Legacy

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
Scotchandsoda
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 12:09 am

Re: Legacy

Postby Scotchandsoda » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:30 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?


No.

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

Re: Legacy

Postby LexLeon » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:39 pm

Ti Malice 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.


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).


Hah, and I write turgidly. (I do, especially on TLS.)

"[O]verwhelming evidence to the contrary?"

Take a look at the article on Stanford's website that I've cited twice on this thread already. You're a YLS student, I think. I know, therefore, that you're able to read the article and understand how the words of the admissions officers at elite schools lead directly to my conclusion. If you need me to, I can comb through the article and write you something that contains, primarily, the words of the deans yet that clearly supports my position. You should gain a clear enough idea of what I mean if you actually read it, however.

And if the evidence to the contrary you allude to consists in graphs, and the like, it can only support my position; for graphs cannot show the why of admittance, rather, merely, one or two of several of the likely reasons why.

User avatar
Elston Gunn
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby Elston Gunn » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:40 pm

LexLeon wrote: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?


Pretty much. I don't think they're straight-up lies, exactly, but all the data clearly contradicts the spirit of what they say. If you want to make your argument--which so far has no evidence behind it except the testimony of the people who have the most to lose by acknowledging the truth--you're going to have to explain these two links: 1) http://myLSN.info/j57ub2 2) http://myLSN.info/v9wfqv

They say that if you have between a 3.6 and a 3.7 GPA, 1) if you have a 169, you have a 1% chance of getting into UVA, but 2) if you have a 170, you have a 51% chance.

Care to guess what UVA's median LSAT is? Or do you think their admissions officers think getting one extra question on the LSAT correct makes you that much better a student?
Last edited by Elston Gunn on Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Elston Gunn
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby Elston Gunn » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:41 pm

Also, what the Stanford admissions people say is pretty irrelevant, since everyone agrees that they (unlike everyone else but Yale) don't seem especially concerned with their medians. HTH.

EDIT: I see I got this one wrong. The fact that admissions officers are, at best, bulshitters still stands.
Last edited by Elston Gunn on Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Legacy

Postby edamame » Sun Jan 06, 2013 7:53 pm

LexLeon wrote:
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.]


Marginal criterion? You're joking, right? And you're assuming that quality and numbers can be mutually exclusive.

I'm sorry, but you should read Anna Ivey's book. No admissions officer will tell you you shouldn't apply. Their job is to generate the highest number of applications they can.

How do they read them and make sure School XYZ retains its spot in the rankings? By using the same criterion you deem "marginal."

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

Re: Legacy

Postby dingbat » Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:14 pm

Elston Gunn wrote:Also, what the Stanford admissions people say is pretty irrelevant, since everyone agrees that they (unlike everyone else but Yale) don't seem especially concerned with their medians. HTH.

Actually, that article was co-written by the admissions officers at, I believe it was 10 of the T14 (could be less). Stanford's is the ugliest version I've read, but the same piece can be seen on a number of other school websites.

However, the article actually contradicts his argument:
If you’re a senior coming directly from college, your puzzle pieces are your academic record, (notice I did not say your GPA as I am more concerned with how you created your academic record), your LSAT score, your letters of recommendation and your personal statement.
If your LSAT is your weak piece, then every other aspect in your file must be strong in order for us to say that the LSAT should lessen in importance

This implies that of the 4 puzzle pieces (academic record, LSAT, LOR, PS) the LSAT is the most important. The article further goes on to talk about the importance of the academic record and that if they have concerns there, they look at the LOR for something to lessen those concerns (thereby implying that academic record is second most important)

one thing I do want to highlight, as it's often overlooked on TLS, but has nothing to do with this argument, is:
If you are returning to school after some time spent in the workplace, then you have an additional puzzle piece – work experience.

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

Re: Legacy

Postby 20141023 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:48 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

gottago
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:10 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby gottago » Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:57 pm

...
Last edited by gottago on Tue May 14, 2013 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Legacy

Postby Shmoopy » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:03 pm

LexLeon wrote:
Admissions officers at elite schools are educated people who have been selected for their jobs by virtue of their integrity and wisdom.



You're either hopelessly naive or a troll.

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

Re: Legacy

Postby 20141023 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:04 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
epiphinous7
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby epiphinous7 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:06 pm

LexLeon wrote:Hah, and I write turgidly. (I do, especially on TLS.)

"[O]verwhelming evidence to the contrary?"

Take a look at the article on Stanford's website that I've cited twice on this thread already. You're a YLS student, I think. I know, therefore, that you're able to read the article and understand how the words of the admissions officers at elite schools lead directly to my conclusion. If you need me to, I can comb through the article and write you something that contains, primarily, the words of the deans yet that clearly supports my position. You should gain a clear enough idea of what I mean if you actually read it, however.

And if the evidence to the contrary you allude to consists in graphs, and the like, it can only support my position; for graphs cannot show the why of admittance, rather, merely, one or two of several of the likely reasons why.


Shameless trolling.
You probably believe that strippers like you too!

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

Re: Legacy

Postby dingbat » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:09 pm

gottago wrote:How do people who show that LSATs and GPAs are (indisputably) important then claim that being above median is most important?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I think the answer is that it's a simplification. Ignoring people with exceptional softs (which are few and far between), it's generally a safe bet that if you're above both 75%s, you will get accepted (barring a problem with the rest of your application) while if you're below both 25%s you probably won't get in (regardless of how well-polished the rest of your app is). Everyone else is a maybe.
Within that limit, if both scores are above median, it means that half the people attending have lower scores than you, so there's a pretty good chance you'll be accepted (especially if you consider that after taking splitters and reverse splitters into consideration, you're in rarified air).this is also a much longer explanation than just referencing the medians

It is an oversimplification. As per the quote above, the LSAT and GPA are two building blocks. However, the article implies that while a problem with 1 building block can be mitigated by having the other 3 items be excellent, if 2 building blocks are problematic you will probably be dinged.

User avatar
jetsfan1
Posts: 571
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:14 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby jetsfan1 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:10 pm

You probably believe that strippers like you too!

I lol'd.

yoshikart
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 7:41 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby yoshikart » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:16 pm

,,,
Last edited by yoshikart on Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:15 pm, 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 9:28 pm

yoshikart wrote:So...applicants who freak out over being 1 LSAT or .02 GPA points below a school's median are...freaking out over an oversimplification? Or is there a difference between being 1 LSAt point below and .02 GPA points below?
Yes, they're over-reacting, but there's a big difference between being 1 LSAT under and .02 GPA under, because of scale

the difference between the 25/75 scores for LSAT are just 5 or 6 points (except Yale), whils the difference for GPA is more like 0.20-0.50 for the T14 (except Yale). Had you said .1 GPA under, that would be more comparable

questcertainty
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:39 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby questcertainty » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:31 pm

yoshikart wrote:
dingbat wrote:
gottago wrote:How do people who show that LSATs and GPAs are (indisputably) important then claim that being above median is most important?

I'm not sure what you're asking, but I think the answer is that it's a simplification. Ignoring people with exceptional softs (which are few and far between), it's generally a safe bet that if you're above both 75%s, you will get accepted (barring a problem with the rest of your application) while if you're below both 25%s you probably won't get in (regardless of how well-polished the rest of your app is). Everyone else is a maybe.
Within that limit, if both scores are above median, it means that half the people attending have lower scores than you, so there's a pretty good chance you'll be accepted (especially if you consider that after taking splitters and reverse splitters into consideration, you're in rarified air).this is also a much longer explanation than just referencing the medians

It is an oversimplification. As per the quote above, the LSAT and GPA are two building blocks. However, the article implies that while a problem with 1 building block can be mitigated by having the other 3 items be excellent, if 2 building blocks are problematic you will probably be dinged.


So...applicants who freak out over being 1 LSAT or .02 GPA points below a school's median are...freaking out over an oversimplification? Or is there a difference between being 1 LSAt point below and .02 GPA points below?


Isn’t the answer to this that it would depend on the school and the index it uses? And so, yes, it’s definitely an oversimplification to rely on the medians? (If you’re interested in a recent explanation of how one of the top ten schools does it, you should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c. It’s really interesting in its own right, though it touches on lots of other topics vaguely relevant to this whole discussion. Skip to the middle or so if you want the discussion about medians, ranges, and US News.)

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

Re: Legacy

Postby dingbat » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:36 pm

^yes, it's an oversimplification
Image

questcertainty
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:39 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby questcertainty » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:46 pm

dingbat wrote:^yes, it's an oversimplification

Right, the point is the more useful indicator is the index adopted at each school, and not just the quartiles and medians. (Sorry, the questions weren’t posed rhetorically enough.)

User avatar
wert3813
Posts: 1408
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:29 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby wert3813 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:51 pm

.
Last edited by wert3813 on Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

yoshikart
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 7:41 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby yoshikart » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:52 pm

,,,
Last edited by yoshikart on Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:14 pm, 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 9:56 pm

yoshikart wrote:so if .1 GPA = 1 LSAT point, something like .02 GPA under the median is nbd? Or is it potentially decisive?

It is too speculative to say that adcoms group students by whether they are above or below the median, no?

Jesus Christ. It's not that big a freaking deal. There is a girl who's this pedantic in class and every time she opens her mouth in class everyone else shudders

yoshikart
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 7:41 pm

Re: Legacy

Postby yoshikart » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:57 pm

,,,
Last edited by yoshikart on Mon Jan 07, 2013 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Legacy

Postby Ti Malice » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:59 pm

Elston Gunn wrote:
LexLeon wrote: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?


Pretty much. I don't think they're straight-up lies, exactly, but all the data clearly contradicts the spirit of what they say. If you want to make your argument--which so far has no evidence behind it except the testimony of the people who have the most to lose by acknowledging the truth--you're going to have to explain these two links: 1) http://myLSN.info/j57ub2 2) http://myLSN.info/v9wfqv

They say that if you have between a 3.6 and a 3.7 GPA, 1) if you have a 169, you have a 1% chance of getting into UVA, but 2) if you have a 170, you have a 51% chance.

Care to guess what UVA's median LSAT is? Or do you think their admissions officers think getting one extra question on the LSAT correct makes you that much better a student?


It gets even more baldly absurd that that. Look at UVA and Penn here: (1) http://myLSN.info/g40a3u, and (2) http://myLSN.info/6shm71.

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

Re: Legacy

Postby 20141023 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:05 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Legacy

Postby Ti Malice » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:32 pm

questcertainty wrote:
dingbat wrote:^yes, it's an oversimplification

Right, the point is the more useful indicator is the index adopted at each school, and not just the quartiles and medians.


The indices are only really useful for some schools, and even then only subject to qualifications. If indices were the overriding indicator of your chances, then lawschoolpredictor.com wouldn't be nearly worthless. A GPA/LSAT index yields a smooth slope, but there are actually stark discontinuities in the ways schools consider numbers. GPA floors are one common discontinuity among the higher-ranked schools. Medians receive outsize attention, because USNWR only uses medians for calculating its rankings. (See my last reply to Elston for one indication of this.) If the rankings encompassed the 25th/50th/75th percentiles, indices would have much greater predictive value.

Check out these links for some clear representations of disproportionate attention to LSAT medians:

http://northwestern.lawschoolnumbers.co ... Cycle=1213
http://uva.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/?whichCycle=1213
http://gulc.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/ ... Cycle=1213
http://washu.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats ... Cycle=1213
http://washu.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats ... Cycle=1213
http://gw.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/11 ... Cycle=1213
http://minnesota.lawschoolnumbers.com/s ... Cycle=1213




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], hwwong, smieclux, theothercat, tx1990 and 8 guests