Law School Stats Analysis Blog Forum

ScottRiqui · Post by **ScottRiqui** » Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:07 pm

Regulus wrote: Actually, the latest stuff on LSAT is for the C/O 2014; if the "Official Guide" name is 2013, for example, that is for the class that will be graduating in the class of 2013. (The current one is the 2014 Official Guide.)

So those grids are populated with the information for people who applied in late 2010 / early 2011? I wonder how much things have changed since?

Lavitz · Post by **Lavitz** » Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:11 pm

Regulus wrote: Actually, the latest stuff on LSAT is for the C/O 2014; if the "Official Guide" name is 2013, for example, that is for the class that will be graduating in the class of 2013. (The current one is the 2014 Official Guide.)

You can look at older versions in the archives, which currently contain the Class of 2006 through 2013 (and the most recent version (2014) is the "Current Official Guide"). Just click on the "Description (PDF)" instead of the "ABA Data (PDF)" link for any given school and scroll to the bottom to see if this data was available. Also, the data for the class of 2012 was the first time that highest LSAT scores were reported for most of these schools on LSAC; before that, it is showing averaged data.

I'm still confused. When I look at the ABA Law school data, it's for class of 2015, since Cornell's median dropped to 167 for the Class of 2015--not 2014.

20141023 · Post by **20141023** » Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:19 pm

Lavitz · Post by **Lavitz** » Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:38 pm

Regulus wrote:Wait a minute... you're right.

elterrible78 · Post by **elterrible78** » Tue Aug 13, 2013 8:18 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:Will you sue me if I take all of this, throw it up on my blog, and source you + link you throughout?

Mike: not at all! Though you might want to make it clear that it is a work in progress and based on LSN data.

ms9 · Post by **ms9** » Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:58 pm

elterrible78 wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:Will you sue me if I take all of this, throw it up on my blog, and source you + link you throughout?
Mike: not at all! Though you might want to make it clear that it is a work in progress and based on LSN data.

Many thanks, Sir! I will be sure to disclaim, source, and note where I am adding my take versus copying what you have observed. Some of this I knew from 13 years of doing it but some came as a surprise and I have some conjectures on that and some on the upcoming cycle I will note as well.

You are the man. This is great stuff that comes up often but never without the benefit of your statistical x-ray now.

elterrible78 · Post by **elterrible78** » Tue Aug 13, 2013 10:03 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:
elterrible78 wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:Will you sue me if I take all of this, throw it up on my blog, and source you + link you throughout?
Mike: not at all! Though you might want to make it clear that it is a work in progress and based on LSN data.
Many thanks, Sir! I will be sure to disclaim, source, and note where I am adding my take versus copying what you have observed. Some of this I knew from 13 years of doing it but some came as a surprise and I have some conjectures on that and some on the upcoming cycle I will note as well.

You are the man. This is great stuff that comes up often but never without the benefit of your statistical x-ray now.

Thanks very much! This is very much kind of a "reverse engineering" type exercise for me, trying to figure out what might be going on. It'll be awesome to get the insiders take to go along with whatever the rest of us might conjecture...a little qualitative to help fill in the gaps the quantitative approach can't fill, if you will.

elterrible78 · Post by **elterrible78** » Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:46 pm

In light of the current thread on whether or not Anne K Levine contradicts herself (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=214744), I finally got off my ass and started to do something I should have done a while back, which is compare results for pre-2010 cycles and post-2010 cycles. Since applications have fallen so dramatically over the past few years, it only stands to reason that adcomms have adjusted their behavior as well, and it's important to look at that, because if there HAVE been changes, the most recent data is much more pertinent to current applicants than is analysis covering the past decade. So, for those who are interested in whether or not earlier applications STILL make a difference at T14 schools, have yourself a look:

http://admissionsbythenumbers.blogspot. ... esses.html

I don't know WHY I didn't do this before, but I really should have, so apologies for that.

Robb · Post by **Robb** » Mon May 18, 2015 8:07 pm

Hey all, FYI elterrible just made a new post about ED'ing-worth checking out! http://admissionsbythenumbers.blogspot.com

ms9 · Post by **ms9** » Mon May 18, 2015 9:31 pm

This is like Christmas morning for me. Many many thanks!!

mynameiskevin · Post by **mynameiskevin** » Tue May 19, 2015 12:12 am

Post removed.

Lavitz · Post by **Lavitz** » Tue May 19, 2015 12:58 am

mynameiskevin wrote:I have doubts about how he arrived at the negative acceptance percentage changes for ED for the three schools.

The low percentages are probably due to low-end ED applicants being rejected since the schools claim to use the same criteria for evaluation.

And the figures saying there is actually a disadvantage to applying ED is misleading since all else equal, applying as ED should result in a no or slight boost.

For GW I guess he has grounds for claiming as stated for scholarship reasons. But for others, a low acceptance rate could be very well caused by other reasons such as much lower GPA, LSAT, etc. and does not necessarily infer a disadvantage.

You do realize that "LSAT, GPA, URM status, gender, non-traditional status, and timing of the application are controlled for," right? And he says right in that section "I'm not sure I completely understand why they would be more likely to reject ED applicants than RD applicants with identical characteristics."

mynameiskevin · Post by **mynameiskevin** » Tue May 19, 2015 2:38 am

Post removed.

elterrible78 · Post by **elterrible78** » Tue May 19, 2015 7:42 am

mynameiskevin wrote: Oh, you are absolutely right and I am wrong. I should have closely read the entirety of it. It just seems to be against common sense that they have lower ED acceptance rates all else equal.

I agree, it definitely seems to be against common sense, but there it is. The analysis was also based on 1,927 observations, so far from a negligible number. I dug into it a little more, and the trend seems to have gotten worse in recent years (notwithstanding the 2011/12 application cycle, which seems to have been an aberration for NYU). If we look at just the last three cycles, we have 993 observations and ED applicants were 86% less likely to be admitted (again, controlling for URM status, nontraditional status, gender, timing of the application, LSAT, and GPA).

Who knows? Either way, if I were dead set on applying ED, it sure wouldn't be to NYU.

ms9 · Post by **ms9** » Tue May 19, 2015 10:25 am

elterrible78 wrote:
mynameiskevin wrote: Oh, you are absolutely right and I am wrong. I should have closely read the entirety of it. It just seems to be against common sense that they have lower ED acceptance rates all else equal.
I agree, it definitely seems to be against common sense, but there it is. The analysis was also based on 1,927 observations, so far from a negligible number. I dug into it a little more, and the trend seems to have gotten worse in recent years (notwithstanding the 2011/12 application cycle, which seems to have been an aberration for NYU). If we look at just the last three cycles, we have 993 observations and ED applicants were 86% less likely to be admitted (again, controlling for URM status, nontraditional status, gender, timing of the application, LSAT, and GPA).

Who knows? Either way, if I were dead set on applying ED, it sure wouldn't be to NYU.

It actually makes some sense. Ed programs are a way to get more people to apply early (to give cycle and commit data), to get early deposits, etc. For some schools, it is entirely a marketing program (ie more applications), not an admit and not even a yield program. You could argue it is a yield protection program too, ie even if you don't admit ED you have data for them in the regular pool.

What strikes me as bizarre are the instances where it benefits scholarship awards.

usn26 · Post by **usn26** » Tue May 19, 2015 10:28 am

Is it too late to ask to be considered ED at the school on that list that talked me out of EDing?

ms9 · Post by **ms9** » Thu May 21, 2015 8:39 am

Is it me or does the bookshelf wallpaper on the homepage for El Terribles awesome site look like the book self in the little girls room in Interstellar?