Do accommodated LSAT scores count towards law school ranks? Forum

[20141023]

.

[jreeve12]

I really didn't intend this thread to become a referendum on whether I have a shot at Harvard, though. I already have my own opinions on that.

[20141023]

.

[jreeve12]

"And no, HYS do not necessarily have to maintain their medians... a drop in overall stellar applicants means that all schools will have to slowly lower their medians around the board. In the document I linked above, when U.S. News used to average scores in the early 2000's you will see that all schools were affected somewhat evenly."

Again, though, if you really want to have this debate (and again, that's not what I came here to do), we have to be guided by reality and what is ACTUALLY happening with law school admissions right now. While we COULD see a universal drop in median LSATs, that's just not what is happening. Practically all of the top-14 schools, including Harvard, have decided to let their median GPAs drop in favor of LSAT medians.

And I don't believe that Harvard officially releases a full GPA range (tell me if I'm wrong), so all of that data will have been self-reported and subject to the confirmation biases that that entails.

[Tiago Splitter]

Practically all of the top-14 schools, including Harvard, have decided to let their median GPAs drop in favor of LSAT medians.

If you're going to make these claims you need to back them up with some data. At least 3 T-14 schools saw a drop in their LSAT median last cycle.

[20141023]

.

[jreeve12]

I admit that I have had to make some estimates (ie, the number of fewer students scoring 176 rather than 175, for example). I believe that they are conservative. Feel free to disagree.

But this was the statement that started this: " I mean, if I got a 176 (and it counted), that would even put Harvard back into the contention column given the extreme dearth of applicants with scores that high"

This is an exceedingly moderate statement. Notice I didn't say "I'm going to get into Harvard if I score X." In fact, I even said that I didn't need to get into Harvard to do what I want. It's a moot point for me. If you reject that initial statement, however, then I would contend that you have allowed yourself to be so enslaved to regard LSN as the Bible (with all the questions it brings up regarding sample) that this discussion is truly pointless. I probably wouldn't even submit my stats to LSN if I got into Harvard (or was rejected) because I find the whole concept to be a more or less meaningless exercise.

[Tiago Splitter]

At Harvard last year, just 140 entering students had a GPA of 3.78 or below. Does a high LSAT that actually counts give you some chance with a 3.5? Sure. But even if your score counted you'd still be fighting a real uphill battle.

[jreeve12]

"If you're going to make these claims you need to back them up with some data. At least 3 T-14 schools saw a drop in their LSAT median last cycle."

You got it.

Here's a comparison of 2010-2011 medians with this 2011-2012's. As you can see, ALL of the top five allowed their median GPA to drop while many actually increased their GPAs.

school New LSAT New GPA Old LSAT Old GPA
yale 177 3.935 176 3.93
stanford 172 3.9 170 3.845
harvard 173 3.88 173 3.91
columbia 173 3.69 173 3.74
chicago 173 3.73 171 3.87
nyu 173 3.63 172 3.7
berkeley 167 3.865 168 3.77
penn 170.5 3.58 170 3.835
uva 170 3.83 170 3.56
michigan 170 3.63 169 3.67
duke 169 3.68 170 3.7
northwestern 171 3.6 171 3.38
gulc 169 3.4 170.5 3.7
cornell 167.5 3.64 168 3.6

[20141023]

.

[jreeve12]

" Does a high LSAT that actually counts give you some chance with a 3.5? Sure. But even if your score counted you'd still be fighting a real uphill battle."

Finally, the voice of reason appears. I still don't know FOR SURE that an accommodated score is an insurmountable disadvantage, and I still think "real uphill battle" is an exaggeration, but I appreciate your trying to be fair with me now.

[jreeve12]

"It would be absolutely beneficial for you to do so if the law do in fact change - you could end up someplace like UVA with a substantial scholarship with a 3.5 / 175+ (maybe even full ride if your LSAT score gets high enough)."

Thank you. That's the kind of positive advice and opinion that I was looking for.

[Tiago Splitter]

Again. 75th percentile LSAT doesn't matter for rankings. Median does.

As to the "real uphill battle" comment, I was saying you have a real uphill battle regardless of whether or not your accommodation is noted. I'm saying this as a 3.5 splitter myself who has been watching cycles of people with similar numbers for the last few years. My optimism remained high until I received a reject letter from Harvard in the first wave last year at this time.

[20141023]

.

[jreeve12]

Well, I can't say that I know anything about you, Tiago Splitter. I don't know if your numbers are real or if you ever even went to an undergrad institution. I suppose you could say the same thing about me. I do know that Harvard will likely reject as many 178/3.5 splitters as it accepts. A coin toss that can be influenced (but not determined) by a stunning application. It's a wash.

The irony about all of this is that I am ALMOST indifferent about whether or not I get into Harvard. The only Judge it MIGHT give me an advantage with would be Brett Kavanaugh, but I'd really rather clerk for Sutton, J. Harvie Wilkinson, or Neil Gorsuch anyway. All of them have a good track record of sending their clerks to Bristow Fellowships and further clerkships on the Supreme Court. All of them love UVA grads. J. Harvie Wilkinson even had a daughter who attended UVA.

The only thing I've been trying to get across to you guys is that you should never say never. Pessimism kills.

PS, the data tables you sent me confirms what my own chart showed. LSAT goes up or stays the same while GPA median goes down (at every top 9 school except Yale, which saw both go up).

[Buck.Shot]

Accommodating folks with disabilities by giving them more time to complete the LSAT is ridiculous. No client would be okay with you billing time-and-a-half on a project that an able minded lawyer can do faster. If you can't get into the law school of your choice without the LSAT time accommodation, then you do not deserve to go to that school at all.

[jreeve12]

"Accommodating folks with disabilities by giving them more time to complete the LSAT is ridiculous. No client would be okay with you billing time-and-a-half on a project that an able minded lawyer can do faster. If you can't get into the law school of your choice without the LSAT time accommodation, then you do not deserve to go to that school at all."

That's by far the most ignorant comment I've seen on here this far. The question is not necessarily how long it takes an attorney (or a clerk in my case, hopefully) to complete a task, but how good that work is in relation to the time spent. Is the client getting his money's worth? If your work is being done by a former supreme court clerk, for example, that time is worth A LOT even if he he does take him a couple minutes longer to complete a task. Maybe he has become so efficient at it that it actually DOESN'T take him longer than someone else.

Besides, who are we kidding, Buck. shot? You think that BigLaw doesn't milk the clock like it's a dance?

[jreeve12]

I actually take that back, Regulus. I guess Chicago,UVA, and Penn actually DID see their medians go up by a hair last year according to your chart

[Dmini7]

"Accommodating folks with disabilities by giving them more time to complete the LSAT is ridiculous. No client would be okay with you billing time-and-a-half on a project that an able minded lawyer can do faster. If you can't get into the law school of your choice without the LSAT time accommodation, then you do not deserve to go to that school at all."

That's by far the most ignorant comment I've seen on here this far. The question is not necessarily how long it takes an attorney (or a clerk in my case, hopefully) to complete a task, but how good that work is in relation to the time spent. Is the client getting his money's worth? If your work is being done by a former supreme court clerk, for example, that time is worth A LOT even if he he does take him a couple minutes longer to complete a task. Maybe he has become so efficient at it that it actually DOESN'T take him longer than someone else.

Besides, who are we kidding, Buck. shot? You think that BigLaw doesn't milk the clock like it's a dance?

Although I agree buck.shots comment was ignorant and uncalled for, you are sort of undermining the idea of extra time on your LSAT here. If we assume that we are judging how good a work is in relation to the time spent, the LsAT for those with modified times should also have a modified score. I think the sample size of those needing and utilizing modified times is too small to effectively do this though. Out of curiosity, have you tried testing yourself under standard time constraints? Is the drop off in your score extreme? If UVa is your top choice, and you can still score a 170 without extra time, why not just take it under normal conditions? Also to be honest, taking it under normal conditions can't hurt your case. If anything else you provide an addendum explaining to them your need for extra time and proof of your actual ability when you are given what was needed.

[20141023]

.

[RhymesLikeDimes]

While a bit harsh, I don't think that comment on accommodating those with disabilities was all that far off. The good clerkships are murderously competitive. Planning on picking one up is a silly thing to do. And listening to someone with a <3.5 GPA talk as though they can run laps around everyone else is quite amusing. If you think you have the capacity to overcome your disability once you hit the job market, why aren't you doing it now for the LSAT? You are using the same logic that most TTT students use to justify their decision: "I'll just outperform everyone later." It doesn't work like that.

[Buck.Shot]

"Accommodating folks with disabilities by giving them more time to complete the LSAT is ridiculous. No client would be okay with you billing time-and-a-half on a project that an able minded lawyer can do faster. If you can't get into the law school of your choice without the LSAT time accommodation, then you do not deserve to go to that school at all."

That's by far the most ignorant comment I've seen on here this far. The question is not necessarily how long it takes an attorney (or a clerk in my case, hopefully) to complete a task, but how good that work is in relation to the time spent. Is the client getting his money's worth? If your work is being done by a former supreme court clerk, for example, that time is worth A LOT even if he he does take him a couple minutes longer to complete a task. Maybe he has become so efficient at it that it actually DOESN'T take him longer than someone else.

Besides, who are we kidding, Buck. shot? You think that BigLaw doesn't milk the clock like it's a dance?

Milking the clock is unethical, and in violation of the MRPC. Not to mention it is a good way to lose clients.

You assume that your final work product will be superior to that produced by your able minded colleagues. This is not the case. If I was a client, I don't care whether the solution to my problem comes from a former SCOTUS clerk or a former district court clerk. Its the same solution to the same problem. Your solution, however, costs $750, while the answer provided by your competitor would only cost $500.

Clients don't give a fuck whether the associate working on their case was a former SCOTUS clerk. And your undeserved elitism exemplifies why our generation is made up of a bunch of punk ass bitches.

[North]

Just take the LSAT under the same conditions as everyone else if you're so brilliant, dude. I mean, you know you've got the SCOTUS Clerkship locked down, how is the LSAT a challenge? If you won't, you deserve the asterisk. Deal with it.

[Buck.Shot]

I have a disability. It's called I-can't-break-175-without-extra-time-itis. Can I have more time on the LSAT please?

[fatduck]

man this thread is retarded

to everyone saying "LOL R U GONNA GET MORE TIME IN BIGLAWZ CRIPPLE?":

just go fuck yourselves. you have no idea, at all, what you're talking about. go read the ADA and come back when you're sorry.

to OP:

get over it. your LSAT doesn't count, just like international students' GPAs don't count. if you want to get some idea of your chances, i'd look into how international reverse splitters perform, since they're in a similar boat. if you think your GPA isn't reflective of your ability, write an addendum. done.