AAJD2B wrote:The 165 threshold is for $$$ purposes and by extension negotiations between top schools vying for top AA applicants. Sure, a 160-164 can land AA applicants into some of the top law schools in the country but seldom, if ever, are they accepted with a substantial scholarship. Exceptions to this are H, S and Columbia, which are known to be stingy with giving away $$$.
The goal is not only acceptance into a great law school but acceptance without the debt. A 165 or higher makes this reality a stronger possibility.
This makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to provide a reasonable answer. nick1 has also provided a good answer, credit to him.
Nick, I have a quick question for you though.
http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=195443http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/ ... eckdam.pdf
I posted this last year in the Black and Law School: By The Numbers thread last year. The amicus brief the ABA filed with the Supreme Court last year for the Fisher case stated that there were only 63 black applicants 3.5+/165+ during the 09-10 cycle.
You noted earlier than the first time the ABA used the "2 or more races" category was in 2012 for Fall 2011 matrics. The data above from the 09-10 cycle refers to the class just before that one, I presume. We've assumed earlier than it is likely that those in the "two or more races" category were just included in with the other individual races (ex: half MA = just Mexcian American, etc). viewtopic.php?f=14&t=211454&start=475#p7172726
Since the info we're discussing is from 09-10, is it therefore quite likely that there are mixed students among the 63 black applicants mentioned by the ABA brief? Would these students still be grouped in generally among "black" applicants in the numbers for later cycles, or would they be separated out?
Yes, but there are caveats. The first is that LSAC still averages scores for their research, schools don't. The second is that we assumed a normal distribution of scores, which is LSAC does not do. So I would say that the numbers are higher, probably not by much though.
So we think that the actual numbers aren't dead-on with the normal distribution analysis, but pretty close. You say they are probably higher (read: the numbers given by the normal distrib analysis underestimate the number of high scoring AAs, but just slightly), but is it also possible that they could be lower (the normal distrib analysis overestimates the number of high scoring AAs, though just slightly)? Do we have anything that allows us to lean one way or the other here?