rayiner wrote:Anonymous User wrote:rayiner wrote:disco_barred wrote:

In fairness, 2000-2005 were much slimmer years than 06-07, so that much data averaged together would actually be a pretty decent guide.

I have year-by-year data at NU from 2003-2009. Yes, 2000-2005 were somewhat leaner, but 2009 was much, much worse. The averaged data from Mich tells you almost nothing.

Again, simple math and you can find out. I did that last year to much success. That's how I knew not to bid Latham, as their mean offer GPA for 2008 was a 3.6, a far cry from their 3.3 average at Michigan.

What you're claiming isn't mathematically possible LOL.

Now you're just acting arrogant.

The information on Chart X (years 2000-

2007 is):

Mean Offer GPA

Median Offer GPA

Number of Offers

Highest GPA given an Offer

Lowest

The information on Chart Y (years 2000-

2008 is):

Mean Offer GPA

Median Offer GPA

Number of Offers

Highest GPA given an Offer

Lowest

Naturally, there will be a difference. If you had both charts, the trend was that the mean and median went up, as did the number of offers (assuming the firm made offers that year). Thus, the essential question to ask was, "what GPA did the firm have to make an offer for to make the mean/median jump up the way it did?" You just run an excel spreadsheet, put in some dummy GPAs so you get the original mean/median, and then add more GPAs until you reach the new mean/median. Average those GPAs you added in (of course, keeping it to the number of offers actually given), and you're done.