quickquestionthanks wrote:SandyC877 wrote:quickquestionthanks wrote:Yeah, if Yale had a median 153 or Harvard had a median 180, then the acceptance rate, employment/salary, peer assessment and ALL of those factors would be different than they actually are. They would move with that variable. If anything, he proves his own point by showing that the slight variations in LSAT scores are not the exact cause for the ranking differentiation.
This is why lawyers shouldn't get involved in multiple regression analysis.
150ish vs 180 is a slight variation?
I'm referring to reality, as opposed to some strange hypothetical scenario in which Yale and Harvard become magically retarded/delicious.
So in reality, the Yale LSAT is slightly higher than Harvard's, but apparently that is not the cause for the difference in ranking. Apparently the LSAT is weighted so lightly that all of the ancillary factors overwhelm its effect. And that's probably a good thing. I think this shows the strength in the US News rankings, not the weakness.
I also agree with someone who posted earlier, that the flaw isn't in the formula, but in the process which becomes self fulfilling.
But it is a problem if the other factors are flawed. It is also a problem considering the LSAT differences cause a bigger discrepancy for schools with lower medians than schools with higher medians. The effect should be equal across the board.