Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP. Forum
-
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:29 am
Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
My apologies if this is a stupid and/or frequently posted question. I did browse the forums for a while and did not see a similar post.
At what point does a stronger LSAT/GPA combination that is still below both medians beat a splitter who is slightly above one median but way below the other one? Never?
Toying around with LSP it seems that 1 LSAT is approximately .09 GPA. (I understand that this is an approximation and also that some schools favor either LSAT or GPA so this isn't exact, but it's close enough for hypotheticals.)
Using UCLA as an example, my odds according to LSP are 43% (3.65 167) despite the conventional TLS wisdom that being below both medians is basically auto ding. (I think that's the conventional wisdom anyway, not trying to straw man here.)
LSP results: (All examples are non-URM, non-ED.)
UCLA medians = 168 LSAT 3.78 GPA
#1 3.65 167 = 43%
#2 3.47 169 = 43%
#3 3.29 171 = 43%
#4 3.11 173 = 43%
#5 3.83 165 = 43%
So 1 LSAT = .09 GPA. But is the first one at a significant disadvantage considering that it's below both medians? Yes? Right, now consider these:
#1 3.73 167 = 48%
#2 3.00 170 = 18%
The first seems much better, but it's also still below both medians. Does #2 win? Where is the line? Does LSP just fail in that it doesn't take account of one's relation to the median?
At what point does a stronger LSAT/GPA combination that is still below both medians beat a splitter who is slightly above one median but way below the other one? Never?
Toying around with LSP it seems that 1 LSAT is approximately .09 GPA. (I understand that this is an approximation and also that some schools favor either LSAT or GPA so this isn't exact, but it's close enough for hypotheticals.)
Using UCLA as an example, my odds according to LSP are 43% (3.65 167) despite the conventional TLS wisdom that being below both medians is basically auto ding. (I think that's the conventional wisdom anyway, not trying to straw man here.)
LSP results: (All examples are non-URM, non-ED.)
UCLA medians = 168 LSAT 3.78 GPA
#1 3.65 167 = 43%
#2 3.47 169 = 43%
#3 3.29 171 = 43%
#4 3.11 173 = 43%
#5 3.83 165 = 43%
So 1 LSAT = .09 GPA. But is the first one at a significant disadvantage considering that it's below both medians? Yes? Right, now consider these:
#1 3.73 167 = 48%
#2 3.00 170 = 18%
The first seems much better, but it's also still below both medians. Does #2 win? Where is the line? Does LSP just fail in that it doesn't take account of one's relation to the median?
- ThomasMN
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:38 pm
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
I am going to cut this short, look at law school numbers. Most people that get into a law school below both medians are special cases ( URM, crazy life story, etc.). Just look at the acceptance graph for this year.
- Br3v
- Posts: 4290
- Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
Also have to take I to account gpa/LSAT floors
- Tiago Splitter
- Posts: 17148
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
http://ucla.lawschoolnumbers.com/applic ... ,8&type=jd
These are people below both medians. Odds aren't too good.
To your question, yes, LSP isn't build to understand how important being over one median is.
These are people below both medians. Odds aren't too good.
To your question, yes, LSP isn't build to understand how important being over one median is.
- bernaldiaz
- Posts: 1674
- Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:51 am
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
The most interesting part of this thread is the whole 1 LSAT point = .09 GPA. I've been wondering what it would be.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:29 am
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
There is a field for URM. And LSN data is used in the predictor, so my questioning of LSP and your suggestion to look at LSN seems a little...ThomasMN wrote:I am going to cut this short, look at law school numbers. Most people that get into a law school below both medians are special cases ( URM, crazy life story, etc.). Just look at the acceptance graph for this year.
- Br3v
- Posts: 4290
- Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
Am I the only one who can't figure out what comes after the ... ?Scuppers wrote:There is a field for URM. And LSN data is used in the predictor, so my questioning of LSP and your suggestion to look at LSN seems a little...ThomasMN wrote:I am going to cut this short, look at law school numbers. Most people that get into a law school below both medians are special cases ( URM, crazy life story, etc.). Just look at the acceptance graph for this year.
-
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:29 am
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
#1 3.73 167 = 48% Below both medians.Tiago Splitter wrote:
To your question, yes, LSP isn't build to understand how important being over one median is.
#2 3.00 170 = 18% Below one median.
So you pick #2 over #1, correct?
-
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:29 am
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
Got you thinking. Interactivity through ambiguity.Br3v wrote:Am I the only one who can't figure out what comes after the ... ?Scuppers wrote:There is a field for URM. And LSN data is used in the predictor, so my questioning of LSP and your suggestion to look at LSN seems a little...ThomasMN wrote:I am going to cut this short, look at law school numbers. Most people that get into a law school below both medians are special cases ( URM, crazy life story, etc.). Just look at the acceptance graph for this year.
-
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:51 pm
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
Except I swear that #1 would have the better shot at Cornell.Scuppers wrote:#1 3.73 167 = 48% Below both medians.Tiago Splitter wrote:
To your question, yes, LSP isn't build to understand how important being over one median is.
#2 3.00 170 = 18% Below one median.
So you pick #2 over #1, correct?
- Tiago Splitter
- Posts: 17148
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
Yes. I'd put the odds for both at below 18% though.Scuppers wrote:#1 3.73 167 = 48% Below both medians.Tiago Splitter wrote:
To your question, yes, LSP isn't build to understand how important being over one median is.
#2 3.00 170 = 18% Below one median.
So you pick #2 over #1, correct?
- Samara
- Posts: 3238
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
FWIW, the LSP percentages aren't odds of admissions. As to which scenario is more likely to receive admission, it depends on the splitter-friendliness of the school. 3.0/170 is going to have a much better chance at UVa than Berkeley.Tiago Splitter wrote:Yes. I'd put the odds for both at below 18% though.Scuppers wrote:#1 3.73 167 = 48% Below both medians.Tiago Splitter wrote:
To your question, yes, LSP isn't build to understand how important being over one median is.
#2 3.00 170 = 18% Below one median.
So you pick #2 over #1, correct?
- jkpolk
- Posts: 1236
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:44 am
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
When someone figures out a useful conversion based on a regression analysis of LSN, controlling for all the confounding variables and supported by an eyeball test of all admission information, color me surprised if 1 LSAT point = .09 GPAbernaldiaz wrote:The most interesting part of this thread is the whole 1 LSAT point = .09 GPA. I've been wondering what it would be.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Tiago Splitter
- Posts: 17148
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
That works with UCLA's index, but for all applicants there really isn't ever going to be a neat formula like that.polkij333 wrote:When someone figures out a useful conversion based on a regression analysis of LSN, controlling for all the confounding variables and supported by an eyeball test of all admission information, color me surprised if 1 LSAT point = .09 GPAbernaldiaz wrote:The most interesting part of this thread is the whole 1 LSAT point = .09 GPA. I've been wondering what it would be.
- Samara
- Posts: 3238
- Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
Yeah, you can't really do a "conversion" with much applicability. Even the schools that are pretty balanced between GPA and LSAT have GPA floors and possibly LSAT floors. Then, there's also the problem of diminishing returns. Is there really an appreciable difference between an applicant's chances at UCLA with a 3.6/171 and a 3.6/174? Or even 3.6/169 and 3.6/170? It would affect money, but probably not admission chances.Tiago Splitter wrote:That works with UCLA's index, but for all applicants there really isn't ever going to be a neat formula like that.polkij333 wrote:When someone figures out a useful conversion based on a regression analysis of LSN, controlling for all the confounding variables and supported by an eyeball test of all admission information, color me surprised if 1 LSAT point = .09 GPAbernaldiaz wrote:The most interesting part of this thread is the whole 1 LSAT point = .09 GPA. I've been wondering what it would be.
- Br3v
- Posts: 4290
- Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
Problem you can't do simple conversion. I would imagine the ratio is on a inversely sliding scale basis. So to take the ratio you'd have to use calculus.
- Tiago Splitter
- Posts: 17148
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
Br3v wrote:Problem you can't do simple conversion. I would imagine the ratio is on a inversely sliding scale basis. So to take the ratio you'd have to use calculus.
- bernaldiaz
- Posts: 1674
- Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:51 am
Re: Splitters versus higher averages--and LSP.
What do you think it would be, roughly? That seems about right to me.polkij333 wrote:When someone figures out a useful conversion based on a regression analysis of LSN, controlling for all the confounding variables and supported by an eyeball test of all admission information, color me surprised if 1 LSAT point = .09 GPAbernaldiaz wrote:The most interesting part of this thread is the whole 1 LSAT point = .09 GPA. I've been wondering what it would be.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login