Why do people here make WUSTL out to be worse than... Forum

[ODBCP]

Fuck the rankings, how hot are the girls? Because let's face it guys: none of us are getting jobs, and I was under the impression that law school is a just an excuse to bang undergrads at divebars for 3 years before ritual suicide.

[fatduck]

Fuck the rankings, how hot are the girls? Because let's face it guys: none of us are getting jobs, and I was under the impression that law school is a just an excuse to bang undergrads at divebars for 3 years before ritual suicide.

UC Davis is that way

[Youppi315]

Fuck the rankings, how hot are the girls? Because let's face it guys: none of us are getting jobs, and I was under the impression that law school is a just an excuse to bang undergrads at divebars for 3 years before ritual suicide.

UC Davis is that way

Okay, I glanced.

[beachbum]

Shamelessly gaming the rankings probably doesn't help.

I don't buy it. A strong entering class is a strong entering class. You can't quantify how much students "want" a school just because of the $$$ they get. Strong students are strong students, period.

What are you talking about? Throwing massive scholarships at super-splitters isn't gaming the rankings? And these massive scholarships aren't huge incentives to attend, particularly for applicants who oftentimes have somewhat limited options?

[romothesavior]

What are you talking about? Throwing massive scholarships at super-splitters isn't gaming the rankings? And these massive scholarships aren't huge incentives to attend, particularly for applicants who oftentimes have somewhat limited options?

But who the hell cares? And how is this gaming the rankings? I'm glad I go to a school that gives out generous financial aid. Doesn't bother me one bit.

[Attorney]

Shamelessly gaming the rankings probably doesn't help.

I don't buy it. A strong entering class is a strong entering class. You can't quantify how much students "want" a school just because of the $$$ they get. Strong students are strong students, period.

What are you talking about? Throwing massive scholarships at super-splitters isn't gaming the rankings? And these massive scholarships aren't huge incentives to attend, particularly for applicants who oftentimes have somewhat limited options?

Having a large endowment for scholarships is a bad thing now? They are giving $$ to the best potential law students so that they will attend. This is a good thing for everyone involved. In case you missed it, the LSAT predicts lawl school success far better than GPAs, so to complain that they accept and give money to high LSAT scorers is pure hi-larity.

Did you also miss the part about Northwestern doing the same thing and accepting super-splitters into the T14? So you're not complaining about accepting splitters obviously... maybe you're complaining that WUSTL has a lot of money and wants to give people scholarships?

[Hannibal]

If anything WUSTL is full of debt-averse T14 quality students.

[beachbum]

You all are assuming that I think it's a bad thing as well. Jesus, calm down people. I've already stated once that I'm not bothered by it (I would do the same thing if I was running WUSTL), but the OP asked why WUSTL gets hated on, and I think this is a legitimate point of conflict.

In my experience, there are a lot of top applicants on TLS. These people tend to have high GPAs, and they tended to have worked hard for these GPAs. I can understand why they'd carry a little bit of a grudge against applicants who slacked off for four years, did well on the LSAT, and are now getting big offers from a top school.

WUSTL, I think, gets the most hate because, again, it's the highest ranked (and a T20), it's first in line behind the Vandy/UCLA/UT/USC tier (which have significantly better job prospects), and for one reason or another it seems to be the default choice (and recommendation) for many splitters.

@Attorney: I'm sure we can argue about this all day, but I don't think a 2.5/170 is a "best potential law student." Also, the LSAT is a poor predictor of law school success, so please stop using that argument.

Northwestern (and UVA, if you want to be fair) are also known for gaming the rankings. But both of these schools are members of the magical T14 (and have very good job prospects compared to most other schools), so I think that explains why they don't get as much (or any?) hate. Northwestern also has the WE requirement, which I think adds to the qualifications of those who are accepted.

[fatduck]

In my experience, there are a lot of top applicants on TLS. These people tend to have high GPAs think they're smarter than they are and failed miserably on the LSAT, and they tended to have worked hard for these GPAs. I can understand why they'd carry a little bit of a grudge against applicants who slacked off for four years majored in electrical engineering instead of english, did well on worked hard to crush the LSAT, and are now getting big offers from a top school lucky that the most splitter-friendly school is also one of the most generous.

[Attorney]

In my experience, there are a lot of top applicants on TLS. These people tend to have high GPAs, and they tended to have worked hard for these GPAs. I can understand why they'd carry a little bit of a grudge against applicants who slacked off for four years, did well on the LSAT, and are now getting big offers from a top school.

This.

As for the 2.5/170 crowd, I'd of course never argue that they should be a competitive applicant at Yale or even NYU. But for WUSTL, a 2.5/170 is certainly the best potential law student in most cases versus say a 3.5/162. Which is basically the choice that WUSTL (and many other schools) are making. The LSAT may be a "poor predictor" of law school success but it still is a far superior one to the only alternative (GPA).

I think GPAs could be a decent indicator of future performance if they dropped the worst year (people who had 4.0 semesters and 2.0 semesters tend to be much brighter than consistent 3.0 guys) and if they accounted for grade inflation and difficulty of major (engineering/economics/chemistry is significantly harder than sociology/anthropology/history). Raw unadjusted GPAs are barely worth tallying at all.

[Attorney]

In my experience, there are a lot of top applicants on TLS. These people tend to have high GPAs think they're smarter than they are and failed miserably on the LSAT, and they tended to have worked hard for these GPAs. I can understand why they'd carry a little bit of a grudge against applicants who slacked off for four years majored in electrical engineering instead of english, did well on worked hard to crush the LSAT, and are now getting big offers from a top school lucky that the most splitter-friendly school is also one of the most generous.

[fatduck]

In my experience, there are a lot of top applicants on TLS. These people tend to have high GPAs, and they tended to have worked hard for these GPAs. I can understand why they'd carry a little bit of a grudge against applicants who slacked off for four years, did well on the LSAT, and are now getting big offers from a top school.

This.

As for the 2.5/170 crowd, I'd of course never argue that they should be a competitive applicant at Yale or even NYU. But for WUSTL, a 2.5/170 is certainly the best potential law student in most cases versus say a 3.5/162. Which is basically the choice that WUSTL (and many other schools) are making. The LSAT may be a "poor predictor" of law school success but it still is a far superior one to the only alternative (GPA).

I think the argument is that WUSTL seems just as willing to take a 170/2.5 as a 170/3.6 (assuming target medians of 168/3.7 or whatever). Whether that's actually true or not, I have no idea.

[beachbum]

In my experience, there are a lot of top applicants on TLS. These people tend to have high GPAs, and they tended to have worked hard for these GPAs. I can understand why they'd carry a little bit of a grudge against applicants who slacked off for four years, did well on the LSAT, and are now getting big offers from a top school.

This.

As for the 2.5/170 crowd, I'd of course never argue that they should be a competitive applicant at Yale or even NYU. But for WUSTL, a 2.5/170 is certainly the best potential law student in most cases versus say a 3.5/162. Which is basically the choice that WUSTL (and many other schools) are making. The LSAT may be a "poor predictor" of law school success but it still is a far superior one to the only alternative (GPA).

I think the argument is that WUSTL seems just as willing to take a 170/2.5 as a 170/3.6 (assuming target medians of 168/3.7 or whatever). Whether that's actually true or not, I have no idea.

It sure seems that way.

[MrAnon]

Just consider for a moment the type of special person who earns a 2.5 GPA in a U.S. college.

[Attorney]

Just consider for a moment the type of special person who earns a 2.5 GPA in a U.S. college.

--ImageRemoved--

[fatduck]

In my experience, there are a lot of top applicants on TLS. These people tend to have high GPAs, and they tended to have worked hard for these GPAs. I can understand why they'd carry a little bit of a grudge against applicants who slacked off for four years, did well on the LSAT, and are now getting big offers from a top school.

This.

As for the 2.5/170 crowd, I'd of course never argue that they should be a competitive applicant at Yale or even NYU. But for WUSTL, a 2.5/170 is certainly the best potential law student in most cases versus say a 3.5/162. Which is basically the choice that WUSTL (and many other schools) are making. The LSAT may be a "poor predictor" of law school success but it still is a far superior one to the only alternative (GPA).

I think the argument is that WUSTL seems just as willing to take a 170/2.5 as a 170/3.6 (assuming target medians of 168/3.7 or whatever). Whether that's actually true or not, I have no idea.

It sure seems that way.

Come on now, a graph of a cycle in progress? There are like 2 rejections on that graph. Surely you can see how silly that is.

Look at last year's graphs for WUSTL, GWU, UIUC, and IU-B and tell me there's a significant difference.

[fatduck]

Just consider for a moment the type of special person who earns a 2.5 GPA in a U.S. college.

--ImageRemoved--

lol. plus 2.5 is close to being a straw man. there's only one person on LSN below a 2.7 for WUSTL. it's mostly the 2.8-3.0 crowd, and every profile i've clicked so far either was either an engineering degree or had some kind of medical hardship.

[romothesavior]

Just consider for a moment the type of special person who earns a 2.5 GPA in a U.S. college.

--ImageRemoved--

Even more reason to come to WUSTL.

[beachbum]

Come on now, a graph of a cycle in progress? There are like 2 rejections on that graph. Surely you can see how silly that is.

Look at last year's graphs for WUSTL, GWU, UIUC, and IU-B and tell me there's a significant difference.

Ok... here's last year's WUSTL graph: http://washu.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0910/

Sure seems to tell a similar story, no? Also noticed that a lot of the splitters who were WLed (I don't see any that were rejected) turned in their apps late.

I'm not going to include the graphs for Illinois or Indiana (or Minn, for that matter) because they do the exact same thing as WUSTL. And I'll be the first to acknowledge this. But I think WUSTL gets more of the hate for the reasons above.

Here's the graph for GW (last cycle): http://gw.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0910/

It appears less extreme than WUSTL. It also seems that WUSTL is giving splitters significantly more money than GW, which goes back to my original argument.

[keg411]

What's with the splitter hate? I venture guess the vast majority of splitters have work experience and aren't straight from undergrad, and typically there is a reason for the poor GPA.

There are plenty of reasons to hate on WUSTL (and the "destination school" is a great place to start and something I agree with), but hating splitters is a crappy reason.

[Attorney]

WUSTL is giving splitters significantly more money than GW, which goes back to my original argument.

Don't hate on GW for having less fundage than WUSTL.
http://lawschoolalmanac.blogspot.com/20 ... -2008.html

[beachbum]

WUSTL is giving splitters significantly more money than GW, which goes back to my original argument.

Don't hate on GW for having less fundage than WUSTL.
http://lawschoolalmanac.blogspot.com/20 ... -2008.html

That's fine, but it doesn't change the reality of what's happening.

[Attorney]

WUSTL is giving splitters significantly more money than GW, which goes back to my original argument.

Don't hate on GW for having less fundage than WUSTL.
http://lawschoolalmanac.blogspot.com/20 ... -2008.html

That's fine, but it doesn't change the reality of what's happening.

I know, WUSTL giving more and bigger scholarships than GW. It's weird how that correlates with WUSTL having a lot more money than GW.

[beachbum]

WUSTL is giving splitters significantly more money than GW, which goes back to my original argument.

Don't hate on GW for having less fundage than WUSTL.
http://lawschoolalmanac.blogspot.com/20 ... -2008.html

That's fine, but it doesn't change the reality of what's happening.

I know, WUSTL giving more and bigger scholarships than GW. It's weird how that correlates with WUSTL having a lot more money than GW.

WUSTL is just rich as fuck. Their campus is incredible. And they're not afraid to take what they want- whether that's students, teachers, or administrators. I would definitely view them as one of my biggest (if not my biggest) overall threat if I was a top school.

[fatduck]

Come on now, a graph of a cycle in progress? There are like 2 rejections on that graph. Surely you can see how silly that is.

Look at last year's graphs for WUSTL, GWU, UIUC, and IU-B and tell me there's a significant difference.

Ok... here's last year's WUSTL graph: http://washu.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0910/

Sure seems to tell a similar story, no? Also noticed that a lot of the splitters who were WLed (I don't see any that were rejected) turned in their apps late.

I'm not going to include the graphs for Illinois or Indiana (or Minn, for that matter) because they do the exact same thing as WUSTL. And I'll be the first to acknowledge this. But I think WUSTL gets more of the hate for the reasons above.

Here's the graph for GW (last cycle): http://gw.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0910/

It appears less extreme than WUSTL. It also seems that WUSTL is giving splitters significantly more money than GW, which goes back to my original argument.

I mean, it looks pretty similar to me. Pretty clear LSAT wall with a ton of acceptances up and down in terms of GPA, including some extremely low GPAs (sub-3.0). WUSTL also gives a shitload more money than GWU across the board.

I mean I get the argument, right? Every school's students either fall above, at, or below their GPA median. You're saying WUSTL's "below median" students tend to be more "below median" than other peer schools, implying that they don't really care about anything but their medians (i.e. their ranking), so it doesn't matter to them whether a student is 3.6 or 2.6 if they're gonna bring the median down.

But it just doesn't play out like that in reality. Look at the 25% percentile for GPA for some peer schools:

BU: 3.5
GWU: 3.41
Fordham: 3.37
Emory: 3.37
ND: 3.36
BC: 3.34
WUSTL: 3.3
Minn: 3.3
IU-B: 3.26
UCD: 3.23
UIUC: 3.2

WUSTL is on the lower end, but not noticeably so. It's on par with schools like BC and UCD, neither of which are labeled "splitter-friendly" on these forums. I just don't think these hordes of 170/2.5 slackers that you think are filling the classrooms at WUSTL exist...