« on: February 14, 2008, 09:52:45 AM »
Your replies find me very confused. Good grades are not free, and there is no certainty to any of it. Nobody is disputing this. The question was about the aggregate. The existence of the LSAT and GPA measures is because they have been statistically shown to have significant correlation to first year law school grades. They are not perfect, but they do mean something. And if they mean something, and if there is no other good leading indicator for law school success that is weighed heavily in admissions (certainly having a juicy life story isn't one, though it helps in admissions) it seems likely that those schools which have a tighter band of students in the middle of their accepted classes will have less variability in the law school academic potential within their class. This might (MIGHT) lead to a more competitive (numerically, not necessarily how hard people work) situation. That's all I'm saying.
To the poster who wanted to know if he should go to BC over Loyola, I would suggest he go to BC. I do not think that this type of analysis would be at all a good reason to go to a markedly worse school over a better school. At the most, I think it might be a useful consideration when choosing between schools which are otherwise very difficult to differentiate.