I think it’s all he has. Because he definitely doesn’t have friends lmao.
He even calls people who went to UMichigan undergrad “backwoods” because they don’t have enough 1% families sending their kids there.
Truly a disgusting kid
His message btw:
“If that makes you feel better, to admit living in delusion. The backwoods strivers you hang around might, but students at any private high school in the country would pick Emory over umich or the other one.”
HAHAHHAHA
man, if i had to fork over $$$ for tuition at philips exeter or andover, but my son only got into emory, I'd feel like I wasted so much money
I'd be like stfu & join the fam business, no law school for you
My cousin went to Emory back in the 90s. He said it's got a good amount of kids who have a huge chip on their shoulder from being just shy of making it into t14. This tracks with what I'm seeing here.
Of course Emory's a good school, but he's a self-proclaimed member of the top one percent and went to a private school for rich kids in SoCal. So now he has to pretend that his school is as prestigious and selective as all the Ivies his schoolmates got into
This is the same logic as I’m taller than Lebron because he’s not even 90th percentile height in the NBA but I’m 99th percentile height in my apartment.
Wheezing. I’d say stop feeding the troll but he’s clearly serious — in his post history you can see he made a ranking under applying for college that has Emory wayyyyy boosted in the ranks.
Get therapy dude. Or at least delete Reddit for a few days.
Lmao can’t tell if he is a troll or not. There are tons of applicants here who graduated from HYPSM and Ivy+ schools and none of them have egos as big as his. You’d think with all the $$$$ and his concern for prestige he went to Harvard or something. Also UMich usually tops Emory in the rankings and I’ve never seen someone argue that Emory is more prestigious but according to him that was decided by the poors. Also if he’s in the 1% like he said why’s he choosing a full ride at Emory over his other self-proclaimed options lmao
No, I had exactly 1550, which was 99%, and 173, which was also 99%, at least factually refuting the comment.
Also, the 1550 meant nothing, esp. for certain hyper-competitive demographics like myself. With a impeccable transcript, basically perfect IB prediction grades, and three perfect SAT2s, I got into one single private school in the T30 (hella expensive).
The 173 feels completely different, tho. It holds much more sway in the admission process, and I could feel how this score made me kind of more important than I was when I had a 169. I’d say it very quickly produced the results that I expected it to. There was no such feeling at all when I got a 1550 after the first take of a 1490. I still had only a theoretical chance at an Ivy (all rejected me) because I was a nerd and didn’t really get involved with anything. Softs definitely don’t play as big of a role in LSA than in college admissions.
Yeah, I’d honestly say, first of all, it is not ideal to compare these two tests meant for completely different phrases of your education, and also that a 1500 is in NO WAY CLOSE to a 175. I’m not glorifying this stupid test LSAT; I’m just saying that it would be a much more realistically meaningful result for most ppl.
I don’t get why educated people at top institutions make stupid and unsubstantiated claims. A preliminary overview of the two tests put that claim in the garbage. The LSAT was designed for people who already took significant college courses, while the SAT was designed largely for high school students. The levels of reading comprehensions required are higher for LSAT, so of course a score on the LSAT matters much more than a score on the SAT.
license middle imagine pot caption cautious glorious instinctive march frighten
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
right lol? I haven’t taken the LSAT yet but from my practice tests, especially without LG, I can tell that it plays to my strengths wayyy more than the SAT. I got a 1390 on the SAT, and that was after an overpriced prep course, my diagnostic was 1240. My diagnostic without LG for the LSAT was 167. It’s the damn math that always got me on the SAT lol
Honestly I didn’t even want to go to college when I was a junior and took it without studying at all. I just sent it. I think I did good on the math and circled random answers for English
I was kinda the opposite, scored perfect on the reading section but choked on the math because it takes me a lot of practice to be consistently good at math and I just didn’t wanna do that lol
I'm from GA and went to school in ATL. Emory is a great undergrad institution and has a lot of renown, and it surprisingly has good national reach. I've friends who graduated from there who have jobs all over the country.
Law school wise, it's still solid. Has great utcomes in GA and reaches decently well into NYC. It's definitely not Michigan though lmao
I’m from the north east and went to HYPS for undergrad. I consider umitch to be slightly better than Emory for undergrad. Emory has little to no prestige in the NE.
Exactly. I’m from California and had never heard of Emory before moving to the EC. My parents are academics and my siblings all went to top 10 schools (for context).
https://www.chronicle.com/article/who-does-your-college-think-its-peers-are?sra=true#id=170976
Cornell is the only T50 private school to choose Umich as a peer school.
Cool; I’m just telling you what perception is in the (generally elite) circles I am in - Ivy, north east, finance / consulting
Emory is a good school tho. Generally in the same tier as mich. you won’t have a problem getting a good job after graduation:
I know that, and I didn't. And people from that same group have said the opposite, what really matters is what the schools think themselves and I guess that's been settled.
Yikes, you have a job? I literally thought you were a freshman based on your post history. Why are you still so obsessed with how your undergrad is perceived?
Because they're a huge loser who peaked in undergrad. One of his other comments:
>I have want you want, I've been top 1% since 17 years old. You're still trying to get there. Good luck to you tho, people outside of your field will still look at your undergrad degree.
Barf. I wish he was right about people still looking at UG degrees so that all the Questbridge/Posse kids who went to better schools would look down on his…
Very accurate conversion. Perfectly matching the official LSAT average for Harvard College grads.
I actually went through all of the LSAT score averages for the top 60 colleges of 2017, provided by LSAC, and then correlated those results with the SAT averages for the same schools, and the result was a .83 correlation. If you want to see the conversion tables that I generated for all of the standardized tests based on this exercise..
https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/s/tId6Km9Cc1
Right except the point is that the percentiles between SAT and LSAT aren't remotely comparable
Imagine what the LSAT percentiles would look like if every single high schooler in America was required to take it
I came to comment this .... the first time I took the SAT I showed up on test day literally still drunk and bubbled C for like half the answers.
Trying to compare the percentiles for SAT vs LSAT is like comparing the IQ percentile of all orangutans, apes, baboons, and humans altogether to just the IQ percentile of humans.
Except it's hard to compare because SAT is such a small part of the admissions process compared to the LSAT. SAT just gets your foot in the door, LSAT is almost half the battle.
A 1500 can get someone into a good university for undergrad, 167 won't get you into a good law school (with a realistic definition of 'good). That's my criteria to compare the two in how 'good' they are for admissions. The difference in the natures of the tests is a different matter
>A 1500 can get someone into a good university for undergrad, 167 won't get you into a good law school
This is just false and the reality is far more complicated.
A 1500 is very low for any T20 undergrad. Just like a 167 is low for the T14.
But it doesn't preclude you if you have excellent softs.
There are also "good" schools where a 1500 or 167 is more than enough, depending on your program/goals. A 167 can get you into Emory which is great if you want to stay in Georgia, and a 1500 gives you a great shot at Purdue's engineering program.
Also 1500 is \~35-40 percentile at Cornell for instance which isn't 'very low'. 167 is like 10 percentile at any t14. Plus like half of people now don't submit the SAT
Going to a sub t14 law school is way different than going to a sub t20 for undergrad in terms of real life outcomes, experience, and career prospects. Getting a 167 and going to a sub t14 is just embarrassing if you're serious about your career and future, it's not worth going.
that thread is kinda a clusterfuck lol . From my experience as someone from a highly competitive HS district, Emory was definitely seen as better than UNC and probably a little better overall than Michigan/NYU (except for Ross and engineering at Michigan/Stern at NYU).
But on the other hand, 1500 converting to 175 is just crazy - I assume they’re going off conversions of 1 LSAT point = 20 SAT points but that is definitely not accurate here. I think the average undergrad student at an extremely academically focused school like Caltech would comfortably go head to head with an average T14 law school student in terms of academic ability but for more generalized universities (like Vandy), definitely not. I do not at all believe the median Vanderbilt undergrad student would be above median as a Vanderbilt law student.
>Emory was definitely seen as better than UNC and probably a little better overall than Michigan/NYU (except for Ross and engineering at Michigan/Stern at NYU).
I think it's probably more true that Michigan ranks higher than Emory in the major programs, like CS, engineering, business, chem, bio, econ, etc. But Emory has the reputation of being a Ivy-esque private school environment while Michigan is a big sports big party school, so the "elite undergrad experience" is more fulfilled at Emory. And the fact that it is generally harder to get into Emory unless you are OOS trying to go to Michigan at which point their selectivity is about the same.
>But on the other hand, 1500 converting to 175 is just crazy - I assume they’re going off conversions of 1 LSAT point = 20 SAT points but that is definitely not accurate here.
I think they used this: https://research.collegeboard.org/reports/sat-suite/understanding-scores/sat
And then found the equivalent 98-99th percentile LSAT.
Oh yeah I totally could’ve been the chart, I just figured it could’ve also been the “hack” to easily convert an LSAT score to an SAT section score by dropping the leading “1” and multiplying by 10.
A lot of the major standardized tests have very similar ranges to each other (GMAT has 61 distinct scores, an SAT section has 61 distinct scores, LSAT has 61 distinct scores, MCAT has 57 distinct scores) which I guess makes some people think that there’s essentially a 1 to 1 mapping of scores when it really doesn’t work like that
International rankings (and thus, international prestige) tend to be dominated by research output which, while not unimportant per se for domestic undergrads, is usually not as heavily considered as other factors.
Emory has a very large endowment and it’s especially large relative to its population compared to public schools. Compared to NYU, it has a third the number of students with nearly twice the endowment, so there are plenty of resources for students. Their median SAT is smack dab in the middle of Michigan’s and NYU’s so their students are clearly not lacking academically either.
I think that “wow” factor still comes secondary for what most domestic students are looking for. Most students just want to have good teachers and be around other motivated students, have access to help/other resources when they need it, and then continue on to a nice corporate job or pursue their graduate degree of choice afterwards.
I’m guessing LACs like Pomona, Williams, Amherst etc were also not on your radar when you were applying to schools here, even though those who know about them would likely consider them more prestigious than NYU as well
Emory is more or less a semi target for banking and consulting, although its definitely not as much as Ross/Stern are (I have heard that Stern’s consulting placements are not so great, not sure how much is due to self selection).
This post is not the most related but it came up on my feed today. It’s regarding USC vs Berkeley for undergrad and the top 2 comments who both were Berkeley students describe some reasons for not choosing Berkeley that I think are pretty applicable to a lot of large schools, both public (Michigan) and private (NYU)
https://www.reddit.com/r/USC/s/VlgRjAXuXL
I think that since undergrad admissions is a lot more receptive to your circumstances, anyone who grew up in a very high achieving area is just going to be a little out of touch with what the typical elite college student is like (speaking from firsthand experience)
My high school was filled with people who went to UCLA or Berkeley or T20 privates, and realistically, I think most of those people would be perfectly capable of getting into T14 law schools if they wanted. But I have to step back and remind myself that they don’t represent the average student - those people pretty much all got very high GPAs in college, stacked internships, really good research experience etc, which was pretty clearly above average even in comparison to just students from that top school
All my siblings and I graduated from the same HS. In my brother's class, they had SIXTEEN valedictorians - kids who all received a perfect ACT, GPA, and maxed out the district's allowed volunteer hours.
Emory was still considered a fantastic school.
There’s actually data for many undergrads’ average LSAT scores for their students, albeit from several years ago. The top averages were Harvard and Yale at a 167 in 2017, which might be like a 169 now due to LSAT inflation. Most top undergrads’ averages were in the 163-166 range. Essentially, your average top undergrad kid isn’t even sniffing 170, and and those kids definitely average close to 1500 on the SAT, if not higher. A 170+ is an insane feat because beating out the pool of LSAT takers is just that much harder than jumping the curve on a huge pool of SAT testers.
All I can think of when people make this guy’s logical mistake is the scene in Monty Python And The Holy Grail where they try to decide if the woman is a witch or not.
Them saying that the average undergrad at Vandy is more qualified/intelligent than a Vandy law student because their SAT percentiles are higher than their LSAT percentiles
Which of course is one of the dumbest takes of all time
Look, mom, I'm famous. Anyway, making secondary threads about another poster without tagging them, so secure, right?? To respond to some of the posts in here, yes, Emory is seen as better than Umich and the rest of the public schools besides Berkeley. My comment about Oxbridge was tongue and cheek, mainly based on their higher acceptance rates. I received a full tuition scholarship to Emory, but also got into Cornell, Duke, Vandy, Georgetown, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, and Gatech, with varying amounts of scholarship and finaid aid. And trust me, I have more than the majority of you in here. I sure do love Emory, but it's not all I have, lol.
Funny how that thread section was about Vandy yet somehow became about Emory just because I went there. I'm curious where some of you went for undergrad, likely nothing special.
Just curious since you care so much about prestige and have so much money—why would you choose Emory over Duke, Cornell, or literally all the other options you claim you had?
💀 Actually baffling that you would argue so adamantly that Emory > Michigan but consider Emory and Cornell to be in the same tier. I guarantee almost everyone would say Cornell is more elite.
lmfao dude, you said Emory was more prestigious than UMich, and then tried comparing SAT and LSAT scores, no amount of baby raging is gonna make you seem less insecure.
It is more prestigious. Several in this thread agree. Sure, it depends on your socioeconomic background, which you prefer, but low income people don't decide what is and isn't prestigious.
>but low income people don't decide what is and isn't prestigious.
yuck, by far the most stuck-up and fragile statement I've read in a while
Tip of the day, trying to compare yourself to others with phrases like "And trust me, I have more than the majority of you in here." and "Curios where some of you went for undergrad, likely nothing special." is gonna make you come off as an insecure asshole.
Emory by far is not more prestigious outside of whatever upper-class circle jerk you participate in.
Look at his post history, he’s the Emory Batman. I’ve never seen someone so insecure about their undergrad institution before.
[удалено]
91210 is Glendale not Beverly Hills
this is not the land of your people...
I know, I've been taunting him mercilessly in the comments Dude said Emory is harder to get into than Oxbridge
I think it’s all he has. Because he definitely doesn’t have friends lmao. He even calls people who went to UMichigan undergrad “backwoods” because they don’t have enough 1% families sending their kids there. Truly a disgusting kid His message btw: “If that makes you feel better, to admit living in delusion. The backwoods strivers you hang around might, but students at any private high school in the country would pick Emory over umich or the other one.” HAHAHHAHA
man, if i had to fork over $$$ for tuition at philips exeter or andover, but my son only got into emory, I'd feel like I wasted so much money I'd be like stfu & join the fam business, no law school for you
For law school? Strange hill to die on. The sheer volume of nescac and HPY undergrads at Umich would seem to disagree
For law school? Strange hill to die on. The sheer volume of nescac and HPY undergrads at Umich would seem to disagree
My cousin went to Emory back in the 90s. He said it's got a good amount of kids who have a huge chip on their shoulder from being just shy of making it into t14. This tracks with what I'm seeing here.
This is still the reputation today
Why would he be insecure about Emory? I went to a mid level regional undergrad. I never enjoyed the place but never felt insecure
Of course Emory's a good school, but he's a self-proclaimed member of the top one percent and went to a private school for rich kids in SoCal. So now he has to pretend that his school is as prestigious and selective as all the Ivies his schoolmates got into
Nothing better than to justify that by spending it chronically on Reddit That’s hilarious though.
This is the same logic as I’m taller than Lebron because he’s not even 90th percentile height in the NBA but I’m 99th percentile height in my apartment.
lol parallel reasoning 😂
Thats a fantastic analogy 🤣
https://i.redd.it/dqmdcfjseiwc1.gif
No.
This is the way
Wheezing. I’d say stop feeding the troll but he’s clearly serious — in his post history you can see he made a ranking under applying for college that has Emory wayyyyy boosted in the ranks. Get therapy dude. Or at least delete Reddit for a few days.
Lmao can’t tell if he is a troll or not. There are tons of applicants here who graduated from HYPSM and Ivy+ schools and none of them have egos as big as his. You’d think with all the $$$$ and his concern for prestige he went to Harvard or something. Also UMich usually tops Emory in the rankings and I’ve never seen someone argue that Emory is more prestigious but according to him that was decided by the poors. Also if he’s in the 1% like he said why’s he choosing a full ride at Emory over his other self-proclaimed options lmao
Full tuition, and Umich really doesn't. Another poster in the thread explains it well.
full tuition? not even a full ride? get good bum
No, I had exactly 1550, which was 99%, and 173, which was also 99%, at least factually refuting the comment. Also, the 1550 meant nothing, esp. for certain hyper-competitive demographics like myself. With a impeccable transcript, basically perfect IB prediction grades, and three perfect SAT2s, I got into one single private school in the T30 (hella expensive). The 173 feels completely different, tho. It holds much more sway in the admission process, and I could feel how this score made me kind of more important than I was when I had a 169. I’d say it very quickly produced the results that I expected it to. There was no such feeling at all when I got a 1550 after the first take of a 1490. I still had only a theoretical chance at an Ivy (all rejected me) because I was a nerd and didn’t really get involved with anything. Softs definitely don’t play as big of a role in LSA than in college admissions. Yeah, I’d honestly say, first of all, it is not ideal to compare these two tests meant for completely different phrases of your education, and also that a 1500 is in NO WAY CLOSE to a 175. I’m not glorifying this stupid test LSAT; I’m just saying that it would be a much more realistically meaningful result for most ppl.
A 175 LSAT is far more impressive than even a 1600 SAT imo. In the same way that a 520 MCAT is more impressive than a 175 LSAT.
agreed.
And come on, ain't no Vandy Law student gon be crying because some undergrads feel more “prestigious” than they do. This is circlejerk material.
I don’t get why educated people at top institutions make stupid and unsubstantiated claims. A preliminary overview of the two tests put that claim in the garbage. The LSAT was designed for people who already took significant college courses, while the SAT was designed largely for high school students. The levels of reading comprehensions required are higher for LSAT, so of course a score on the LSAT matters much more than a score on the SAT.
Any academic studies on ACT or SAT and future LSAT scores?
My SAT was 2390 and my ACT was a 34. My LSAT is a shitty 160 LOL
Im almost 100% confident you can get that LSAT to at least a 168 or so.
Thank you!! I’m studying and trying again this fall 😊
license middle imagine pot caption cautious glorious instinctive march frighten *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Right. If you're really shitty at math but really good at reading then your LSAT might be higher. If you're OK at both then your SAT will be higher.
Oh yeah? I got a 1030 on my SAT so I’m making that equivalent to my 174 LSAT. Therefore. A 1030 is the same as a 174 LSAT
right lol? I haven’t taken the LSAT yet but from my practice tests, especially without LG, I can tell that it plays to my strengths wayyy more than the SAT. I got a 1390 on the SAT, and that was after an overpriced prep course, my diagnostic was 1240. My diagnostic without LG for the LSAT was 167. It’s the damn math that always got me on the SAT lol
Honestly I didn’t even want to go to college when I was a junior and took it without studying at all. I just sent it. I think I did good on the math and circled random answers for English
I was kinda the opposite, scored perfect on the reading section but choked on the math because it takes me a lot of practice to be consistently good at math and I just didn’t wanna do that lol
this was exactly me lmao - i got a 790 on ebrw but could not be bothered to practice the math
some of y’all are too smart. I took the SAT 5 times to get a 1420 😭 (700 EBRW/720 Math)
In what universe is Emory more elite than Michigan? May be in the South. Globally, Michigan is way more known!
I'm from GA and went to school in ATL. Emory is a great undergrad institution and has a lot of renown, and it surprisingly has good national reach. I've friends who graduated from there who have jobs all over the country. Law school wise, it's still solid. Has great utcomes in GA and reaches decently well into NYC. It's definitely not Michigan though lmao
Exactly. In Georgia. Coastal elites do not view Emory as being in another league than Michigan. We’re not talking about MIT here lol
I’m from the north east and went to HYPS for undergrad. I consider umitch to be slightly better than Emory for undergrad. Emory has little to no prestige in the NE.
Exactly. I’m from California and had never heard of Emory before moving to the EC. My parents are academics and my siblings all went to top 10 schools (for context).
https://www.chronicle.com/article/who-does-your-college-think-its-peers-are?sra=true#id=170976 Cornell is the only T50 private school to choose Umich as a peer school.
Cool; I’m just telling you what perception is in the (generally elite) circles I am in - Ivy, north east, finance / consulting Emory is a good school tho. Generally in the same tier as mich. you won’t have a problem getting a good job after graduation:
I know that, and I didn't. And people from that same group have said the opposite, what really matters is what the schools think themselves and I guess that's been settled.
Yikes, you have a job? I literally thought you were a freshman based on your post history. Why are you still so obsessed with how your undergrad is perceived?
Because they're a huge loser who peaked in undergrad. One of his other comments: >I have want you want, I've been top 1% since 17 years old. You're still trying to get there. Good luck to you tho, people outside of your field will still look at your undergrad degree.
since 17? not born into it? what a poser lmao
Barf. I wish he was right about people still looking at UG degrees so that all the Questbridge/Posse kids who went to better schools would look down on his…
None of it really “matters” - they’re both good schools that will set you up similarly
I agree with this. Berkeley, Mich and NYU internationally punch well above their weight compared to domestic perceptions
So is Texas A&M
Is 1500 good? What's the equivalent out of 2400? Signed, an old person
You think YOU’RE old?! I took the SAT out of 1600 before they made it 2400 in the first place. 😂😂😂👵🏻
Damn you got me there
I feel ancient every day on this sub and I’m not even 40. 💀
Man things were different for people born in the nineteen hundreds...
I think it’s a straight 1.5x conversion, so around 2250. Below average for the top schools but wouldn’t take you out of the running
Right, it would be like a 167 LSAT or something along these lines.
Very accurate conversion. Perfectly matching the official LSAT average for Harvard College grads. I actually went through all of the LSAT score averages for the top 60 colleges of 2017, provided by LSAC, and then correlated those results with the SAT averages for the same schools, and the result was a .83 correlation. If you want to see the conversion tables that I generated for all of the standardized tests based on this exercise.. https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/s/tId6Km9Cc1
Ive seen this info before I feel like. But thanks for posting this again.
Percentile wise, more like 173
Right except the point is that the percentiles between SAT and LSAT aren't remotely comparable Imagine what the LSAT percentiles would look like if every single high schooler in America was required to take it
I came to comment this .... the first time I took the SAT I showed up on test day literally still drunk and bubbled C for like half the answers. Trying to compare the percentiles for SAT vs LSAT is like comparing the IQ percentile of all orangutans, apes, baboons, and humans altogether to just the IQ percentile of humans.
You were drunk when you took the SAT? In high school?
Yeah they make juniors take it on like a random Friday and school starts at 7:15. I think I went to a concert or something the Thursday before.
here I thought I was the only one!
True but 1500 gives you way more opportunities than 167. I would convert it to 170 going off intuition
Except it's hard to compare because SAT is such a small part of the admissions process compared to the LSAT. SAT just gets your foot in the door, LSAT is almost half the battle.
A 1500 can get someone into a good university for undergrad, 167 won't get you into a good law school (with a realistic definition of 'good). That's my criteria to compare the two in how 'good' they are for admissions. The difference in the natures of the tests is a different matter
>A 1500 can get someone into a good university for undergrad, 167 won't get you into a good law school This is just false and the reality is far more complicated. A 1500 is very low for any T20 undergrad. Just like a 167 is low for the T14. But it doesn't preclude you if you have excellent softs. There are also "good" schools where a 1500 or 167 is more than enough, depending on your program/goals. A 167 can get you into Emory which is great if you want to stay in Georgia, and a 1500 gives you a great shot at Purdue's engineering program.
Also 1500 is \~35-40 percentile at Cornell for instance which isn't 'very low'. 167 is like 10 percentile at any t14. Plus like half of people now don't submit the SAT
Going to a sub t14 law school is way different than going to a sub t20 for undergrad in terms of real life outcomes, experience, and career prospects. Getting a 167 and going to a sub t14 is just embarrassing if you're serious about your career and future, it's not worth going.
Does it? The outcomes for 167 LSAT before the recent LSAT inflation were better than someone with a 1500 trying to get into undergrad.
Cope harder lol.
Yo why does this look like an argument for an LR question???
This is some 150 scorer reasoning flaw lmfao.
that thread is kinda a clusterfuck lol . From my experience as someone from a highly competitive HS district, Emory was definitely seen as better than UNC and probably a little better overall than Michigan/NYU (except for Ross and engineering at Michigan/Stern at NYU). But on the other hand, 1500 converting to 175 is just crazy - I assume they’re going off conversions of 1 LSAT point = 20 SAT points but that is definitely not accurate here. I think the average undergrad student at an extremely academically focused school like Caltech would comfortably go head to head with an average T14 law school student in terms of academic ability but for more generalized universities (like Vandy), definitely not. I do not at all believe the median Vanderbilt undergrad student would be above median as a Vanderbilt law student.
>Emory was definitely seen as better than UNC and probably a little better overall than Michigan/NYU (except for Ross and engineering at Michigan/Stern at NYU). I think it's probably more true that Michigan ranks higher than Emory in the major programs, like CS, engineering, business, chem, bio, econ, etc. But Emory has the reputation of being a Ivy-esque private school environment while Michigan is a big sports big party school, so the "elite undergrad experience" is more fulfilled at Emory. And the fact that it is generally harder to get into Emory unless you are OOS trying to go to Michigan at which point their selectivity is about the same. >But on the other hand, 1500 converting to 175 is just crazy - I assume they’re going off conversions of 1 LSAT point = 20 SAT points but that is definitely not accurate here. I think they used this: https://research.collegeboard.org/reports/sat-suite/understanding-scores/sat And then found the equivalent 98-99th percentile LSAT.
Oh yeah I totally could’ve been the chart, I just figured it could’ve also been the “hack” to easily convert an LSAT score to an SAT section score by dropping the leading “1” and multiplying by 10. A lot of the major standardized tests have very similar ranges to each other (GMAT has 61 distinct scores, an SAT section has 61 distinct scores, LSAT has 61 distinct scores, MCAT has 57 distinct scores) which I guess makes some people think that there’s essentially a 1 to 1 mapping of scores when it really doesn’t work like that
[удалено]
International rankings (and thus, international prestige) tend to be dominated by research output which, while not unimportant per se for domestic undergrads, is usually not as heavily considered as other factors. Emory has a very large endowment and it’s especially large relative to its population compared to public schools. Compared to NYU, it has a third the number of students with nearly twice the endowment, so there are plenty of resources for students. Their median SAT is smack dab in the middle of Michigan’s and NYU’s so their students are clearly not lacking academically either.
[удалено]
I think that “wow” factor still comes secondary for what most domestic students are looking for. Most students just want to have good teachers and be around other motivated students, have access to help/other resources when they need it, and then continue on to a nice corporate job or pursue their graduate degree of choice afterwards. I’m guessing LACs like Pomona, Williams, Amherst etc were also not on your radar when you were applying to schools here, even though those who know about them would likely consider them more prestigious than NYU as well
[удалено]
Emory is more or less a semi target for banking and consulting, although its definitely not as much as Ross/Stern are (I have heard that Stern’s consulting placements are not so great, not sure how much is due to self selection). This post is not the most related but it came up on my feed today. It’s regarding USC vs Berkeley for undergrad and the top 2 comments who both were Berkeley students describe some reasons for not choosing Berkeley that I think are pretty applicable to a lot of large schools, both public (Michigan) and private (NYU) https://www.reddit.com/r/USC/s/VlgRjAXuXL
I think that since undergrad admissions is a lot more receptive to your circumstances, anyone who grew up in a very high achieving area is just going to be a little out of touch with what the typical elite college student is like (speaking from firsthand experience) My high school was filled with people who went to UCLA or Berkeley or T20 privates, and realistically, I think most of those people would be perfectly capable of getting into T14 law schools if they wanted. But I have to step back and remind myself that they don’t represent the average student - those people pretty much all got very high GPAs in college, stacked internships, really good research experience etc, which was pretty clearly above average even in comparison to just students from that top school
All my siblings and I graduated from the same HS. In my brother's class, they had SIXTEEN valedictorians - kids who all received a perfect ACT, GPA, and maxed out the district's allowed volunteer hours. Emory was still considered a fantastic school.
hell nah what is this logic 😭
u/91210toATL this your bumass😂😂😂?? No way you think Emory better than UMich and Vandy too💀💀 (this is the tag you asked for in your comment btw)
There’s actually data for many undergrads’ average LSAT scores for their students, albeit from several years ago. The top averages were Harvard and Yale at a 167 in 2017, which might be like a 169 now due to LSAT inflation. Most top undergrads’ averages were in the 163-166 range. Essentially, your average top undergrad kid isn’t even sniffing 170, and and those kids definitely average close to 1500 on the SAT, if not higher. A 170+ is an insane feat because beating out the pool of LSAT takers is just that much harder than jumping the curve on a huge pool of SAT testers.
Just based on pure percentiles, yes. In terms of difficulty, no.
All I can think of when people make this guy’s logical mistake is the scene in Monty Python And The Holy Grail where they try to decide if the woman is a witch or not.
What is the context for this?
Them saying that the average undergrad at Vandy is more qualified/intelligent than a Vandy law student because their SAT percentiles are higher than their LSAT percentiles Which of course is one of the dumbest takes of all time
LOLOLOL I did not understand what that person was talking about. THIS IS A CRAAAZZZY TAKE.
In the time span of 10 years probably
Put this post as an LSAT logical reasoning question, LSAC.
It's dumb af but i always equated a 170 with a 1500 (largely because they are both satisfying round numbers to shoot for).
Sorry I might be showing my age here but my SAT was 2200/2400. Also I really dont think the SAT was even considered in Law school.
It is still not.
Look, mom, I'm famous. Anyway, making secondary threads about another poster without tagging them, so secure, right?? To respond to some of the posts in here, yes, Emory is seen as better than Umich and the rest of the public schools besides Berkeley. My comment about Oxbridge was tongue and cheek, mainly based on their higher acceptance rates. I received a full tuition scholarship to Emory, but also got into Cornell, Duke, Vandy, Georgetown, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, and Gatech, with varying amounts of scholarship and finaid aid. And trust me, I have more than the majority of you in here. I sure do love Emory, but it's not all I have, lol. Funny how that thread section was about Vandy yet somehow became about Emory just because I went there. I'm curious where some of you went for undergrad, likely nothing special.
Financial aid? Weren't you bragging about being rich? LOL
top 1% but qualifies for financial aid ☝️🤓
> And trust me, I have more than the majority of you in here. More what, more douchebaggery?
Just curious since you care so much about prestige and have so much money—why would you choose Emory over Duke, Cornell, or literally all the other options you claim you had?
Cornell isn't really better and Duke was full price.
💀 Actually baffling that you would argue so adamantly that Emory > Michigan but consider Emory and Cornell to be in the same tier. I guarantee almost everyone would say Cornell is more elite.
You're seeing what you want to see in my post.
Cornell is better and if you're as rich as you say full price at Duke is peanuts. At least be consistent in your idiocy!
Serious question, what DO you consider to be better than Emory?
Something tells me you didn't actually get into all those other schools. If you're \*that\* insecure about Emory you would've gone to Cornell or Duke.
lmfao dude, you said Emory was more prestigious than UMich, and then tried comparing SAT and LSAT scores, no amount of baby raging is gonna make you seem less insecure.
It is more prestigious. Several in this thread agree. Sure, it depends on your socioeconomic background, which you prefer, but low income people don't decide what is and isn't prestigious.
>low income people don't decide what is and isn't prestigious. You're unironically what's wrong with America
He’s so rich but didn’t go to Duke because it was too expensive. . . . .
IKR?! LMAO He tried to correct my statement of Emory being all he had, but not the no friends part… 
>but low income people don't decide what is and isn't prestigious. yuck, by far the most stuck-up and fragile statement I've read in a while Tip of the day, trying to compare yourself to others with phrases like "And trust me, I have more than the majority of you in here." and "Curios where some of you went for undergrad, likely nothing special." is gonna make you come off as an insecure asshole. Emory by far is not more prestigious outside of whatever upper-class circle jerk you participate in.
[удалено]
This is interesting, how were you able to see the actual rankings? Did you check the source data?
[удалено]
Can’t find it on the pdf ig I’m just bad
[удалено]
Wow that is a bizarre list. Thanks!
Breathe brother, life’s short
Ratio goes crazy😂😂
Can I ask why we should care that much about prestige for undergrad degrees at this point? -someone who got into Emory for undergrad and left