<p>Out of all of the ivies, Middlebury, Duke, and Georgetown which school has the best pre-law/polysci program? thanks.</p>
<p>Columbia hands down.</p>
<p>kidding. seriously though this is a loaded question. 1) when you say polisci do you mean you just want to take classes or are you interested in the academics of it all? 2) when you say polisci do you mean political theory, quantitative analysis of things like elections, voting patterns and behavior, are you interested in institutions, or maybe international politics (which one is the best depends on what you are interested in)? 3) i don’t know many of those schools that have a definitive pre-law program outside of maybe an advising office and some particular resources there.</p>
<p>so you wont find a good answer. the most judicious answer - they are all great schools and will offer you something, with good placement in law school (with Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Princeton having the highest placement at ‘good’ schools). but then again you have to ask yourself, what kind of law are you interested? do you want to do corporate law, constitutional law, do you want to have a small practice in a small town? where you go to ugrad may impact where you can go to law school (some schools like hls and yls are uncannily nepotistic). so if you really love con law and want to clerk for the supreme court, you may have some aspirations. but if you just want to be a corner store attorney at law, then that is a different beast. and lastly, many of the top law schools take kids who went to college at a whole bunch of places.</p>
<p>but to the school i know most - columbia has a lot of prelaw kids, great polisci department with some real guns in political science (especially international politics), and you have some pretty good resources in the pre-law advising office. many of my friends are going to top 10 law schools, most hate law school, and almost all of them can’t wait to sell out and work 100 hrs a week.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>it’s actually Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Stanford. If you look at HLS and YLS placement you will see as many princeton kids as Columbia/Stanford, but that’s because there are high proportions of Columbia kids at CLS and high proportions of Stanford kids at SLS. So when you aggregate undergrad institutions at the top 5 law schools, it’s more like 1) Harvard, 2)Yale, 3) Columbia + Stanford, 5) Princeton.</p>
<p>But honestly any top ~15 school will give you the opportunity to get into top law schools, and will give you significant advantage over schools below them. The ranking above is just where you see the greatest number of students as a proportion of the undergrad population. Given a few data points, it’s pretty likely that Harvard will give you a slight edge over princeton (just because significantly more H kids go to top law schools) and princeton will give you a slight edge over middlebury.</p>
<p>Bad logic – misunderstanding of correlation and causation – demonstrated here by confidentialcoll and admissionsgeek.</p>
<p>That the top Ivies have the best law school placement doesn’t prove that going to a top Ivy gives you a significant advantage over ‘lesser’ schools. The most reasonable explanation for top undergrads’ success in top law school placement is that kids at the top undergrads have slightly higher LSAT scores than kids at slightly lesser schools.</p>
<p>C02 - we could also say folks that are wealthier have higher LSAT scores. And folks with higher SAT scores tend to have higher LSAT scores. Because both are true. I don’t disagree that the number one indicator of where you go is the LSAT. But all things being equal (similar LSAT scores among applicants), Ivies poach Ivies before they poach others. </p>
<p>And though certainly I would say it is in the realm of correlation (no school has come out saying it) - but I don’t think Yale is so much better of a school than H, P and S such to warrant so high a percentage of the YLS 1L class. And even when you adjust for the fact that more Y ugrads apply to YLS, the degree of favoritism (percentage of 1L class filled by their own ugrads) is grossly worse than even the nepotism at HLS, CLS and SLS. At that point I would argue there is an obscenely high correlation that where you go to school plays a role in where you go to law school. And I think it certainly is a reasonable explanation. The only anecdotal evidence I have to back that up is the cheeky statement from someone that worked at CLS that said they trust kids that went to Ivies over others. Not said in an admissions setting, but when you take a look at academia, the realization that it is a bit of a circle jerk is pretty clear.</p>
<p>I’d suggest OP look at LSAT score rankings by undergraduate degree. Also, most lawyers and law school counselors I’ve spoken to have told me that there are better ways to prepare for law school than pre-law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>After much digging it appears that law schools have narrow lsat ranges:</p>
<p>[Columbia</a> Law School | Admission and Application Information](<a href=“http://www.law-school-admission.com/Columbia_Law_School/]Columbia”>http://www.law-school-admission.com/Columbia_Law_School/) </p>
<p>Average LSAT between universities does vary a fair bit between schools:</p>
<p>[schools</a>’ mean LSAT](<a href=“schools' mean LSAT Forum - Top Law Schools”>schools' mean LSAT Forum - Top Law Schools) </p>
<p>and acceptance rate to top schools does not vary by as much as I thought:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/662310-ranking-undergrad-highest-acceptance-rates-law-school-4.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/662310-ranking-undergrad-highest-acceptance-rates-law-school-4.html</a> </p>
<p>So basically top schools just have smarter students who score better on the LSAT and top law schools mostly take high lsat scorers so differences in undergrad representation can be explained by this. Meaning at Columbia if you score a 169, you are above average, at U Mich you are significantly higher above average with a 169, but your chances of admission will not change much with 169 at Columbia vs. 169 at Mich for say YLS. There does seem to be evidence that you are more likely to get into your own law school from undergrad, so H undergrad helps you get into hls and C undergrad helps you get into CLS. The reason for this is because CLS and HLS expect a higher yeild from their own undergrads.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is correct.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The numbers do exist. There’s a very slight – but perhaps not even statistically significant – difference between the lower and top Ivies’ average LSAT scores. It’s probably because top Ivy kids on average are slightly smarter and/or slightly better test takers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s a bit of advice: don’t say “I would argue” when you’re actually arguing. Just state your argument.</p>
<p>Also, an “an obscenely high correlation” doesn’t prove causation whatsoever. There could be something else with an even more an obscenely high correlation that is the cause.</p>
<p>i didn’t say it proves causation. but a lot more life altering decisions have been made with less evidence. to prove that it is the case you need to have the admissions folks at law schools come out and say something they would not be able to come out and say. so until then - i’ll just call it an obscenely high correlation.</p>
<p>and what you offered was opinion not advice, saying i would argue is a means through which i can clarify my subjective stance as opposed to stating it as fact. and it does not somehow legitimate me more or less in the eyes of the general public, it just seems to annoy you. i am sorry if it offends you, i would argue that it is just you being petty.</p>
<p>but i agree with the point re: LSAT and ugrad degree. the numbers support.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or perhaps that the characteristics of kids who get into top undergrad schools (working hard, doing well on standardized tests, etc.) are also important for law school admission.</p>