George Mason LSAT floor

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
dreamflower
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:17 pm

George Mason LSAT floor

Postby dreamflower » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:35 pm

Does George Mason have an LSAT floor? Looking on LSN, in the past 2 years it looks like most people with a 164 were accepted, but almost no one with a 163 or lower was accepted without a very high GPA. Anyone know?

tennisking88
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 am

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby tennisking88 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:36 pm

Their median for 2011 was a 164. That means half the class had an LSAT below 164.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby Samara » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:37 pm

dreamflower wrote:Does George Mason have an LSAT floor? Looking on LSN, in the past 2 years it looks like most people with a 164 were accepted, but almost no one with a 163 or lower was accepted without a very high GPA. Anyone know?

Sounds like you answered your own question.

tennisking88
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 am

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby tennisking88 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:37 pm

I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby Samara » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:38 pm

tennisking88 wrote:I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.

How so?

User avatar
20130312
Posts: 3842
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby 20130312 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Samara wrote:
tennisking88 wrote:I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.

How so?


Because thousands apply and only one or two hundred post on LSN?

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby Samara » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:40 pm

InGoodFaith wrote:
Samara wrote:
tennisking88 wrote:I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.

How so?


Because thousands apply and only one or two hundred post on LSN?

But what reason do you have to believe that the acceptances aren't representative of your chances? That's what you're using it for.

tennisking88
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 am

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby tennisking88 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:44 pm

Samara wrote:
tennisking88 wrote:I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.

How so?


Those posting their scores publicly tend to be quite confident with their scores. Second, if you look at an LSN graph of Cornell from 2010-2011 (http://cornell.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1011/), but also a ton of schools outside the top 10 I'd say, you'll see that the vast, vast majority of those admitted* on LSN had LSAT's higher than Cornell's actual median (167).

User avatar
20130312
Posts: 3842
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby 20130312 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:44 pm

Perhaps students who are accepted are more likely to post than those who are rejected.

We could definitely make this a LR question. What's the assumption, future law students?

tennisking88
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 am

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby tennisking88 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:45 pm

Samara wrote:
InGoodFaith wrote:
Samara wrote:
tennisking88 wrote:I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.

How so?


Because thousands apply and only one or two hundred post on LSN?

But what reason do you have to believe that the acceptances aren't representative of your chances? That's what you're using it for.


That's a different question. OP asked if there was a 164 floor based on LSN, not what his chances were.

User avatar
Davidbentley
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:49 am

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby Davidbentley » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:46 pm

tennisking88 wrote:Their median for 2011 was a 164. That means half the class had an LSAT below 164.

No. That means at least half of the class had an lsat that was not higher than 164.

tennisking88
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 am

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby tennisking88 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:48 pm

Davidbentley wrote:
tennisking88 wrote:Their median for 2011 was a 164. That means half the class had an LSAT below 164.

No. That means at least half of the class had an lsat that was not higher than 164.


Right, sorry, 164 median means half the class had an lsat of 164 OR below.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby Samara » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:49 pm

InGoodFaith wrote:Perhaps students who are accepted are more likely to post than those who are rejected.

We could definitely make this a LR question. What's the assumption, future law students?

I'm sure there are a lot of apps to schools (especially in the T14) from people with super low numbers and whatnot. But who cares if that is not represented in the graph? You only want to know who was accepted. If your numbers don't have a green spot over the past few cycles, I think you can assume with some confidence that your chances are pretty darn low. Lower-ranked schools tend to have less data, so it can be difficult to make too strong of an assumption, but it's still pretty useful.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby Samara » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:50 pm

tennisking88 wrote:
Samara wrote:
tennisking88 wrote:I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.

How so?


Those posting their scores publicly tend to be quite confident with their scores. Second, if you look at an LSN graph of Cornell from 2010-2011 (http://cornell.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1011/), but also a ton of schools outside the top 10 I'd say, you'll see that the vast, vast majority of those admitted* on LSN had LSAT's higher than Cornell's actual median (167).

Obviously. Quite a few applicants apply to Cornell as a safety school, are admitted and then attend a higher ranked school. Medians are based on matriculants, not accepted applicants.

tennisking88
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 am

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby tennisking88 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:53 pm

Samara wrote:
InGoodFaith wrote:Perhaps students who are accepted are more likely to post than those who are rejected.

We could definitely make this a LR question. What's the assumption, future law students?

I'm sure there are a lot of apps to schools (especially in the T14) from people with super low numbers and whatnot. But who cares if that is not represented in the graph? You only want to know who was accepted. If your numbers don't have a green spot over the past few cycles, I think you can assume with some confidence that your chances are pretty darn low. Lower-ranked schools tend to have less data, so it can be difficult to make too strong of an assumption, but it's still pretty useful.


Same question: who cares if you have a graph showing the people above both medians got into a school? Why is that graph (which happens to be the vast majority of LSN graphs) any more necessary than the graphs that show ppl rejected with numbers below both medians?

tennisking88
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 am

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby tennisking88 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:58 pm

Your original question was why LSN was not representative of most applicant pools. And it is presicely because we don't see the people that actually end up matriculating, just the people that show they are admitted. So the graphs tell you relatively little except for the fact that if you're above both medians, you have a great shot, and that if you're a splitter you have an OK shot. Do we really need graphs for this?

Edit: for example, if you look at the people that actually COMMITTED to going to Cornell (http://cornell.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/1011/), it's only 11 out of like 600 applicants that year. Also, even if you average the stats of those 11, it should bring you close to their 3.6/167 median than the actual LSN graph.
Last edited by tennisking88 on Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby Samara » Thu Dec 08, 2011 3:59 pm

tennisking88 wrote:
Samara wrote:
InGoodFaith wrote:Perhaps students who are accepted are more likely to post than those who are rejected.

We could definitely make this a LR question. What's the assumption, future law students?

I'm sure there are a lot of apps to schools (especially in the T14) from people with super low numbers and whatnot. But who cares if that is not represented in the graph? You only want to know who was accepted. If your numbers don't have a green spot over the past few cycles, I think you can assume with some confidence that your chances are pretty darn low. Lower-ranked schools tend to have less data, so it can be difficult to make too strong of an assumption, but it's still pretty useful.


Same question: who cares if you have a graph showing the people above both medians got into a school? Why is that graph (which happens to be the vast majority of LSN graphs) any more necessary than the graphs that show ppl rejected with numbers below both medians?

wut? LSN gives you a (ostensibly) representative sample of admitted applicants. If your numbers aren't represented as admitted, assume they were rejected. You want a comprehensive sample of admitted students, but why would you care about a comprehensive sample of rejected students? I don't understand why you think LSN is a poor tool.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby Samara » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:01 pm

tennisking88 wrote:Your original question was why LSN was not representative of most applicant pools. And it is presicely because we don't see the people that actually end up matriculating, just the people that show they are admitted. So the graphs tell you relatively little except for the fact that if you're above both medians, you have a great shot, and that if you're a splitter you have an OK shot. Do we really need graphs for this?

Yes, because some schools are more splitter-friendly than others, which the graphs show. Different schools have different LSAT and GPA floors, which the graphs show. Matriculating is your choice, so they information you are looking for is whether or not you will be admitted. Why would you use LSN to get a profile of matriculants applications? What would be the point of that information?

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby Samara » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:02 pm

tennisking88 wrote:Edit: for example, if you look at the people that actually COMMITTED to going to Cornell (http://cornell.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/1011/), it's only 11 out of like 600 applicants that year. Also, even if you average the stats of those 11, it should bring you close to their 3.6/167 median than the actual LSN graph.

Right. So how is it unrepresentative?

tennisking88
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 1:15 am

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby tennisking88 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:12 pm

Samara wrote:
tennisking88 wrote:Edit: for example, if you look at the people that actually COMMITTED to going to Cornell (http://cornell.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/1011/), it's only 11 out of like 600 applicants that year. Also, even if you average the stats of those 11, it should bring you close to their 3.6/167 median than the actual LSN graph.

Right. So how is it unrepresentative?


Because Cornell has to accept people with lower numbers than the vast majority of those accepted on LSN, yet those numbers aren't shown on the graph. I think they're not shown on the graph because a) the sample is too small, and b) the people willing to show their numbers tend to be really confident in them, thus they are inflated.
Last edited by tennisking88 on Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby Samara » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:24 pm

tennisking88 wrote:
Samara wrote:
tennisking88 wrote:Edit: for example, if you look at the people that actually COMMITTED to going to Cornell (http://cornell.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/1011/), it's only 11 out of like 600 applicants that year. Also, even if you average the stats of those 11, it should bring you close to their 3.6/167 median than the actual LSN graph.

Right. So how is it unrepresentative?


Because Cornell has to accept people with lower numbers than the vast majority of those accepted on LSN, yet those numbers aren't shown on the graph. I think they're not shown on the graph because a) the sample is too small, and b) the people willing to show their numbers tend to be really confident in them, thus they are inflated.

The LSN medians (assuming equalitylaw14 has good numbers) for Cornell last cycle are 3.69/168. The actual medians for Cornell last cycle are 3.68/168. That sounds pretty darn accurate to me.

User avatar
BiglawOrBust
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby BiglawOrBust » Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:20 pm

Samara wrote:
tennisking88 wrote:
Samara wrote:
tennisking88 wrote:Edit: for example, if you look at the people that actually COMMITTED to going to Cornell (http://cornell.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/1011/), it's only 11 out of like 600 applicants that year. Also, even if you average the stats of those 11, it should bring you close to their 3.6/167 median than the actual LSN graph.

Right. So how is it unrepresentative?


Because Cornell has to accept people with lower numbers than the vast majority of those accepted on LSN, yet those numbers aren't shown on the graph. I think they're not shown on the graph because a) the sample is too small, and b) the people willing to show their numbers tend to be really confident in them, thus they are inflated.

The LSN medians (assuming equalitylaw14 has good numbers) for Cornell last cycle are 3.69/168. The actual medians for Cornell last cycle are 3.68/168. That sounds pretty darn accurate to me.


Good job. Now try that exercise with the other 186 ABA-approved US law schools.

User avatar
ggibelli
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:12 pm

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby ggibelli » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:12 pm


User avatar
JDizzle2015
Posts: 638
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:16 pm

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby JDizzle2015 » Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:04 pm

Samara wrote:The LSN medians (assuming equalitylaw14 has good numbers) for Cornell last cycle are 3.69/168. The actual medians for Cornell last cycle are 3.68/168. That sounds pretty darn accurate to me.

Is that LSN median for people who matriculated or for people who were accepted?

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

Re: George Mason LSAT floor

Postby Samara » Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:19 pm

JDizzle2015 wrote:
Samara wrote:The LSN medians (assuming equalitylaw14 has good numbers) for Cornell last cycle are 3.69/168. The actual medians for Cornell last cycle are 3.68/168. That sounds pretty darn accurate to me.

Is that LSN median for people who matriculated or for people who were accepted?

That's the LSN median for matriculants. The acceptance medians would be much higher, obviously.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests