Curry wrote:voice of reason wrote:Curry wrote:voiceofreason wrote: But the most likely outcome is a very slightly higher class rank at UCLA, because UCLA students are a little bit weaker competition than Chicago students.
Yeah see. See that. That right there. That is wrong.
What, the premise or the conclusion?
If you challenge the premise (UCLA students are a little bit weaker competition than Chicago students), consider that LSAT & UGPA are the best available measures of academic potential and are correlated with intelligence and law school performance. That tells us the strength of the competition. With the best measures we have, UCLA is weaker than Chicago. The difference is very small, but not zero.
If you challenge the conclusion, consider that law school is a mechanism for ranking students according to certain academic abilities, and if you are dropped into a pool of weak students, you are going to be closer to the top than if you are dropped into a pool of stronger students.
I reject both. The LSAT and UGPA are NOT correlated in any statistically significant way with law school performance and LOL are even worse measures of general intelligence. You read these boards. This place is chock full of people with high LSATs and high GPAs that are idiots and full of people with lower scores and lower gpas that are absolutely brilliant. Obviously this isn't a significant sample size either but it provides a counterpoint to your claim. Moreover, Berkeley has a lower LSAT than most of the t14. Does that mean its easier to go to law school at Berkeley? No. Of course not, and if anyone here said "go to berkeley because it has a lower LSAT median than UVA," they would get laughed at. The fact is that neither of those two measures tell us ANYTHING about the strength of the competition at any law school. Go to Brigham Young University - you'll have about as hard of a time placing in the top 10% there as you will in almost any other school. The difference in the top 10% between Michigan and Columbia is almost zero. The different between median at UVA and median at berkeley, even though UVA has a higher LSAT, is negligble. To presume otherwise shows a lack of understand of how law school admissions work, how law schools test their students, and how human intelligence can effectively be measured.
Moreover, everything stated above assumes that doing well on the LSAT and having a high gpa = doing well in law school. Law school is a completely different animal. You can only claim to understand how it works once you're there (and I'm making no such claims of understanding). To do well there, from what 1L's 2L's and 3L's on this board have repeatedly said takes a completely different way of studying than anything you've ever done before. When that happens, every measure of "intelligence" is thrown out the window and the ball park is open for anybody with a certain set of skills to come out on top.
As such, your conclusion is flawed with respect to this example. Because we can't measure what a "weak pool of students is" we cannot conclude that the students at UCLA are weaker than the students at Chicago, and as such it is impossible to say it is easier to place better at one school over the other.
This topic has been beaten to death, but I wanted to add a statistics question. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I was under the impression that while LSAT + GPA have a correlation of .35 (or so, i'm remembering off the top of my head) to 1L grades, these models are not designed for individual predictive power. So while it may be true there is a weak to moderate correlation in general between LSAT + GPA, it's not accurate to make individual predictions based on this correlation.