<p>What you describe are confounding variables (not self-selection), which I already acknowledged. Consider these numbers on HYPS enrollment at US News’ top two law schools.</p>
<p>31.0% (712/2300) of Yale Law’s and Harvard Law’s students come from HYPS. About .4% of US undergraduates come from HYPS. HYPS graduates have about 7,650% overrepresentation at the nation’s top two law schools.</p>
<p>How’s that for bringing this claim into question?</p>
<p>First step. Google “scambloggers” and read up some unemployed/underemployed attorney statistics. It’s not a pretty picture out there, even for first tier school grads.</p>
<p>Last post in this thread. Again, I --or more accurately bluedevilmike has proven that the Ivies are not especially grade inflated. The math sets it out there. </p>
<p>More importantly, this is how law schools actually figure out grade inflation, to the extend that they are concerned with the issue at all. Since boston is claiming he’s an expert on LS admissions at the age of 17 because he’s read the top law school forum, I searched there for relevant information. See this thread:</p>
<p>See especially post on Sat, Jan.19, 2008 at 10:07 pm. </p>
<p>Do I think this is “evidence?” No, I don’t. But it just shows that at least some of the folks on the site boston is citing as the fountain of his knowledge do think where you went to college matters.</p>
<p>PS: in answer to #39, the numbers change over time. The data were coming from different sites which were using different years.</p>
Uhh, that doesn’t prove anything. HYP grads have the highest gpa’s and lsat’s in the nation, so of course they are going to get into the best law schools in the nation. This doesn’t prove that HYP grads get a boost in law school admissions solely for coming from HYP, which you were trying to prove.</p>
<p>No, actually I wasn’t. If you want to attribute a 7,650% overrepresentation to mere confounding variables, go ahead; but I’ll be smiling in amusement as you do. :)</p>
Excuse me? Please point me to the evidence that HYP grads are admitted over non-elite grads when the HYP grads have worse stats. GPA and LSAT probably make up 90% or more of the admissions decision at law schools other than Yale and Stanford. That leaves about 10% for softs. A HYP might be an okay soft, but it isn’t going to help you get into law school over someone with better stats than you from bumblef**k state university.</p>
<p>What question am I begging? And how did I misread your post? You showed stats to try to prove that going to a elite ug gives you a boost in law school admissions, though the stats showed nothing of the sort.</p>
<p>No, I presented evidence that calls your claim into serious question; you are presuming my intent, incorrectly so. You dismissed the data by reasserting the claim that was being contested – a classic case of begging the question.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>You claim that attending a top private school affords no advantage over attending a less prestigious college. Your statistical support: non-existant.</p></li>
<li><p>I speculate that attending a top private school does afford such an advantage. Statistical support: graduates of the top private schools attend the top law schools at 7,650% overrepresentation. That support is, of course, not objectively conclusive, but it is strongly suggestive. You then counter with a logical fallacy:</p></li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>Translation: The confounding variables must fully account for those data because those data are in contradiction to my impression otherwise; therefore, my impression is correct.</p>
<p>I think we can do nothing but speculate on this point. That many law students at the tops schools went to top undergrad schools does not imply that going to a top school mattered. The students who went to top undergrad schools are , with very few exceptions , excellent students, and excellent standardized test takers. The same students, had they gone to lesser schools , would still be excellent students and excellent standardized test takers. To determine if the undergrad school made a difference, one would first have to find a set of similar students from elite schools and lesser schools who all applied to elite law schools. To my admittedly limited knowledge, no study has attempted to do this. I have heard of similar studies which followed excellent students who went to elite and non-elite schools. These studies have generally produced mixed results.</p>
Tehe. Logic fail. This would be the fallacy of demanding negative proof.</p>
<p>
How is that strongly suggestive at all? Like nemom said, students at top law schools mostly come from top undergrads because of their test scores and gpa. You have failed to show that ug is a factor in ls admissions, you have simply shown that the students in the top ls mostly come from top ug, which no one is denying.</p>
<p>
I take it you have no clue whatsoever of what a logical fallacy is. Do you mind telling me which logical fallacy I committed? </p>
<p>No, I have not committed that fallacy. I am not demanding proof in an attempt to evade any burden; I am merely pointing out that you have no support for your claim, without even suggesting that that renders the alternative viewpoint correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>7,650 is a large number; that’s how.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I know… In fact, I brought this up before you or nemom did; there is no need to repeatedly remind me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I keep telling you, I wasn’t trying to show that! </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a connection between those two ideas, you know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the support for your take?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the third time: begging the question. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m paraphrasing your argument in order to make crystal clear the logically fallacious nature of it.</p>
<p>I was quantifying why I am skeptical of your unfounded claim. Your argument, again, has amounted to (you’re in italics; I’m not): </p>
<p>Here’s the truth. How do you know that? Trust me, I know. Alright, but here is some data that is consistent with the idea that you’re wrong. Yeah, well, it’s not conclusive; there could be a way that I’m still right. Yeah, I agree, but the things that could make you correct would have to play a huge role. I know that they play a huge role, which supports my claim that they play a huge role. As you can see, I am correct.</p>
<p>Check out the graphs. You can see that law school admissions is almost solely a numbers game (LSAT and GPA), and that ug has little to nothing to do with admissions – apart from Y and S. Other schools, especially Harvard, give boosts to applicants from their respective ug institutions (ie. Harvard ug —> HLS).</p>