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

[The-Specs]

Regulus' question still makes sense, though - is it really possible for the number of scorers in a particular score band to change disproportionately compared to the other bands?

For the last 12 years, a 170 has always been between the 98th percentile and the 97.4th percentile. So it doesn't sound like one administration of the LSAT can have a disproportionate number of 170+ scorers compared to the previous or next administration.

The score band doesn't change disproportionately from test takers dropping, the dispropotionate change comes from a drop in applications as high scorers take themselves out of the running by choosing not to apply as we saw last year.

[vuthy]

Regulus' question still makes sense, though - is it really possible for the number of scorers in a particular score band to change disproportionately compared to the other bands?

For the last 12 years, a 170 has always been between the 98th percentile and the 97.4th percentile. So it doesn't sound like one administration of the LSAT can have a disproportionate number of 170+ scorers compared to the previous or next administration.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, it's entirely possible -- though absurdly unlikely -- for every tester in a given administration to get a 180. But I still don't think that would affect the percentiles because I think those are based on a 3-year moving average, not a single administration. Someone fix this if I have it wrong.

[ScottRiqui]

Regulus' question still makes sense, though - is it really possible for the number of scorers in a particular score band to change disproportionately compared to the other bands?

For the last 12 years, a 170 has always been between the 98th percentile and the 97.4th percentile. So it doesn't sound like one administration of the LSAT can have a disproportionate number of 170+ scorers compared to the previous or next administration.

The score band doesn't change disproportionately from test takers dropping, the dispropotionate change comes from a drop in applications as high scorers take themselves out of the running by choosing not to apply as we saw last year.

Okay, so between 2.0-2.6% of takers are still scoring 170+ on each administration of the LSAT, and the "drops" we're reading about are in the number of applicants? I guess there would also be a drop in the absolute number of 170+ scorers, just because fewer people are taking the LSAT in the first place.

[lawschool22]

Regulus' question still makes sense, though - is it really possible for the number of scorers in a particular score band to change disproportionately compared to the other bands?

For the last 12 years, a 170 has always been between the 98th percentile and the 97.4th percentile. So it doesn't sound like one administration of the LSAT can have a disproportionate number of 170+ scorers compared to the previous or next administration.

The score band doesn't change disproportionately from test takers dropping, the dispropotionate change comes from a drop in applications as high scorers take themselves out of the running by choosing not to apply as we saw last year.

Okay, so between 2.0-2.6% of takers are still scoring 170+ on each administration of the LSAT, and the "drops" we're reading about are in the number of applicants? I guess there would also be a drop in the absolute number of 170+ scorers, just because fewer people are taking the LSAT in the first place.

Correct. The other thing to keep in mind is that when we talk about "disproportionate" drops in the top scorers, people are talking about percentages. So for instance you might say that applicants from 170+ dropped 15% whereas applicants from 160-169 only dropped 8%. Well this is partially due to the drop in absolute number of applicants across the board, and since the absolute number of 170+ applicants is lower in any year than the 160-169 group, the effect of an absolute drop is magnified from a percentage basis. Because of this the percentages can sometimes seem greater and make the "disproportionate" drop look bigger. The 170+ group is affected by the change in absolute numbers more "easily" percentage-wise than the other groups.

[Happy Gilmore]

I'm confused regulus how did you not know that.

[bouleversement]

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/2644-aba-required

Penn's medians are out:

Median LSAT = 169 (-1)
Median GPA = 3.89 (+0.02)

Omg. Just saw this.

Whoever predicted that months ago was a genius

Danke schön.

We might see Penn at 169 after all.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0#p7137868

[Serett]

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/2644-aba-required

Penn's medians are out:

Median LSAT = 169 (-1)
Median GPA = 3.89 (+0.02)

I adore this.

[rftdd888]

class of 2016...so we really have to wait THIS long to get LAST cycle's numbers? that's interesting.

[ScottRiqui]

class of 2016...so we really have to wait THIS long to get LAST cycle's numbers? that's interesting.

Many of the schools started reporting back in late August/early September (which is the earliest they could have had a complete picture of their incoming class). But yes, it's ridiculous that it's January and there are still schools that haven't released numbers yet.

[20141023]

.

[FKASunny]

Wait, seriously? 3 more of those god awful movies?

[notalobbyist]

Wait, seriously? 3 more of those god awful movies?

They aren't being made by George Lucas, JJ Abrams is doing them.

[AJB]

Someone deleted everything

[hernanmi]

I can't believe that!^

[BLUERUFiO]

But yes, it's ridiculous that it's January and there are still schools that haven't released numbers yet.

Is this a move to hide things from C/O 2017 applicants? I am applying right now, and would like a clear picture. I would also like to see the data that has been deleted from the Google doc.

[snagglepuss]

I can't believe that!^

Someone deleted everything

Just restore it back through the revision history. I did this time.

[BLUERUFiO]

Thanks Snaggle!

[phillywc]

This thread is valuable and shouldn't be buried several pages deep.

[chingwoo]

How big of an effect do you guys think, WUSTL holding, and schools like Alabama/Minnesota falling will have on their rankings?

I'm just asking because I want to use the second two in negotiation, and am worried about their value if they drop 5-10 places.

[DoveBodyWash]

How big of an effect do you guys think, WUSTL holding, and schools like Alabama/Minnesota falling will have on their rankings?

I'm just asking because I want to use the second two in negotiation, and am worried about their value if they drop 5-10 places.

Don't worry about it. A competing offer from any decent school is enough to negotiate in this admissions market. You're probably better off using geographic peers though, which would include UMN. Apply to schools like IUB, UIUC, ND, and NU if u wanna maximize negotiation leverage. WUSTL will be ranked at #18.

[JCougar]

How big of an effect do you guys think, WUSTL holding, and schools like Alabama/Minnesota falling will have on their rankings?

I'm just asking because I want to use the second two in negotiation, and am worried about their value if they drop 5-10 places.

Don't worry about it. A competing offer from any decent school is enough to negotiate in this admissions market. You're probably better off using geographic peers though, which would include UMN. Apply to schools like IUB, UIUC, ND, and NU if u wanna maximize negotiation leverage. WUSTL will be ranked at #18.

UIUC will be lucky to be ranked in Tier 1 this year. So I don't know if that will hold. But UMN and ND would work. Probably GW, too.

You state WUSTL being ranked at #18 as if it were fact. Do you have inside info or something? Or is it just your best guess? I know they sometimes run the numbers to anticipate where they will be before the rankings come out. You could probably get a good estimate if you already have the formula plugged into a spreadsheet and each school's previous numbers plus their updated medians.

18 sounds like a reasonable guess, but I don't know if we pass USC yet...more likely a tie like two years ago.

[milkandcheerios]

a somewhat random question here, but does anyone know why Columbia and NYU have relatively low GPA medians (especially CLS) compared to their peer schools? And not only peer schools, but also with many schools that are much lower ranked.

Does this mean they're not trying to game their medians like Chicago? But even so, I assumed that given they quality of their applicant pool, they would naturally just have a higher GPA median.

I'm not complaining but i've always been curious as to why this is the case.

[lawschool22]

a somewhat random question here, but does anyone know why Columbia and NYU have relatively low GPA medians (especially CLS) compared to their peer schools? And not only peer schools, but also with many schools that are much lower ranked.

Does this mean they're not trying to game their medians like Chicago? But even so, I assumed that given they quality of their applicant pool, they would naturally just have a higher GPA median.

I'm not complaining but i've always been curious as to why this is the case.

I think it just means they place more weight on LSAT scores relative to GPA. Most of these schools have formulas they use to create a score that combines the two metrics, and obviously there is variance in how much weight each school gives the two numbers relative to each other.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

a somewhat random question here, but does anyone know why Columbia and NYU have relatively low GPA medians (especially CLS) compared to their peer schools? And not only peer schools, but also with many schools that are much lower ranked.

Does this mean they're not trying to game their medians like Chicago? But even so, I assumed that given they quality of their applicant pool, they would naturally just have a higher GPA median.

I'm not complaining but i've always been curious as to why this is the case.

1. They're not gaming their GPA medians, whereas most of the schools below them are (UChi is too).
2. They're relatively splitter-friendly in the first place.
3. They're a good deal bigger than most schools below them.

CLS has historically been very strict about essentially requiring non-URMs to have a 170. They ding all sorts of those 3.95/168 types that UChi and MVP have been glad to gobble up.

[nothingtosee]

a somewhat random question here, but does anyone know why Columbia and NYU have relatively low GPA medians (especially CLS) compared to their peer schools? And not only peer schools, but also with many schools that are much lower ranked.

Does this mean they're not trying to game their medians like Chicago? But even so, I assumed that given they quality of their applicant pool, they would naturally just have a higher GPA median.

I'm not complaining but i've always been curious as to why this is the case.

1. They're not gaming their GPA medians, whereas most of the schools below them are (UChi is too).
2. They're relatively splitter-friendly in the first place.
3. They're a good deal bigger than most schools below them.

CLS has historically been very strict about essentially requiring non-URMs to have a 170. They ding all sorts of those 3.95/168 types that UChi and MVP have been glad to gobble up.

This is cr.