MoMettaMonk wrote: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.
Yeah. This just underscores that point that nobody is suggesting that UMN is full of stupid hobos, so there's no need for anyone to get defensive. But it also raises an interesting point.
Their median (so, as stated, an already averaged value, and representative of their entire non-transfer population) dropped from student's in the 95th percentile to the 90th percentile (really, i THINK 94.5-89.9). That's pretty significant.
The median student dropped almost 5%. Not a drop from "smart" to "drooling all over", but still a measurable (and large) drop in one of the few ways we have to quantifiably measure a pretty important aspect of the quality of the students.