the lives of people in this country. Yes, you can get one of those jobs graduating from “low bar passage rate” law school, but graduates of the “more prestigious” schools can work there- or get jobs at the SEC (higher prestige), justice department (was highly prestigious until very recently) or any federal prosecutorial role (ditto- the top of the prestige ladder until recent events).

A student choosing a low prestige law school will have many fewer options. And ironically, some of those options will be much more lucrative than the higher prestige roles. A personal injury lawyer in a big or medium sized city will likely outearn a Supreme Court justice by the time they hit 40.

But I don’t think your assessment of the prestige loop in the law is correct.

1 Like
551

But then that is the effect of law school (rather than undergraduate college) prestige among those hiring lawyers, right?

Of course law school is different from undergraduate in that there is only one major with a curriculum aimed at an external licensing exam and employment in law, so it may not be that surprising that prestige rankings of law schools that closely correlate to their admission selectivity at one end and law employment prospects at the other end are more important and more measurable than for undergraduate.

552

Since the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, law schools cannot consider URM status in admissions. They CAN consider race and ethnicity in the context of an applicant’s life experience— but not just because of race and addressing racial imbalances in the class. So the list of what can be considered- economic status, a parent in the criminal justice system, an applicants personal experience with the legal system (unhoused and unable to access the benefits to which the family was legally entitled, etc.) is MUCH broader than URM. Please do not bang the URM drum re: law school admissions, particularly for the top schools. They have been VERY careful not to run afoul of the court ruling. A wealthy white applicant with a parent in prison for creating a Ponzi scheme gets the same finger on the scale wrt holistic admissions as a low income Black applicant who spent time in foster care.

2 Likes
553

Yeah, honestly I don’t really know but that sounds plausible.

Still, I wonder. Have super pointy STEM kids ever been able to be quant pointy and super regular or below average everywhere else? Has that ever been the case? I tend to think, but do not know definitively, that “well rounded” is not a new concept, including, and perhaps especially, at MIT.

I also tend to think the stereotype of the brilliant, physically unattractive and unkempt math genius who is hyper focused on one or two science-y things and is generally awkward with members of the opposite sex is hackneyed and I wonder if that’s ever been a fair cut at the student pop at places like MIT.

554

I really do wonder about that … But, a discussion for another thread, I suppose.

2 Likes
555

…we show that attending an Ivy-Plus college instead of the average flagship public college increases students’ chances of reaching the top 1% of the earnings distribution by 50%, nearly doubles their chances of attending an elite graduate school, and almost triples their chances of working at a prestigious firm.

This also accounts for the student’s own qualifications and shows the extra benefit, above and beyond the specific qualifications of the individual applicant, of attending an IvyPlus university in getting accepted by an elite grad school (which includes law school).

556

Well, yeah, I met a lot of those there. Sorry to burst your bubble. (and there is nothing wrong with people meeting this description… I have absolutely no problem with people like this in principle, and I liked most!)

I doubt it’s as much that way now, though.

1 Like
557

“But then that is the effect of law school (rather than undergraduate college) prestige among those hiring lawyers, right?”

Yes of course, that is what I meant. Law school prestige has a much more direct effect on career outcomes –whether money, influence or otherwise. College is not so direct, but I think there is some effect which I will not get into here

558

They are not looking at law school specifically. “Elite” grad school is also defined as being an Ivy+ or one of a few publics – not being “T14” law school.

For example, I attended Stanford for undergrad where I did a co-terminal masters (pursue BS + MS at same time) . Continuing grad school at your home college like this counts as attending an “elite” grad school. Had I instead attended a T14 law school like NYU, Northwestern, or Georgetown, that would not count as attending an “elite” grad school.

There are obviously some problems with this definition. Even more so with defining “prestigious firm” as a firm that hires a disproportionately large number of grads from Ivy+ colleges. The study found that students who attend Ivy+ colleges are more likely to work at firms that hire a disproportionately large number of Ivy+ grads.

559

Why do you think you’re bursting my bubble?

While that’s very charitable of you, I expect those people (and their parents) would prefer to not be thought of or described as conforming to that stereotype.

In any event, we’ve gone beyond the scope of this thread and will have to get back to the prestige of MIT and Caltech if we are to stay on topic.

560

I may have phrased that awkwardly, but I’m not being “charitable”… really, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a stereotypical nerd, and (apart from a few particularly troublesome guys) I enjoyed being in an environment where people were able to fully express their stereotypical nerdiness, and let that particular freak flag fly. It was very refreshing coming from CA, where there was more of an emphasis on being beautiful people all the time.

Just clarifying. And I agree, off topic so I will stop :slight_smile:

1 Like
561

Again, take this for what it is worth, but I think in PhD admissions, institutional choice can play a meaningful role, but again I hesitate to call it a reputational halo effect. Instead, PhD admissions tends to look quite intently at professor recommendations, including research supervisors as relevant, and often is going right down to subfield decisions. So, one thing that matters is opportunities to get close to faculty, including as relevant faculty in your intended subfield.

I think there is a lot of evidence this can be easier in some ways at small or medium private colleges than large publics, and this might be helping with PhD admissions. Although as usual, controlling for self-selection is really tricky. And no, I don’t think the Chetty studies did a good job controlling for self-selection in this area. For that matter, they didn’t look at LACs, which can have rather gaudy PhD placement statistics at least prior to self-selection controls. So we can’t really tell if what they did see with larger flagship publics versus midsize privates is or is not about size/format and/or self-selection effects.

2 Likes
562

Yes, that is why (for example) some very strong kids in CA choose UCSB’s College of Creative Studies, which is a tiny research-focused program within a biggish school. They get a lot of professor attention from the start. One hears that students in this program can pretty much take their pick of grad schools.

1 Like
563

I know a lot of people who went to lesser known law schools, borrowed a lot of money to attend and then couldn’t get the kind of job that would allow them to pay back those loans. I’m of the belief that if you can’t get into a respected law school (it doesn’t have to be T14 but should be well ranked) don’t go.

4 Likes