2010-2011 Cycle Forum

[Samson]

What do you guys think about medians in the next cycle (beginning Fall 2010). I know this was a super competitive year with the economy and what not, do you think it will make a noticeable impact on 25-75% ranges?

[r6_philly]

What do you guys think about medians in the next cycle (beginning Fall 2010). I know this was a super competitive year with the economy and what not, do you think it will make a noticeable impact on 25-75% ranges?

I may be dead wrong, but I feel that 75% will more of less stay the same in the top schools while 25% and 50% will rise. Will see a rise in the lower ranked schools.

[Samson]

so no chance they'll drop a little?

[r6_philly]

I think if it does end up rising, schools will say, well we got them higher let's try to keep them higher. It may end up going down because they run out of qualified candidates in the WL, but I think earlier admits will have higher numbers because schools will try to keep them high.

[februaryftw]

Are we talking GPA or LSAT?

GPAs will continue to rise due to nation wide grade inflation. The increase in applications will also have an effect this year, but there are two things going on for GPA increases.

I'd guess some schools will be bumping their LSAT medians and 25/75s by a point, not sure which; there were way more people taking the LSAT (or retaking it), so their are just more 170+s out there.

[TTH]

Pretty sure medians raised remarkably this year, probably will do so again next year.

[Samson]

that's depressing. i'm sitting on a 169 and already a long shot for some of my top schools. ohhhh well, life happens.

[r6_philly]

so their are just more 170+s out there.

You can't claim this without data. You can't presume that in the pool of additional candidates the same percentage (or any percentage) of people would be able to score 170+. Because the people that takes the LSAT now is not a representative sampel of the whole population or the population of new, increased LSAT takers. This is like a LR question...

[r6_philly]

Pretty sure medians raised remarkably this year, probably will do so again next year.

Can't claim that until waitlists settle and people enroll. Admission offer standards have risen, but that doesn't translate to incoming class numbers increase, necessarily.

[februaryftw]

so their are just more 170+s out there.

You can't claim this without data. You can't presume that in the pool of additional candidates the same percentage (or any percentage) of people would be able to score 170+. Because the people that takes the LSAT now is not a representative sampel of the whole population or the population of new, increased LSAT takers. This is like a LR question...

Well, I just did claim it without data!

Anyways, your point is theoretically true but the sample of increased takers is way too large to find the objection plausible. There is no reason to believe that the huge influx of test takers is systematically disadvantaged at the LSAT, which is required to make your objection plausible.

There are more 170s out there this cycle than last. I don't have the data to prove it, but that doesn't make it false (if we are playing LSAT, this was always one of my favorite - usually good for one question per test).

[JollyGreenGiant]

so their are just more 170+s out there.

You can't claim this without data. You can't presume that in the pool of additional candidates the same percentage (or any percentage) of people would be able to score 170+. Because the people that takes the LSAT now is not a representative sampel of the whole population or the population of new, increased LSAT takers. This is like a LR question...

But isn't the scale curved so that a certain % of people score a 170+?

And since there are more people that take the test than in the past, wouldn't that mean there are more people who score 170+?

[r6_philly]

But isn't the scale curved so that a certain % of people score a 170+?

And since there are more people that take the test than in the past, wouldn't that mean there are more people who score 170+?

The test is converted due to different scores because there are variations in the difficulty of the tests. The difficulty levels are determined by using the questions in previous experimental sections and measuring how many test takers got the question right.

If you are 1 of 100 people taking the test, you got 50 raw score and everyone else get 30, doesn't make you a 180

[r6_philly]

Well, I just did claim it without data!

Anyways, your point is theoretically true but the sample of increased takers is way too large to find the objection plausible. There is no reason to believe that the huge influx of test takers is systematically disadvantaged at the LSAT, which is required to make your objection plausible.

There are more 170s out there this cycle than last. I don't have the data to prove it, but that doesn't make it false (if we are playing LSAT, this was always one of my favorite - usually good for one question per test).

It doesn't make it true either. So since the premise "there are more 170 test takers out there" is being used as a primary supporting evidence, your argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that the conclusion is made based on unconfirmed data

Anyway, many UG students self-select them into law school. Now there are a lot of people who are having trouble finding jobs are now looking at law/grad/med schools as alternatives. I can reasonably presume, that the students with the highest academic records and potential have a easier time filling the limited supply of jobs out there. So that leaves the less qualified grads looking for alternatives. They lack the preparation the self-selecting pre-law students posess. I can only make a educated guess that they would less likely to score into the 97%tile that is 170.

That argument is a bit better than "I don't have data but you can't prove me wrong".

[februaryftw]

Well, I just did claim it without data!

Anyways, your point is theoretically true but the sample of increased takers is way too large to find the objection plausible. There is no reason to believe that the huge influx of test takers is systematically disadvantaged at the LSAT, which is required to make your objection plausible.

There are more 170s out there this cycle than last. I don't have the data to prove it, but that doesn't make it false (if we are playing LSAT, this was always one of my favorite - usually good for one question per test).

It doesn't make it true either. So since the premise "there are more 170 test takers out there" is being used as a primary supporting evidence, your argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that the conclusion is made based on unconfirmed data

Anyway, many UG students self-select them into law school. Now there are a lot of people who are having trouble finding jobs are now looking at law/grad/med schools as alternatives. I can reasonably presume, that the students with the highest academic records and potential have a easier time filling the limited supply of jobs out there. So that leaves the less qualified grads looking for alternatives. They lack the preparation the self-selecting pre-law students posess. I can only make a educated guess that they would less likely to score into the 97%tile that is 170.

That argument is a bit better than "I don't have data but you can't prove me wrong".

Well, my argument is also not "I don't have data but you can't prove me wrong." (although I suppose you know that...) My argument is that unless there is good reason to believe otherwise, one should assume that a massive influx of test takers contains close to the same distribution of dumb or ill-prepared, and smart or well-prepared students as any other population. And given the huge numbers involved, there seems little reason to presume the new test takers aren't similar in kind to all other LSAT takers.

And your reasonable presumption that the economy has hit dumber people harder than smarter people - here defined solely in terms of ability to succeed on the LSAT - has no support. Many of the sectors hit hard by this latest recession are filled by the sorts of people who would do well on a standardized test. It is also unclear why people faced with the urgency of lost savings and jobs would not take a huge test seriously - and the LSAT is a very learnable test.

So yes, I haven't proved there are more 170s. But I also haven't been given any persuasive indication why I should believe this year's test takers are any different than previous year's test takers, at least as regards how they'll shake out in terms of the percentiles. The self-selecting undergraduate thesis just gives too much credit to those who dream of being a lawyer (since I was 5!), and not enough credit to professionals who are seeking gainful employment in tough times.

Given the numbers involved, I'll continue to assume there are more 170s. I just think it's the smart bet.

I guess we'll see soon enough...

(As an aside I think I gave your exact same argument a couple months back)