Paving THE path to becoming a SUCCESSFUL attorney - please assist.

[SplitFinger]

IIRC, the OP was talking about going to either Georgetown or Michigan.  As far as going getting into a T14, I doubt there's a lick of difference between them.

I would agree that you'd be better of going to either of those schools and getting a 3.5 than going to East Bumfuck State and getting a 4.0.

[bass]

I would agree that you'd be better of going to either of those schools and getting a 3.5 than going to East Bumfuck State and getting a 4.0.

I happen to disagree here.  Pretty strongly.

[Pirate Pete]

I would agree that you'd be better of going to either of those schools and getting a 3.5 than going to East Bumfuck State and getting a 4.0.

I happen to disagree here.  Pretty strongly.

Agreed.  Although, admittedly, I don't know all that much about the reputation of "East Bumfuck State." 

[Alamo]

I know it's tough to directly compare UGs - most of us have only attended one. 

When you say you disagree, why do you disagree?  Do you think that the teaching quality is relatively equivalent amongst different "tiers" of schools?  Is it specifically the 4.0 (which means you're at the very top of your class, as opposed to say, a 3.7 that's more easily attainable)?  Something else?

Personally, I went to an uppity undergrad, so I'm probably somewhat biased. 

[bass]

I know it's tough to directly compare UGs - most of us have only attended one. 

When you say you disagree, why do you disagree?  Do you think that the teaching quality is relatively equivalent amongst different "tiers" of schools?  Is it specifically the 4.0 (which means you're at the very top of your class, as opposed to say, a 3.7 that's more easily attainable)?  Something else?

Personally, I went to an uppity undergrad, so I'm probably somewhat biased. 

The comparison was Georgetown 3.5 to State school 4.0.  3.5 says you are just as likely to get a B in a course as you are to get an A.  A 4.0 says you are a top student.  Also, schools have to keep their numbers high for USNWR purposes.  A 3.5 will often be below a schools 25 %tile, whereas a 4.0 will almost always be above their 75%tile.  That makes a huge difference.

[Pirate Pete]

I know it's tough to directly compare UGs - most of us have only attended one. 

When you say you disagree, why do you disagree?  Do you think that the teaching quality is relatively equivalent amongst different "tiers" of schools?  Is it specifically the 4.0 (which means you're at the very top of your class, as opposed to say, a 3.7 that's more easily attainable)?  Something else?

Personally, I went to an uppity undergrad, so I'm probably somewhat biased. 

There are a lot of different factors that affect gpa and a lot of variation among professors, classes, and sections even within each school.  At my undergrad, you could take PSY 295 with several different professors and get a different grade from each one.  Likewise, an easy section at Harvard might be easier than a hard section at Central Michigan.  Mostly, it seems like common sense to give an applicant the benefit of the doubt rather than to assign more weight to more "prestigious" schools.

[SplitFinger]

The comparison was Georgetown 3.5 to State school 4.0.  3.5 says you are just as likely to get a B in a course as you are to get an A.  A 4.0 says you are a top student.  Also, schools have to keep their numbers high for USNWR purposes.  A 3.5 will often be below a schools 25 %tile, whereas a 4.0 will almost always be above their 75%tile.  That makes a huge difference.

Actually, it wasn't Georgetown vs. State U.  At least in most states, there are the "flagship" state universities and the "satellite" schools, which are barely a step above the community college level.  If we were talking about Georgetown vs. the University of Bumfuck, you'd have a salient point.  But given that the average LSAT of East Bumfuck State graduates is a sterling 132, I'm going to stand by my point that a 3.5 from Georgetown would get you farther in law school admissions than your 4.0 from EBSU.

[bender1020]

i would go with correlation =/= causation on that one.  people at Dipshit U are dumber, thats why they score lower.  it's a numbers game. 4.0 anywhere is better than 3.5 anywhere.  now, i think i'd agree with you if the difference was less drastic, perhaps something like 3.8 princeton/yale/stanford  vs. 4.0 arizona state.

[ms]

I know it's tough to directly compare UGs - most of us have only attended one. 

When you say you disagree, why do you disagree?  Do you think that the teaching quality is relatively equivalent amongst different "tiers" of schools?  Is it specifically the 4.0 (which means you're at the very top of your class, as opposed to say, a 3.7 that's more easily attainable)?  Something else?

Personally, I went to an uppity undergrad, so I'm probably somewhat biased. 

I think the main problem that occurs at "uppity undergrads" is grade inflation. The average GPA at Harvard is 3.4, and the average GPA at Texas is less than 3.0.  Now there are a few ways one could try to explain this. First, that the classes are roughly equal, but the student quality at Harvard is better. One might also argue that the classes at Harvard are much tougher, but the student quality is still that much better, and that accounts for the .4 difference. Knowing what we do about the two schools I would probably wager that the student quality at Texas is not so different from Harvard as to allow the second arguement to be true. There may be subtle differences in difficulty, but given class selection they are probably very tough to judge. It would be much easier to judge if their average GPA's weren't so far apart.

[bender1020]

I know it's tough to directly compare UGs - most of us have only attended one. 

When you say you disagree, why do you disagree?  Do you think that the teaching quality is relatively equivalent amongst different "tiers" of schools?  Is it specifically the 4.0 (which means you're at the very top of your class, as opposed to say, a 3.7 that's more easily attainable)?  Something else?

Personally, I went to an uppity undergrad, so I'm probably somewhat biased. 

I think the main problem that occurs at "uppity undergrads" is grade inflation. The average GPA at Harvard is 3.4, and the average GPA at Texas is less than 3.0.  Now there are a few ways one could try to explain this. First, that the classes are roughly equal, but the student quality at Harvard is better. One might also argue that the classes at Harvard are much tougher, but the student quality is still that much better, and that accounts for the .4 difference. Knowing what we do about the two schools I would probably wager that the student quality at Texas is not so different from Harvard as to allow the second arguement to be true. There may be subtle differences in difficulty, but given class selection they are probably very tough to judge. It would be much easier to judge if their average GPA's weren't so far apart.

ya, its just grade inflation, plain and simple.  the avg gpa at my UG was probably about a 3.4 also. getting A's was easy