C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size Forum

[altoid99]

Fixed SMU's median from last year. Showed up as 164 instead of 161. 164 was the median for the full-time day class. But the one that really matters is the median for the entire class (including part-time kids), since this is what US News uses in its rankings. Just in case anyone was wondering.

Also, those numbers for Villanova. Yikes.

[HYSenberg]

I'd argue that only FT stats are pertinent, especially to the majority of us who are applying to FT programs. PT numbers are almost always substantially lower and thus would give a potential applicant an inflated sense of his or her chances.

[ScottRiqui]

I'd argue that only FT stats are pertinent, especially to the majority of us who are applying to FT programs. PT numbers are almost always substantially lower and thus would give a potential applicant an inflated sense of his or her chances.

I'd say the same, since AFAIK, we're not using the spreadsheet to try to predict the next USNWR ranking report, but rather to gauge our admission chances as medians drop and class sizes shrink (with notable exceptions for both, of course).

And is 161 even the correct weighted PT/FT average? With 218 FT students with a median of 164, there would have to be over 400 PT students with a median of 160 for the average to round down to 161. And SMU has *never* had a PT class anywhere near that big - 100 is closer to normal.

[jbagelboy]

I'd argue that only FT stats are pertinent, especially to the majority of us who are applying to FT programs. PT numbers are almost always substantially lower and thus would give a potential applicant an inflated sense of his or her chances.

I'd say the same, since AFAIK, we're not using the spreadsheet to try to predict the next USNWR ranking report, but rather to gauge our admission chances as medians drop and class sizes shrink (with notable exceptions for both, of course).

And is 161 even the correct weighted PT/FT average? With 218 FT students with a median of 164, there would have to be over 400 PT students with a median of 160 for the average to round down to 161. And SMU has *never* had a PT class anywhere near that big - 100 is closer to normal.

Good point

Those two data points didnt match

[altoid99]

I'd argue that only FT stats are pertinent, especially to the majority of us who are applying to FT programs. PT numbers are almost always substantially lower and thus would give a potential applicant an inflated sense of his or her chances.

I'd say the same, since AFAIK, we're not using the spreadsheet to try to predict the next USNWR ranking report, but rather to gauge our admission chances as medians drop and class sizes shrink (with notable exceptions for both, of course).

And is 161 even the correct weighted PT/FT average? With 218 FT students with a median of 164, there would have to be over 400 PT students with a median of 160 for the average to round down to 161. And SMU has *never* had a PT class anywhere near that big - 100 is closer to normal.

Good point

Those two data points didnt match

They only had 154 FT students and 64 PT students for the c/o of 2015. Their overall median is listed as 161 for the c/o of 2015 on the ABA Official Guide to Law Schools. I'm gonna go ahead and bet that that's accurate.

[jbagelboy]

I'd argue that only FT stats are pertinent, especially to the majority of us who are applying to FT programs. PT numbers are almost always substantially lower and thus would give a potential applicant an inflated sense of his or her chances.

I'd say the same, since AFAIK, we're not using the spreadsheet to try to predict the next USNWR ranking report, but rather to gauge our admission chances as medians drop and class sizes shrink (with notable exceptions for both, of course).

And is 161 even the correct weighted PT/FT average? With 218 FT students with a median of 164, there would have to be over 400 PT students with a median of 160 for the average to round down to 161. And SMU has *never* had a PT class anywhere near that big - 100 is closer to normal.

Good point

Those two data points didnt match

They only had 154 FT students and 64 PT students for the c/o of 2015. Their overall median is listed as 161 for the c/o of 2015 on the ABA official guide to law schools. I'm gonna go ahead and bet that that's accurate.

If 164 is really the FT median, then the PT avg would be 153.8

[altoid99]

Why do we care about averages again? I'm not sure why you guys aren't convinced by those numbers. It's not like anyone's making them up. They are official.

[Tiago Splitter]

If 164 is really the FT median, then the PT avg would be 153.8

Average doesn't matter. You're slippin on me bagelboy.

[ScottRiqui]

Why do we care about averages again? I'm not sure why you guys aren't convinced by those numbers. It's not like anyone's making them up. They are official.

It just seems strange that 64 students with a median of 160 could be combined with 154 students with a median of 164 and the resulting overall median would be so close to the smaller group's median. I've been trying to get a similar result using smaller data sets but haven't been able to yet.

I'm not arguing with the official numbers; it's more of a mathematical curiosity for me now.

[Tiago Splitter]

Why do we care about averages again? I'm not sure why you guys aren't convinced by those numbers. It's not like anyone's making them up. They are official.

It just seems strange that 64 students with a median of 160 could be combined with 154 students with a median of 164 and the resulting overall median would be so close to the smaller group's median. I've been trying to get a similar result using smaller data sets but haven't been able to yet.

I'm not arguing with the official numbers; it's more of a mathematical curiosity for me now.

Because the LSAT numbers drop off rapidly below the median. Of the 160 full time it's possible that 80 of them are at 164+ and most of the other 80 are down below 162. Once you add in the 64 PT people at 161 your new median is 161.

[redsox]

Because the LSAT numbers drop off rapidly below the median. Of the 160 full time it's possible that 80 of them are at 164+ and most of the other 80 are down below 162. Once you add in the 64 PT people at 161 your new median is 161.

This. Why are people failing so hard at mean/median?

[ScottRiqui]

Because the LSAT numbers drop off rapidly below the median. Of the 160 full time it's possible that 80 of them are at 164+ and most of the other 80 are down below 162. Once you add in the 64 PT people at 161 your new median is 161.

This. Why are people failing so hard at mean/median?

Just speaking for myself, I'm still getting used to how skewed (i.e. not normally-distributed) the LSAT distributions get when schools are trying to preserve a particular median. It seemed counterintuitive to me that combining one group with a 164 median that's 2.5 times bigger than another group with a 160 median would yield a composite median only one point higher than the smaller group's median.

But yeah, if I remind myself that the LSAT distributions aren't bell curves, I can wrench the numbers to make it work. As an extreme example, Group A can have 64 people who all score 160, and Group B can have 76 people who scored 161 and 78 people who scored 164. The median of Group A is 160, the median of Group B is 164, and the composite median of all 218 students would be 161.

[jbagelboy]

If 164 is really the FT median, then the PT avg would be 153.8

Average doesn't matter. You're slippin on me bagelboy

Lol my bad. Totally erroneous. This moot court brief is wearing me thin

[Big Dog]

Why are people failing so hard at mean/median?

Most in the legal profession are mathematically-challenged?

[HYSenberg]

They only had 154 FT students and 64 PT students for the c/o of 2015. Their overall median is listed as 161 for the c/o of 2015 on the ABA official guide to law schools. I'm gonna go ahead and bet that that's accurate.

We are looking at the c/o 2016.

[altoid99]

Actually we were talking about c/o 2015 numbers.

[HYSenberg]

Pardonnez-moi.

[emmybee]

I am not sure if this has been pointed out already but according this link: http://www.law.gwu.edu/Admissions/JD/Pages/Profile.aspx George Washington's new median is 165 and GPA is 3.71. The spreadsheet incorrectly lists 166.

[altoid99]

I am not sure if this has been pointed out already but according this link: http://www.law.gwu.edu/Admissions/JD/Pages/Profile.aspx George Washington's new median is 165 and GPA is 3.71. The spreadsheet incorrectly lists 166.

It does? GW's medians came out a while ago. Some people must be engaging in their favorite pastime of screwing up the spreadsheet.

[notalobbyist]

The GW school newspaper reported the "average" which led to confusion if memory serves

[TheJanitor6203]

I went to a law school fair today and got a flyer from Tulane with their C/O 2016 numbers. I'll add them to the Google Doc but here they are:

GPA: 3.12/3.39/3.60
LSAT: 156/160/162
Class size: 216

[isuperserial]

Does anyone know the number of LSAT test takers this year and if it conforms to the previous downward trends? I feel like this would be useful information in determining whether or not we can expect similar declines in medians next year just like this year.

[ScottRiqui]

Does anyone know the number of LSAT test takers this year and if it conforms to the previous downward trends? I feel like this would be useful information in determining whether or not we can expect similar declines in medians next year just like this year.

I don't think the yearly total has been published yet, but the October decline has been reported. I think it was something like 11% down from last October in total, with a 13% drop in first-time takers.

[nothingtosee]

Does anyone know the number of LSAT test takers this year and if it conforms to the previous downward trends? I feel like this would be useful information in determining whether or not we can expect similar declines in medians next year just like this year.

I don't think the yearly total has been published yet, but the October decline has been reported. I think it was something like 11% down from last October in total, with a 13% drop in first-time takers.

And June was down 5%. I'm not sure this will be significant enough to drop T14 medians across the board again, but can't see any schools raising medians.

[Motivator9]

Does anyone know the number of LSAT test takers this year and if it conforms to the previous downward trends? I feel like this would be useful information in determining whether or not we can expect similar declines in medians next year just like this year.

I don't think the yearly total has been published yet, but the October decline has been reported. I think it was something like 11% down from last October in total, with a 13% drop in first-time takers.

And June was down 5%. I'm not sure this will be significant enough to drop T14 medians across the board again, but can't see any schools raising medians.

Are we 100% percent sure that a school like HLS wont be effected by this drop in medians by other schools below them. I say this because a students with a 170 might be looking at a higher chance of getting a full ride at a lower ranked school and as such might be les inclined to choose HLS. I think this will have an effect on the major schools as well.