Sandrew wrote:Celtic Bhoy wrote:This was definitely an interesting read so thanks for providing it! I did have one thought about it though that may or may not support your conclusions. I could be wrong, in which case don't worry about it.
This mostly applies to the T14 schools, but I don't really think that the data sets you used are appropriate for them to disprove yield protection. No matter the T14, people scoring in the bottom deciles on the LSAT are going to find enormous amounts of rejections and in some cases waitlists. The lowest 25th percentile for a T14 is a 165 on the LSAT (for Cornell). This is just outside the top scoring decile (which you noted was 167).
Because of this, the majority of people we'd expect to be "targets" and "over-qualified" for these schools are all crowded in one data set simply listed as the top decile. I know it's not the case, but hypothetically all of the waitlists on the UVA graph (just for example) could be from the 175-180 range and all acceptances below that. In that case, there would still be yield protection occurring, but it could be masked simply by the way the data is shown in your graphs. To get a better picture on yield protection (at least at the T14), I would think you'd have to break down the top two deciles (those where the majority of scores fall for these schools) into small groupings like 178-180, 175-177, etc.
I'm not sure if this would change the results, but I think it would clarify each schools trends a bit. I haven't fully thought it through though so if I'm way off let me know.
Thanks for the comment. You're a bit off base, but I'll let you down gently as it's partly my fault for not clearly defining how I devised the deciles.
Each set of deciles is unique to a school, and is based on all applicants in the pool (inclusive of URM and pending status). Let me unpack that a bit.
For simplicity, let's just look at LSAT scores (it gets more complicated when you weigh them against GPA). At Columbia, the top decile of LSAT scores corresponds to a 176, meaning that among the 1,813 LSN users who applied to Columbia during the two cycles ending '09 and '10, approximately 10% had scores of 176 or above. The next three "deciles" correspond to scores of 174, 173, and 171, and the tenth decile corresponds to anything less than 163. (I use deciles in scare-quotes here to indicate that they don't exactly correspond to 10% increments, due to lumpiness in score frequencies.) As you can see, these deciles are quite tightly bound. Now, compare Columbia to, say GWU. At GWU, the top four LSAT deciles correspond to scores of 171, 169, 167 and 167. (Note: 167 is repeated because the frequency of this score is so great among LSN users who applied to GWU.)
As I alluded to, it gets more complicated when you introduce GPA (leaving you with an Index combining LSAT and GPA). But it suffices to say that the deciles are a way of breaking up the entire applicant pool for a given school into (approximately) equal-size cohorts.
I can affirm that it is not the case that all of the waitlists at UVA are among those with LSATs greater than 175. These account for just 92 out of 868 waitlists.
Hope this helps!
Ahhh I see now. I misunderstood your use of "decile". Thanks for clarifying! It really is an impressive analysis so thanks again!