Legacy

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
tbird
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:09 am

Legacy

Postby tbird » Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:59 pm

Does legacy have any impact on admissions? For example my father went to NYU, would that help my chances of getting in at all. Obviously I know medians are most important, but would that be considered a decent soft?

User avatar
LexLeon
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:03 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby LexLeon » Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:07 pm

Medians aren't "most important," my friend.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: Legacy

Postby sinfiery » Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:08 pm

LexLeon wrote:Medians aren't "most important," my friend.

You keep saying this but you've never provided any statistical evidence to support your argument.


Are you insane?

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby dingbat » Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:10 pm

tbird wrote:Does legacy have any impact on admissions? For example my father went to NYU, would that help my chances of getting in at all. Obviously I know medians are most important, but would that be considered a decent soft?

Depends. Is your name on the building?

Ti Malice
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:55 am

Re: Legacy

Postby Ti Malice » Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:35 pm

LexLeon wrote:Medians aren't "most important," my friend.


You're just wrong. You should stop mistaking your idea of how law school admissions practices should be for how they actually are.

tbird
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:09 am

Re: Legacy

Postby tbird » Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Lexleon please qualify your response.

20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

Re: Legacy

Postby 20141023 » Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:50 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LexLeon
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:03 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby LexLeon » Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:26 am

tbird wrote:Lexleon please qualify your response.


Dearest Tbird,

I claim that schools' medians, both LSAT and GPA, are not the most important characteristic of consideration of law school applicants, in two respects.

Firstly, schools' medians don't even enter the minds of admissions officers, who review applications at elite schools, as things which need to be maintained, or increased. Indeed, both LSAT scores and GPAs are important characteristics of applicants; high ones are to be desired. But because those who review applications care not for high numbers as a means to maintain or increase medians--for high numbers are viewed as correlates of applicant features that are desired as ends in themselves, or means to other, better, goals, like a rich student body--I claim they cannot be the most important dimension of examination. They are no dimension of examination at all.

Secondly, I comment regarding a conflation. It is a conflation of two ends which happen to, usually, be coextensive. One end is that one's law school class be as great as it can be; the other, not surprisingly, is that one's law school class possess the people who, all things considered, are most likely to make that class as great as it can be. One is a means to the other; so they cannot be identical.

It just so happens that, all things considered, students with high grades and LSAT scores are usually likely to make a class as great as it can be. Do you think schools would be inclined to maintain or increase medians if people with higher scores and grades tended to make their classes worse? Of course not. And of course, people with astronomical numbers are rejected every admissions season from any given school. On the other hand, consider the handfuls of people with GPAs and LSAT scores in the lower 50%; many of them will be accepted to any given elite law school in any given year.

What does this suggest? Medians, in themselves, cannot be what is actually most important to those who review applications.

Thus, a student's numbers are neither necessary nor sufficient to an applicant's admittance; and the concept of median maintenance, hardly, if ever, enter the minds of those who review applications at elite law schools. Thus, medians cannot be the most important dimension of candidate's examination, simpliciter.

I may come back to edit this later, but feel free to take a stab at it if you do not agree.

User avatar
LexLeon
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:03 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby LexLeon » Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:34 am

sinfiery wrote:
LexLeon wrote:Medians aren't "most important," my friend.

You keep saying this but you've never provided any statistical evidence to support your argument.


Are you insane?


Does any law school state that "medians are most important?"

From what I can tell, schools explicitly deny that myth.

You must have read the following page, no?

http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/admission ... questions/

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15489
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Legacy

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:39 am

LexLeon wrote:
tbird wrote:Lexleon please qualify your response.


Dearest Tbird,

I claim that schools' medians, both LSAT and GPA, are not the most important characteristic of consideration of law school applicants, in two respects.

Firstly, schools' medians don't even enter the minds of admissions officers, who review applications at elite schools, as things which need to be maintained, or increased. Indeed, both LSAT scores and GPAs are important characteristics of applicants; high ones are to be desired. But because those who review applications care not for high numbers as a means to maintain or increase medians--for high numbers are viewed as correlates of applicant features that are desired as ends in themselves, or means to other, better, goals, like a rich student body--I claim they cannot be the most important dimension of examination. They are no dimension of examination at all.

Secondly, I comment regarding a conflation. It is a conflation of two ends which happen to, usually, be coextensive. One end is that one's law school class be as great as it can be; the other, not surprisingly, is that one's law school class possess the people who, all things considered, are most likely to make that class as great as it can be. One is a means to the other; so they cannot be identical.

It just so happens that, all things considered, students with high grades and LSAT scores are usually likely to make a class as great as it can be. Do you think schools would be inclined to maintain or increase medians if people with higher scores and grades tended to make their classes worse? Of course not. And of course, people with astronomical numbers are rejected every admissions season from any given school. On the other hand, consider the handfuls of people with GPAs and LSAT scores in the lower 50%; many of them will be accepted to any given elite law school in any given year.

What does this suggest? Medians, in themselves, cannot be what is actually most important to those who review applications.

Thus, a student's numbers are neither necessary nor sufficient to an applicant's admittance; and the concept of median maintenance, hardly, if ever, enter the minds of those who review applications at elite law schools. Thus, medians cannot be the most important dimension of candidate's examination, simpliciter.

I may come back to edit this later, but feel free to take a stab at it if you do not agree.

Your schtick would be amusing if it weren't so dangerous. You essentially tell people with shitty numbers that retaking the LSAT is pointless because admissions officers don't care about the numbers. One look at any admissions graph on LSN tells us all how ridiculous this notion is, but you stick with it, apparently content with the idea that high numbers just happen to correlate with great candidates. Somehow, the same "great candidates" who can't get into a school with a crappy LSAT score manage to get in with money after a re-take, but you carry on. Unbelievable.

Also, going forward you'd do well to write like a normal adult.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15489
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Legacy

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:39 am

LexLeon wrote:
sinfiery wrote:
LexLeon wrote:Medians aren't "most important," my friend.

You keep saying this but you've never provided any statistical evidence to support your argument.


Are you insane?


Does any law school state that "medians are most important?"

From what I can tell, schools explicitly deny that myth.

You must have read the following page, no?

http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/admission ... questions/

Why do you buy this crap? Look at NYU's graph:

http://nyu.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1112/

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby dingbat » Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:42 am

LexLeon wrote:Firstly, schools' medians don't even enter the minds of admissions officers, who review applications at elite schools, as things which need to be maintained, or increased. Indeed, both LSAT scores and GPAs are important characteristics of applicants; high ones are to be desired. But because those who review applications care not for high numbers as a means to maintain or increase medians--for high numbers are viewed as correlates of applicant features that are desired as ends in themselves, or means to other, better, goals, like a rich student body--I claim they cannot be the most important dimension of examination. They are no dimension of examination at all.

What the fuck is this shit?
they correlate purely by luck?

How about this: schools get thousands of applications that need to be sifted through. First thing admissions officers do is look at LSAT and GPA. If these are very low, they either throw it directly in the trash, or they scan the resume quickly for a compelling reason not to throw it away. Either way, within 5 seconds most applications with low scores end up in the garbage.

For the vast majority of applicants, the only real indication that a student will be successful (which is a major concern for elite schools that want to remain elite) is that they have high potential (LSAT) and strong work ethic (GPA). Therefore, the LSAT and GPA are the key features they look at.

I'll grant that the very top schools might care less about maintaining their averages than about creating a student body geared for success, but GPA and LSAT scores are indicative of the likelihood of success.

The vast majority of applicants are fairly indistinguishable. Everyone has some impressive sounding softs, like class president, athlete, mathlete, social chair (law school doesn't exactly draw a lot of slackers) and everyone has some distinguishing characteristic like TFA, disadvantaged background, or notable work experience. As they weed through the pile, when stuck between two students who are both unique, special snowflakes, an easy way to figure out whether you want the class president from a poor background or the person who volunteered twice a week through high school followed by 2 years americorps, is to say, well, one of these has a 3.6 GPA and a 168 LSAT, but the other has a 3.8 GPA and a 171 LSAT. Gosh, they both are really wonderful people, but we only have one spot, so let's give it to the person who has a better track record in terms of grades and standardized test scores.

edamame
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:25 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby edamame » Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:47 am

LexLeon wrote:
tbird wrote:Lexleon please qualify your response.


Dearest Tbird,

Thus, a student's numbers are neither necessary nor sufficient to an applicant's admittance; and the concept of median maintenance, hardly, if ever, enter the minds of those who review applications at elite law schools. Thus, medians cannot be the most important dimension of candidate's examination, simpliciter.

I may come back to edit this later, but feel free to take a stab at it if you do not agree.


Umm, just because numbers are "neither necessary nor sufficient" doesn't mean that they don't enter the minds of admissions deans when reviewing files. Have you ever read Anna Ivey's book? I suggest you should go through that once. She explains the importance of medians in the first few pages. I think the book, alone, is enough to contradict your statement about median maintenance.

User avatar
Merylian
Posts: 659
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:46 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby Merylian » Sun Jan 06, 2013 1:55 am

LexLeon wrote:
Dearest Tbird,

I claim that schools' medians, both LSAT and GPA, are not the most important characteristic of consideration of law school applicants, in two respects.

Firstly, schools' medians don't even enter the minds of admissions officers, who review applications at elite schools, as things which need to be maintained, or increased. Indeed, both LSAT scores and GPAs are important characteristics of applicants; high ones are to be desired. But because those who review applications care not for high numbers as a means to maintain or increase medians--for high numbers are viewed as correlates of applicant features that are desired as ends in themselves, or means to other, better, goals, like a rich student body--I claim they cannot be the most important dimension of examination. They are no dimension of examination at all.

Secondly, I comment regarding a conflation. It is a conflation of two ends which happen to, usually, be coextensive. One end is that one's law school class be as great as it can be; the other, not surprisingly, is that one's law school class possess the people who, all things considered, are most likely to make that class as great as it can be. One is a means to the other; so they cannot be identical.

It just so happens that, all things considered, students with high grades and LSAT scores are usually likely to make a class as great as it can be. Do you think schools would be inclined to maintain or increase medians if people with higher scores and grades tended to make their classes worse? Of course not. And of course, people with astronomical numbers are rejected every admissions season from any given school. On the other hand, consider the handfuls of people with GPAs and LSAT scores in the lower 50%; many of them will be accepted to any given elite law school in any given year.

What does this suggest? Medians, in themselves, cannot be what is actually most important to those who review applications.

Thus, a student's numbers are neither necessary nor sufficient to an applicant's admittance; and the concept of median maintenance, hardly, if ever, enter the minds of those who review applications at elite law schools. Thus, medians cannot be the most important dimension of candidate's examination, simpliciter.

I may come back to edit this later, but feel free to take a stab at it if you do not agree.


This actually paints a much harsher picture of law school admissions than real life. Got rejected at Yale? It's not because of your 2.0/150...it's because they carefully looked over your application and decided that you just weren't good enough. You, as a person. Not your numbers. They don't care about those.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15489
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Legacy

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:01 am

LexLeon wrote:Does any law school state that "medians are most important?"

You may want to review the scandal at Illinois.

http://www.uillinois.edu/our/news/2011/ ... Report.pdf

Start reading on page 34, where it talks about the importance of rankings and how medians are the easiest way to affect the rankings. I know you are probably just trolling us all Lex, and well done I might add, but for anyone taking seriously the idea that medians aren't a critical portion of the admissions process please stop.

User avatar
PickMe!
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 1:24 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby PickMe! » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:25 am

Merylian wrote:
LexLeon wrote:
Dearest Tbird,

I claim that schools' medians, both LSAT and GPA, are not the most important characteristic of consideration of law school applicants, in two respects.

Firstly, schools' medians don't even enter the minds of admissions officers, who review applications at elite schools, as things which need to be maintained, or increased. Indeed, both LSAT scores and GPAs are important characteristics of applicants; high ones are to be desired. But because those who review applications care not for high numbers as a means to maintain or increase medians--for high numbers are viewed as correlates of applicant features that are desired as ends in themselves, or means to other, better, goals, like a rich student body--I claim they cannot be the most important dimension of examination. They are no dimension of examination at all.

Secondly, I comment regarding a conflation. It is a conflation of two ends which happen to, usually, be coextensive. One end is that one's law school class be as great as it can be; the other, not surprisingly, is that one's law school class possess the people who, all things considered, are most likely to make that class as great as it can be. One is a means to the other; so they cannot be identical.

It just so happens that, all things considered, students with high grades and LSAT scores are usually likely to make a class as great as it can be. Do you think schools would be inclined to maintain or increase medians if people with higher scores and grades tended to make their classes worse? Of course not. And of course, people with astronomical numbers are rejected every admissions season from any given school. On the other hand, consider the handfuls of people with GPAs and LSAT scores in the lower 50%; many of them will be accepted to any given elite law school in any given year.

What does this suggest? Medians, in themselves, cannot be what is actually most important to those who review applications.

Thus, a student's numbers are neither necessary nor sufficient to an applicant's admittance; and the concept of median maintenance, hardly, if ever, enter the minds of those who review applications at elite law schools. Thus, medians cannot be the most important dimension of candidate's examination, simpliciter.

I may come back to edit this later, but feel free to take a stab at it if you do not agree.


This actually paints a much harsher picture of law school admissions than real life. Got rejected at Yale? It's not because of your 2.0/150...it's because they carefully looked over your application and decided that you just weren't good enough. You, as a person. Not your numbers. They don't care about those.


Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Ti Malice
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:55 am

Re: Legacy

Postby Ti Malice » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:36 am

LexLeon wrote:
tbird wrote:Lexleon please qualify your response.


Dearest Tbird,

I claim that schools' medians, both LSAT and GPA, are not the most important characteristic of consideration of law school applicants, in two respects.

Firstly, schools' medians don't even enter the minds of admissions officers, who review applications at elite schools, as things which need to be maintained, or increased. Indeed, both LSAT scores and GPAs are important characteristics of applicants; high ones are to be desired. But because those who review applications care not for high numbers as a means to maintain or increase medians--for high numbers are viewed as correlates of applicant features that are desired as ends in themselves, or means to other, better, goals, like a rich student body--I claim they cannot be the most important dimension of examination. They are no dimension of examination at all.

Secondly, I comment regarding a conflation. It is a conflation of two ends which happen to, usually, be coextensive. One end is that one's law school class be as great as it can be; the other, not surprisingly, is that one's law school class possess the people who, all things considered, are most likely to make that class as great as it can be. One is a means to the other; so they cannot be identical.

It just so happens that, all things considered, students with high grades and LSAT scores are usually likely to make a class as great as it can be. Do you think schools would be inclined to maintain or increase medians if people with higher scores and grades tended to make their classes worse? Of course not. And of course, people with astronomical numbers are rejected every admissions season from any given school. On the other hand, consider the handfuls of people with GPAs and LSAT scores in the lower 50%; many of them will be accepted to any given elite law school in any given year.

What does this suggest? Medians, in themselves, cannot be what is actually most important to those who review applications.

Thus, a student's numbers are neither necessary nor sufficient to an applicant's admittance; and the concept of median maintenance, hardly, if ever, enter the minds of those who review applications at elite law schools. Thus, medians cannot be the most important dimension of candidate's examination, simpliciter.

I may come back to edit this later, but feel free to take a stab at it if you do not agree.


1. You will be an acutely insufferable classmate for some unfortunate number of posters here.

2. Your legal writing instructor will shred your turgid prose until nothing remains.

3. At best, you've described the admissions philosophies of Yale and Stanford. That's it.

4. There are a number of fatal logical flaws with this overweening mess of a post. If I weren't studying for law exams as we speak, I would go into detail. I'll just note its circularity for now.

Here's the essence of your argument, stripped of all the florid bullshit: "Median maintenance never enters adcomms' minds. They care far more about other, more noble, ends; the pursuit of high medians is merely a means to these ends. [This is essentially a more specific restatement of the first claim. You provide an utterly perfunctory and inadequate statement of evidence, and you fail to address any of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.] Thus, median maintenance cannot be adcomms' primary consideration in admitting applicants." Your attempt at an argument is essentially three statements of your conclusion.

5. As referenced in (4), there is a tremendous amount of evidence that directly undercuts your unsupported claim. I will let other posters provide it for now (not that this will be of any use, since you've declined to address it before).
Last edited by Ti Malice on Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby dingbat » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:38 am

Ti Malice wrote: If I weren't studying for law exams as we speak, I would go into detail.

It's january

Ti Malice
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:55 am

Re: Legacy

Postby Ti Malice » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:39 am

dingbat wrote:
Ti Malice wrote: If I weren't studying for law exams as we speak, I would go into detail.

It's january


It's Yale.

And what I wrote was enough. Anything else would be piling on.

User avatar
Shmoopy
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:52 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby Shmoopy » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:45 am

LexLeon wrote:
tbird wrote:Lexleon please qualify your response.


Dearest Tbird,

I claim that schools' medians, both LSAT and GPA, are not the most important characteristic of consideration of law school applicants, in two respects.

Firstly, schools' medians don't even enter the minds of admissions officers, who review applications at elite schools, as things which need to be maintained, or increased. Indeed, both LSAT scores and GPAs are important characteristics of applicants; high ones are to be desired. But because those who review applications care not for high numbers as a means to maintain or increase medians--for high numbers are viewed as correlates of applicant features that are desired as ends in themselves, or means to other, better, goals, like a rich student body--I claim they cannot be the most important dimension of examination. They are no dimension of examination at all.

Secondly, I comment regarding a conflation. It is a conflation of two ends which happen to, usually, be coextensive. One end is that one's law school class be as great as it can be; the other, not surprisingly, is that one's law school class possess the people who, all things considered, are most likely to make that class as great as it can be. One is a means to the other; so they cannot be identical.

It just so happens that, all things considered, students with high grades and LSAT scores are usually likely to make a class as great as it can be. Do you think schools would be inclined to maintain or increase medians if people with higher scores and grades tended to make their classes worse? Of course not. And of course, people with astronomical numbers are rejected every admissions season from any given school. On the other hand, consider the handfuls of people with GPAs and LSAT scores in the lower 50%; many of them will be accepted to any given elite law school in any given year.

What does this suggest? Medians, in themselves, cannot be what is actually most important to those who review applications.

Thus, a student's numbers are neither necessary nor sufficient to an applicant's admittance; and the concept of median maintenance, hardly, if ever, enter the minds of those who review applications at elite law schools. Thus, medians cannot be the most important dimension of candidate's examination, simpliciter.

I may come back to edit this later, but feel free to take a stab at it if you do not agree.


Why do you think that the admissions office cares more about having a "great class" than maintaining their US News ranking?

Also, you write like a retarded person trying to sound smart.

Ti Malice
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:55 am

Re: Legacy

Postby Ti Malice » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:49 am

PickMe! wrote:
Merylian wrote:This actually paints a much harsher picture of law school admissions than real life. Got rejected at Yale? It's not because of your 2.0/150...it's because they carefully looked over your application and decided that you just weren't good enough. You, as a person. Not your numbers. They don't care about those.


Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

lurker20
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:04 am

Re: Legacy

Postby lurker20 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:53 am

The book how to get into top law schools has a section on this (luckily it is online). See below

http://books.google.com/books?id=iHIZQb ... CDoQ6AEwAg

In short it provides a bump if your numbers are already in the ballpark, but doesn't have the same impact that undergrad legacy has. Meanwhile your family member has to have actually gone to the law school, not the university generally. So it helps, but is no shoe in

User avatar
LexLeon
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:03 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby LexLeon » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:12 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
LexLeon wrote:
sinfiery wrote:
LexLeon wrote:Medians aren't "most important," my friend.

You keep saying this but you've never provided any statistical evidence to support your argument.


Are you insane?


Does any law school state that "medians are most important?"

From what I can tell, schools explicitly deny that myth.

You must have read the following page, no?

http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/admission ... questions/

Why do you buy this crap? Look at NYU's graph:

http://nyu.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1112/


Um, I wouldn't call the official statements of admissions deans at top schools "crap," or anything of the sort. Do you allege that someone of them has lied?


Tiago Splitter wrote:You essentially tell people with shitty numbers that retaking the LSAT is pointless because admissions officers don't care about the numbers. One look at any admissions graph on LSN tells us all how ridiculous this notion is....


When did I state that "admissions officers don't care about the numbers?"

Reread the first line of my post if you're unclear about what I actually stated.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby dingbat » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:18 pm

LexLeon wrote:Reread the first line of my post if you're unclear about what I actually stated.

LexLeon wrote:Medians aren't "most important," my friend.


I'm willing to interpret this to mean "medians aren't most important; your score range is most important" which would probably be correct.

User avatar
LexLeon
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:03 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby LexLeon » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:27 pm

Shmoopy wrote:
LexLeon wrote:
tbird wrote:Lexleon please qualify your response.


Dearest Tbird,

I claim that schools' medians, both LSAT and GPA, are not the most important characteristic of consideration of law school applicants, in two respects.

Firstly, schools' medians don't even enter the minds of admissions officers, who review applications at elite schools, as things which need to be maintained, or increased. Indeed, both LSAT scores and GPAs are important characteristics of applicants; high ones are to be desired. But because those who review applications care not for high numbers as a means to maintain or increase medians--for high numbers are viewed as correlates of applicant features that are desired as ends in themselves, or means to other, better, goals, like a rich student body--I claim they cannot be the most important dimension of examination. They are no dimension of examination at all.

Secondly, I comment regarding a conflation. It is a conflation of two ends which happen to, usually, be coextensive. One end is that one's law school class be as great as it can be; the other, not surprisingly, is that one's law school class possess the people who, all things considered, are most likely to make that class as great as it can be. One is a means to the other; so they cannot be identical.

It just so happens that, all things considered, students with high grades and LSAT scores are usually likely to make a class as great as it can be. Do you think schools would be inclined to maintain or increase medians if people with higher scores and grades tended to make their classes worse? Of course not. And of course, people with astronomical numbers are rejected every admissions season from any given school. On the other hand, consider the handfuls of people with GPAs and LSAT scores in the lower 50%; many of them will be accepted to any given elite law school in any given year.

What does this suggest? Medians, in themselves, cannot be what is actually most important to those who review applications.

Thus, a student's numbers are neither necessary nor sufficient to an applicant's admittance; and the concept of median maintenance, hardly, if ever, enter the minds of those who review applications at elite law schools. Thus, medians cannot be the most important dimension of candidate's examination, simpliciter.

I may come back to edit this later, but feel free to take a stab at it if you do not agree.


Why do you think that the admissions office cares more about having a "great class" than maintaining their US News ranking?

Also, you write like a retarded person trying to sound smart.


Is that a serious question? I mean, it's obvious: admissions officers aren't machines so obsessed with money or prestige that they're willing to sacrifice the quality of their classes for a marginal increase in a marginal criterion (12.5% weight ascribed to LSAT scores in USNWR rankings) in a single rating scale. Admissions officers at elite schools are educated people who have been selected for their jobs by virtue of their integrity and wisdom. All good ones deny what you're saying, and affirm what I have argued: it is incorrect to call numbers "most important," simpliciter; applicants' fates are not determined entirely by numbers.

If you'd like to challenge me further, please, take a look at my evidence:

http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/admission ... questions/



[Also, the r-word is analogous to a ethnic slur; I prefer that you do not use it, especially in reference to me.]




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cooldog and 10 guests