C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Sun Sep 22, 2013 12:30 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:The whole process is just so sad and dumb. Minn is not the only school guilty of having ridiculous spreads. I think US News could recalculate class credentials to 25th + 75th divided by 2. That will help to make the classes more completive, and lessen the "ripped off" factor that many feel after finishing at the bottom of the curve.

This problem is only getting worse. When I applied to CU the class stats where 161/164/166. Last year the 25th LSAT was a wannabe-respectable 159. I'm afraid this year, what with our "largest class ever," the 25th LSAT is going to be 156 or less. Those students, along with all the TTT transfers I've met in the last few weeks, are going to be at a disadvantage. The 155 LSAT kids are destined for shit grades. The transfers only have 2 years to network instead of 3, a problem at schools like CU where you network into a job much more so than at top schools.

Side note: what is the highest spread between the quartiles? Minn is sitting at 11.


Actually looking at the google doc it looks like Minn is the worse. Northeastern and Drake are also bad. (Drake has 25% of its students with a 158 or better, 25% of its students with a 149 or worse). Will have to wait and see on a bunch of schools for class of 2016.

Yeah Minn games medians the worst. Many schools had a respectable spread of 4 or 5 between the quartiles.

Indiana and Minnesota both had ten point spreads last year. Indiana hasn't posted its 25/75 splits but they had a two point median drop and could easily be in the 11+ range this year.

Edit: While 25th + 75th divided by two seems more fair, schools would just game that the same way. 3.3/177 would now have a chance at Harvard.


Anything they do will be "gamed." That said, wouldn't it be better? I dunno it seems like it would make the schools consider 75% of their class instead of only 50%.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15502
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Sep 22, 2013 12:33 pm

I do think it would be better. But it would have been better for me personally too which shows that the game would just move around a bit. But your system effectively requires them to worry about 75% of their LSAT and GPA numbers, which certainly seems better than the current 50% model.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9646
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby jbagelboy » Sun Sep 22, 2013 12:51 pm

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:The whole process is just so sad and dumb. Minn is not the only school guilty of having ridiculous spreads. I think US News could recalculate class credentials to 25th + 75th divided by 2. That will help to make the classes more completive, and lessen the "ripped off" factor that many feel after finishing at the bottom of the curve.

This problem is only getting worse. When I applied to CU the class stats where 161/164/166. Last year the 25th LSAT was a wannabe-respectable 159. I'm afraid this year, what with our "largest class ever," the 25th LSAT is going to be 156 or less. Those students, along with all the TTT transfers I've met in the last few weeks, are going to be at a disadvantage. The 155 LSAT kids are destined for shit grades. The transfers only have 2 years to network instead of 3, a problem at schools like CU where you network into a job much more so than at top schools.

Side note: what is the highest spread between the quartiles? Minn is sitting at 11.


Among the T14, Penn would get fucked by the (25+75)/2 with a 167 quartile avg, whereas CCN would have the same median as under the current structure

Im not certain that averaging system is even conducive to creating the strongest student body. While it could cut down on blatant gaming, it helps schools admit more candidates "holistically" whose only weak point is the test. A 164/3.8 from a good undergrad with WE, publications, and strong softs should be worth just as much as an otherwise uninteresting 171/3.5, and a median structure allows for both applicants to secure a seat.

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Sun Sep 22, 2013 12:57 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:The whole process is just so sad and dumb. Minn is not the only school guilty of having ridiculous spreads. I think US News could recalculate class credentials to 25th + 75th divided by 2. That will help to make the classes more completive, and lessen the "ripped off" factor that many feel after finishing at the bottom of the curve.

This problem is only getting worse. When I applied to CU the class stats where 161/164/166. Last year the 25th LSAT was a wannabe-respectable 159. I'm afraid this year, what with our "largest class ever," the 25th LSAT is going to be 156 or less. Those students, along with all the TTT transfers I've met in the last few weeks, are going to be at a disadvantage. The 155 LSAT kids are destined for shit grades. The transfers only have 2 years to network instead of 3, a problem at schools like CU where you network into a job much more so than at top schools.

Side note: what is the highest spread between the quartiles? Minn is sitting at 11.


Among the T14, Penn would get fucked by the (25+75)/2 with a 167 quartile avg, whereas CCN would have the same median as under the current structure

Im not certain that averaging system is even conducive to creating the strongest student body. While it could cut down on blatant gaming, it helps schools admit more candidates "holistically" whose only weak point is the test. A 164/3.8 from a good undergrad with WE, publications, and strong softs should be worth just as much as an otherwise uninteresting 171/3.5, and a median structure allows for both applicants to secure a seat.


Confused. Wouldn't the two students be just as likely to get a seat under the 25+75/2 method?

Also, to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest it would create a stronger student body, though it certainly might. I meant to suggest it would create a more cohesive, competitive student body. These bastards with a 149 at Drake are going to get steamrolled by the 158 and up crowd.

EDIT-- also Penn would just alter their admissions strategy and remain in good shape.

User avatar
LSATSCORES2012
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:12 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby LSATSCORES2012 » Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:00 pm

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:The whole process is just so sad and dumb. Minn is not the only school guilty of having ridiculous spreads. I think US News could recalculate class credentials to 25th + 75th divided by 2. That will help to make the classes more completive, and lessen the "ripped off" factor that many feel after finishing at the bottom of the curve.

This problem is only getting worse. When I applied to CU the class stats where 161/164/166. Last year the 25th LSAT was a wannabe-respectable 159. I'm afraid this year, what with our "largest class ever," the 25th LSAT is going to be 156 or less. Those students, along with all the TTT transfers I've met in the last few weeks, are going to be at a disadvantage. The 155 LSAT kids are destined for shit grades. The transfers only have 2 years to network instead of 3, a problem at schools like CU where you network into a job much more so than at top schools.

Side note: what is the highest spread between the quartiles? Minn is sitting at 11.

This guy proposes an interesting idea (LinkRemoved):

Derek Muller wrote:USNWR could create its own index [added: that is, like the index formulas that schools create... a way of combining LSAT and GPA into one number], then evaluate the median student. This would give schools more flexibility in filling out the class and reflect individual students rather than isolated scores. That, of course, is controversial, because schools weight LSAT scores and GPA differently; others don't use an index score; and still others include other crude mathematical approximations into their index, like undergraduate quality. Additionally, it would simply drive a different arms race to the highest student median instead of the existing race. Finally, it would incentivize schools to admit extremely high "splitters" (e.g., an extremely high GPA and an extremely low LSAT) who met a target index score.


I don't agree with it, but wanted to mention it because I hadn't seen it before.

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:11 pm

LSATSCORES2012 wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:The whole process is just so sad and dumb. Minn is not the only school guilty of having ridiculous spreads. I think US News could recalculate class credentials to 25th + 75th divided by 2. That will help to make the classes more completive, and lessen the "ripped off" factor that many feel after finishing at the bottom of the curve.

This problem is only getting worse. When I applied to CU the class stats where 161/164/166. Last year the 25th LSAT was a wannabe-respectable 159. I'm afraid this year, what with our "largest class ever," the 25th LSAT is going to be 156 or less. Those students, along with all the TTT transfers I've met in the last few weeks, are going to be at a disadvantage. The 155 LSAT kids are destined for shit grades. The transfers only have 2 years to network instead of 3, a problem at schools like CU where you network into a job much more so than at top schools.

Side note: what is the highest spread between the quartiles? Minn is sitting at 11.

This guy proposes an interesting idea (LinkRemoved):

Derek Muller wrote:USNWR could create its own index [added: that is, like the index formulas that schools create... a way of combining LSAT and GPA into one number], then evaluate the median student. This would give schools more flexibility in filling out the class and reflect individual students rather than isolated scores. That, of course, is controversial, because schools weight LSAT scores and GPA differently; others don't use an index score; and still others include other crude mathematical approximations into their index, like undergraduate quality. Additionally, it would simply drive a different arms race to the highest student median instead of the existing race. Finally, it would incentivize schools to admit extremely high "splitters" (e.g., an extremely high GPA and an extremely low LSAT) who met a target index score.


I don't agree with it, but wanted to mention it because I hadn't seen it before.


Yeah. I'm biased, as I'm a was a big splitter myself, but I think law schools should consider the two indicators separately.

A person with a 2.8 gpa hasn't shown the work ethic to make top grades in law school, but it's possible for this person to switch gears and finish at the top of the class. A person with a 145 on the LSAT cannot take a test to save their lives, and as law school grades are 100% based on test taking skills, this person is FUBAR. I feel the worst for this crowd. The Texas Tech dean actually came on here and stated that the people with the lowest LSAT scores have never finished in the top half of the class. You can still get a job with shit grades, but your job search is limited to certain fields; these incoming students with 145s have no idea what they are walking into, many believe they will start off their career at a private firm.

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

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby 20141023 » Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:44 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Sat Feb 14, 2015 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15502
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:46 pm

kappycaft1 wrote:I think everyone (including USNWR) is missing the bigger picture. The reason that law schools can game the medians and thereby game the rankings is because the LSAT score and GPA account for such a large portion of each school's overall score in the rankings. Instead of revising the method by which the LSAT scores / GPA for each school are calculated (median / average / half of the 75th + 25th percentiles / etc.), the USNWR should leave it as is and simply reduce the weight of these criteria. The whole reason that the rankings are so worthless is because they put too much weight on inputs instead of outputs (employment). :|

It's only worth 22.5%. Although given the stickiness of the reputation scores the LSAT/GPA numbers might be the only way for schools to really move up or down. Agreed that the employment score should be seriously revamped.
Last edited by Tiago Splitter on Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

04102014
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:42 am

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby 04102014 » Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:47 pm

kappycaft1 wrote:I think everyone (including USNWR) is missing the bigger picture. The reason that law schools can game the medians and thereby game the rankings is because the LSAT score and GPA account for such a large portion of each school's overall score in the rankings. Instead of revising the method by which the LSAT scores / GPA for each school are calculated (median / average / half of the 75th + 25th percentiles / etc.), the USNWR should leave it as is and simply reduce the weight of these criteria. The whole reason that the rankings are so worthless is because they put too much weight on inputs instead of outputs (employment). :|


I'm still mad at you, but you're wise.

User avatar
MoMettaMonk
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:29 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby MoMettaMonk » Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:52 pm

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:
Yeah. I'm biased, as I'm a was a big splitter myself, but I think law schools should consider the two indicators separately.

A person with a 2.8 gpa hasn't shown the work ethic to make top grades in law school, but it's possible for this person to switch gears and finish at the top of the class. A person with a 145 on the LSAT cannot take a test to save their lives, and as law school grades are 100% based on test taking skills, this person is FUBAR. I feel the worst for this crowd. The Texas Tech dean actually came on here and stated that the people with the lowest LSAT scores have never finished in the top half of the class. You can still get a job with shit grades, but your job search is limited to certain fields; these incoming students with 145s have no idea what they are walking into, many believe they will start off their career at a private firm.


SPerez wrote:

This is going to vary by school, but overall the predictive value of the LSAT of first year performance has a correlation coefficient of about .45 (more or less). According to my over-simplified understanding of stats, this is actually pretty strong. (A "perfect" correlation, i.e. it predicts perfectly, would be 1.0.) When you combine LSAT and UGPA, it goes up to 0.49.

Every year we (and all law schools, I would guess) provide the first year grades for our last class to LSAC and their statisticians give us back a report on how well the LSAT and GPA predicted how well those students did. (They use that to continuously improve and refine the value of the LSAT.)

What you would see is a scatterplot with a general relationship, but not perfect. So the person with the best combined stats in the class is virtually never ranked #1 in the class after the first year, but they're also virtually never outside the top 25%, either. On the other side, the person with the weakest LSAT/GPA combo isn't a lock to flunk out, but also almost never gets the grades to be in the top half of the class.

Everyone starts off equal in law school. 170 doesn't get you extra points on your law school exams and doesn't guarantee you will make law review. I've seen people with LSATs in the high 140s make law review, and I've seen people in the mid-160s flunk out. There's no substitute for hard work, which is why I often see very hard working 152-155/3.6-3.9 types eat the lunch of 160-164/3.1-3.3 types in law school. The first group is smart "enough" and has the attitude and work ethic to squeeze every bit of potential out of themselves. The latter group is very smart and gifted, but has usually cruised by on talent without ever being pushed to actually work hard.

Dean Perez



I was wondering about what Lord R.M. said about Dean Perez's quote so I decided to look it up. As usual the anecdote the dean told was a bit more nuanced than it was represented being. Although the point remains about very low scoring people on the LSAT (140s and less) not being able to even make median, I think the larger point that the Dean makes about hard work winning out more often than not also needs to be represented.

BigZuck
Posts: 10872
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby BigZuck » Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:22 pm

Randy had a pretty solid reading comprehension fail on that one.

Thanks for clearing up the misinformation

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:53 pm

The idea that someone with the lowest combined stats will never finish in the top half of the class is absurd. Dean Perez's point that the correlation is real is valid, and 0.5 is certainly a statistically significant correlation, but conceptually it means that the lowest student in the class will still finish in the top half 25% of the time. Someone would have to be way, way below their peers to be DOA with regard to having an opportunity to succeed in school.

User avatar
MoMettaMonk
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:29 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby MoMettaMonk » Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:06 pm

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:The idea that someone with the lowest combined stats will never finish in the top half of the class is absurd. Dean Perez's point that the correlation is real is valid, and 0.5 is certainly a statistically significant correlation, but conceptually it means that the lowest student in the class will still finish in the top half 25% of the time. Someone would have to be way, way below their peers to be DOA with regard to having an opportunity to succeed in school.


I think the bold is what we need to remember when we're talking about the correlation between LSAT and law school success. For most of the law schools that are regularly examined on TLS a 10 point 25/75 split is about the largest that we're going to see, and if I had to throw my hat into the speculation ring, I would guess that type of range restriction is going to mess with the predictability of LSAT scores in ways that most of us aren't expecting.


N.B.
If one of the resident TLS statisticians want to call BS on that claim, I would love to see the numbers/explanation.

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby minnbills » Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:06 pm

The-Specs wrote:
TheMostDangerousLG wrote:
minnbills wrote:
ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) wrote:I'd think the alleged anger from the current 2 and 3Ls would have less to do with a "weaker" student body and more to do with "fuck this, I should have gotten a full ride."


Nobody here is dumb enough to think a 3 point median drop reflects a weaker student body. It's 3-4 questions on the LSAT. BFD.


Lol, yeah, it is a BFD unless you're talking about the difference between a 180 and a 177.


+1

There is a reason that each point on the LSAT corresponds to a different percentile. Three points is a statistically significant difference except perhaps in the 99th percentile.


Sorry, it's not.

User avatar
TheMostDangerousLG
Posts: 1547
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:25 am

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby TheMostDangerousLG » Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:12 pm

minnbills wrote:
The-Specs wrote:
TheMostDangerousLG wrote:
minnbills wrote:Nobody here is dumb enough to think a 3 point median drop reflects a weaker student body. It's 3-4 questions on the LSAT. BFD.


Lol, yeah, it is a BFD unless you're talking about the difference between a 180 and a 177.


+1

There is a reason that each point on the LSAT corresponds to a different percentile. Three points is a statistically significant difference except perhaps in the 99th percentile.


Sorry, it's not.


Smart comeback, brah. Care to explain, or was that just a compulsive ego defense mechanism?

User avatar
MoMettaMonk
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:29 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby MoMettaMonk » Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:21 pm

TheMostDangerousLG wrote:
The-Specs wrote:
TheMostDangerousLG wrote:
minnbills wrote:Nobody here is dumb enough to think a 3 point median drop reflects a weaker student body. It's 3-4 questions on the LSAT. BFD.


Lol, yeah, it is a BFD unless you're talking about the difference between a 180 and a 177.


+1

There is a reason that each point on the LSAT corresponds to a different percentile. Three points is a statistically significant difference except perhaps in the 99th percentile.




Smart comeback, brah. Care to explain, or was that just a compulsive ego defense mechanism?


There's a reason that LSAC generally shows a 7 point score band. Courtesy of LSAC

LSAT scores are estimates of a test taker’s actual proficiency level in the skills tested. Score bands represent a range
of scores that has a certain probability of containing the test taker’s actual proficiency level. The score bands reported for the LSAT are designed to include the test taker’s actual proficiency level in approximately 68 percent of cases.
In other words, there is a 68 percent level of confidence that the test taker’s true score actually falls within the band.


Also

Score-band calculations are based on the standard error of measurement. The standard error of measurement for the LSAT is very stable, and tends to be about 2.6 scaled score points. A score band with a 68 percent confidence level can be constructed by subtracting the standard error of measurement from the scaled score to obtain the lower value and adding the standard error of measurement to the scaled score to obtain the upper value. Therefore, the width
of the score board is approximately 7 scaled-score points, after rounding.
The 68 percent (or approximately two out of three) level of confidence used by the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) for reporting purposes is a commonly used standard. To obtain a 95 percent level of confidence, the standard error
of measurement can be doubled before constructing the score band. Therefore, a 95 percent confidence band would
be approximately twice as wide as a 68 percent confidence band. Likewise, a 99 percent confidence band would be approximately three times as wide as a 68 percent confidence band.
LSAC employs a more complicated calculation to accommodate scores that lie at the upper and lower extremes of the LSAT score scale.


So 3 points (I believe we were talking about the 164-167 change for UMN) is perfectly within those test takers scorebands, which means they have relatively similar potentials.

User avatar
TheMostDangerousLG
Posts: 1547
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 4:25 am

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby TheMostDangerousLG » Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:32 pm

MoMettaMonk wrote:So 3 points (I believe we were talking about the 164-167 change for UMN) is perfectly within those test takers scorebands, which means they have relatively similar potentials.


But UMN's reported scores are 1) already averages, taking into account variation across the pool, and 2) already include retake scores. There's a difference between saying an individual's 164 and 167 aren't that different, and saying that a population's 164 vs. 167 aren't that different.

User avatar
The-Specs
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby The-Specs » Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:42 pm

.
Last edited by The-Specs on Thu Sep 26, 2013 12:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MoMettaMonk
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:29 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby MoMettaMonk » Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:46 pm

The-Specs wrote:
MoMettaMonk wrote:So 3 points (I believe we were talking about the 164-167 change for UMN) is perfectly within those test takers scorebands, which means they have relatively similar potentials.


I understand the scorebands but when I got a 164 it said that I was in the score band of a 163-167 but when i got a 162 it said i was in the score band of 159-163. So LSAC itself views a 2 (not even a 3) point drop as significant.


That might fall into LSAC's calculations for high scorers. I know that I, personally, tend to forget that 164 is actually 90th percentile, so it's not like we're talking about the meaty part of the bell curve here.
Last edited by MoMettaMonk on Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

NateSmith800
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:17 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby NateSmith800 » Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:47 pm

Here's an arthritic question. So, law schools report their 25th-50th-75th percentile LSAT's for entering classes. But how do they choose the LSAT score they use for each applicant in this calculation? Do they take everyone's highest score, or do they average them, or what? So if someone attended School X after scoring a 168 a 169 and a 173, would X use 173? 170 (the mean)? Maybe this is common knowledge, but it occurred to me that I had no idea.

Also, sorry if this is off topic or whatever. Don't rip my head off.

User avatar
MoMettaMonk
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:29 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby MoMettaMonk » Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:49 pm

NateSmith800 wrote:Here's an arthritic question. So, law schools report their 25th-50th-75th percentile LSAT's for entering classes. But how do they choose the LSAT score they use for each applicant in this calculation? Do they take everyone's highest score, or do they average them, or what? So if someone attended School X after scoring a 168 a 169 and a 173, would X use 173? 170 (the mean)? Maybe this is common knowledge, but it occurred to me that I had no idea.

Also, sorry if this is off topic or whatever. Don't rip my head off.


USNWR only uses the highest score, so the highest score is what everyone reports. That's why TLS constantly preaches that retaking is so beneficial.

NateSmith800
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:17 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby NateSmith800 » Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:53 pm

MoMettaMonk wrote:
NateSmith800 wrote:Here's an arthritic question. So, law schools report their 25th-50th-75th percentile LSAT's for entering classes. But how do they choose the LSAT score they use for each applicant in this calculation? Do they take everyone's highest score, or do they average them, or what? So if someone attended School X after scoring a 168 a 169 and a 173, would X use 173? 170 (the mean)? Maybe this is common knowledge, but it occurred to me that I had no idea.

Also, sorry if this is off topic or whatever. Don't rip my head off.


USNWR only uses the highest score, so the highest score is what everyone reports. That's why TLS constantly preaches that retaking is so beneficial.

Thanks. It would be interesting to see what percentiles looked like if all scores were taken into account.

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:09 pm

kappycaft1 wrote:I think everyone (including USNWR) is missing the bigger picture. The reason that law schools can game the medians and thereby game the rankings is because the LSAT score and GPA account for such a large portion of each school's overall score in the rankings. Instead of revising the method by which the LSAT scores / GPA for each school are calculated (median / average / half of the 75th + 25th percentiles / etc.), the USNWR should leave it as is and simply reduce the weight of these criteria. The whole reason that the rankings are so worthless is because they put too much weight on inputs instead of outputs (employment). :|


Inputs can be measured with fewer assumptions than outputs.

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:09 pm

TheMostDangerousLG wrote:
MoMettaMonk wrote:So 3 points (I believe we were talking about the 164-167 change for UMN) is perfectly within those test takers scorebands, which means they have relatively similar potentials.


But UMN's reported scores are 1) already averages, taking into account variation across the pool, and 2) already include retake scores. There's a difference between saying an individual's 164 and 167 aren't that different, and saying that a population's 164 vs. 167 aren't that different.


+1

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:14 pm

BigZuck wrote:Randy had a pretty solid reading comprehension fail on that one.

Thanks for clearing up the misinformation


Zuck it was a moderate memory fail, not a reading comprehension fail. Also the LSAT is over. I really hope you don't interrupt your significant other with " WOMP RC FAIL, try again."

I still maintain that people with "145s" end up at the bottom of the curve at all halfway respectable law schools.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], MSNbot Media and 6 guests