U. of Illinois Law suspends Dean of Admissions Forum

[Samara]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm still intrigued by the iLeap scenario. We are assuming the iLeapers have above-median GPAs and below-median LSATs. Suppose UIUC reported both medians with the iLeapers included. The GPA median is calculated as normal. When calculating the LSAT median, say they treated the iLeapers as "unreported" and included them in the median calculations as if they were 180s. Then, if it is discovered that the iLeap data was abused and they simply removed those students from the median calculations, it would cause both medians to drop, potentially substantially. Combined with DF's explanation of how schools play the numbers game, this seems plausible to me. Does that make sense?

[Mickey Quicknumbers]

I'd like to think that they just wildly erred in their admissions process instead of this being a longstanding thing as well. However, I also agree that it would be VERY hard to drop 4 points from last year's median (last year was 167, right?) just because they didn't get the yield they thought they'd get from the 168+'s. Maybe they wait listed a lot of super-splitters like they did to me, hoping they could lure them off the wait list with free'd up scholarship money from better GPA/LSAT combo candidates but had a ton decide to turn down the wait list for initial acceptances to peer schools. It just seems unlikely though.

Also, can anyone offer a suggestion that if they were trying to cover up a botched admissions cycle for this year, why they would choose to RAISE the medians instead of keeping them standard? Or at least something to call less attention like a same LSAT/.03 or so increase in GPA?

Given their choice for 168+ it seems very likely that was their target and when they failed they chose to lie about the numbers. Or they have been lying all along. 4 point drops dont happen to schools in the top 25. Maybe Barry or Nova Southeastern. Probably not even them.

Maybe Nova... Barry's the better school, so it's less likely to happen to them.

[Ernert]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm still intrigued by the iLeap scenario. We are assuming the iLeapers have above-median GPAs and below-median LSATs. Suppose UIUC reported both medians with the iLeapers included. The GPA median is calculated as normal. When calculating the LSAT median, say they treated the iLeapers as "unreported" and included them in the median calculations as if they were 180s. Then, if it is discovered that the iLeap data was abused and they simply removed those students from the median calculations, it would cause both medians to drop, potentially substantially. Combined with DF's explanation of how schools play the numbers game, this seems plausible to me. Does that make sense?

I would say it's ridiculous because I can't imagine the convoluted thought process by which someone could justify reporting an "unreported" score as a 180, but given the shenanigans we've been hearing about, it doesn't seem out of the question. I'm still tempted to accept the explanation of multiple years of padding, but there is no way to know for sure.

[PDaddy]

Maybe all the [sic] top schools are fudging their medians?

This...

[Aberzombie1892]

UIUC has an LSAT median of 163? I feel as shocked as I did when I saw that Duke placed 38% of its class in big law.

[TCScrutinizer]

I've missed the past 10 pages, so to recap: Illinois' LSAT median is actually 163 and GPA median is 3.7? How did I get denied?

Anything else I'm missing?

Damn, dude. You essentially got denied at the State of Illinois's less prestigious public-school version of Baylor Law.

I've been to Waco and if our medians dropped to 150/2.5, we'd still be better than Baylor. Don't joke about that shit.

[Samara]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm still intrigued by the iLeap scenario. We are assuming the iLeapers have above-median GPAs and below-median LSATs. Suppose UIUC reported both medians with the iLeapers included. The GPA median is calculated as normal. When calculating the LSAT median, say they treated the iLeapers as "unreported" and included them in the median calculations as if they were 180s. Then, if it is discovered that the iLeap data was abused and they simply removed those students from the median calculations, it would cause both medians to drop, potentially substantially. Combined with DF's explanation of how schools play the numbers game, this seems plausible to me. Does that make sense?

I would say it's ridiculous because I can't imagine the convoluted thought process by which someone could justify reporting an "unreported" score as a 180, but given the shenanigans we've been hearing about, it doesn't seem out of the question. I'm still tempted to accept the explanation of multiple years of padding, but there is no way to know for sure.

I'm not saying they reported them as 180s, I'm saying that when they calculated the medians, they stuck the iLeapers at the top of the class, as if they scored 180.

Say you have a class of 200 with 15 iLeapers. You should calculate the LSAT median based on 185 students. Say instead you calculate the median based on all 200 students, acting as if all the students without reported scores scored 180. That would be 7 (right?) fewer splitters you would need to get a median of 168 than if you calculated the median based only on the reported scores.

[JamMasterJ]

Guys. The second statement was purely sarcasm referencing all the stupid "I can't believe I got rejected from this school even though they have such low medians" comments.

My point is please try to be a bit sensitive to the people who are students at Illinois. I understand the desire to speculate on what's going on, but it's not necessary to make demoralizing comments in the process. So one law student to another, just try to be considerate in your remarks. I'm not trying to be defensive in any way. Have a good night.

Um, not what I was saying. I was surprised because I originally thought I was denied because I was below both medians. Well, now that I find out that I'm significantly above one, it makes me a little confused as to why I wasn't at least waitlisted (don't make any stupid, "maybe your app wasn't any good" comments. I got into a school where I was below both medians.). I'm not crying that I didn't get in, just mildly surprised.

[TCScrutinizer]

Guys. The second statement was purely sarcasm referencing all the stupid "I can't believe I got rejected from this school even though they have such low medians" comments.

My point is please try to be a bit sensitive to the people who are students at Illinois. I understand the desire to speculate on what's going on, but it's not necessary to make demoralizing comments in the process. So one law student to another, just try to be considerate in your remarks. I'm not trying to be defensive in any way. Have a good night.

Um, not what I was saying. I was surprised because I originally thought I was denied because I was below both medians. Well, now that I find out that I'm significantly above one, it makes me a little confused as to why I wasn't at least waitlisted (don't make any stupid, "maybe your app wasn't any good" comments. I got into a school where I was below both medians.). I'm not crying that I didn't get in, just mildly surprised.

Welcome to law. Arbitrary rejections and acceptances are a way of life.

[comet_halley]

Guys. The second statement was purely sarcasm referencing all the stupid "I can't believe I got rejected from this school even though they have such low medians" comments.

My point is please try to be a bit sensitive to the people who are students at Illinois. I understand the desire to speculate on what's going on, but it's not necessary to make demoralizing comments in the process. So one law student to another, just try to be considerate in your remarks. I'm not trying to be defensive in any way. Have a good night.

Um, not what I was saying. I was surprised because I originally thought I was denied because I was below both medians. Well, now that I find out that I'm significantly above one, it makes me a little confused as to why I wasn't at least waitlisted (don't make any stupid, "maybe your app wasn't any good" comments. I got into a school where I was below both medians.). I'm not crying that I didn't get in, just mildly surprised.

It's easy to explain that situation.

The school's median LSAT target was 168, so all splitters with 168 were admitted, and all those167 were waitlisted, and all those 166 were denied.

When they found out that the yield rate of 168s was so low, they didn't have enough waitlisters to maintain the median.
so they decided to fudge the number. maybe just about 20 peoples.

because the school had accepted so many splitters, they had to accept a lot of reverse -splitters to maintain their GPA, and those reverse-splitters LSAT were mostly below 163.

At last, they didn't matriculate enough 168 students,that's why its LSAT downed for 5 point

[danquayle]

Guys. The second statement was purely sarcasm referencing all the stupid "I can't believe I got rejected from this school even though they have such low medians" comments.

My point is please try to be a bit sensitive to the people who are students at Illinois. I understand the desire to speculate on what's going on, but it's not necessary to make demoralizing comments in the process. So one law student to another, just try to be considerate in your remarks. I'm not trying to be defensive in any way. Have a good night.

Um, not what I was saying. I was surprised because I originally thought I was denied because I was below both medians. Well, now that I find out that I'm significantly above one, it makes me a little confused as to why I wasn't at least waitlisted (don't make any stupid, "maybe your app wasn't any good" comments. I got into a school where I was below both medians.). I'm not crying that I didn't get in, just mildly surprised.

It's easy to explain that situation.

The school's median LSAT target was 168, so all splitters with 168 were admitted, and all those167 were waitlisted, and all those 166 were denied.


When they found out that the yield rate of 168s was so low, they didn't have enough waitlisters to maintain the median.
so they decided to fudge the number. maybe just about 20 peoples.

because the school had accepted so many splitters, they had to accept a lot of reverse -splitters to maintain their GPA, and those reverse-splitters LSAT were mostly below 163.

At last, they didn't matriculate enough 168 students,that's why its LSAT downed for 5 point

This makes sense for LSAT scores, but what about GPAs? If they simply admitted too many reverse splitters, shouldn't the GPA still be high? Why fudge that number?

[NYC Law]

Guys. The second statement was purely sarcasm referencing all the stupid "I can't believe I got rejected from this school even though they have such low medians" comments.

My point is please try to be a bit sensitive to the people who are students at Illinois. I understand the desire to speculate on what's going on, but it's not necessary to make demoralizing comments in the process. So one law student to another, just try to be considerate in your remarks. I'm not trying to be defensive in any way. Have a good night.

Um, not what I was saying. I was surprised because I originally thought I was denied because I was below both medians. Well, now that I find out that I'm significantly above one, it makes me a little confused as to why I wasn't at least waitlisted (don't make any stupid, "maybe your app wasn't any good" comments. I got into a school where I was below both medians.). I'm not crying that I didn't get in, just mildly surprised.

It's easy to explain that situation.

The school's median LSAT target was 168, so all splitters with 168 were admitted, and all those167 were waitlisted, and all those 166 were denied.

When they found out that the yield rate of 168s was so low, they didn't have enough waitlisters to maintain the median.
so they decided to fudge the number. maybe just about 20 peoples.

because the school had accepted so many splitters, they had to accept a lot of reverse -splitters to maintain their GPA, and those reverse-splitters LSAT were mostly below 163.

At last, they didn't matriculate enough 168 students,that's why its LSAT downed for 5 point

Pless alt?

[soj]

It's easy to explain that situation.

The school's median LSAT target was 168, so all splitters with 168 were admitted, and all those167 were waitlisted, and all those 166 were denied.


When they found out that the yield rate of 168s was so low, they didn't have enough waitlisters to maintain the median.
so they decided to fudge the number. maybe just about 20 peoples.

because the school had accepted so many splitters, they had to accept a lot of reverse -splitters to maintain their GPA, and those reverse-splitters LSAT were mostly below 163.

At last, they didn't matriculate enough 168 students,that's why its LSAT downed for 5 point

This makes sense for LSAT scores, but what about GPAs? If they simply admitted too many reverse splitters, shouldn't the GPA still be high? Why fudge that number?

Maybe the problem wasn't that too many reverse splitters enrolled, but that not enough admits at or above both medians enrolled. The rest of DF's analysis could still be correct. All schools (even those playing the splitter/reverse-splitter game) need some students at or above both medians to keep medians afloat. This is usually where the big $$ comes in, but maybe it didn't work out for Illinois this year.

Because of the way the numbers work ("just get 50th percentile as high as possible, even if even the 49th percentiles are vastly shittier numbers"), small variations in yield can fuck up medians.

[danquayle]

It's easy to explain that situation.

The school's median LSAT target was 168, so all splitters with 168 were admitted, and all those167 were waitlisted, and all those 166 were denied.


When they found out that the yield rate of 168s was so low, they didn't have enough waitlisters to maintain the median.
so they decided to fudge the number. maybe just about 20 peoples.

because the school had accepted so many splitters, they had to accept a lot of reverse -splitters to maintain their GPA, and those reverse-splitters LSAT were mostly below 163.

At last, they didn't matriculate enough 168 students,that's why its LSAT downed for 5 point

This makes sense for LSAT scores, but what about GPAs? If they simply admitted too many reverse splitters, shouldn't the GPA still be high? Why fudge that number?

Maybe the problem wasn't that too many reverse splitters enrolled, but that not enough admits at or above both medians enrolled. The rest of DF's analysis could still be correct. All schools (even those playing the splitter/reverse-splitter game) need some students at or above both medians to keep medians afloat. This is usually where the big $$ comes in, but maybe it didn't work out for Illinois this year.

Because of the way the numbers work ("just get 50th percentile as high as possible, even if even the 49th percentiles are vastly shittier numbers"), small variations in yield can fuck up medians.

It's crazy to think that Indiana's class median is now 3 LSAT points higher than Illinois's. Its been debated for a long time whether class profile and US News makes any difference whatsoever. This is going to be the perfect case study for that debate. Illinois has clearly had the edge on Indiana historically, but if there is any impact they shouldn't sustain that edge.

[romothesavior]

At last, they didn't matriculate enough 168 students,that's why its LSAT downed for 5 point

No, this does not explain it completely. The school doesn't waitlist everyone with a 167 and reject everyone with a 166 and down. They are going to accept a few with 164, 165, 166, 167 for their GPAs and other factors. So if a few 168s decide not to come, the median should drop to a 166/167 or something. To drop 5 points means that someone just completely dropped the ball this year and they scrambled to cover it up, or that it has been an ongoing thing. I'm gonna go with the latter.

[Aberzombie1892]

At last, they didn't matriculate enough 168 students,that's why its LSAT downed for 5 point

No, this does not explain it completely. The school doesn't waitlist everyone with a 167 and reject everyone with a 166 and down. They are going to accept a few with 164, 165, 166, 167 for their GPAs and other factors. So if a few 168s decide not to come, the median should drop to a 166/167 or something. To drop 5 points means that someone just completely dropped the ball this year and they scrambled to cover it up, or that it has been an ongoing thing. I'm gonna go with the latter.

In theory, your right. In reality, it appears as though the vast majority of their sub 50% LSAT students had scores significantly below the median (upwards of 30-40% of the class it would seem). UIUC's historical 25% LSAT has been relatively low (163), and the same can be said about its 25% GPA (3.3).

However, I wouldn't rule ongoing fraud out.

[Tiago Splitter]

Because of the way the numbers work ("just get 50th percentile as high as possible, even if even the 49th percentiles are vastly shittier numbers"), small variations in yield can fuck up medians.

I'd buy this line if 5 point median LSAT drops ever happened to anyone else.

[Helmholtz]

Because of the way the numbers work ("just get 50th percentile as high as possible, even if even the 49th percentiles are vastly shittier numbers"), small variations in yield can fuck up medians.

I'd buy this line if 5 point median LSAT drops ever happened to anyone else.

For all we know, they might, we just never find out about it.

[Tiago Splitter]

Because of the way the numbers work ("just get 50th percentile as high as possible, even if even the 49th percentiles are vastly shittier numbers"), small variations in yield can fuck up medians.

I'd buy this line if 5 point median LSAT drops ever happened to anyone else.

For all we know, they might, we just never find out about it.

Totally credited.

[JCougar]

Because of the way the numbers work ("just get 50th percentile as high as possible, even if even the 49th percentiles are vastly shittier numbers"), small variations in yield can fuck up medians.

Not unless you're completely shitty as an admissions dean. You have to leave some cushion in case people drop out. Furthermore, if you look at Illinois' LSN profile, they admitted a good number of 167s this year as a cushion, even though they were "targeting" 168. WUSTL does the same thing, but they still offer big scholarships to people a point below median (but above GPA median) to provide this cushion. Illinois has done this too in the past. The class just doesn't drop from being 50% 167+ straight down to a 163. It's probably more like 53% 167+, 4% 166, 6% 165, 7% 164, 10% 163, etc., meaning that at least 70% of the potential class has a 164+. In order for your intended median to suddenly fall where your 70% mark now is, you'd have to have a decrease in yield of those above median of 60% from one year to the next. That's an extremely unusual drop.

[JCougar]

Because of the way the numbers work ("just get 50th percentile as high as possible, even if even the 49th percentiles are vastly shittier numbers"), small variations in yield can fuck up medians.

I'd buy this line if 5 point median LSAT drops ever happened to anyone else.

And it hasn't. Minnesota is similarly ranked, in a similar area, and has similar admissions practices. Their median stayed steady at 167 this year. They didn't give out insane scholarships to do it, either. Their 25th percentile did drop to 167, but it seems they didn't have the same problem Illinois did with their median.

[minnbills]

Because of the way the numbers work ("just get 50th percentile as high as possible, even if even the 49th percentiles are vastly shittier numbers"), small variations in yield can fuck up medians.

I'd buy this line if 5 point median LSAT drops ever happened to anyone else.

And it hasn't. Minnesota is similarly ranked, in a similar area, and has similar admissions practices. Their median stayed steady at 167 this year. They didn't give out insane scholarships to do it, either. Their 25th percentile did drop to 167, but it seems they didn't have the same problem Illinois did with their median.

158 you mean.

[comet_halley]

At last, they didn't matriculate enough 168 students,that's why its LSAT downed for 5 point

No, this does not explain it completely. The school doesn't waitlist everyone with a 167 and reject everyone with a 166 and down. They are going to accept a few with 164, 165, 166, 167 for their GPAs and other factors. So if a few 168s decide not to come, the median should drop to a 166/167 or something. To drop 5 points means that someone just completely dropped the ball this year and they scrambled to cover it up, or that it has been an ongoing thing. I'm gonna go with the latter.

I just mentioned their splitter strategy.

Certainly, they also admitted those 167,166,165... with GPA higher than 3.7. because that would improve its GPA.

But they didn't waitlist enough 166 167 splitters.

Some people talked about they didn't accept enough people that above LSAT & GPA median.

Serious, with a 168,3.8. You can got a decent scholarship from Cornell.

[comet_halley]

Because of the way the numbers work ("just get 50th percentile as high as possible, even if even the 49th percentiles are vastly shittier numbers"), small variations in yield can fuck up medians.

I'd buy this line if 5 point median LSAT drops ever happened to anyone else.

And it hasn't. Minnesota is similarly ranked, in a similar area, and has similar admissions practices. Their median stayed steady at 167 this year. They didn't give out insane scholarships to do it, either. Their 25th percentile did drop to 167, but it seems they didn't have the same problem Illinois did with their median.

to be continued

It doesn't make sense UIUC and UMN would have such a obvious difference since they almost used the same strategy except the YP policy of UMN.

[JCougar]

Because of the way the numbers work ("just get 50th percentile as high as possible, even if even the 49th percentiles are vastly shittier numbers"), small variations in yield can fuck up medians.

I'd buy this line if 5 point median LSAT drops ever happened to anyone else.

And it hasn't. Minnesota is similarly ranked, in a similar area, and has similar admissions practices. Their median stayed steady at 167 this year. They didn't give out insane scholarships to do it, either. Their 25th percentile did drop to 167, but it seems they didn't have the same problem Illinois did with their median.

158 you mean.

Or 75th percentile, I meant.