One last thing, I have no doubt some chose to go to schools outside the T14 and have great intellect. The school is not always indicative. In my LSAT prep course, I had 2 Princeton University graduates. I was outscored them both on every test but the 1st (they scored higher by a point) For the official test in June, I scored 8 points higher than one. The other I no longer talk to. And I went to a lowly state school (and a county college for that matter). I believe though, as they say, I am the exception that proves the rule. In general, Princeton students will most likely score better than one who has gone to community college. But sometimes circumstances dictate otherwise.
Almost no one, however, believes that the LSAT has any correlation to success as a lawyer (assuming one can score high enough to get into law school).
A final example is that Michigan is better at football than Appalachian State despite that huge upset.
However, getting a job is easier from a pedigreed school and I do think top schools attract better faculty and students. You said you hate cold weather and did not attend Stanford, because of the cost. If you got a 180 on the LSAT and had a realistic shot I imagine your tune might have changed. I chose GGU for the scholarship money and would not change for anybody. "Sure" if Stanford came calling I would be there. Stanford is a better school than GGU. (PERIOD). (EXCLAMATION POINT).
Quote from: kenpostudent on October 05, 2010, 05:05:51 PMAlmost no one, however, believes that the LSAT has any correlation to success as a lawyer (assuming one can score high enough to get into law school). Depending on one's definition of "success," of course, this statement appears false almost by definition.If we assume these two premises:(1) a reasonably strong correlation between LSAT score and rank of law school attended(2) a reasonably strong correlation between rank of law school attended and "success"Then, unless math fails me, it necessarily follows that there is a non-negligible (and probably strong) correlation between LSAT score and "success."(I suspect there would be plenty of range interactions and other effects, but for any data set where (1) and (2) are true, the conclusion will follow.)Premise (1) is almost tautological, yes? Premise (2) is trickier, but certainly if we go by income, employment position, or other objective socioeconomic status measures, premise (2) has been shown to be pretty consistent (again, subject to range effects, etc.).Sorry. Didn't mean to derail a perfectly good school discussion.